Sociology 2021 Paper II 50 marks Critically analyse

Q7

(a) The problem of displacement is inherent in the idea of development. Analyze the statement critically. (20 marks) (b) Rising 'ethnocentricism' is leading to conflict in our society. Assess this statement with appropriate reasons. (20 marks) (c) Is social democracy a precondition for political democracy ? Comment. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विस्थापन की समस्या विकास के विचार में अंतर्निहित है । इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) बढ़ता हुआ 'संजाति केन्द्रवाद' हमारे समाज को संघर्ष की ओर ले जा रहा है । इस कथन का आकलन समुचित कारणों के साथ प्रस्तुत करें । (20 अंक) (c) क्या सामाजिक लोकतंत्र राजनीतिक लोकतंत्र की पूर्व शर्त है ? टिप्पणी कीजिए । (10 अंक)

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

Directive word: Critically analyse

This question asks you to critically 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

Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the tension between development and displacement as a core sociological problem. For part (a) 'critically analyse' (20 marks, ~40% time/words): examine the structural inevitability of displacement in capitalist/modernisation paradigms, then evaluate counter-arguments (sustainable development, inclusive growth). For part (b) 'assess' (20 marks, ~40%): weigh the ethnocentrism-conflict thesis with evidence from identity politics, then consider institutional safeguards. For part (c) 'comment' (10 marks, ~20%): take a nuanced position on the social-political democracy relationship. Conclude by synthesising across parts—development, identity, and democracy as interconnected challenges.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Development as structural violence (Galtung) vs. Sen's capability approach; displacement as externality of primitive accumulation (Harvey) or necessary cost of progress (modernisation theory)
  • Part (a): Indian evidence—Sardar Sarovar, POSCO Odisha, SEZ Act 2005; rehabilitation failures vs. successful resettlement models (R&R Policy 2007, 2013 Act)
  • Part (b): Ethnocentrism defined (Sumner) vs. ethnic nationalism; instrumentalisation of identity (Brass, Kothari) in competitive electoral democracy
  • Part (b): Empirical cases—Northeast insurgencies, Gujarat 2002, Delhi riots 2020; counter: constitutional patriotism, inter-caste alliances, syncretic traditions
  • Part (c): Social democracy (equality, welfare, participation) as enabling condition vs. political democracy (formal rights) as autonomous sphere; Lohia's 'political revolution without social revolution' critique
  • Part (c): Indian paradox—universal franchise since 1950 amid caste/gender hierarchies; Kerala vs. Bihar comparison; Ambedkar's warning in Constituent Assembly
  • Cross-cutting: Development-induced displacement fuels ethnic competition for resources; weak social democracy undermines political democracy's legitimacy
  • Synthesis: Need for recognition + redistribution (Fraser) + participatory development to break displacement-ethnocentrism-democracy trilemma

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a) 'critically analyse'—balances inevitability thesis with agency/institutional mitigation; for (b) 'assess'—weighs causation vs. correlation in ethnocentrism-conflict link; for (c) 'comment'—avoids binary yes/no, shows conditional relationship. All three directives operationalised distinctly.Recognises 'analyse', 'assess', 'comment' but treats them similarly; (a) descriptive, (b) one-sided, (c) simplistic yes/no.Misreads directives—treats all as 'discuss' or 'explain'; no critical edge in (a), no weighing in (b), no nuance in (c).
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys at least three named frameworks across parts: (a) Harvey's accumulation by dispossession or Escobar's post-development; (b) Brass's instrumentalist ethnicity or Anderson's imagined communities; (c) Marshall's citizenship theory or Ambedkar's graded inequality. Theories applied, not merely named.Names theorists (Gandhi, Marx, Durkheim) but applies loosely or generically across all parts without specificity.No theoretical anchoring; relies on common-sense or journalistic framing ('development is good', 'communalism is bad').
Indian / empirical examples20%10Rich Indian evidence: (a) specific projects (Polavaram, Dandakaranya, Mumbai Metro-3 Adivasi displacement) with policy references; (b) named conflicts (Bodoland, Gorkhaland, CAA-NRC 2019-20) with sociological specificity; (c) state comparisons (Kerala social democracy, Bihar caste politics) or constitutional moments.Generic references—'Narmada Bachao Andolan', 'communal riots', 'India is diverse'—without specificity or disaggregated analysis.Non-Indian examples dominate; or purely hypothetical/ideal-typical treatment with no empirical grounding.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Each part engages opposing views: (a) modernisation vs. post-development vs. reformist (inclusive growth); (b) primordialist vs. instrumentalist vs. constructivist ethnicity; (c) liberal vs. radical vs. subaltern democracy. Shows how paradigms yield different policy implications.Acknowledges counter-arguments in passing but doesn't develop them; one paradigm dominates each part.Single-paradigm treatment throughout; treats any one perspective as self-evident truth without contestation.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across (a)-(b)-(c): development models shape displacement patterns which reshape ethnic boundaries which strain democratic legitimacy—proposing integrated policy (participatory planning + multicultural recognition + social rights). Uses Mills' 'sociological imagination' explicitly or implicitly: private troubles (displaced Adivasi) linked to public issues (development model).Summarises each part separately without cross-linking; adds no new analytical insight in conclusion.No conclusion, or mere restatement of question; ends with part (c) abruptly; no sociological imagination demonstrated.

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