History 2023 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) The Carnatic Wars, the Anglo-Mysore Wars and the Anglo-Maratha Wars had virtually eliminated the French from the contest of supremacy in South India. Discuss. (20 marks) (b) While introducing the Indian Councils Bill of 1861, the British thought that the only Government suitable for India 'is a despotism controlled from home'. Comment. (20 marks) (c) The root of the whole question behind the Indigo Revolt 'is the struggle to make the raiyats grow indigo plants without paying them the price of it'. Analyse. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) कर्नाटक युद्धों, आंग्ल-मैसूर युद्धों और आंग्ल-मराठा युद्धों ने फ्रांस को दक्षिण भारत में वर्चस्व की प्रतिद्वंद्विता से वस्तुतः बाहर कर दिया । चर्चा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) भारतीय परिषद विधेयक, 1861 को प्रस्तुत करते हुए अंग्रेजों का मत था कि भारत के लिए एकमात्र उपयुक्त सरकार 'घर से नियंत्रित तानाशाही थी' । टिप्पणी कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) नील विद्रोह के पीछे मूल प्रश्न 'वह संघर्ष है जिसमें रैयतों को कीमत प्रदान किए बिना नील के पौधों को उगाने के लिए विवश करना' था । विश्लेषण कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 History questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' for part (a) demands a balanced treatment of causes, events and outcomes across the three wars, while parts (b) and (c) require 'comment' and 'analyse' respectively—meaning critical evaluation with evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and complexity, 35% to part (b) for its historiographical depth, and 25% to part (c). Structure with a brief introduction linking colonial expansion to policy consolidation, then treat each part sequentially with clear sub-headings, ending with a synthesis on how military supremacy translated into administrative despotism and economic exploitation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Chronology and outcomes of three Carnatic Wars (1746-1763) showing French decline from Dupleix's ambitions to surrender of Pondicherry; role of subsidiary alliances in excluding French influence
  • Part (a): Four Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767-1799) demonstrating British elimination of Tipu Sultan as French client and final destruction of Mysore as independent power
  • Part (a): Three Anglo-Maratha Wars (1775-1818) culminating in 1818 defeat and pensioning of Peshwa, completing British paramountcy in Deccan and beyond
  • Part (b): Context of 1857 Revolt leading to 1861 Act; significance of 'despotism controlled from home' as Canning's justification for crown rule with limited Indian participation
  • Part (b): Analysis of council expansion (nominated Indians, legislative vs executive functions) as safety valve rather than genuine devolution; comparison with Morley-Minto and Montagu-Chelmsford later
  • Part (c): Nature of tinkathia system forcing raiyats to grow indigo on 3/20th of land; role of European planters, Indian mahajans and British courts in enforcing coerced cultivation
  • Part (c): Leadership of Biswas brothers and Dinabandhu Mitra's Neel Darpan; significance of 1860 Indigo Commission and partial regulation as outcome of peasant resistance

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating of all wars: Carnatic Wars (1746-1748, 1749-1754, 1756-1763), Anglo-Mysore Wars (1767-1769, 1780-1784, 1790-1792, 1799), Anglo-Maratha Wars (1775-1782, 1803-1805, 1817-1818); correct sequencing of treaties (Aix-la-Chapelle, Pondicherry surrender 1761, Seringapatam treaties, Treaty of Bassein 1802); accurate placement of 1861 Act post-1857 and Indigo Revolt 1859-1860Broadly correct century and sequence but confused specific war dates; treats Carnatic Wars as single event or conflates Second and Third Anglo-Maratha Wars; approximate dating for 1861 Act and Indigo RevoltMajor chronological errors such as placing Anglo-Mysore Wars before Carnatic Wars, confusing 1757 Plassey with Carnatic conflicts, or dating Indigo Revolt to pre-1857 period; no clear timeline established
Source & evidence20%10Specific treaty names (Aix-la-Chapelle, Pondicherry 1761, Seringapatam I & II, Bassein, Mandasor); key figures (Dupleix, Bussy, Clive, Eyre Coote, Tipu, Wellesley, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Canning, Wood's dispatch); literary evidence (Neel Darpan 1860, Dinabandhu Mitra); official documents (Indigo Commission Report 1860, Indian Councils Act clauses)Mentions major figures and some treaties without precision; references Neel Darpan without author or context; knows 1861 Act introduced councils but lacks specific provisions; general awareness of French defeatNo specific treaties, dates or personalities; vague references to 'British won' or 'farmers revolted'; confuses key figures (e.g., Wellesley with Wellington's later role); no primary source awareness
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): French commercial-military strategy vs British territorial ambition; role of Indian powers as actors not mere victims (Nizam, Nawab of Arcot, Mysore's balancing, Maratha confederacy fragmentation). For (b): British official view, Indian moderate expectations, radical critique. For (c): Planter, raiyat, mahajan and colonial state perspectives on indigo economy; regional variation (Bengal vs Bihar)Primarily British-centric narrative; acknowledges Tipu or Maratha resistance but as obstacles not independent strategies; treats 1861 Act as unilateral British decision; sees Indigo Revolt as peasant grievance without structural analysisSingle perspective throughout—either celebratory British triumph or nationalist condemnation without nuance; no recognition of French agency, Indian statecraft, or complex class interests in indigo production
Historiographic framing20%10Engages with historiographical debates: for (a) Marshall's 'empire of liberty' vs Watson's military-fiscal state; for (b) Metcalf's 'ideologies of the Raj' on despotism discourse, Stokes' 'English utilitarians'; for (c) Guha's 'elementary aspects' on peasant consciousness, Chatterjee on colonial difference; distinguishes contemporary justification from later nationalist and Cambridge school interpretationsImplicit historiographical awareness (e.g., notes 'divide and rule' without attribution); some sense of changing British self-image from trader to ruler; treats Indigo Revolt as 'first peasant revolt' without historiographical contextNo historiographical awareness; presents all events as self-evident facts without interpretation; anachronistic application of modern concepts; no distinction between primary and secondary sources
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesises three parts into coherent argument: military supremacy (a) enabled administrative despotism (b) which facilitated economic exploitation (c); traces evolution from East India Company mercantilism to Crown Raj extractive colonialism; evaluates whether 1861 'despotism' and indigo coercion represent continuity or intensification; balanced assessment of French elimination as inevitable or contingentBrief summary of each part without integration; generic conclusion about British exploitation; no explicit connection between wars, council reforms and agrarian policyNo conclusion or abrupt ending; repetition of introduction; contradictory final statements; fails to address any of the three question components in closing

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from History 2023 Paper II