Sociology 2021 Paper II 50 marks Discuss

Q4

(a) What are the sociological reasons and implication of "reverse migration" during the recent pandemic in India ? (20 marks) (b) Discuss the main features of the debate between G. S. Ghurye and V. Elwin on tribal development. (20 marks) (c) What are the various forms of untouchability in India ? Critically examine. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) अभी हाल की महामारी के दौरान "उलट-प्रवासन" के समाजशास्त्रीय कारण और निहितार्थ क्या हैं ? (20 अंक) (b) जनजातीय विकास पर जी. एस. घुरिये एवं वी. एल्विन के बीच वाद-विवाद की प्रमुख विशिष्टताओं पर चर्चा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) भारत में अस्पृश्यता के विविध प्रकार क्या हैं ? आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण 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' in (a) and (b) demands balanced exposition with critical engagement, while (c) requires 'critically examine' — evaluation with evidence. Allocate ~40% word/time to (a) given its 20 marks and contemporary relevance; ~35% to (b) for the theoretical debate; ~25% to (c). Structure: brief composite intro linking migration-tribal-untouchability as axes of social stratification; then three distinct sections with sub-headings; conclusion synthesising how each phenomenon reveals state-society tensions in Indian modernity.

Key points expected

  • (a) Reverse migration: push factors (informal economy collapse, wage theft, state abandonment) vs pull factors (rural safety net, kinship obligations); class-caste nexus of migrant vulnerability (Yadav/Deshingkar data)
  • (a) Implications: de-urbanisation pressure, rural labour surplus, remittance collapse, reconfiguration of urban informal labour markets post-pandemic
  • (b) Ghurye's position: assimilationist, 'backward Hindus', cultural integration, nation-building imperative; critique of isolationism as impractical
  • (b) Elwin's position: protective isolationism, 'national park' thesis, respect for tribal autonomy, critique of assimilation as cultural genocide; later shift to 'middle way'
  • (b) Synthetic evaluation: post-colonial development outcomes (PESA, FRA, Schedule V areas) as test of debate; neither pure assimilation nor isolation achieved
  • (c) Forms: exclusion from public spaces (tea shops, temples), occupational segregation (manual scavenging, cremation work), residential segregation (Dalit bastis), ritual pollution barriers, digital untouchability (exclusion from common water sources during pandemic)
  • (c) Critical examination: persistence despite legal abolition (Article 17), everydayness vs spectacular violence, urban-rural variation, intersection with class and gender

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'discuss' as requiring causal analysis of reverse migration, not mere description; for (b), presents Ghurye-Elwin as genuine debate with thesis-antithesis structure; for (c), 'critically examine' is answered with evaluation of form-function persistence, not just listing.Recognises directives but (a) becomes descriptive narrative of lockdown exodus; (b) lists two positions without showing them in dialogue; (c) enumerates forms without critical edge.Misreads (a) as 'describe lockdown'; (b) as 'write short note on Ghurye'; (c) as 'define untouchability' — fundamental directive failure.
Theoretical framing20%10(a) Uses migration theories — Lee's push-pull, Massey's cumulative causation, or Breman's 'footloose labour'; (b) accurately deploys Ghurye's 'backward Hindu' thesis and Elwin's 'national park' with textual grounding; (c) applies Dumont's purity-pollution or Ambedkar's graded inequality to explain persistence.Names theorists correctly but applies frameworks mechanically; e.g., mentions Ghurye and Elwin without showing how their anthropological methods differed (survey vs participant observation).No theoretical scaffolding; (a) reads as economic not sociological; (b) as opinion exchange; (c) as moral condemnation without analytical framework.
Indian / empirical examples20%10(a) Cites specific data — CMIE unemployment surveys, SWAN/Stranded Workers reports, Bihar/UP returnee numbers; (b) references specific tribal contexts — Elwin's Baiga, Ghurye's Rajmahal Bhils, or post-independence NEFA policy; (c) names contemporary cases — Una flogging, Rohith Vemula, manual scavenging deaths, or pandemic water exclusion.General references — 'millions migrated back' without numbers; 'tribes in central India' without specificity; 'Dalits face discrimination' without concrete illustration.No Indian grounding; (a) uses generic 'developing country' migration; (b) discusses 'indigenous people' without Indian tribal specificity; (c) relies on textbook caste descriptions.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows paradigm tension across parts: (a) structural constraints vs migrant agency (return as resistance vs desperation); (b) presents Ghurye-Elwin as methodological and political paradigm clash (national integration vs cultural relativism); (c) weighs culturalist (Dumont) vs materialist (Ambedkar/Marxist) explanations of untouchability persistence.Acknowledges one alternative view per part superficially — e.g., 'some migrants chose to stay' in (a); 'Elwin later modified his view' in (b); 'laws exist against untouchability' in (c).Single-paradigm treatment: (a) only economic determinism; (b) partisan advocacy for one scholar; (c) only legal-institutional or only cultural explanation.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises three sub-parts into coherent sociological statement: all three phenomena reveal how formal citizenship (constitutional equality, free movement, protective discrimination) is undermined by informal social boundaries; proposes research or policy direction (portable welfare, tribal self-rule strengthening, effective SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities implementation); uses Mills' 'personal troubles to public issues' framing.Three separate conclusions or mere summary of each part; no synthetic sociological argument linking migration-tribal-untouchability.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; or conclusion that abandons sociological analysis for prescriptive wish-list (more education, more awareness) without analytical grounding.

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