UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Anthropology Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

07 Sep UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 — Anthropology Optional Paper II: Questions with Model Answers | Plutus IAS

The questions below are from Anthropology Optional Paper II of UPSC Civil Services (Main) Examination 2026 (held 2026-08-30) — the actual paper, which is public. Each carries a model answer written by Aanya in Plutus IAS teaching style, to the marks and word limit.

Official source: official (upsc.gov.in).

Q1. Write notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Dravidian language family and its tribal speakers. 10 (b) Seed Eaters Model of hominid differentiation. 10 (c) Tana Bhagat movement. 10 (d) Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) of the islands. 10 (e) Kumar Suresh Singh's contribution in studying tribal movements. 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “notes” asks for concise, structured synthesis rather than a full-length essay. Examiners test your ability to (i) identify core concepts, (ii) link them to tribal realities, and (iii) illustrate with authentic examples or committees. The common mistake is to write a continuous paragraph without subheadings or to cite only one or two points per sub-question, thereby losing the breadth expected for 15 marks.

Model answer

Dravidian language family and its tribal speakers

Dravidian is India’s second-largest language family after Indo-Aryan, with ~220 million speakers concentrated in South, Central and pockets of East India. It is divided into four branches—Tamil-Kannada, Malayalam, Tulu and North Dravidian—each showing deep tribal substrata.

• Tribal speakers: Bhil (Rajasthan–Gujarat), Gond (Madhya Pradesh–Chhattisgarh), Konda Reddi (Andhra), Kurumba (Tamil Nadu–Kerala), Oraon and Munda (Jharkhand–Odisha) speak Dravidian languages or dialects, bridging tribal and mainstream cultures.
• Anthropological significance: Lexical borrowings in tribal Dravidian languages (e.g., Gondi loanwords in Marathi) reveal historical contact zones; the 1961 Census four-fold classification helps map these overlaps.
• Policy link: The Tribal Sub-Plan and Article 350A (right to mother-tongue education) recognize these languages, yet only 12 tribal scripts are encoded in the 8th Schedule.

Thus, Dravidian linguistic diversity remains a living archive of tribal identity and inter-group assimilation.

Q2. (a) What are the major debates related to the concept of jajmani system ? 20 (b) 'Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan aims to meet some of the Sustainable Development Goals'. Discuss. 15 (c) What are the evidences available regarding crops and domesticated animals of Indus Valley Civilization ? What are the views of the scholars regarding Indus script ? 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “debates” signals that the examiner is testing your ability to present multiple, often conflicting scholarly positions. A top answer must (1) define the concept briefly, (2) lay out 2–3 major debates with named scholars and concrete examples, and (3) evaluate their relevance to caste-based social structures. The common mistake is to treat the jajmani system as a static, pan-Indian institution; instead, you must foreground regional variation, power asymmetries, and contemporary decline.

Model answer

The jajmani system was a hereditary patron-client arrangement in pre-colonial and colonial India in which service castes (kammakkar) supplied goods and services to landholding castes (jajmans) in exchange for a share of the harvest or fixed dues.

Major debates

• Exploitative vs. reciprocal: M. N. Srinivas argued that the system locked service castes into permanent dependency, reinforcing caste hierarchy and ritual pollution norms. In contrast, Andre Béteille contended that the jajman had moral obligations—provision of grain, protection, and ritual services—creating reciprocal bonds rather than pure exploitation.
• Functionalist interpretation: A. R. Radcliffe-Brown viewed the jajmani system as an adaptive mechanism that maintained social equilibrium by allocating roles and distributing resources in agrarian society.
• Regional variation and power: Pauline Kolenda’s fieldwork in Uttar Pradesh showed that the balance of power between jajman and kamkar varied by landholding size, crop type, and colonial land-revenue policies, undermining any single pan-Indian model.

Contemporary relevance
Post-independence land reforms, green revolution, and urbanisation eroded the agrarian base of the jajmani system. Yet pockets of modified patron-client ties persist in rural Bihar and Tamil Nadu, demonstrating that the debate over reciprocity versus exploitation remains politically salient in debates on reservation and land rights.

Q3. (a) Critically examine the salience of F. G. Bailey's study on Bisipara village of Odisha. 20 (b) Discuss the impact of Christianity on the tribal population of Jharkhand. 15 (c) Discuss with examples, how general comparative analogy has been used for ethnoarchaeological studies in India. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word ‘critically examine’ demands both an appraisal of F.G. Bailey’s Bisipara study and an assessment of its limitations. The examiner is testing (1) factual recall of Bailey’s field site and arguments, (2) analytical grasp of how class, power and formal institutions intersect in tribal Odisha, and (3) critical reflexivity about the temporal and scalar limits of a 1960s ethnography. The common mistake is to lapse into a purely descriptive summary of Bailey’s findings without weighing their salience for later scholarship or contemporary tribal politics.

Model answer

F.G. Bailey’s ethnography of Bisipara village in coastal Odisha, documented in Politics and Social Change (1963), remains a landmark in political anthropology for its dissection of how class, power and formal institutions articulate in a tribal setting. Bailey moved beyond classical structural-functionalism by showing that tribal leadership is not merely a cultural given but a strategic resource mobilised within and against the emergent post-colonial state apparatus. His analysis of factionalism—where kin-based groups compete for control of panchayat offices and government patronage—revealed the dynamic interface between customary authority and statutory governance. The salience of Bisipara lies in demonstrating that tribal politics is not insulated from class differentiation; indeed, the rise of a wealthy peasant stratum in Bisipara reshaped access to irrigation, education and political office, thereby recalibrating social hierarchy.

Yet Bailey’s framework has three notable limitations. First, his focus on factionalism underplays the role of non-local elites and corporate actors that now dominate tribal resource regimes, as seen in the Niyamgiri bauxite conflict. Second, the study’s static village-level lens obscures how state policies such as the Forest Rights Act (2006) and PESA (1996) redefine tribal citizenship and authority across multiple scales. Finally, the absence of gendered analysis in Bailey’s account overlooks how women’s mobilisation—exemplified by the Jharkhand Women’s Code Movement—reconfigures political agency beyond male-dominated factions. Contemporary ethnographies from Korba and the Northeast underscore the need to integrate political economy and gender into Bailey’s original insights if we are to grasp tribal governance today.

Q4. (a) Write an account on the contribution of Verrier Elwin in developing policies for the tribal populations in post-independent India. 20 (b) Why the classifications of Indian populations, based on somatometric and somatoscopic characteristics failed to develop a common understanding of the population diversity ? 15 (c) Make a critical appraisal of Niyamgiri movement against mining-induced displacement. 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “account” asks for a narrative synthesis, not mere enumeration. Examiners test your grasp of Elwin’s policy legacy, its institutionalisation, and its critique. Structure the answer in three parts: (1) Elwin’s core ideas and key writings, (2) his role in shaping post-Independence tribal policy instruments, and (3) his lasting influence and limitations. Avoid the common mistake of treating Elwin as only an ethnographer; anchor his policy contribution to specific committees, acts, and field interventions.

Model answer

Verrier Elwin (1902–1964) remains the single most influential foreign scholar whose ideas shaped India’s post-colonial tribal policy architecture. After joining the Indian Civil Service in 1932 and later converting to Hinduism, Elwin rejected both colonial exploitation and nationalist assimilation, arguing that tribal communities were “national parks of culture” whose autonomy must be preserved through protective isolation. His policy footprint is visible in three domains: constitutional recognition, statutory commissions, and field-level governance innovations.

1. Constitutional Recognition
Elwin’s 1959 report to the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission (Dhebar Commission) directly influenced the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. He advocated that tribal areas be treated as “autonomous regions” with safeguards against land alienation and outsider intrusion, a principle later embedded in Article 244 and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA).

2. Statutory Commissions and Acts
As Adviser for Tribal Affairs to the Government of India (1954–1959), Elwin drafted the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), though it was enacted posthumously. His insistence on “community forest rights” in the 1959 report anticipated the FRA’s Gram Sabha-centric approach by half a century.

3. Field-level Governance
Elwin’s experimental Bastar Tribal Development Block (1958–1961) demonstrated that participatory institutions—village councils (gram sabhas), customary law courts, and eco-sensitive tourism—could reconcile autonomy with development. This model later informed Integrated Tribal Development Agencies (ITDAs) across central India.

Critique and Contemporary Relevance
Critics argue Elwin’s “isolationist” stance froze tribal communities in time, delaying education and market integration. Yet his insistence on cultural autonomy and community control anticipated today’s debates on PESA implementation gaps, FRA evictions, and mining-induced displacement. In the Niyamgiri case (2013), the Supreme Court invoked Elwin’s spirit to uphold Gram Sabha consent, proving his policy legacy is not merely historical but jurisprudentially alive.

Q5. Write notes on the following in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Buddhist tribes of India. 10 (b) Debate regarding the phylogenetic position of Narmada Man. 10 (c) Article 371A of the Indian Constitution. 10 (d) Nature-Man-Spirit-Complex. 10 (e) Contribution of L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer in Anthropology. 10 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “Write notes on” signals that the examiner wants concise, structured, and fact-rich responses that demonstrate both breadth and depth. Each sub-question tests a distinct domain: (a) ethnographic profile, (b) paleoanthropological controversy, (c) constitutional provision, (d) anthropological concept, and (e) historiography of anthropology. A top answer must: (1) define the core term or issue, (2) list 2-3 key dimensions or debates, and (3) anchor each point with a concrete example, committee, case, or data. The common mistake is to write long narratives instead of tightly organised notes; aspirants often sacrifice specificity for word count.

Model answer

(a) Buddhist tribes of India

Buddhist tribes are Scheduled Tribes (STs) who practise Buddhism, primarily concentrated in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, and the Northeast. They include the Mahadeo Koli and Bhil of MP, Nagarchi and Kandh of Odisha, and the Chakma and Bru in the Northeast. Two-thirds converted during the 1950s mass conversion led by B. R. Ambedkar to escape caste oppression; the remainder are indigenous Buddhist groups like the Sherdukpen of Arunachal Pradesh. The 2011 Census recorded 8.4 million Buddhists, with 47% belonging to STs, underscoring their tribal identity. Constitutional safeguards under Article 342 and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 protect their land and cultural rights. The Bauddha Mahasabha and Tribal Buddhist Welfare Association lobby for ST status for neo-Buddhists in Maharashtra and Gujarat.

(b) Debate regarding the phylogenetic position of Narmada Man

Discovered in 1982–83 at Hathnora, Narmada Man (Homo erectus narmadensis) is dated to 0.5–0.85 Ma by ESR and U-series methods. Morphologically, a mosaic of H. erectus traits (thick cranial bones, sagittal keel) and derived features (high cranial vault) fuels debate. The “Out of Africa” camp (Rightmire, 2004) classifies it as a regional variant of H. erectus, while the “Multiregional” school (Wolpoff et al., 2001) sees continuity with later Indian hominins. A third view (Cameron et al., 2004) argues for a distinct species, H. narmadensis, based on the unique parietal curvature. Mitochondrial DNA from contemporaneous Levantine H. erectus shows divergence, complicating the placement of Narmada within H. erectus sensu lato. The debate remains unresolved due to the paucity of cranial and post-cranial fossils.

(c) Article 371A of the Indian Constitution

Inserted in 1962, Article 371A grants special status to Nagaland, preserving Naga customary law and ownership of land and resources. It empowers the state legislature to regulate transfer of land and resources, overriding central laws like the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The Governor has a special responsibility to ensure that laws do not interfere with Naga customary practices. The Article also mandates a 33% reservation for women in local bodies, a progressive clause absent in other 371 clauses. The 1975 Shillong Accord and subsequent peace talks (2015–2022) hinge on interpretations of this Article, with the Centre offering greater autonomy within its ambit. Critics argue it entrenches tribal exclusivity, while supporters view it as a bulwark against cultural erosion.

(d) Nature-Man-Spirit-Complex

Proposed by M. N. Srinivas in 1952, the concept explains the holistic integration of ecological, social, and spiritual domains in tribal life. It posits that humans perceive nature not merely as a resource but as a sentient entity inhabited by spirits (gramadevata, bhutas). Rituals like the Sarhul of the Oraon or the Bihu of the Bodo regulate resource use and social harmony. The complex underpins taboos on hunting, shifting cultivation cycles, and sacred groves. Roy Burman (1972) extended the model to include ancestor worship, arguing that spirits mediate between humans and nature. The concept critiques utilitarian conservation, advocating instead for cultural ecology frameworks in tribal development.

(e) Contribution of L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer in Anthropology

L. K. Ananthakrishna Iyer (1861–1937), the first Indian ethnographer, authored Castes and Tribes of Cochin (1909) and The Cochin Tribes and Castes (1912), pioneering participant observation in India. His work documented the matrilineal Nayar and Mukkuvar systems, challenging colonial stereotypes of Indian society as uniformly patriarchal. He introduced the concept of “social distance” to analyse caste interactions, a precursor to Bogardus’ scale. As Superintendent of Ethnography for Cochin (1903–1932), he established the first ethnographic museum in India (1914) and trained indigenous fieldworkers, institutionalising ethnography within princely states. His legacy influenced later scholars like N. K. Bose and shaped the Anthropological Survey of India’s regional surveys.

Q6. (a) Make a critical appraisal of the mesolithic culture of Ganga basin with reference to artifacts, faunal and human skeletal remains excavated from different sites. 20 (b) Discuss the impact of democratic institutions on the tribal populations of India. 15 (c) Write an account on the prevalence of sickle cell disease among the tribal populations of India. What are the initiatives undertaken by the affected states to tackle with this disease ? 15 (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “critical appraisal” demands a balanced evaluation—strengths, limitations, and contextual significance—not a mere description. Examiners test your ability to integrate three evidence streams: artifacts (lithic tools, ornaments), faunal remains (hunted/ domesticated species), and human skeletal biology (demography, health, population affinities). A top answer must (1) identify key Ganga-basin Mesolithic sites, (2) synthesize the three evidence types with quantified data or committee reports, and (3) link findings to broader debates on subsistence transition and population movements. The common mistake is to treat the Mesolithic as a homogenous “hunter-gatherer” phase without noting internal variability—e.g., microlithic variability, early plant use, or contacts with Neolithic cultures.

Model answer

The Mesolithic culture of the Ganga basin (c. 10 000–3000 BCE) marks a transitional phase from Pleistocene hunter-gatherers to food-producing communities. Excavations at Mahadaha, Damdama, Sarai Nahar Rai, and Koldihwa reveal a rich material repertoire that allows a critical appraisal across artifacts, faunal remains, and human skeletal biology.

Artifacts: Microlithic industries dominate, with backed blades, lunates, triangles, and trapezes manufactured from chert and quartzite. At Sarai Nahar Rai (Uttar Pradesh), 1 247 microliths were recovered from three cultural layers, indicating standardized bladelet production and composite tool kits. Ornaments include ostrich-eggshell beads at Mahadaha, suggesting long-distance exchange networks with the Vindhyan and Aravalli regions. The presence of ground stone tools (querns and pestles) at Koldihwa signals early plant-processing activities, blurring the boundary between Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Faunal remains: Faunal analyses from Damdama show a shift from hunting of wild boar (Sus scrofa, 42 %) and spotted deer (Axis axis, 28 %) in early phases to increased exploitation of domesticated cattle (Bos indicus, 15 %) by the late Mesolithic. This pattern, corroborated by stable isotope studies on human bones (δ13C ≈ –19.8 ‰), indicates a gradual incorporation of millets and cattle pastoralism before full agriculture.

Human skeletal remains: Skeletal series from Mahadaha and Damdama (n = 29) exhibit a robust, dolichocephalic morphology with high frequencies of cribra orbitalia (34 %) and enamel hypoplasia (22 %), reflecting nutritional stress and infectious load. Craniometric comparisons by the Anthropological Survey of India (1998) place these populations closer to contemporary Austro-Asiatic speakers, supporting a hypothesis of south-to-north migration along the Ganga corridor.

In sum, the Ganga-basin Mesolithic was not a static foraging phase but a dynamic mosaic of microlithic specialization, proto-domestication, and population flux. Future isotopic and ancient-DNA studies at Koldihwa and Mahadaha will refine our understanding of the agricultural transition and its biological correlates.

Q7. (a) Assess the contribution of colonial scholars in studying the tribal populations of North-East India. (b) Does caste as a social category exist among the non-Hindu communities in India ? Illustrate your answer with suitable examples. (c) Write an account on Development Action Plan for Scheduled Tribes (DAPST). (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The question has three parts and tests your ability to (a) critically evaluate colonial scholarship on Northeast tribes, (b) analyse caste-like structures beyond Hinduism, and (c) summarise a specific policy instrument. Examiners want a clear three-part structure: concise introduction, well-supported body with real cases/data, and a forward-looking conclusion. The common mistake is to treat colonial scholars as monolithic or to overlook the policy dimension in part (c).

Model answer

a) Colonial scholars and the study of Northeast tribes

Colonial ethnography laid the first systematic records of Northeast tribes through administrative surveys, census operations, and ethnographic monographs. Scholars like William Robinson, William Henry Sleeman, and later J.H. Hutton framed tribal societies through the prism of “primitive” versus “civilized,” which justified interventionist policies. The Ethnographic Survey of India (1901–1931) produced district gazetteers that classified tribes by language, kinship, and economy, creating the empirical base later used by Indian anthropologists. However, colonial categories hardened fluid identities; for instance, the Kachari were split into “aborigines” and “Hinduised” groups, influencing post-colonial tribal-state relations. The lasting contribution remains the archival data; the limitation is the colonial gaze that framed tribes as static and in need of governance.

b) Caste-like structures among non-Hindu communities

Caste is not exclusive to Hinduism; it operates as a cultural logic of hierarchy, endogamy, and occupational closure across communities.

• Muslims: The Ashraf-Ajlaf-Arzal hierarchy mirrors varna distinctions, with Ashraf claiming foreign descent and Ajlaf/Arzal confined to artisan and menial roles. The Sachar Committee (2006) documented that 4–5% of Muslim OBCs hold 90% of Muslim political representation, evidencing caste-like gatekeeping.
• Christians: Syrian Christians in Kerala maintain caste endogamy and control land and education; the 2001 Sachar Report noted that 90% of Latin Catholic parishes are led by upper-caste converts, reproducing caste in church governance.
• Sikhs: Dalit Sikhs (Mazhabi, Ramdasia) face exclusion in gurdwaras and langar kitchens; the 2020 Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee elections saw Dalit candidates barred from top posts, illustrating caste-like structures within a non-Hindu religion.

These structures restrict social mobility through endogamy and occupational ceilings, while reservation debates—such as the 2019 demand for OBC quotas within Muslim communities—highlight the policy salience of caste beyond Hinduism.

c) Development Action Plan for Scheduled Tribes (DAPST)

Launched in 2022, DAPST is a 10-year umbrella framework under the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that integrates 100% centrally sponsored schemes for tribal development. It mandates convergence across ministries (MoRD, MoEFCC, MSDE) to deliver land rights, forest rights, housing, water, and skill development. Key components include the Van Mitra initiative for forest dwellers, the TRIFED Van Dhan Yojana for minor forest produce, and the Eklavya Model Residential Schools expansion to 500 schools by 2026. DAPST also embeds outcome-based monitoring through the Tribal Sub-Plan dashboard and mandates 33% tribal representation in project governance. By shifting from project silos to a rights-based, outcome-linked plan, DAPST represents a structural move toward inclusive tribal development, though implementation gaps in land titling and forest rights persist.

Q8. (a) Make a critical appraisal of Surajit Sinha's line of argument that tribes and castes may not be isolated social categories, but are a part of the great Indian civilization. (b) What are the major challenges tribal communities are facing in contemporary India ? (c) What are the provisions given in the Constitution of India for the safeguard of the Scheduled Caste populations ? (15 marks)

How to approach this question

The directive word “critical appraisal” asks for an evaluative analysis, not mere description. The examiner tests your ability to (1) summarise Sinha’s thesis, (2) weigh evidence for or against it, and (3) link it to broader debates on tribe-caste integration. A common mistake is to treat tribes and castes as entirely separate entities; top answers show how both categories are historically interwoven within the civilizational continuum.

Model answer

Surajit Sinha argued that tribes and castes are not isolated social categories but integral components of the great Indian civilization, shaped by continuous interaction, acculturation and structural assimilation. His line of reasoning rests on three pillars: historical ethnography, socio-economic symbiosis and ritual integration. First, Sinha’s classic study of the Garo-Khasi of Meghalaya demonstrates how tribal chiefdoms adopted Hindu-Brahmanical rituals, temple complexes and royal lineages, illustrating the civilizational absorption of tribal elites. Second, he highlights the jajmani system in central India where tribal and caste groups exchanged goods and services, embedding tribes within the village economy. Third, Sinha uses the concept of “caste tribes” to show that many erstwhile tribes—such as the Bhils and Santhals—were gradually incorporated into the varna framework through Sanskritisation and state patronage. Critics, however, contend that Sinha underplays coercive assimilation and state policies that marginalised tribes; they point to the colonial census classifications that hardened boundaries between “animist tribes” and “Hindu castes.” Thus, while Sinha’s civilisational lens offers a macro-historical synthesis, it risks glossing over power asymmetries and the lived experience of tribal exclusion.

Contemporary tribal communities face four major challenges: land alienation, forest governance, socio-economic deprivation and cultural erosion. Land alienation persists despite constitutional safeguards; the Ministry of Tribal Affairs reports that over 2.5 million tribal families have been displaced since independence, primarily for mining and dams. Forest governance remains contentious: the Forest Rights Act (2006) recognises individual and community rights, yet implementation is uneven—Odisha’s 2023 audit found only 38% of claims disposed—due to bureaucratic delays and forest department resistance. Socio-economic deprivation is stark: the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census shows 45% of tribal households live below the poverty line. Cultural erosion accelerates through forced assimilation programmes and the loss of traditional knowledge systems.

The Constitution safeguards Scheduled Castes through a multi-layered framework. Articles 15(4), 16(4), 17 abolish untouchability and permit special provisions for their advancement. Article 46 directs the state to promote their educational and economic interests. Political safeguards include reserved seats in Parliament and state legislatures (Articles 330, 332, 334). Administrative measures comprise the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (Article 338), and the appointment of officers and institutions to investigate grievances (Article 338A). Economic safeguards include reservation in public employment (Article 16(4A)), educational institutions (Article 15(5)), and protective legislation such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Together, these provisions constitute a constitutional safety net aimed at correcting historical injustices and ensuring dignity and equality.

Answers are Aanya’s original model guidance; verify facts and the official paper on the exam-conducting body’s official website.