History 2025 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q1

Critically examine the following statements in about 150 words each: (a) "The Sikh monarchy was Napoleonic in the suddenness of its rise, the brilliancy of its success and the completeness of its overthrow." (10 marks) (b) "The seeds of domestic dissensions were thickly and deeply sown in the Maratha system under the Peshwas." (10 marks) (c) "Bhagat Singh and his comrades significantly expanded the meaning and scope of revolution, redefining it beyond mere political upheaval to include social and ideological transformation." (10 marks) (d) "The significant feature of the Indian Councils Act of 1892 was the principle of election which it introduced, though the word 'election' was very carefully avoided in it." (10 marks) (e) "The colonial rule opened the Indian markets for British-manufactured goods and led to 'deindustrialization' or destruction of indigenous handicraft industries." (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित कथनों में से प्रत्येक का लगभग 150 शब्दों में समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए : (a) "अपने उदय की आकस्मिकता, अपनी सफलताओं की चमक तथा अपने पतन की पूर्णता में सिख राजतंत्र नेपोलियन की भांति था।" (10 अंक) (b) "पेशवाओं के अधीन मराठा व्यवस्था में घरेलू (आंतरिक) मतभेदों का बीजारोपण काफी घना तथा गहरा था।" (10 अंक) (c) "भगत सिंह और उनके साथियों ने क्रांति के उद्देश्य और दायरे को व्यापक रूप दिया, उसे केवल राजनीतिक उथल-पुथल तक सीमित न रखकर सामाजिक और वैचारिक परिवर्तन का माध्यम बना दिया।" (10 अंक) (d) "1892 के भारतीय परिषद् अधिनियम की महत्त्वपूर्ण विशेषता चुनाव का सिद्धांत थी जिसे इसमें पेश किया गया था, हालांकि इसमें 'चुनाव' शब्द का प्रयोग बहुत सावधानी से टाला गया था।" (10 अंक) (e) "औपनिवेशिक शासन ने भारतीय बाजारों को इंग्लैंड-निर्मित उत्पादों के लिए खोल दिया तथा स्वदेशी हस्तशिल्प उद्योगों के 'विद्योगीकरण' अथवा विनाश का मार्ग प्रशस्त कर दिया।" (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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

The directive 'critically examine' demands balanced evaluation with evidence for and against each statement. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark: ~25-30 words for each 10-mark sub-part. Structure each part as: brief context (2-3 lines), critical analysis with both supporting and counter evidence (3-4 lines), and a nuanced conclusion (1-2 lines). Prioritize precision over coverage—select 2-3 strong arguments per part rather than superficial enumeration.

Key points expected

  • (a) Sikh monarchy: Compare Ranjit Singh's rapid rise (1799-1839) with Napoleonic parallels; note structural weaknesses (misal confederacy, succession crisis); cite post-1849 annexation completeness
  • (b) Maratha Peshwas: Analyze institutional flaws—Brahminical dominance alienating other castes, revenue farming (ijara), chauth/sardeshmukhi exploitations; mention Tarabai-Shahu conflicts, Holkar-Scindia rivalries
  • (c) Bhagat Singh: Distinguish from earlier revolutionary terrorism (Ghadar, Anushilan); emphasize HSRA's socialist/communist ideology, 'Inquilab Zindabad' meaning, hunger strike as moral weapon, critique of communalism
  • (d) 1892 Act: Clarify 'nomination' vs election—indirect selection through municipalities/district boards; note Indian National Congress demand context; assess limited franchise and official majority retention
  • (e) Deindustrialization: Present Rajat Ray/Clive Dewey revisionist critique alongside traditional nationalist narrative; distinguish textile decline from regional variations; mention Tirthankar Roy's 'reallocation' thesis

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for all five parts: Ranjit Singh's coronation (1801) and death (1839); Peshwa period phases (1713-1818); Bhagat Singh's execution (1931) and Naujawan Bharat Sabha (1926); 1892 Act specific provisions; deindustrialization phases (1813 Charter Act to 1850s)Broad period identification with minor errors (e.g., conflating 1892 with 1909 Morley-Minto reforms); vague '19th century' referencesSignificant chronological confusion—placing Bhagat Singh in Non-Cooperation, or treating 1892 as post-1905 Swadeshi measure
Source & evidence20%10Specific evidentiary deployment: for (a) Cunningham's 'History of the Sikhs' or Khushwant Singh; for (b) Grant Duff or Ravindra Kumar's institutional analysis; for (c) Bhagat Singh's 'Why I Am an Atheist' or Saunders assassination context; for (d) original Act clauses; for (e) RC Dutt or Morris D Morris dataGeneral references without specificity—'historians say' or 'according to sources'; no direct quotation or precise attributionFabricated evidence or anachronistic sources; confusing primary and secondary materials; irrelevant citation
Multi-perspective analysis20%10Genuine critical tension in each part: (a) Napoleonic parallels qualified by structural differences; (b) Peshwa failures balanced against Shivaji's legacy and 18th-century context; (c) revolutionary violence debated against Gandhian critique; (d) 1892 as concession vs. containment; (e) nationalist deindustrialization thesis vs. Cambridge School/market integration viewsOne-sided presentation with token acknowledgment of counter-view; descriptive rather than evaluative treatmentPurely affirmative or negative stance on all statements; no recognition of historiographical debate; partisan narrative
Historiographic framing20%10Explicit positioning within scholarly debates: (a) J.S. Grewal's regional state formation; (b) Stewart Gordon's 'Maratha Moghul' thesis; (c) Kama Maclean's transnational revolutionary networks; (d) Bipan Chandra's 'Colonialism and Nationalism' framework; (e) Tirthankar Roy's 'Rethinking Economic Change in India'Implicit awareness of debates without naming scholars; generic 'some historians argue' formulationsWholly presentist or teleological framing; no sense of how historiography has evolved; anachronistic value judgments
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Each sub-part resolves with measured judgment: (a) 'Napoleonic' apt for individual but not institutional durability; (b) domestic dissensions symptom of broader 18th-century crisis; (c) Bhagat Singh's ideological expansion within revolutionary continuum; (d) 1892 as transitional, not transformative; (e) deindustrialization as geographically and sectorally uneven processSummary restatement without advancement; predictable conclusions that merely echo introductionMissing or contradictory conclusions; grand unsupported generalizations; failure to address the specific statement's validity

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 2025 Paper II