History 2024 Paper II 50 marks Comment

Q3

(a) Political extremism in colonial India often converged with cultural nationalism, but not always. – Comment. (20 marks) (b) Regionalism in India after 1947 was occasioned by developmental imperatives as much as linguistic particularism. – Elucidate. (20 marks) (c) Twenty years of peace secured by the treaty of Salbai proved very costly to the Marathas in strategic terms. – Elucidate. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) औपनिवेशिक भारत में राजनीतिक उग्रवाद अक्सर सांस्कृतिक राष्ट्रवाद में अभिमुख हो जाते थे, परन्तु हमेशा नहीं । टिप्पणी कीजिए । (20) (b) 1947 के बाद भारत में क्षेत्रवाद जितना ही विकासात्मक अनिवार्यताओं से प्रेरित था उतना ही भाषाई विशिष्टतावाद से भी । स्पष्ट कीजिए । (20) (c) सलबाई की संधि के फलस्वरूप बीस वर्षों की शांति मराठाओं के लिए रणनीति के परिप्रेक्ष्य से बहुत महँगी साबित हुई । स्पष्ट कीजिए । (10)

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

Directive word: Comment

This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' for part (a) requires balanced analysis with judgment, while 'elucidate' for parts (b) and (c) demands clear explanation with evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks and conceptual complexity, 35% to part (b) for its dual causation analysis, and 25% to part (c) for focused strategic assessment. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct sections addressing each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects colonial and post-colonial regionalism.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Extremism-cultural nationalism convergence — Tilak's Ganesh festivals and Shivaji celebrations as mass mobilization tools; Aurobindo's 'Bande Mataram' and spiritual nationalism
  • Part (a): Divergence cases — Revolutionary terrorism (Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, Chittagong armoury raid) where political action preceded cultural framing; non-Hindu extremists like Ashfaqulla Khan where religious identity differed
  • Part (b): Linguistic particularism — States Reorganisation Act 1956, Andhra movement 1952, anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu; formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat 1960
  • Part (b): Developmental imperatives — river water disputes (Krishna, Cauvery), uneven industrialization, Green Revolution regional disparities, Special Category Status demands
  • Part (c): Treaty of Salbai 1782 terms — restoration of status quo ante, return of territories, Raghunath Rao pensioned off; apparent Maratha success under Nana Phadnavis
  • Part (c): Strategic costs — 20-year respite allowed British consolidation in Bengal, Mysore wars without Maratha interference, Wellesley's subsidiary alliances 1798-1805, isolation of Tipu Sultan, eventual Second Anglo-Maratha War 1803-05 from position of British strength

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for part (a): 1897-1908 extremist period, 1905 Swadeshi; part (b): 1952 Andhra agitation, 1956 SRC, 1960 Bombay bifurcation; part (c): Salbai 1782, end of peace 1802, war 1803-05. Correct sequencing of causation in all parts.Broad period identification without specific years; minor errors in sequencing (e.g., placing Salbai after Second Anglo-Maratha War); conflation of 1956 and 1960 reorganizations.Serious chronological errors (e.g., treating Salbai as post-1803; confusing extremist period with Gandhian era); anachronistic causation; missing critical dates that undermine argument validity.
Source & evidence20%10Part (a): cites Tilak's 'Shivaji's Utterances' or Kesari editorials; Aurobindo's 'Bhawani Mandir'; part (b): uses Dhar Commission, Fazal Ali Commission reports; Sarkaria Commission on centre-state relations; part (c): references Grant Duff, Ranade or modern historians like Gordon on Maratha strategic failure.General reference to leaders and movements without specific textual evidence; mentions commissions without distinguishing their recommendations; relies on textbook generalizations about Maratha decline.No primary source engagement; factual errors about treaty terms; conflates Salbai with other treaties (Surat, Purandar, Bassein); missing evidence for developmental vs. linguistic causation in part (b).
Multi-perspective analysis20%10Part (a): balances Hindu-centric cultural nationalism with Muslim, Dalit, and revolutionary perspectives; acknowledges regional variations (Bengal vs. Maharashtra extremism); part (b): weighs centre vs. state perspectives, developmental vs. identity politics; part (c): considers both Maratha and British strategic calculations.One-sided treatment of convergence in (a) without adequate divergence cases; unbalanced treatment of linguistic vs. developmental factors in (b); mono-causal explanation of Maratha failure in (c).Wholly celebratory or wholly critical stance on cultural nationalism without nuance; ignores either developmental or linguistic dimension in (b); presents Salbai as unambiguous victory or defeat without strategic analysis.
Historiographic framing20%10Part (a): engages with Sumit Sarkar's critique of communal potential in cultural nationalism, or C.A. Bayly on 'patriotic paternalism'; part (b): references Paul Brass on instrumentalism vs. constructivism in regionalism; part (c): cites Stewart Gordon on Maratha military decline or Richard Wellesley's strategic vision.Implicit historiographic awareness without explicit naming; mentions 'historians say' without specificity; treats all sources as equally authoritative.No historiographic awareness; presents contested interpretations as settled facts; anachronistic application of concepts (e.g., 'secularism' to pre-1947 movements without qualification).
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes across parts: connects colonial cultural nationalism's regional variations with post-colonial regionalism; draws parallel between Maratha strategic myopia and potential lessons for nationalist movements; offers measured judgment on whether convergence or divergence dominated in (a).Separate conclusions for each part without cross-referencing; restates main points without advancing synthesis; generic conclusion on 'complexity' without specific insight.Missing conclusion; abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body of answer; no attempt to connect the three analytically distinct sub-parts into coherent historical argument.

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