(a) Do you understand that the lack of statesmanship in London during the 1760's and the 1770's was, an important contributory factor in precipitating the American Revolution. Analyse. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss, how the policies adopted by Mikhail Gorba

Question

(a) Do you understand that the lack of statesmanship in London during the 1760's and the 1770's was, an important contributory factor in precipitating the American Revolution. Analyse. (20 marks)
(b) Discuss, how the policies adopted by Mikhail Gorbachev were responsible for the disintegration of the USSR ? (20 marks)
(c) What happened to Malaya after it was liberated from Japanese occupation in 1945 ? Discuss. (10 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'analyse' for part (a) demands breaking down the causal relationship between British governance failures and revolutionary outcomes, while 'discuss' in (b) and (c) requires balanced exposition with critical judgment. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its analytical depth and 20 marks, 35% to part (b) on Gorbachev's policies, and 25% to part (c) on Malaya's post-1945 trajectory. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sectional bodies each with mini-conclusions, and a synthesizing conclusion that draws parallels across decolonization and imperial decline.
- For (a): Analysis of specific policy failures—Stamp Act 1765, Townshend Acts 1767, Coercive Acts 1774—demonstrating how British inflexibility (Grenville, North ministries) alienated colonial elites; contrast with earlier salutary neglect under Walpole
- For (a): Examination of 'statesmanship' deficit—failure to accommodate colonial representation demands, mishandling of Boston Tea Party, rejection of Chatham-Burke conciliatory proposals
- For (b): Critical evaluation of Gorbachev's reforms—glasnost (openness) unleashing nationalist sentiments, perestroika (economic restructuring) failing to deliver, demokratizatsiya undermining CPSU control; Sinatra Doctrine's abandonment of Brezhnev Doctrine
- For (b): Assessment of unintended consequences—August Coup 1991, Yeltsin's rise, Baltic independence declarations 1990-91; contrast with Chinese Communist Party's Tiananmen path
- For (c): Post-liberation Malaya—British Military Administration 1945-46, emergence of Malayan Communist Party (MCP) resistance, declaration of Emergency 1948, Briggs Plan and resettlement, path to Merdeka 1957
- Cross-cutting: Comparative insight on imperial overreach—British in America, Soviet in Eastern Europe, Japanese in Southeast Asia—and the role of local nationalist mobilization

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Chronology accuracy	18%	9	Precise dating of key events: for (a) Sugar Act 1764 to Lexington-Concord 1775; for (b) Gorbachev's appointment 1985 through December 1991 dissolution; for (c) Japanese surrender September 1945 to Malayan Emergency 1948 and independence 1957. Correctly sequences cause-effect relationships without anachronism.	Broadly correct periodization but some date errors (e.g., confusing Townshend with Intolerable Acts, misplacing August Coup); minor chronological confusion in Malayan transition timeline.	Significant chronological errors—placing Gorbachev before Andropov-Chernenko, conflating 1945-48 Malaya with later phases, or presenting American Revolution as beginning with Declaration rather than earlier resistance.
Source & evidence	20%	10	Deploys specific documentary evidence: for (a) cites colonial pamphlets (Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer), parliamentary debates (Chatham's 1777 speech), and administrative records; for (b) references Gorbachev's Perestroika (1987), Novo-Ogarevo process, and Yeltsin's Belavezha Accession; for (c) uses British Foreign Office archives on MCP and Templer's hearts-and-minds strategy.	Uses general historical knowledge with some named figures and events but limited primary source citation; relies on secondary textbook narratives without specific documentary grounding.	Vague assertions without evidentiary support—'the British were bad' or 'Gorbachev caused collapse' without policy specifics; confuses Malaya with Indonesia or Singapore in post-war arrangements.
Multi-perspective analysis	22%	11	Balances multiple viewpoints: for (a) presents both Whig narrative of British tyranny and revisionist emphasis on colonial radicalization; for (b) weighs intentionalist (Gorbachev as dismantler) against structuralist (systemic Soviet crisis) explanations; for (c) examines Malay, Chinese, Indian communal perspectives and British strategic interests alongside MCP ideology.	Acknowledges alternative perspectives superficially but defaults to single dominant narrative; limited engagement with historiographical debates on each topic.	Monocausal explanation—blames only British stupidity, only Gorbachev's naivety, or only Japanese destruction without structural or multi-actor analysis; ignores indigenous agency in any part.
Historiographic framing	22%	11	Explicitly engages scholarly debates: for (a) references Namierite vs. Progressive historiography, Bailyn's ideological origins, and Pocock's Atlantic republicanism; for (b) cites Kotkin's 'Armageddon Averted,' Suny's Soviet experiment assessments, and Brown's Gorbachev biography; for (c) draws on Hack's revision of Emergency historiography and Stockwell's imperial endings framework.	Implicit awareness of interpretive traditions without explicit naming; occasional reference to 'some historians' without specification of schools or scholars.	No historiographical awareness—presents events as self-evident facts without acknowledging contested interpretation; anachronistic judgment without period-appropriate frameworks.
Conclusion & synthesis	18%	9	Synthesizes across all three parts to identify patterns in imperial dissolution—metropolitan policy failures, peripheral mobilization, and the unintended consequences of reform—while maintaining distinctiveness of each case; offers measured judgment on 'statesmanship' as explanatory variable across 18th-20th century transitions.	Separate conclusions for each part without cross-referencing; generic summary of points without analytical elevation or comparative insight.	Missing or abrupt conclusion; repetition of introduction without development; or entirely absent synthesis despite multi-part structure.

Q7

Directive word: Analyse

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from History 2022 Paper II