History 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q1

Critically examine the following statements in about 150 words each: (a) After the battle of Plassey, the mercenary became the Kingmaker. (10 marks) (b) The values of utilitarianism prompted the Company administration to attempt reform of Indian society. (10 marks) (c) In course of the 19th century, the agenda of social reform was gradually replaced by revivalism. (10 marks) (d) The federal provisions of the Government of India Act of 1935 foundered on the rock of princely intransigence. (10 marks) (e) The strength of the Pakistan programme was its vagueness. It meant everything to everyone. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित कथनों में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए : (a) प्लासी के युद्ध के बाद भाड़े के सैनिक राजा निर्माता बन गए । (10) (b) उपयोगितावाद के मूल्यों ने कम्पनी प्रशासन को भारतीय समाज में सुधार के प्रयास के लिए प्रेरित किया । (10) (c) 19वीं सदी के दौरान, सामाजिक सुधार की कार्यसूची (एजेंडे) को धीरे-धीरे पुनरुत्थानवाद द्वारा प्रतिस्थापित किया गया । (10) (d) भारत सरकार अधिनियम 1935 के संघीय प्रावधान राजाओं के कठोर रूख से असफल हो गए । (10) (e) पाकिस्तान योजना की ताकत उसका अस्पष्ट होना था । यह सब लोगों के लिए सब कुछ था । (10)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 History questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

Critically examine demands balanced evaluation with evidence for and against each statement. Allocate ~30 words per sub-part (150 total), spending roughly equal time on each since all carry 10 marks. Structure: brief contextualisation, dual-sided argument with specific examples, and nuanced judgment for each part. Avoid mere description; prioritise analytical depth within tight word limits.

Key points expected

  • (a) Post-Plassey: Rise of Indian mercenary forces (sepoys) as power brokers; Clive's manipulation of puppet nawabs; 1764 Allahabad Treaty context; limits—British direct control eventually reduced mercenary influence
  • (b) Utilitarianism: Bentham-Mill influence on Cornwallis, Macaulay; reforms—Sati abolition 1829, thuggee suppression, legal codification; counter—economic exploitation continued, reforms often instrumental for revenue/security
  • (c) Reform to revivalism: Early reformers (Raja Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar) vs. later revivalists (Dayanand Saraswati, Vivekananda); causes—reform fatigue, cultural nationalism, colonial critique; continuities—both modernising in effect
  • (d) 1935 Act federalism: Provincial autonomy, dyarchy at centre; princely states' refusal to join federation—Junagadh, Hyderabad, Travancore examples; Congress opposition equally crucial; Act never fully implemented
  • (e) Pakistan programme vagueness: Lahore Resolution 1940 ambiguity on 'Pakistan' boundaries; Jinnah's tactical flexibility; appeal to diverse Muslim groups (landlords, ulama, professionals); weakness—lack of concrete vision led to partition violence

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating across all parts: Plassey 1757, Sati abolition 1829, 1935 Act passage and provincial elections 1937, Lahore Resolution 1940; correct sequencing of reform-to-revival shift (1820s-1890s); no anachronistic conflationsBroadly correct periods mentioned but some dates imprecise or missing; minor chronological errors like placing 1935 Act in 1940s; conflates early and late 19th century reform phasesSignificant chronological errors—e.g., Plassey linked to 1857, Sati abolition attributed to Bentinck without date, 1935 Act confused with 1919 Act; timeline fundamentally misunderstood
Source & evidence20%10Specific evidence per part: Clive's diwani grant 1765 for (a); Bentinck's minute on Sati, Macaulay's Minute 1835 for (b); Satyashodhak Samaj, Arya Samaj for (c); Linlithgow's correspondence, princely state instruments of accession for (d); Jinnah's 1940 Lahore address, Cabinet Mission Plan 1946 for (e)Some specific examples but gaps—mentions Sati abolition without Bentinck, knows 1935 Act but no princely state names; general awareness without precise documentationVague assertions without names/dates; 'various reforms were done'; 'some princes refused'; no primary source awareness; relies on textbook generalisations
Multi-perspective analysis20%10Genuine critical examination: for (a) acknowledges mercenary role but notes British manipulation; (b) balances humanitarian motive with imperial interest; (c) questions 'replacement' thesis showing overlap; (d) weighs princely intransigence against Congress-Muslim League deadlock; (e) assesses tactical advantage vs. operational failureSome attempt at balance but uneven—strong on one part, descriptive on others; acknowledges counter-arguments superficially without developing; tendency to affirm statements rather than interrogateOne-sided treatment—purely accepts or rejects statements; no counter-evidence; partisan narrative (e.g., British reforms purely altruistic, Jinnah solely responsible for partition); missing 'critically' in 'critically examine'
Historiographic framing20%10Engages scholarly debates: (a) Bayly's 'Indian War of Independence' vs. traditional narratives; (b) Stokes' 'English Utilitarians and India', Dirks' critique of 'reform as civilising mission'; (c) Jones' 'Socio-Religious Reform Movements in India'; (d) R.J. Moore on 'The Crisis of Indian Unity'; (e) Jalal's 'The Sole Spokesman' on Jinnah's strategyImplicit awareness of debates without explicit citation; recognises complexity without naming historians; some anachronistic or simplified historiographyNo historiographic awareness; presents events as settled facts; nationalist or colonial historiography reproduced uncritically; no recognition of interpretive disputes
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Each part ends with crisp, qualified judgment: (a) mercenaries transitional not permanent kingmakers; (b) utilitarianism reformist but subordinate to imperial interests; (c) reform and revival coexisted, both nationalist responses; (d) princely intransigence necessary but insufficient cause; (e) vagueness tactical strength, practical weakness; overall pattern of colonial modernity's contradictionsSome conclusions present but formulaic or repetitive; judgments stated without supporting reasoning; weak connection between parts; no overarching insightNo conclusions per part or generic summary ('thus we see'); contradictory judgments; missing conclusions entirely; conclusion adds no value to body

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 2024 Paper II