Sociology 2024 Paper II 50 marks Differentiate

Q2

(a) Differentiate between 'Western' and 'Indological' perspectives on the study of Indian society. Bring out the major aspects of G. S. Ghurye's contribution to 'Indological' approach. (20 marks) (b) What are the definitional problems involved in identifying tribes in India? Discuss the main obstacles to tribal development in India. (20 marks) (c) What, according to André Beteille, are the bases of agrarian class structure in India? Analyse. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भारतीय समाज के अध्ययन पर 'पाश्चात्य' तथा 'भारत-शास्त्रीय (इंडोलॉजिकल)' दृष्टिकोण के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट कीजिए। 'भारत-शास्त्रीय' दृष्टिकोण में जी० एस० घुर्ये के योगदान के प्रमुख पक्षों पर प्रकाश डालिए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत में जनजातियों की पहचान करने में आने वाली परिभाषात्मक समस्याएं क्या हैं? भारत में जनजातियों के विकास में आने वाली प्रमुख बाधाओं की चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) आंद्रे बेते के अनुसार, भारत में कृषक-वर्ग की संरचना के क्या आधार हैं? विश्लेषण कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Sociology questions

Directive word: Differentiate

This question asks you to differentiate. 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 'differentiate' in part (a) demands systematic contrast, while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'analyse' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of effort to part (a) given its 20 marks and dual demand (differentiation + Ghurye's contribution); 35% to part (b) covering definitional problems and development obstacles; and 25% to part (c) on Beteille's agrarian class analysis. Structure with a brief composite introduction, three clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part, and a synthesising conclusion that connects Indological method to contemporary tribal and agrarian policy challenges.

Key points expected

  • Western perspectives: colonial ethnography, structural-functionalism (M.N. Srinivas' critique), Orientalism (Said), universalist categories; Indological perspectives: Sanskrit textual sources, civilisational continuity, holistic Hindu-centric framework (Ghurye, Kosambi, Dumont)
  • Ghurye's Indological contribution: caste and race theory (The Aborigines—'So-Called' and Others), reliance on Sanskrit texts, critique of tribal isolationism, integrationist stance, methodological nationalism, limitations (S.C. Dube's critique of text over field)
  • Definitional problems in tribal identification: shifting criteria (isolation, primitiveness, cultural distinctiveness), Schedule criteria ambiguity, tribe-caste continuum (Béteille), absorptive capacity of Hindu society, linguistic vs territorial principles
  • Obstacles to tribal development: land alienation (Santhal Parganas Act violations), displacement without rehabilitation (Polavaram, Sardar Sarovar), forest rights denial (FRA 2006 implementation gaps), cultural erosion, political marginalisation, middleman exploitation
  • Béteille's agrarian class structure: land ownership (Bhadralok vs peasant distinction), labour relations (attached vs free labour), caste-class overlap, regional variation (Bengal vs Tanjore), critique of Marxist peasant unity thesis
  • Synthesis: Indological method's relevance to understanding tribal absorption and agrarian hierarchy; need for field-empirical correction to textualism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), executes 'differentiate' through systematic binary comparison (epistemology, method, politics) rather than parallel description; for (b), treats 'discuss' as problematisation not listing; for (c), 'analyse' unpacks causal mechanisms in Béteille's framework, not mere summary.Recognises the three directives but handles (a) as loose comparison, (b) as descriptive obstacles list, (c) as summary of Béteille's categories without analytical depth.Misreads 'differentiate' as 'define both'; treats all parts as information-dump without attending to directive-specific demands.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Said's Orientalism for Western critique; uses Ghurye's Caste and Race in India with specific chapter references; applies Béteille's Studies in Agrarian Social Structure with attention to his debate with Thorner; references Kosambi's historical materialism as corrective to Ghurye's textualism.Names Ghurye and Béteille correctly but cites general works without specificity; mentions Orientalism without applying to colonial sociology.No named theorists or conflates Ghurye with Srinivas; treats Béteille as generic 'sociologist' without agrarian specificity.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a): cites specific Ghurye works (The Scheduled Tribes, Social Tensions); for (b): uses 2011 Census ST data, FRA 2006 implementation reports, specific cases (Niyamgiri, Kondh resistance, Jharkhand land alienation); for (c): references Béteille's Tanjore vs Sripuram fieldwork, Green Revolution regional variation.Mentions 'tribal land alienation' or 'Green Revolution' without specific cases or data; general awareness of Ghurye's books without chapter-level detail.No Indian empirical grounding; uses hypothetical 'tribes' or 'farmers'; foreign examples (Native Americans, European peasants).
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10Shows tension between Indological and empirical approaches (Dube vs Ghurye); presents tribe-caste continuum debate (Béteille vs Ghurye's isolationism); engages with post-colonial critique of Ghurye's Hindu-centric integrationism; notes Béteille's departure from both Marxist and Dumontian frameworks.Acknowledges one critique (e.g., Ghurye neglected fieldwork) without developing the paradigmatic clash; treats Béteille as neutral describer.Uncritical celebration of Ghurye as 'father of Indian sociology'; no awareness of methodological debates; single-paradigm treatment.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts: Indological textualism's limits for understanding fluid tribal identities and dynamic agrarian classes; proposes methodological pluralism (text + field + political economy); connects to contemporary policy (ST list revision debates, agrarian distress); demonstrates Mills' 'sociological imagination' linking biography, history, and structure.Summarises three parts separately without cross-connection; generic 'need for holistic approach' without specificity.No conclusion or abrupt ending; restates question without analytical advance; missing sociological imagination entirely.

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