Sociology 2021 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Analyse

Q5

Write short answers, with sociological perspective, of the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Analyze the idea of developmental planning in India. (10 marks) (b) Comment on the role of co-operatives in rural development. (10 marks) (c) Urban slums are sites of social exclusion – explain. (10 marks) (d) Does regionalism essentially lead to decentralization of power ? Substantiate your answer with relevant examples. (10 marks) (e) Discuss the role of technology in agrarian change in India. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों के समाजशास्त्रीय परिप्रेक्ष्य से संक्षिप्त उत्तर लिखिए, जो प्रत्येक लगभग 150 शब्दों में हो : (a) भारत में विकासात्मक योजनाओं के विचार का विश्लेषण कीजिए । (10 अंक) (b) ग्रामीण विकास में सहकारी समितियों की भूमिका पर टिप्पणी कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) शहरी झुग्गी बस्तियाँ सामाजिक बहिष्कार के स्थल हैं – व्याख्या करें । (10 अंक) (d) क्या क्षेत्रीयवाद अनिवार्यतः शक्ति विकेन्द्रीकरण की तरफ जाता है ? अपने उत्तर को सुसंगत उदाहरण से समझाएँ । (10 अंक) (e) भारतीय कृषिक परिवर्तन में तकनीक की भूमिका की विवेचना करें । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. 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 'analyse' in (a) requires breaking down developmental planning into its ideological roots, institutional mechanisms, and outcomes; for (b)-(e), apply 'comment', 'explain', 'substantiate', and 'discuss' respectively. Allocate ~30 words per sub-part (150 total), opening each with a precise definition, developing with one theoretical lens and one empirical instance, and closing with a critical synthesis. Prioritize (d) for balanced argumentation since it demands substantiation with examples.

Key points expected

  • (a) Developmental planning: Nehru-Mahalanobis model, Planning Commission vs NITI Aayog shift, mixed economy critique by Myrdal/Rudolphs
  • (b) Cooperatives: Anand model (Amul), IRDP-linked PACS, limitations via caste factionalism (M.N. Srinivas' 'vote bank' critique)
  • (c) Slums as exclusion: Jan Breman 'footloose labour', lack of tenure rights, environmental injustice (Mumbai/Dharavi), circular migration
  • (d) Regionalism and decentralization: Yes-case (Tamil Nadu DMK, Punjab Akali Dal pressuring federalism) vs No-case (Khalistan, ULFA as secessionist not decentralist)
  • (e) Technology in agrarian change: Green Revolution (HYV seeds, mechanization), digital agriculture (e-NAM), deskilling thesis (Vandana Shiva), farmer protests 2020-21
  • Cross-cutting: Political economy lens (Bardhan's 'dominant proprietary classes') for (a), (b), (e); spatial sociology (Lefebvre) for (c); federalism theories (K.C. Wheare/Subrata Mitra) for (d)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'analyse' as deconstruction of planning's ideological-institutional layers; for (b)-(e), matches directives precisely—'comment' brings evaluative stance, 'explain' establishes causal mechanisms, 'substantiate' in (d) demands balanced evidence, 'discuss' in (e) weighs multiple positions. No conflation of directives across parts.Recognizes different directives but applies them uniformly (e.g., all descriptive); 'analyse' in (a) becomes narrative history of Five-Year Plans without critical unpacking.Misreads all directives as 'describe'; (d) answered as assertion without substantiation; (e) as technology list without agrarian sociology.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys at least three distinct frameworks across parts: Myrdal's 'soft state' or Chakravarty on planning (a); cooperative theory (Ostrom) or Marxist critique (b); urban political economy (Mike Davis/Brenner) for slums (c); federalism theories (Mitra, Stepan) for regionalism (d); Bernstein's 'agrarian question' or Kautsky-Lenin on capitalist transition (e).Names theorists (e.g., Myrdal, Ostrom) but applies loosely or repeats same framework across multiple parts.No named theories; relies on commonsense or journalistic framing throughout.
Indian / empirical examples20%10Specific, disaggregated evidence: for (a) Planning Commission abolition 2014; (b) Amul/NDDB success vs Bihar PACS failure; (c) Dharavi, Seemapuri, or Chennai resettlement colonies; (d) Punjab Anandpur Sahib Resolution, Jharkhand movement, North-East autonomous districts; (e) Green Revolution regions (Punjab/Haryana), Bt cotton (Gujarat/Maharashtra), Kisan drones 2022.Mentions generic cases (e.g., 'Mumbai slums', 'Green Revolution') without specificity or regional variation.No Indian examples; or irrelevant global cases (Soviet planning for a, Mondragón for b).
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Each part shows tension: (a) planning as nation-building vs rent-seeking; (b) cooperatives as empowerment vs elite capture; (c) slum as exclusionary space vs subaltern agency (informal economy); (d) explicitly weighs when regionalism leads to decentralization vs secessionism/centralized backlash; (e) technology as productivity booster vs farmer deskilling/debt trap.Acknowledges counter-arguments in (d) and (e) only; other parts one-sided.Wholly one-dimensional; treats developmental planning as unalloyed success, regionalism as uniformly decentralizing, etc.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Each sub-part closes by linking micro to macro: individual planner/farmer/slum dweller to state structures, market forces, or global capitalism; (d) synthesizes with nuanced verdict; final implicit or explicit use of Mills' 'sociological imagination'—private troubles as public issues—across at least three parts.Summarizes each part but connections to broader structures weak or absent; no explicit sociological imagination framing.No conclusions for individual parts; or abrupt endings; no sense of biography-history interplay.

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