Sociology 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Write short answers, with a sociological perspective, of the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Caste system studies in India have been dominated by the "book-view" initially. How did the entry of "field-view" bring about a balance in the study of Indian caste system ? Discuss. (10 marks) (b) What does Dr. B. R. Ambedkar mean by the concept of "Annihilation of caste" ? (10 marks) (c) Discuss different forms of kinship system in India. (10 marks) (d) Critically examine briefly the phrase "Little Republics" as used to denote India's villages. (10 marks) (e) Caste-like formations are present in Non-Hindu religious communities as well. Discuss with examples. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों के समाजशास्त्रीय परिप्रेक्ष्य से संक्षिप्त उत्तर लिखिए, जो प्रत्येक लगभग 150 शब्दों में हो : (a) प्रारंभ में भारत में जाति-व्यवस्था अध्ययन मुख्यतः "पुस्तक-केंद्रित" रहा । बाद में "फील्ड-व्यू" या "क्षेत्र-केंद्रित" अध्ययन के प्रवेश से भारतीय जाति-व्यवस्था के अध्ययन में संतुलन बनाने में कैसे मदद मिली ? विवेचना करें । (10 अंक) (b) 'जाति-निमूलन' की अवधारणा से डॉ. भीम राव अंबेडकर का क्या तात्पर्य है ? (10 अंक) (c) भारत में नातेदारी व्यवस्था के विभिन्न प्रकारों की चर्चा करें । (10 अंक) (d) भारत के गाँवों को दर्शाने के लिए इस्तेमाल किये जाने वाले वाक्यांश "लघु गणतंत्र" की संक्षिप्त समालोचना प्रस्तुत करें । (10 अंक) (e) जाति की तरह की संरचनाएँ गैर-हिंदू धार्मिक समुदायों में भी होती हैं । उदाहरण के साथ विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Sociology 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 balanced treatment across all five sub-parts, with each allocated approximately 30 words (150 total). Structure each sub-part as: brief definition/conceptual anchor → analytical development → micro-conclusion. For (a) contrast Ghurye (book-view) with Srinivas (field-view); for (b) explicate Ambedkar's radical position versus Gandhi's reformism; for (c) classify kinship systems (patrilineal/matrilineal/bilateral) with regional mapping; for (d) critically evaluate Metcalfe's 'Little Republics' through Dumont and post-Independence studies; for (e) demonstrate caste-like formations in Muslim, Christian, Sikh communities with ethnographic specifics.

Key points expected

  • (a) Book-view: Indological/textual (Ghurye, Hutton) vs. Field-view: empirical village studies (Srinivas, Beteille); shift from varna to jati, from ritual to power/economy
  • (b) Ambedkar's 'Annihilation of Caste': intermarriage as structural solution, critique of Hindu scriptures, rejection of Gandhi's caste-without-untouchability; conversion as emancipatory strategy
  • (c) Kinship systems: patrilineal (North India, agnatic emphasis), matrilineal (Nayar, Khasi, Garo), bilateral (South Indian kinship terminology, cross-cousin marriage); regional variation and marriage rules
  • (d) 'Little Republics' (Metcalfe): village autonomy, caste panchayats; critique by Dumont (hierarchy over republicanism), by post-Independence studies (state penetration, Green Revolution, democratic decentralisation)
  • (e) Caste-like formations: Muslim ashraf/ajlaf/arzal (Mandelbaum), Christian caste parishes (Kerala, Tamil Nadu), Sikh jati endogamy (Jat/Ramgarhia/Mazhabi Sikh distinction); structural similarity without Hindu ideological legitimation

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Treats 'discuss' across all sub-parts as requiring analytical exposition with internal debate: for (a) weighs book-view against field-view contributions; for (b) contrasts Ambedkar with contemporary positions; for (d) moves beyond description to critical evaluation of Metcalfe's phrase.Recognises 'discuss' but treatment becomes descriptive for some sub-parts, particularly (c) and (e) which may list rather than analyse; minimal internal tension explored.Misreads directives: treats (b) as mere definition, (d) as uncritical acceptance of 'Little Republics', or (a) as simple chronological narrative without analytical contrast.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys named theorists appropriately: Srinivas (Sanskritisation, dominant caste), Dumont (Homo Hierarchicus), Ambedkar (graded inequality), Karve (kinship regions), Mandelbaum (Muslim stratification); connects concepts across sub-parts where relevant.Names some theorists correctly but uses them as labels without conceptual application; or cites only the most obvious (Srinivas, Ambedkar) missing secondary figures.No theoretical anchoring; answers read as general knowledge or journalistic observation; confuses theorists (e.g., attributes Sanskritisation to Ghurye).
Indian / empirical examples20%10Provides specific empirical grounding: for (a) cites Ramkheri or Rampura studies; for (c) distinguishes between Karve's zones with concrete groups; for (d) references post-Green Revolution village studies (Rudra, Beteille); for (e) gives precise cases like Mappila hierarchy or Punjab Sikh jatis.Mentions regions or communities in general terms (e.g., 'Nayars are matrilineal', 'Muslims have caste') without specific study references or ethnographic detail.Generic or inaccurate examples; conflates regional practices; or omits Indian specificity entirely, relying on abstract sociological generalisations.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows awareness of competing perspectives: for (a) acknowledges Indological contribution before privileging field-view; for (d) presents both autonomy and penetration arguments; for (e) considers whether non-Hindu formations are 'caste' proper or ethnic/stratification systems; avoids reductionism.Acknowledges alternative views in passing but does not develop them; or presents competing views without adjudication or synthesis.Single-perspective treatment; e.g., uncritical celebration of field-view, dismissal of village autonomy without nuance, or assertion that all religious communities replicate Hindu caste identically.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Each sub-part concludes with sociological insight: for (a) synthesis of methodological pluralism; for (b) contemporary relevance of Ambedkar's radicalism; for (d) implications for democratic decentralisation; overall demonstrates ability to connect micro-institutions to macro-social transformation.Sub-part conclusions merely summarise preceding points without analytical advance; or some sub-parts lack clear conclusions.No conclusions for multiple sub-parts; final sentences are abrupt or restate the question; no demonstration of sociological imagination in connecting personal troubles to public issues.

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 II