Q7
(a) Analyse the trilogy between environmental movement, development and tribal identity. (20 marks) (b) To what extent have the legal provisions been effective in curbing violence against women in India? Give your argument. (20 marks) (c) Trace the social and historical origins of Dalit movements in modern India. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) पर्यावरणीय आन्दोलन, विकास तथा जनजातीय पहचान की त्रयी का विश्लेषण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) भारत में कानूनी प्रावधान किस सीमा तक महिलाओं के विरुद्ध हिंसा कम करने में प्रभावी हैं? अपना तर्क दीजिए। (20 अंक) (c) आधुनिक भारत में दलित आन्दोलनों की सामाजिक और ऐतिहासिक उत्पत्ति का विवरण दीजिए। (10 अंक)
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
Begin with a brief introduction acknowledging the interconnected nature of all three sub-parts under the umbrella of social movements and state-civil society dynamics. For part (a) 'analyse', spend ~40% word budget (800-900 words) examining the dialectical tensions between environmental conservation, developmental imperatives and tribal identity formation using Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan and Jharkhand movements. For part (b) 'to what extent', allocate ~35% (700-800 words) to evaluate legal efficacy through Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Criminal Law Amendment 2013, POSH Act 2013 with NCRB data and case studies like Bhanwari Devi, Nirbhaya. For part (c) 'trace', use ~25% (500-600 words) to historically situate Dalit movements from colonial period (Satyashodhak Samaj, SNDP) through Ambedkarite phase to post-Mandal contemporary assertions. Conclude by synthesising how all three movements reveal the contested terrain of citizenship, rights and recognition in democratic India.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Trilogy analysis — environmental movement as identity assertion vs. displacement; development as 'internal colonialism' (Gadgil-Guha); tribal identity as resistance to homogenising nation-state (Shivaramakrishnan, Baviskar)
- Part (a): Empirical cases — Chipko (1970s, Uttarakhand, women-led, Gaura Devi), Narmada Bachao Andolan (Medha Patkar, Sardar Sarovar, 'development-induced displacement'), Jharkhand movement (tribal statehood, mineral extraction)
- Part (b): Legal framework mapping — Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, PWDVA 2005, Criminal Law Amendment 2013 (post-Nirbhaya), POSH Act 2013, POCSO 2012; institutional mechanisms — Nirbhaya Fund, One Stop Centres, Fast Track Courts
- Part (b): Critical evaluation — implementation gaps (low conviction rates, NCRB 2022 data: 31% crime increase but 26.5% conviction), patriarchal social structures, secondary victimisation, class-caste mediation of legal access
- Part (c): Historical phases — colonial period (1873-1920s: Satyashodhak Samaj, Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, Adi Hindu/Adi Dravida movements); Ambedkarite phase (1920s-1956: Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha, temple entry, Round Table Conferences, conversion to Buddhism); post-Ambedkar (Dalit Panthers 1972, Kanshi Ram's BSP, Mandal-Mandir phase, contemporary cultural assertion)
- Part (c): Social origins — caste-based occupational immobility, untouchability practices, denial of education, temple entry exclusion, agrarian servitude (bonded labour), symbolic violence and stigmatised identity
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demand-directive understanding | 20% | 10 | For (a), treats 'analyse' as unpacking causal mechanisms and dialectical tensions, not mere description; for (b), 'to what extent' demands explicit judgment with balanced evidence of success and failure; for (c), 'trace' requires chronological narrative with turning points identified. | Recognises different directives but handles them uniformly—describes when analysis is asked, or evaluates without evidence balance in (b). | Misreads all three as 'describe' or 'write about'; no distinction between analytical, evaluative and historical-tracing demands. |
| Theoretical framing | 20% | 10 | Deploys appropriate frameworks: for (a) political ecology (Gadgil-Guha, Ramachandra Guha), subaltern studies (Partha Chatterjee); for (b) feminist legal theory (Nivedita Menon), state-civil society (Sudha Pai); for (c) Ambedkar's sociology of caste, M.N. Srinivas's dominant caste, Omvedt's new social movements. | Names theorists but applies them mechanically or conflates frameworks across parts. | No theoretical scaffolding; answer reads as journalistic reportage or activist pamphlet. |
| Indian / empirical examples | 20% | 10 | Rich empirical grounding: (a) Chipko, NBA, Jharkhand with specific years, leaders, outcomes; (b) NCRB trends 2018-2022, Bhanwari Devi 1992, Nirbhaya 2012, Mathura rape case 1972; (c) specific organisations, dates, leaders (Phule 1873, Ambedkar 1924 Mahad satyagraha, 1956 conversion, Dalit Panthers 1972 manifesto). | Mentions movements or laws correctly but lacks specificity—no dates, conflates cases, or uses generic 'tribal movements' without naming. | Entirely lacking empirical anchor; uses invented or wildly inaccurate examples. |
| Multi-paradigm analysis | 20% | 10 | Shows internal complexity: (a) acknowledges eco-developmentalist position (sustainable development) vs. radical ecology; (b) presents feminist critique of carceral feminism alongside state-centric legal efficacy; (c) notes Gandhian-Ambedkarite tension, and contemporary critique of identity politics from Marxist Dalit scholars. | Brief nod to alternative view in one part only; rest is one-sided. | Wholly monolithic narrative; treats any movement or legal framework as uniformly positive or negative. |
| Conclusion & sociological imagination | 20% | 10 | Synthesises across parts: all three movements illustrate the 'politics of recognition' (Taylor/Honneth) in a developmental state; connects micro-mobilisation to macro-structural transformation; proposes future research or policy direction; uses Mills' 'sociological imagination' to link personal troubles of displaced tribal, violated woman, stigmatised Dalit to public issues of development model, patriarchy, caste order. | Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion adds no analytical value. | Absent or perfunctory conclusion; or conclusion introduces entirely new unsubstantiated claim. |
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
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What, according to you, are the factors responsible for the continuance of cast…
- Q2 (a) Differentiate between 'Western' and 'Indological' perspectives on the study of Indian society. Bring out the major aspects of G. S. Ghu…
- Q3 (a) Why is the study of marriage important in Sociology? Analyse the implications of changing marriage patterns for Indian society. (20 mar…
- Q4 (a) How do religious communities contribute to the cultural diversity of India? (20 marks) (b) What do you understand by decentralisation o…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Examine with suitable examples the recent trends in the growth of urban settlem…
- Q6 (a) Discuss the major challenges related to women's reproductive health in India. What measures would you suggest to overcome these challen…
- Q7 (a) Analyse the trilogy between environmental movement, development and tribal identity. (20 marks) (b) To what extent have the legal provi…
- Q8 (a) Highlight the major contributions of the reform movements in pre-independent India. (20 marks) (b) Identify different forms of inequali…