Sociology 2024 Paper II 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What, according to you, are the factors responsible for the continuance of caste system in India? Explain. (10 marks) (b) Discuss the changes taking place in the industrial class structure in India. (10 marks) (c) Is patriarchy a key to understanding different forms of inequalities in Indian society? Elaborate. (10 marks) (d) Do you think that family bondings are being affected by the changing kinship patterns in India? Comment. (10 marks) (e) Despite the efforts of the government, bonded labour still continues in India. Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) आपके अनुसार, भारत में जाति-व्यवस्था की निरंतरता के लिए कौन-से कारक उत्तरदायी हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) भारत में औद्योगिक वर्ग-संरचना में हो रहे परिवर्तनों की चर्चा कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) क्या भारतीय समाज में असमानताओं के विभिन्न स्वरूपों को समझने के लिए पितृसत्तात्मकता एक कुंजी है? विस्तार से लिखिए। (10 अंक) (d) क्या आपको लगता है कि भारत में नातेदारी के बदलते स्वरूप से पारिवारिक संबंध प्रभावित हो रहे हैं? टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) सरकारी प्रयत्नों के बावजूद, भारत में अब भी बंधुआ मजदूरी जारी है। चर्चा कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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

This multi-part question requires five distinct 150-word responses. For (a) 'explain' demands causal factors with reasoning; (b) 'discuss' needs balanced treatment of changes; (c) 'elaborate' requires depth on patriarchy-inequality linkage; (d) 'comment' invites evaluative stance on kinship-family bonding; (e) 'discuss' needs analysis of policy failure. Allocate ~30 words per sub-part for concise introductions, ~100 words for body, and ~20 words for conclusion. Prioritize theoretical precision and empirical specificity within tight word limits.

Key points expected

  • (a) Caste persistence: ritual hierarchy (Dumont), electoral politics (Kanchan Chandra), occupational endogamy, urban anonymity paradox, digital caste networks
  • (b) Industrial class structure: informalization (Jan Breman), gig economy fragmentation, declining organized sector, new middle class (Satish Deshpande), caste-class overlap in IT sector
  • (c) Patriarchy-inequality nexus: private-public patriarchy (Sylvia Walby), intersectionality (Crenshaw applied to India), labour market segmentation, reproductive burden, counter-case: matrilineal exceptions
  • (d) Kinship-family bonding: bilateral trends, nuclearization without joint family values erosion, transnational families, technology-mediated intimacy, regional variation (north-south kinship systems)
  • (e) Bonded labour persistence: debt bondage mechanisms, weak implementation of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 1976, seasonal migration, brick kiln/agriculture sectors, contractor system

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10Correctly calibrates each directive: (a) explains causality not just lists factors; (b) discusses changes with balance not mere description; (c) elaborates with depth on patriarchy's explanatory power; (d) comments with evaluative judgment not neutral description; (e) discusses policy gaps analytically.Recognizes directives but treats (b), (d), (e) similarly as 'describe'; weak differentiation in response structure across parts.Misreads directives—treats 'explain' as define, 'comment' as describe, 'elaborate' as list; uniform response structure showing no directive awareness.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys specific theorists appropriately: Dumont/Srinivas for (a); Breman/Deshpande for (b); Walby/Connell for (c); Uberoi/Trautmann for (d); Brass/Guérin for (e); frameworks are applied not merely named.Names theorists but applies loosely or incorrectly; e.g., cites Marx for caste without adaptation, or uses generic 'functionalism' without specification.No theoretical references; answers read as journalistic observation or common-sense sociology without disciplinary anchoring.
Indian / empirical examples20%10Sub-part specific evidence: (a) Jat-Dalit conflicts or matrimonial site caste filters; (b) NCEUS data on informal sector, IT-Bangalore caste composition; (c) NFHS-5 gender indicators, SEWA studies; (d) Kerala bilateral kinship, Delhi nuclear families; (e) ILO 2016 survey, brick kiln data from Tamil Nadu/UP.General references like 'reservations' or 'MNREGA' without specific data points or regional grounding; one part strong, others weak.No Indian empirical grounding; generic statements like 'caste exists in villages' or 'women face discrimination' without concrete illustration.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows paradigm tension: (a) Dumont's hierarchy vs. Dirks' colonial construction; (b) proletarianization vs. informalization debate; (c) patriarchy as primary vs. intersectional critique; (d) nuclearization as erosion vs. adaptive strategy; (e) state failure vs. structural economic necessity.Acknowledges complexity in one or two parts but treats others unidimensionally; no sustained engagement with competing explanations.Single-cause explanations throughout; no recognition of sociological debate or alternative interpretations of phenomena.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Each sub-part concludes with micro-macro link: (a) individual identity to electoral democracy; (b) workplace experience to global capitalism; (c) household dynamics to structural violence; (d) family intimacy to migration flows; (e) bonded labourer to agrarian political economy; shows 'personal troubles vs. public issues' Millsian sensibility.Conclusions present but merely summarize points; no analytical lift or connection to broader sociological processes.Missing or perfunctory conclusions; ends with last example or trailing observation; 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 2024 Paper II