Sociology 2021 Paper I 50 marks Elucidate

Q6

(a) Elucidate the main problems and challenges faced by the migrant labourers in the recent 'Lockdown period'. 20 (b) Explain how political parties and pressure groups are dialectically related to each other in terms of achieving their goals. 20 (c) Give your comments on the growth of religious revivalism in the present day context. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) हाल ही में 'लॉकडाउन अवधि' के दौरान प्रवासी श्रमिकों के सामने आई मुख्य समस्याओं और चुनौतियों की विशद व्याख्या कीजिए । 20 (b) अपने लक्ष्यों को प्राप्त करने के लिए राजनीतिक दलों और दबाव समूहों के बीच किस प्रकार के द्वंद्वात्मक संबंध होते हैं, व्याख्या कीजिए । 20 (c) वर्तमान संदर्भ में धार्मिक पुनरुत्थानवाद के विकास पर अपनी टिप्पणी दीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Sociology questions

Directive word: Elucidate

This question asks you to elucidate. 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 'elucidate' in part (a) demands clear, detailed exposition with causal depth; part (b) requires 'explain' with dialectical process; part (c) asks for 'comment' with balanced critical assessment. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to (a) given 20 marks, 35% to (b) for its theoretical complexity, and 25% to (c). Structure: integrated introduction framing migration-politics-religion as dimensions of contemporary Indian social transformation; three distinct body sections with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesising how state-civil society tensions manifest across all three domains.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Multi-dimensional precarity — wage loss, food insecurity, transport collapse, police brutality, psychological trauma; reverse migration as structural failure of urbanisation model
  • For (a): State response gaps — mismatch between relief packages and informal labour registration; Supreme Court intervention on 'walking migrants'
  • For (b): Dialectical framework — parties need pressure groups for mobilisation/legitimacy; pressure groups need parties for institutional access; mutual transformation through co-optation and resistance
  • For (b): Indian illustrations — farmers' movement and party realignment; trade unions and Left parties; caste associations and regional party formation
  • For (c): Religious revivalism as political project — Hindutva, Islamist mobilisation, Pentecostal growth; distinction from religiosity and fundamentalism
  • For (c): Structural drivers — globalisation anxiety, identity politics, electoral competition, social media echo chambers; counter-trends of secular constitutionalism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'elucidate' as demanding systematic unpacking of causal mechanisms, not mere listing; for (b), captures dialectic as dynamic mutual constitution, not static comparison; for (c), 'comment' produces balanced assessment with explicit evaluative stance.Addresses each directive but treats (a) descriptively, (b) as one-way influence, and (c) as neutral description without critical edge.Misreads directives—(a) becomes 'list problems', (b) collapses into 'difference between', (c) becomes partisan advocacy or vague generalisation.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys appropriate frameworks: for (a) Marx on reserve army of labour or Breman on footloose labour; for (b) Gramsci on hegemony/civil society or Duverger on party-group linkage; for (c) Casanova's public religion or Jaffrelot's ethnic democracy.Names theorists correctly but applies superficially or conflates concepts (e.g., dialectic with dialogue).No theoretical architecture; relies on commonsense categories or misattributes concepts.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a): specific data—Aajeevika Bureau reports, NHRC findings, Shramik trains, Garib Kalyan Yojana gaps; for (b): concrete cases—SKM and BJP/Punjab politics, RSS as pressure group cum party adjunct; for (c): measurable trends—VHP growth, Love Jihad laws, Pew surveys on religious identity.Mentions lockdown images or farmers' protest generally without specific institutional details or data.Generic global examples (Mexican migrants, US lobbies, Iranian revolution) without Indian grounding.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows tension across perspectives: for (a) state failure vs. migrant agency (self-organised walks, community kitchens); for (b) pluralist independence vs. elite capture of groups; for (c) instrumentalist political manipulation vs. genuine cultural anxiety—concludes with synthesis.Acknowledges alternative view in passing but doesn't develop; conclusion tilts one-sided without justification.Single-paradigm treatment; treats any one dimension (state, party, religion) as monolithic and unproblematic.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises three sub-parts through Mills' sociological imagination—private troubles of migrants, public issues of democratic representation, and collective anxieties of identity; connects to constitutional values or suggests research/policy direction; demonstrates reflexivity on examiner's own position.Summarises three parts separately without integrative thread; conclusion adds no analytical advance.Absent or perfunctory conclusion; or partisan rant substituting for sociological closure.

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 Sociology 2021 Paper I