History 2025 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q2

(a) Do you agree that the idea of permanent fixation of land revenue of 1793 in Bengal was highly influenced by the Physiocratic school of thinking? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) "The tug of war between the two principles of freedom and control of the press made its influence felt on the colonial rulers' attitude to the press." Discuss. (20 marks) (c) "The movement for linguistic States generated deep apprehensions among the nationalist elite. They feared it would lead to the Balkanization of India." Examine. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आप सहमत हैं कि बंगाल में 1793 में भू-राजस्व के स्थायी निर्धारण की अवधारणा पर प्रकृतिवादी सिद्धांत विचारधारा का गहरा प्रभाव था? विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता तथा नियंत्रण, इन दोनों सिद्धांतों के बीच खींचतान का प्रभाव औपनिवेशिक शासकों के प्रेस के प्रति उनके रवैये में महसूस होता है।" विवेचना कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) "भाषाई राज्यों के लिए आंदोलन ने राष्ट्रवादी अभिजातवर्ग के बीच गहरी आशंकाएं पैदा की। उन्हें डर था कि इससे भारत का विखंडन (बाल्कनीकरण) हो जाएगा।" परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 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' requires a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against each proposition. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) on Permanent Settlement given its 20 marks and historiographical depth; 40% to part (b) on press freedom tracing the tension from Wellesley to Ripon; and 20% to part (c) on linguistic states examining elite fears from Nehru to SRC. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three distinct analytical sections, and a synthesizing conclusion on colonial governance dilemmas.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Physiocratic influence on Permanent Settlement—Quesnay's 'impôt unique' and single tax on land; Cornwallis-Phillip Francis debate; contrast with utilitarian and mercantilist motivations; zamindar as European-style landlord
  • Part (a): Counter-arguments—British fiscal-military state needs; Burke's conservative influence; lack of physiocratic concern for peasant welfare; actual outcome diverged from physiocratic theory
  • Part (b): Evolution of press policy—Wellesley's censorship (1799), Adams' Press Act (1823), Metcalfe's liberalism, Macaulay's 1835 Press Act, Lytton's Vernacular Press Act 1878, Ripon's repeal 1882
  • Part (b): Tension between imperial information control and Enlightenment ideals; role of Indian press in nationalist mobilization; differential treatment of English vs. vernacular press
  • Part (c): Elite apprehensions—Nehru's 'Balkanization' fears; Patel's caution; Congress linguistic provincial reorganizations 1920s; contrast with popular linguistic identity movements
  • Part (c): Resolution trajectory—Potti Sriramulu's fast 1952; States Reorganization Commission 1953-56; eventual acceptance of linguistic principle with safeguards for national unity

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Chronology accuracy20%10Precise dating for all three parts: 1793 Permanent Settlement with pre-1790s Cornwallis-Phillip Francis discussions; press acts correctly sequenced (1799, 1823, 1835, 1878, 1882); linguistic state movement from 1920s Congress reorganizations through 1952-56 SRC periodBroadly correct century placement with some specific dates missing or conflated; minor errors like treating Metcalfe and Macaulay as contemporaneous or misplacing Vernacular Press Act decadeSerious chronological confusion—placing Permanent Settlement in 1760s, confusing Wellesley with Hastings on press policy, or treating linguistic states as purely post-1960 phenomenon
Source & evidence20%10Cites specific documentary evidence: Cornwallis' 1789 letter to Shore on 'proprietorship'; Phillip Francis' 'Plan for a Settlement of the Revenues of Bengal' (1776); specific press act clauses; Nehru's Discovery of India or Constituent Assembly speeches on linguistic dangers; SRC report recommendationsGeneral reference to official documents without specific citation; mentions Cornwallis, Macaulay, Nehru by name but without textual grounding; broad reference to 'British records' or 'Congress resolutions'No primary source engagement; relies entirely on secondary textbook generalizations; vague references like 'historians say' or 'it is believed'; factual errors in attributing positions
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): balances physiocratic, utilitarian, and mercantilist influences; for (b): presents both imperial security and liberal reformer viewpoints; for (c): contrasts elite centralization fears with subaltern linguistic aspirations; evaluates each perspective's validityAcknowledges opposing views superficially—notes 'some historians disagree' on physiocratic influence or mentions both 'control and freedom' for press without exploring why each position was held; treats elite fears as self-evidentSingle-track narrative—asserts physiocratic dominance without counter-argument, presents press history as linear liberalization, or dismisses elite fears without examining their basis; no recognition of historiographical debate
Historiographic framing20%10Engages scholarly debates: Ranajit Guha on Permanent Settlement as 'rule of property' vs. Eric Stokes on utilitarianism; Bayly on information empire; Brass on linguistic politics; explicitly positions own argument within these debatesNames one or two historians without integrating their arguments; mentions 'Cambridge School' or 'Subaltern Studies' as labels without substantive engagement; treats historiography as add-on rather than analytical frameworkNo historiographic awareness; presents all interpretations as established fact; anachronistic judgment using contemporary standards; no recognition that 'Balkanization' itself carries historiographical baggage from interwar period
Conclusion & synthesis20%10Synthesizes across all three parts to demonstrate how colonial governance consistently faced tension between abstract ideological principles (physiocracy, liberalism, developmental nationalism) and practical imperatives of revenue extraction, information control, and territorial integrity; reflects on continuities into post-colonial stateThree separate conclusions for each part without cross-connection; restates main points without advancing synthetic argument; generic closing statement about 'complexity of colonial rule'No conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new information in conclusion; contradictory final position that undermines earlier analysis; 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 2025 Paper II