Sociology 2025 Paper II 50 marks Critically examine

Q2

(a) Do you think that in a society like India orthogenetic changes take place through differentiation? Do you observe continuities in the orthogenetic process? Elaborate your answer with suitable examples. (20 marks) (b) 'Agrarian class structure has been undergoing changes due to modern forces.' Critically examine. (20 marks) (c) How same sex marriages are responsible for population dynamics in India? Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) क्या आप सोचते हैं कि भारत जैसे समाज में नियतविकासीय परिवर्तन विभेदीकरण के द्वारा होते हैं ? क्या आप नियतविकासीय प्रक्रिया में निरंतरता को देखते हैं ? अपना उत्तर उपयुक्त उदाहरण सहित विस्तार से दीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) 'कृषक वर्ग संरचना आधुनिक शक्तियों के कारण परिवर्तित हो रही है ।' आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए । (20 अंक) (c) समलैंगिक विवाह, भारत में जनसंख्यात्मक गतिकी के लिए किस प्रकार उत्तरदायी हैं ? विवेचना कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Sociology questions

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 (b) demands balanced evaluation with evidence, while (a) requires 'elaborate' with examples and (c) asks to 'discuss' causality. Allocate approximately 40% word/time to part (a) given its theoretical depth and 20 marks; 40% to part (b) for critical examination; and 20% to part (c). Structure: brief integrated introduction → part (a) on orthogenetic changes with differentiation/continuity debate → part (b) critically examining agrarian transformation → part (c) on same-sex marriage and population dynamics → conclusion synthesising social change themes.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Orthogenetic vs. heterogenetic change (Redfield-Singer); differentiation as mechanism; continuities in caste/jati despite modernisation (Srinivas' Sanskritisation, Dumont's hierarchy)
  • Part (a): Indian examples: temple entry movements (differentiation) yet persistence of purity-pollution; professionalisation of priesthood yet ritual continuity
  • Part (b): Agrarian class structure: Lenin-Kautsky debate, Patnaik's modes of production; capitalist transition vs. semi-feudal persistence
  • Part (b): Modern forces: Green Revolution, land reforms, neoliberal agriculture, contract farming; class differentiation (kulak vs. pauperised peasantry) vs. Jan Breman's 'footloose labour'
  • Part (c): Same-sex marriage legalisation (Supriyo judgment 2023) and demographic implications: adoption, surrogacy access, fertility rates; queer families and population policy
  • Part (c): Counter-argument: marginal demographic impact given small LGBTQ+ population; symbolic significance for inclusive citizenship vs. pronatalist state anxieties

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%10For (a), treats 'elaborate' as demanding systematic unpacking of differentiation thesis AND continuity thesis with balanced weight; for (b), 'critically examine' produces genuine evaluation (capitalist transition vs. persistence) not one-sided advocacy; for (c), 'discuss' explores multiple causal pathways without reducing to simple correlation.Addresses each directive literally but (b) tilts toward description with 'critical' as afterthought; (c) lists points without threading causality argument.Misreads directives: (a) as 'define orthogenetic change'; (b) as 'explain agrarian change' without critical tension; (c) as 'describe same-sex marriage' ignoring population link.
Theoretical framing20%10Deploys Redfield-Singer (folk-urban continuum), Dumont (encompassment), Patnaik (agrarian classes), Breman (deproletarianisation), and queer theory (Butler, family pluralism) with conceptual precision; shows how frameworks illuminate Indian specificity.Names theorists correctly but applies loosely or descriptively; frameworks don't actively structure the argument.No named theorists or misattributed concepts; relies on commonsense sociology.
Indian / empirical examples20%10For (a): cites Mehrgarh-to-urban continuity, jati differentiation in Kerala temples, or ISKCON professionalisation; for (b): NSS 70th round landholding data, Punjab/Haryana Green Revolution class outcomes, Bihar landlessness; for (c): 2011 Census household estimates, Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), CARA adoption regulations.Generic Indian references ('rural India', 'temples') without specific data or cases; one part strong, others weak.Western examples (American agrarian capitalism, Obergefell) dominating; or no empirical grounding.
Multi-paradigm analysis20%10For (a): presents both modernisation-differentiation and civilisational-continuity views; for (b): weighs Leninist transition against Chayanovian peasant economy and post-colonial hybridity; for (c): considers demographic transition theory vs. queer critique of heteronormative population policy; synthesises tensions rather than leaving them unresolved.Acknowledges opposing views in passing but doesn't develop them; conclusion defaults to 'both are true' without integration.Single-paradigm treatment throughout; treats any one perspective as self-evident truth.
Conclusion & sociological imagination20%10Synthesises across parts: Indian modernity as simultaneous differentiation and continuity; agrarian transformation as incomplete modernisation; family diversity challenging demographic governance; connects micro (caste ritual, farm household, queer couple) to macro (civilisational process, global capitalism, population policy); proposes research or policy direction.Summarises each part separately without cross-cutting synthesis; conclusion restates main points.No conclusion, or abrupt ending; fails to connect the three sub-parts thematically.

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 2025 Paper II