Q3
(a) Critically examine Yogendra Singh's thesis on 'Modernisation of Indian Tradition'. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the material basis of patriarchy as an ideological system. (20 marks) (c) Explain different forms of untouchability in India. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) योगेन्द्र सिंह की 'भारतीय परम्परा के आधुनिकीकरण' पर थीसिस का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) एक वैचारिक प्रणाली के रूप में पितृसत्ता के भौतिक आधार पर चर्चा कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) भारत में अस्पृश्यता के विभिन्न स्वरूपों को समझाइए । (10 अंक)
Directive word: Critically examine
This question asks you to critically examine. 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 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced evaluation with evidence, while 'discuss' for (b) and 'explain' for (c) require analytical depth and clarity respectively. Allocate approximately 40% word-time to part (a) given its 20 marks and theoretical complexity, 35% to part (b) for its materialist-feminist unpacking, and 25% to part (c) for typological coverage. Structure: brief composite introduction linking modernisation-patriarchy-untouchability as axes of stratification; three distinct sections with internal sub-structuring; integrated conclusion on whether tradition-modernity dialectic reproduces or transforms hierarchical structures.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Yogendra Singh's four-fold typology (Westernisation, Modernisation, Sanskritisation, Little Traditions); critique via Dipankar Gupta (modernity as values, not institutional transfer) and Nandy (alternative modernities)
- Part (a): Empirical test-cases—Green Revolution Punjab (modernisation reinforcing caste-class nexus) vs. Kerala model (relative decoupling); evaluate Singh's optimism about 'adaptive modernisation'
- Part (b): Material basis—Engels' origin of family/private property/state; Boserup's female labour in agriculture; Indian data on declining female workforce participation (PLFS 2022-23) despite GDP growth
- Part (b): Ideological superstructure—Patriarchy as false consciousness; Brahmanical patriarchy (Uma Chakravarti) linking caste purity to female control; reproduction through dowry, patrilocality, honour codes
- Part (c): Untouchability typology—exclusionary (spatial: hamlet segregation, temple entry), pollution-based (occupational: manual scavenging, tanning), and ritual (commensality, marriage); post-Constitutional transformations vs. persistence (Jodhka's village studies)
- Part (c): Regional variations—Tamil Nadu's 'two-tumbler system' vs. Maharashtra's Mahar watan; SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act as legal recognition of continuing forms
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), 'critically examine' executed as thesis-antithesis-synthesis with explicit evaluative criteria; for (b), 'discuss' unpacked as dialectical materialism showing base-superstructure interaction; for (c), 'explain' delivers exhaustive typology with causal mechanisms, not mere listing. | Recognises directive differences but treats all three parts similarly—either over-critiquing (c) or under-theorising (a); some evaluative language present but not systematically applied. | Misreads 'critically examine' as 'describe Singh's book'; treats 'discuss' and 'explain' identically as information-dumping; no evaluative stance anywhere. |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | (a) Singh positioned within Indian sociology's modernisation school (Srinivas, Rudolph-Rudolph) and post-colonial critique; (b) Marxist-feminist synthesis (Engels, Vogel, Hartmann) plus Indian feminist interventions (Chakravarti, Rege); (c) Ambedkar's annihilation thesis plus contemporary structuralist readings (Jodhka, Shah). | Names theorists correctly but frameworks applied superficially—e.g., mentions Engels without linking property relations to Indian dowry; cites Ambedkar without engaging his Buddhist alternative. | No named theorists or incorrect attribution; theoretical claims presented as common sense or personal opinion. |
| Indian / empirical examples | 20% | 10 | (a) Concrete cases: Punjab agrarian modernisation, Kerala education-health outcomes, IT sector's caste composition; (b) PLFS/NSSO female workforce data, NFHS-5 son preference metrics, agrarian distress-suicide link; (c) Ethnographic specifics: Bhangi/Mahar/Chamar occupational profiles, temple-entry movements (Vaikom 1924), recent atrocity statistics (NCRB 2022). | General references to 'Indian villages' or 'rural women' without specific data; mentions Green Revolution or manual scavenging without disaggregated evidence; no recent statistics. | No Indian examples or inappropriate global comparisons (US racism for untouchability); examples factually wrong or anachronistic. |
| Multi-paradigm analysis | 20% | 10 | (a) Modernisation vs. post-development vs. subaltern studies; (b) Materialist vs. culturalist feminism (Butler performativity tested against Indian evidence); (c) Annihilation vs. sanskritisation vs. political economy (class within caste); explicit paradigm comparison with reasoned position. | Acknowledges one alternative perspective per part but doesn't develop it; e.g., mentions 'but Nandy disagrees' without explaining his civilisational critique. | Single-paradigm treatment throughout; no recognition that these are contested concepts; treats sociology as settled knowledge. |
| Conclusion & sociological imagination | 20% | 10 | Synthesises three parts: modernisation's unevenness explains why patriarchy and untouchability transform rather than dissolve; connects personal troubles (dowry death, manual scavenging deaths) to public issues of developmental state; proposes research agenda or policy direction; demonstrates Millsian 'quality of mind' in linking biography-history-structure. | Summarises three parts separately without integration; adds generic 'these are deep-rooted problems requiring education and legislation' without sociological specificity. | No conclusion or three isolated one-sentence summaries; conclusion contradicts body or introduces entirely new claims; purely prescriptive 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 2022 Paper II
- Q1 Write short answers, with a sociological perspective, on the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Elaborate on M.N. Srinivas's…
- Q2 (a) Critically examine G.S. Ghurye's Indological approach to the understanding of Indian society. (20 marks) (b) Elaborate on the changing…
- Q3 (a) Critically examine Yogendra Singh's thesis on 'Modernisation of Indian Tradition'. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the material basis of patriar…
- Q4 (a) Examine the social background of growth of Indian nationalism. (20 marks) (b) Explain how land reforms brought about desired agrarian t…
- Q5 Write short answers, with a sociological perspective, on the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss law as an important i…
- Q6 (a) Examine whether rural bondage still continues to be a social reality. Give your argument. (20 marks) (b) Define ethnicity. Discuss the…
- Q7 (a) "Instead of promoting equality in society, the present system of education itself has contributed to increased socio-economic dispariti…
- Q8 (a) Bring out the various issues involved in Dalit movements in India. (20 marks) (b) Critically examine the dialectics between 'developmen…