UPSC Mains 2025 Sociology Optional Question Papers with Model Answers

All 56 questions of the 2025 Civil Services Main Examination, Sociology Paper I and Sociology Paper II, with marks and a suggested time per part. Solve each part on paper first, then open the model answer, or send it to answer-writing practice for evaluation.

UPSC Mains 2025 Sociology Paper I

Question 1 (50 marks)

Q1(a) · Sociology: The Discipline · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Sociology and Common Sense
What is common sense? How are common knowledge and sociology related to each other? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
सामान्य बुद्धि क्या है? सामान्य ज्ञान और समाजशास्त्र एक-दूसरे से कैसे सम्बन्धित हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociology: The Discipline notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(a)
Approach: Define common sense and common knowledge, then explain their relationship with sociology: differences (method, generality, self-criticism), and continuities (sociology studies and builds on them), with Indian examples.
Common sense is the everyday, practical knowledge people take for granted, learnt through socialisation and experience rather than systematic study. It is unreflective, local and often contradictory, and it tends to treat social arrangements as natural.
Differences: sociology uses systematic method, precise concepts, comparison and theory, and its findings are open to testing. Durkheim asked sociologists to discard such 'prenotions'. André Béteille (1996) argued that sociology differs from common sense through comparative method and systematic evidence.
Relationship: sociology also studies common knowledge. Schutz showed that everyday life rests on stocks of knowledge, and Garfinkel's ethnomethodology studied how people make sense of daily life. Giddens' double hermeneutic shows sociological ideas entering common language.
Indian example: common sense says India's joint family is disappearing; A.M. Shah's household studies showed that small households were always common and joint ties persist.
Thus sociology begins from common knowledge but tests, corrects and explains it.
Q1(b) · Sociology: The Discipline · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Scope of Sociology and Comparison with Other Social Sciences
What is the relationship (similarities and differences) between sociology and history in terms of their area of study and methodology? Discuss.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
अध्ययन-क्षेत्र और पद्धति के सन्दर्भ में समाजशास्त्र और इतिहास के मध्य क्या सम्बन्ध (समानताएँ एवं विभिन्नताएँ) है? विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociology: The Discipline notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(b)
Approach: Discuss similarities and differences in area of study (past vs present, unique vs general) and methodology (archives vs surveys and fieldwork), then convergence through historical sociology, with Indian examples.
History studies past events in their particular context; sociology studies social relations and institutions to find general patterns. The two are closely linked.
Similarities: both study human society and social change; both interpret meanings and causes. Weber's comparative studies of religion and capitalism and Marx's historical materialism are both historical and sociological.
Differences in area: history is mainly idiographic, focusing on unique events, persons and periods; sociology is nomothetic, seeking regularities, types and concepts, and focuses more on contemporary society.
Differences in method: historians rely on archives, inscriptions and documents; sociologists use surveys, interviews, participant observation and statistics, though they also use documents.
Convergence: historical sociology (Barrington Moore, 1966) and social history narrow the gap. In India, Ghurye's Indological approach used texts to study caste, Bernard Cohn combined anthropology with colonial archives, and Subaltern Studies wrote history from below.
Thus history supplies depth and sociology supplies generalisation; each needs the other.
Q1(c) · Research Methods and Analysis · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Variables, Sampling, Hypothesis, Reliability and Validity
What is a variable in social research? What are their different types? Elaborate.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
सामाजिक अनुसन्धान में चर क्या है? इनके विभिन्न प्रकार क्या हैं? विस्तार से समझाइए।
Practise this question Research Methods and Analysis notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(c)
Approach: Define a variable as the measurable form of a concept, then elaborate its types by causal role and by level of measurement, each with an Indian example.
A variable is a characteristic that can take different values across people, groups or time. It is the measurable form of an abstract concept, obtained through operationalisation: ‘social status’ becomes years of schooling or occupational rank.
By causal role: the independent variable is the presumed cause (mother’s education) and the dependent variable the presumed effect (child’s immunisation); an intervening variable links them (awareness of health services); an extraneous or confounding variable affects both and can create a spurious relationship (household wealth); a moderating variable changes the strength of a relationship (rural or urban residence); a control variable is held constant to isolate the effect.
By level of measurement: nominal (caste, religion), ordinal (ranked class categories), interval (attitude scale scores) and ratio (income, age). Variables may also be discrete, such as number of children, or continuous, such as height.
Durkheim used religion and marital status as indicators of integration in Suicide, and NFHS-5 operationalises women’s empowerment through decision-making and bank account ownership. Correct classification decides which statistical tests a researcher can use.
Q1(d) · Sociological Thinkers: Parsons, Merton and Mead · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Robert K. Merton: Functions, Conformity and Deviance, Reference Groups
Can Merton's reference group theory be relevant in understanding 'identity making' in digital world? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या डिजिटल विश्व में 'पहचान निर्माण' को समझने में मर्टन का संदर्भ समूह सिद्धान्त प्रासंगिक हो सकता है? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociological Thinkers: Parsons, Merton and Mead notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(d)
Approach: Define reference group and its key ideas (relative deprivation, anticipatory socialisation, membership and non-membership groups), apply them to online identity-making with examples, and note limits.
Robert K. Merton (with Alice Kitt, 1950; Social Theory and Social Structure, 1957), building on Herbert Hyman, defined a reference group as a group whose standards an individual uses to evaluate himself and shape his attitudes, whether or not he belongs to it. Its key ideas are relative deprivation and anticipatory socialisation.
The theory is highly relevant online. Social media multiply non-membership reference groups: influencers, celebrities and distant peers. Young Indians on Instagram or YouTube adopt the dress, speech and lifestyle of urban elites (anticipatory socialisation); comparison with curated images produces relative deprivation, anxiety and status competition.
Online communities of caste, religion, fandom or profession also serve as normative reference groups that define who 'we' are.
However, digital identity has new features: groups are fluid and algorithm-driven, identities are performed, as Goffman would say, and users can switch reference groups quickly. Merton's framework explains comparison and aspiration well, but must be supplemented by ideas of networked and performative identity.
Q1(e) · Stratification and Mobility · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Dimensions of Stratification: Class, Status, Gender, Ethnicity and Race
Is the social stratification theory gender-blind? Elucidate.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या सामाजिक स्तरीकरण का सिद्धान्त लैंगिक रूप से अंधा है? स्पष्ट कीजिए।
Practise this question Stratification and Mobility notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q1(e)
Approach: Explain the charge of gender-blindness against classical theories (Acker, Walby), note the conventional view (Goldthorpe) and the feminist alternatives, with an Indian example.
Joan Acker (1973) called classical stratification theory a case of 'intellectual sexism' because Marx, Weber and Davis–Moore analysed inequality among men or families and treated women as invisible. In that sense the theory has been largely gender-blind.
Its assumptions show this: the family is the unit of stratification and its class is that of the male head, as John Goldthorpe (1983) defended; women's unpaid domestic work is not counted as production; and gender is treated as natural difference rather than social inequality.
Feminists corrected this. Sylvia Walby (Theorizing Patriarchy, 1990) treated patriarchy as a system of six structures, including paid work, household production and violence; Michelle Stanworth (1984) argued that women should be classified individually; Kimberlé Crenshaw's intersectionality (1989) showed that gender combines with race and class.
In India, Uma Chakravarti's concept of Brahmanical patriarchy shows caste purity maintained through control of women's sexuality. Theory is now less gender-blind, but mainstream class schemes still struggle to place women's work.

Question 2 (50 marks)

Q2(a) · Sociology as Science · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Positivism and Its Critique
What is positivism? Critically analyze the major arguments against it.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
प्रत्यक्षवाद क्या है? इसके विरुद्ध प्रमुख तर्कों का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociology as Science notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(a)
Approach: Define positivism through Comte and Durkheim, set out the main arguments against it by school and thinker, then critically evaluate those arguments with the positivist defence and Indian examples.
Positivism holds that valid knowledge rests on observable facts and their lawful relations, found by the methods of natural science. Auguste Comte gave the programme through his law of three stages, ending in the positive stage, and Durkheim gave the method: treat social facts as things and explain them by other social facts, as in Suicide (1897). Later, the Vienna Circle and American survey sociology (Lundberg, Lazarsfeld) carried it forward.
The arguments against it come from several directions. Interpretivists (Weber, Winch) say human action is meaningful and must be understood, not only observed. Phenomenologists and ethnomethodologists (Schutz, Garfinkel, Cicourel) show that social facts are constructed; Douglas and Atkinson found suicide statistics shaped by coroners. Popper argued that verification can never prove a law, and Kuhn that observation is theory-laden. The Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse) said positivism accepts the status quo, feminists such as Dorothy Smith found a male viewpoint behind neutrality, and Bhaskar's realism held that it confuses regularities with causes.
Indian cases support these criticisms. Poverty in 2011–12 was 21.9 percent by the Tendulkar method and 29.5 percent by Rangarajan's; Bernard Cohn and Nicholas Dirks argued that colonial census ranking hardened caste; and NCRB records far fewer cases of domestic violence than NFHS-5 (2019–21) reports.
Yet the critique has limits. Without measurement, sociology cannot test claims, compare societies or guide policy, and most critics also use numbers. Weber accepted causal explanation; Popper's falsification and Bhaskar's realism are reforms of science, not rejections of it. Interpretive work has its own problems of reliability and generalisation.
Flow chart: naive positivism → critiques of meaning, construction, values and power → post-positivism and mixed methods.
Thus the arguments refute naive positivism, not the scientific ideal. Today's post-positivist research keeps measurement while admitting meaning, values and the provisional nature of knowledge.
Q2(b) · Sociological Thinkers: Marx and Durkheim · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Karl Marx: Historical Materialism and Mode of Production
Highlight the main features of historical materialism as propounded by Marx. How far is this theory relevant in understanding contemporary societies? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
मार्क्स द्वारा प्रतिपादित ऐतिहासिक भौतिकवाद की मुख्य विशेषताओं पर प्रकाश डालिए। समकालीन समाजों को समझने में यह सिद्धान्त किस सीमा तक प्रासंगिक है? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociological Thinkers: Marx and Durkheim notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(b)
Approach: First list the main features of historical materialism from Marx’s 1859 Preface and the Manifesto; then judge its relevance today with Indian and world examples, noting its limits.
Historical materialism is Marx’s theory that the way people produce their material life shapes the rest of society and drives history. Its classic statement is the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859): social being determines consciousness, not the reverse.
Main features: (i) the economic base, made of forces and relations of production, conditions the superstructure of law, politics, religion and ideas; (ii) history passes through modes of production, primitive communist, ancient, feudal and capitalist, with socialism to follow; (iii) change comes when growing forces clash with old relations; (iv) this contradiction appears as class struggle, the motor of history.
Flow chart: forces of production grow → clash with relations of production → class struggle → revolution → new mode of production
Relevance today: the theory still explains much. Thomas Piketty’s work shows wealth concentrating in capital; platform capitalism controls dispersed workers through ownership of apps; and climate change is read through John Bellamy Foster’s idea of a metabolic rift. In India, the Green Revolution created capitalist farmers and landless labourers, and agrarian distress and gig work show how economic change reshapes family, politics and culture.
Limits: Weber showed that ideas such as the Protestant ethic can shape the economy; revolutions came in peasant Russia and China, not industrial Britain; the welfare state and a large middle class blunted polarisation; and caste, gender, religion and identity politics in India cannot be reduced to class.
Conclusion: read as a method that starts from material conditions, not a fixed law, historical materialism remains highly relevant for contemporary societies.
Q2(c) · Research Methods and Analysis · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Variables, Sampling, Hypothesis, Reliability and Validity
What do you mean by reliability? Discuss the importance of reliability in social science research.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
विश्वसनीयता से आप क्या समझते हैं? सामाजिक विज्ञान अनुसन्धान में विश्वसनीयता के महत्त्व की विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question Research Methods and Analysis notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q2(c)
Approach: Define reliability with its main types, then discuss its importance in social science research with Indian survey examples, and note that reliability alone does not ensure validity.
Reliability is the consistency of a measure: the same tool, used again under similar conditions or by different researchers, should give the same results. Its forms are test-retest reliability (over time), inter-rater reliability (between observers) and internal consistency (between items of a scale, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, 1951).
Importance: first, it makes research replicable, so that findings can be checked by others, a core requirement of science stressed by positivists from Durkheim to Lazarsfeld. Second, it allows comparison across groups and over time; NFHS rounds can track child marriage or anaemia only because the same standardised questions are asked each time. Third, it reduces random error from vague questions or untrained interviewers, which matters in India where enumerators of different languages and castes work across diverse regions.
However, a measure can be reliable but invalid: counting only registered complaints gives a consistent but misleading measure of domestic violence.
Hence reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for good research and must be combined with validity.

Question 3 (50 marks)

Q3(a) · Stratification and Mobility · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Equality, Inequality, Hierarchy, Exclusion, Poverty and Deprivation
Compare capability deprivation approach with that of social capital deprivation in understanding chronic poverty.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
दीर्घकालिक निर्धनता को समझने में क्षमता अभाव परिप्रेक्ष्य की तुलना सामाजिक पूँजी अभाव परिप्रेक्ष्य से कीजिए।
Practise this question Stratification and Mobility notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(a)
Approach: Explain chronic poverty, then the capability deprivation approach (Sen) and the social capital deprivation approach (Bourdieu, Putnam, Woolcock), compare them point by point with Indian examples, and conclude that they complement each other.
Chronic poverty lasts for long periods or passes between generations, as among landless Dalit labourers or displaced Adivasi households. Two approaches explain why such households cannot escape.
The capability deprivation approach of Amartya Sen (Development as Freedom, 1999) sees poverty not as low income but as the lack of real freedoms to achieve valued functionings such as being healthy, literate and well nourished. Conversion factors like gender, disability and region decide what a person can do with income. It underlies the Alkire–Foster multidimensional poverty index; NITI Aayog estimated that India's multidimensional poverty fell from 29.17% (2013–14) to 11.28% (2022–23).
The social capital deprivation approach stresses missing networks and trust. Pierre Bourdieu saw social capital as resources gained through durable networks, unequally distributed by class; Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone, 2000) separated bonding from bridging capital, and Michael Woolcock added linking capital to people in power. The poor often have bonding ties but lack bridging and linking ties to jobs, credit and officials.
Comparison: Sen's approach is individual-centred and focuses on freedoms; the social capital approach is relational and group-centred. Sen explains persistence through ill health, illiteracy and gender bias; social capital explains reproduction through closed networks, as when Dalit youths lack referrals in private hiring. Sen is criticised for neglecting power; social capital for romanticising community and shifting the burden to the poor (Ben Fine).
Flow chart: Low capabilities (health, education) + weak bridging and linking ties → exclusion from jobs, credit and state schemes → low income and assets → poverty passed to the next generation.
Kerala's Kudumbashree (1998) self-help groups build social capital, while nutrition, schooling and health schemes build capabilities. The two approaches are complementary: capabilities give the ability to act, networks the opportunity to use it.
Q3(b) · Politics and Society · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Theories of Power, Power Elite, Bureaucracy, Pressure Groups and Parties
Are pressure groups a threat to or a necessary element of democracy? Explain with suitable illustrations.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या दबाव समूह लोकतन्त्र के लिए एक खतरा है या एक आवश्यक तत्त्व? उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Politics and Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(b)
Approach: Take a balanced position: define pressure groups, show their democratic functions (pluralist view, Rudolphs), then the threats (elite and Marxist critiques, Lindblom, Olson), with Indian illustrations, and conclude that regulated pressure groups are necessary.
Pressure groups are organised groups that seek to influence public policy without trying to capture government. They may be sectional (FICCI, trade unions, Bharatiya Kisan Union) or promotional, working for a cause (Narmada Bachao Andolan, environmental NGOs).
A necessary element: for pluralists such as Robert Dahl, democracy is a competition among many groups, none of which dominates, and groups carry citizens' demands to the state between elections. Tocqueville saw associations as schools of democracy. In India, Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph (The Modernity of Tradition, 1967) showed that caste associations such as the Vanniyar Kula Kshatriya Sangam taught backward castes to bargain politically, widening participation.
Indian illustrations: the campaign of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan led to the Right to Information Act 2005; women's groups after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape secured the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013; farmer unions forced the repeal of the three farm laws in 2021.
A threat: groups are unequal. Mancur Olson (1965) showed that small, concentrated interests organise more easily than large diffuse publics; Charles Lindblom spoke of the privileged position of business; Mills and Marxists such as Miliband see well-funded lobbies as part of a ruling class. Lobbying by the National Rifle Association in the USA and opaque corporate funding of parties in India show how groups can capture policy.
Some caste or religious bodies also press narrow claims against constitutional values.
Pressure groups are thus a necessary element of democracy, because they voice interests that parties ignore, but they become a threat when access is unequal and secret. Transparent political funding and space for weaker groups keep them democratic.
Q3(c) · Research Methods and Analysis · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Variables, Sampling, Hypothesis, Reliability and Validity
What is hypothesis? Critically evaluate the significance of hypothesis in social research.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
उपकल्पना क्या है? सामाजिक अनुसन्धान में उपकल्पना के महत्त्व का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए।
Practise this question Research Methods and Analysis notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q3(c)
Approach: Define hypothesis (Goode and Hatt) with an Indian example, explain its significance, then critically evaluate it with the views of Popper, grounded theorists and interpretivists, ending with a balanced judgement.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement of the relationship between two or more variables; Goode and Hatt (Methods in Social Research, 1952) define it as a proposition that can be put to a test to determine its validity. Example: ‘the higher a woman’s education, the later her age at marriage’, testable with NFHS-5 data.
Significance: it gives direction and focus to research, decides which data to collect, links theory with evidence, and allows findings to accumulate into theory, as in Durkheim’s testing of the integration hypothesis in Suicide. Karl Popper stressed that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable.
Critical evaluation: a rigid hypothesis may close off discovery; Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory (1967) argued for building theory from data, and exploratory or ethnographic studies, such as Srinivas’s Rampura work, often began without one. Interpretivists add that meanings cannot always be reduced to variables, and a hypothesis may introduce the researcher’s bias.
Thus hypotheses are essential for explanatory research but not mandatory for exploratory work.

Question 4 (50 marks)

Q4(a) · Systems of Kinship · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Family, Household and Marriage: Types and Forms
Give an account of the recent trends of marriage in the Indian context. How are these different from traditional practices?
हिंदी में प्रश्न
भारतीय सन्दर्भ में विवाह की आधुनिक प्रवृत्तियों का विवरण दीजिए। ये परम्परागत पद्धतियों से कैसे भिन्न हैं?
Practise this question Systems of Kinship notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(a)
Approach: The question has two parts: describe recent trends in Indian marriage with data, and contrast each with the traditional pattern. Use Kapadia for the traditional sacramental ideal, Uberoi and Srinivas for change, and NFHS-5, IHDS and recent laws and judgments for evidence.
Traditionally, Hindu marriage was a sacrament (samskara): K.M. Kapadia (Marriage and Family in India, 1955) listed its aims as dharma, praja (progeny) and rati. It was arranged by elders within caste endogamy and gotra exogamy, often contracted in childhood, indissoluble and, among upper castes, tied to hypergamy and dowry.
Rising age at marriage: child marriage among women aged 20–24 fell from 26.8% (NFHS-4, 2015–16) to 23.3% (NFHS-5, 2019–21), and education and jobs now delay marriage among the urban middle class. Traditional marriage stressed early marriage to protect purity.
Choice within arrangement: Patricia Uberoi (Freedom and Destiny, 2006) shows the spread of 'love-cum-arranged' and self-arranged marriages, in which young people choose but seek parental approval. Matrimonial websites and apps have replaced the family priest and the go-between, though they still filter by caste, religion and income.
Endogamy persists: only about 5% of marriages were inter-caste (India Human Development Survey, 2011–12). Couples who cross caste or faith face khap pressure and honour crimes; the Supreme Court responded in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) and upheld an adult's choice of partner in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018).
Commercialisation: M.N. Srinivas (1984) showed dowry spreading to castes that once paid bride price, and lavish weddings have become status displays, unlike the ritual focus of the past.
From indissoluble to dissoluble: the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 introduced divorce, and in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) the Supreme Court allowed divorce on irretrievable breakdown. Live-in relationships have legal protection, and Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code (2025) requires their registration.
Flow chart: Sacrament (arranged, early, endogamous, indissoluble) → education, urbanisation, law, media → companionate, later, chosen-but-approved, dissoluble marriage.
Thus the way spouses are chosen has changed far more than the rules of whom one may marry: Indian marriage is adapting rather than disappearing.
Q4(b) · Politics and Society · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Theories of Power, Power Elite, Bureaucracy, Pressure Groups and Parties
What would you identify as the similarities and differences in the elite theories of Mosca, Michels and Pareto? Discuss their main/crucial issues.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
मोस्का, मिशेल्स और परेटो के अभिजात वर्ग के सिद्धान्तों में समानताओं और विभिन्नताओं को आप किस रूप में पहचानेंगे? इनके मुख्य बिन्दुओं पर चर्चा कीजिए।
Practise this question Politics and Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(b)
Approach: Compare the three classical elitists: state each thinker's core idea, then list similarities and differences (basis of elite rule, mechanism, view of democracy), and close with the crucial issues and criticisms, with Indian illustrations. A comparison flow chart helps.
Classical elite theory rejected both liberal democracy and Marx's classless society by arguing that a minority always rules.
Pareto (The Mind and Society, 1916) explained elite rule by unequal individual qualities and residues: 'lions' rule by force and 'foxes' by cunning, and history is a 'graveyard of aristocracies' through the circulation of elites. Mosca (The Ruling Class, 1896) stressed organisation: an organised minority dominates the disorganised majority and legitimises itself through a political formula. Michels (Political Parties, 1911), studying the German Social Democratic Party, argued that large organisations need leaders, expertise and hierarchy, producing an iron law of oligarchy.
Similarities: all three hold that minority rule is inevitable, that the masses are passive or incompetent, and that democracy and socialism cannot abolish elites; all reject economic determinism and give politics autonomy.
Differences: Pareto's basis is psychological, Mosca's organisational and Michels's technical-organisational. Pareto saw elites changing through cyclical circulation, often violent; Mosca allowed a gradual renewal from a middle stratum and was more open to representative government; Michels was a disillusioned socialist whose focus was the party rather than society as a whole.
Flow chart: Pareto (psychological residues → lions and foxes → circulation) | Mosca (organisation → political formula → ruling class) | Michels (organisation → leadership and expertise → oligarchy).
Crucial issues: Is elite rule compatible with democracy? Schumpeter answered yes, as competition among elites; Mills extended the idea to an institutional power elite; pluralists like Dahl argued that elites are plural and accountable; Marxists said the theorists ignored the class basis of power, and Pareto's 'residues' are hard to test.
In India, dynastic leadership in parties illustrates Michels, the rise of OBC and Dalit leaders since the 1990s illustrates circulation, and the 'Congress system' described by Rajni Kothari fits Mosca's organised minority. Elite theory thus underrates popular mobilisation.
Q4(c) · Works and Economic Life · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Formal and Informal Organisation of Work
Critically analyze the sociological significance of informal sector in the economy of developing societies.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
विकासशील समाजों की अर्थव्यवस्था में अनौपचारिक क्षेत्र के समाजशास्त्रीय महत्त्व का आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Practise this question Works and Economic Life notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q4(c)
Approach: Critically analyse: define the informal sector (Hart), present its significance through the dualist, structuralist and legalist schools, add Indian evidence, then note its costs.
Keith Hart (1973), studying Accra, coined the term informal sector for self-employment and casual work outside state regulation. The ILO (2018) estimated that about 61% of the world's employed work informally, most of them in developing societies.
Significance: it absorbs surplus labour from agriculture and migration, cushions shocks such as the 2020 lockdown, and supplies cheap goods and services to cities. The dualist school (after W.A. Lewis) saw it as a temporary traditional sector; the structuralist school of Portes, Castells and Benton (1989) showed it is subordinated to formal capital through subcontracting; Hernando de Soto's legalist view saw informal entrepreneurs escaping heavy regulation.
Sociologically it is embedded in social ties: Barbara Harriss-White showed caste, gender and religion regulating India's informal economy, and Jan Breman described footloose circular migrants.
Critically, it means low productivity, insecurity and lost taxes; NCEUS (2007) linked it to the poverty of most Indians. It is thus a structural feature of peripheral capitalism, not a passing stage.

Question 5 (50 marks)

Q5(a) · Sociology: The Discipline · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Scope of Sociology and Comparison with Other Social Sciences
In what way is the scope of sociology unique? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
समाजशास्त्र का विषय-क्षेत्र किस तरह से अद्वितीय है? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Sociology: The Discipline notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(a)
Approach: Explain what makes sociology's scope unique: the formalistic versus synthetic debate, its distinctive perspective, its breadth from micro to macro, and its Indian scope.
The scope of sociology means its subject matter and boundaries. Two schools debated it.
Formalistic school: Simmel, Tönnies and von Wiese held that sociology is unique because it studies the forms of social relations, such as cooperation, conflict and domination, which recur in many contents. Critics such as Sorokin said forms cannot be separated from content.
Synthetic school: Durkheim, Hobhouse and Sorokin saw sociology as a general science of society, studying the relations between different social phenomena and synthesising other sciences.
Its uniqueness today lies in combining both: a distinct perspective on social structure and meaning, and a range from micro interaction (Goffman) to macro systems (Parsons, Wallerstein). It also studies modern phenomena such as migration, digital life and the social bases of the economy.
In India, its scope covers caste, tribe, village, family and religion, from Srinivas's Rampura to studies of reservation and urban informal work.
Thus sociology is unique in studying all aspects of social life from the angle of social relations.
Q5(b) · Stratification and Mobility · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Theories of Stratification: Functionalist, Marxist and Weberian
Does the structural-functionalist perspective on social stratification promote a status quo? Give reasons for your answer.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या सामाजिक स्तरीकरण पर संरचनात्मक-प्रकार्यात्मक परिप्रेक्ष्य यथास्थिति को बढ़ावा देता है? अपने उत्तर के लिए कारण बताइए।
Practise this question Stratification and Mobility notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(b)
Approach: State the functionalist view (Davis and Moore, Parsons), show why critics say it justifies the status quo (Tumin, Marxists), note the functionalist reply, and judge.
Kingsley Davis and Wilbert Moore (1945) argued that stratification is universal and necessary because unequal rewards motivate the most talented to fill the most important positions; Talcott Parsons saw rank as reflecting shared values of a society.
Yes, in several ways it supports the status quo. By presenting inequality as functional and value-based, it legitimises existing rewards. Melvin Tumin (1953) showed that functional importance cannot be measured objectively, that stratification restricts the discovery of talent among the poor, and that it breeds hostility. Marxists see it as ideology that hides exploitation, and the theory cannot explain caste, where rank is fixed by birth, not talent.
In its defence, the theory claims positions are open and rewards follow merit, which implies mobility, and later functionalists such as Parsons accepted change through structural differentiation.
On balance, by explaining inequality as what society needs and ignoring power and conflict, the perspective tends to justify existing arrangements rather than question them, as Dahrendorf's critique of the consensus model also argued.
Q5(c) · Works and Economic Life · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Formal and Informal Organisation of Work
Do you think that the formal workspaces are free of gender bias? Argue your case.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
क्या आपको लगता है कि औपचारिक कार्यस्थल लैंगिक पूर्वाग्रह से मुक्त होते हैं? अपने तर्क प्रस्तुत कीजिए।
Practise this question Works and Economic Life notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(c)
Approach: Argue a case: formal workplaces are not free of gender bias; use Kanter, Acker and Hochschild for the theory, Indian evidence and laws for the counterpoint, and conclude with a balanced view.
Formal workplaces promise impersonal, merit-based rules in Weber's sense, but feminist sociologists show that bias is built into their structure.
Joan Acker (1990) argued that organisations are gendered: the 'ideal worker' is imagined as a man free of care duties. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (Men and Women of the Corporation, 1977) showed that women as a small minority become 'tokens' under heavy scrutiny. Arlie Hochschild found women expected to do emotional labour, and a glass ceiling limits their promotion.
India shows this: women remain few in senior management despite the Companies Act, 2013 requiring a woman director on certain boards; the 2018 #MeToo wave and Kerala's Hema Committee report (released 2024) on the Malayalam film industry exposed harassment; and many women leave after childbirth.
Laws have improved matters: the Vishaka guidelines (1997), the POSH Act, 2013 and 26 weeks of maternity leave under the 2017 amendment. Formal workplaces are therefore less biased than informal ones, but not free of bias.
Q5(d) · Sociology as Science · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Fact, Value, Objectivity and Non-positivist Methodologies
How does Weber's Verstehen address the objectivity-subjectivity debate in sociology?
हिंदी में प्रश्न
समाजशास्त्र में वेबर का वर्स्टेहेन किस प्रकार से वस्तुनिष्ठता-व्यक्तिपरकता परिचर्चा को सम्बोधित करता है?
Practise this question Sociology as Science notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(d)
Approach: Explain the objectivity-subjectivity debate, then show how Weber's verstehen, with ideal types, value freedom and causal adequacy, bridges it; illustrate with an Indian case and note criticism.
The debate asks whether sociology should study society objectively from outside, as Durkheim urged, or through the subjective meanings of actors. Weber answered with verstehen, interpretive understanding of the meaning actors give to their action.
Verstehen takes subjectivity seriously: the sociologist grasps motives either directly or by placing an act in its context of meaning. But Weber made this understanding objective in three ways. Interpretations must be adequate at the level of meaning and also at the level of cause, tested by comparison and evidence. Ideal types give clear, stated concepts against which reality is measured. And while value relevance guides the choice of topic, value freedom governs analysis.
In India, understanding why a caste group adopts vegetarianism needs its members' meaning of status, which Srinivas called Sanskritisation, but the claim can then be checked across villages.
Critics such as Schutz said Weber did not explain how meanings are formed, and positivists doubt that empathy can be verified; still, verstehen remains a balanced middle path.
Q5(e) · Social Change in Modern Society · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Education, Science, Technology and Social Change
To what extent can education and skill development be an agent of social change? Critically analyze.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
शिक्षा एवं कौशल-विकास किस सीमा तक सामाजिक परिवर्तन का एक माध्यम बन सकते हैं? आलोचनात्मक विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Practise this question Social Change in Modern Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q5(e)
Approach: Show the change-promoting role of education and skills (Durkheim, human capital, Indian mobility) and then its limits (Bourdieu, Collins, Indian unemployment of the educated), ending with a balanced judgement.
Education and skill development are often seen as key agents of social change. Functionalists such as Durkheim and Parsons saw schooling as preparing individuals for a differentiated society, and Theodore Schultz's human capital theory (1961) treated education as investment that raises productivity.
In India, Phule's and Ambedkar's emphasis on education, reservations and the RTE Act, 2009 produced first-generation graduates among Dalits, Adivasis and women. Skill India and the PM Kaushal Vikas Yojana (2015) and NEP 2020's vocational integration aim to link learning with livelihoods and reduce caste-bound occupations.
The extent is limited. Bourdieu showed that schools reward the cultural capital of privileged groups; Randall Collins and Ronald Dore warned of credential inflation; and in India, educated youth face high unemployment while skill training often leads to low-paid informal work. Unequal school quality and the digital divide reproduce class and caste gaps.
Education and skills therefore enable change only alongside job creation, quality and equal access.

Question 6 (50 marks)

Q6(a) · Sociology as Science · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Science, Scientific Method and Its Critique
What is science? Do you think that the methods used in natural sciences can be applied to sociology? Give reasons for your answer.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
विज्ञान क्या है? क्या आपको लगता है कि प्राकृतिक विज्ञानों में प्रयोग की जाने वाली विधियों को समाजशास्त्र में उपयोग किया जा सकता है? अपने उत्तर के समर्थन में कारण बताइए।
Practise this question Sociology as Science notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(a)
Approach: Define science and its features, then argue both sides on applying natural-science methods to sociology (Comte and Durkheim against Weber and Winch), add the critique of natural science itself, use Indian examples and give a reasoned conclusion.
Science is a body of systematic, empirically tested knowledge and the method that produces it. Its features are empiricism, objectivity, verifiability and replication, generality and prediction. Robert K. Merton (1942) added the norms of communism, universalism, disinterestedness and organised scepticism.
Flow chart: observation → problem → hypothesis → data collection → analysis → generalisation → theory → new hypotheses.
Natural-science methods can be applied to a large extent. Auguste Comte called for a positive science of society, and Durkheim asked us to treat social facts as things; his Suicide (1897) used statistics to link suicide rates to integration and regulation. Survey research by Paul Lazarsfeld follows the same logic. In India, the Census, the National Sample Survey and NFHS-5 (2019–21), which covered about 6.37 lakh households, give reliable and comparable data for testing social claims.
But there are limits. Weber held that sociology must first understand the meaning of action through verstehen, and Peter Winch argued that social action is rule-following, to be understood rather than causally explained. Human beings react to research (the Hawthorne effect), predictions change behaviour (Merton's self-fulfilling prophecy), experiments are often unethical, and values shape the choice of topic. The meaning of purity, caste or honour in an Indian village, as Srinivas found in Rampura, needs participant observation.
Moreover, natural science is not as simple as positivists assumed: Popper stressed falsification, Kuhn showed that science works within paradigms, and Russell Keat and John Urry noted that natural sciences also study unobservable mechanisms.
Therefore natural-science methods can be applied to sociology with modification. A realist and pluralist approach that joins measurement with interpretation makes sociology a science of its own kind.
Q6(b) · Systems of Kinship · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Patriarchy, Sexual Division of Labour and Contemporary Trends
What do you understand by gender-based domestic division of labour? Is it undergoing a change in the wake of increasing participation of women in formal employment? Clarify your answer with illustrations.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
लिंग-आधारित घरेलू श्रम-विभाजन से आप क्या समझते हैं? क्या औपचारिक रोजगार के क्षेत्र में महिलाओं की बढ़ती भागीदारी के कारण इसमें कोई बदलाव आ रहा है? अपने उत्तर को उदाहरण देकर स्पष्ट कीजिए।
Practise this question Systems of Kinship notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(b)
Approach: Define the gender-based domestic division of labour with functionalist and feminist views, then assess with Indian and global evidence whether women's formal employment has changed it (second shift, lagged adaptation, outsourcing), concluding that change is slow and class-specific.
The gender-based domestic division of labour is the allocation of housework, cooking, childcare and elder care mainly to women, and paid, public work mainly to men. Parsons (1955) justified it as the husband's instrumental and the wife's expressive role; Ann Oakley (Housewife, 1974) showed that the full-time housewife is a modern social construction, not a natural role.
Evidence of persistence: India's Time Use Survey 2019 found women who did unpaid domestic work spent about 299 minutes a day on it, against 97 minutes for men. Arlie Hochschild (The Second Shift, 1989) showed that employed women in the USA return home to a second shift, and Jonathan Gershuny called men's slow catching-up 'lagged adaptation'.
Signs of change: female labour force participation rose to 41.7% in 2023–24 (PLFS, age 15+), and Young and Willmott's 'symmetrical family' thesis expected more joint conjugal roles. Among urban dual-career couples, men now share shopping, school runs and some cooking, and work-from-home after 2020 made domestic work more visible.
Limits: much of the rise in women's work in India is self-employment or unpaid family work rather than formal jobs. Middle-class women often 'solve' the double burden by employing domestic workers, usually poorer women, as Raka Ray and Seemin Qayum (Cultures of Servitude, 2009) showed; this shifts the burden along class lines instead of to men.
Flow chart: Women enter paid work → second shift at home → negotiation, outsourcing or exit from work → slow change in men's share.
Hence formal employment has loosened but not dissolved the domestic division of labour. Policies such as the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 (26 weeks' leave, crèche requirement) help, but paternity leave and public care services are needed for real symmetry.
Q6(c) · Politics and Society · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Protest, Social Movements, Collective Action and Revolution
How can you assess the significance of social movements in the digital era? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
आप डिजिटल युग में सामाजिक आन्दोलनों के महत्त्व का आकलन कैसे कर सकते हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Politics and Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q6(c)
Approach: Assess the significance of movements in the digital era: what digital media change (Castells, Tufekci), Indian and world examples, and the limits (slacktivism, surveillance, shutdowns), ending with a balanced judgement.
In the digital era, social movements increasingly organise through social media, messaging apps and online petitions. Manuel Castells (Networks of Outrage and Hope, 2012) called them networked social movements, linking online networks with occupied urban spaces, as in the Arab Spring and Occupy.
Significance: digital tools lower the cost of mobilisation, bypass mainstream media, and let marginal voices frame issues. In India, #MeToo (2018) exposed sexual harassment in media and film; the farmers' protest of 2020–21 used social media and its own channels to counter hostile coverage; Dalit activists use digital platforms to document atrocities.
Limits: Zeynep Tufekci (Twitter and Tear Gas, 2017) showed that networked movements grow fast but lack the organisational capacity to negotiate and endure; Malcolm Gladwell criticised 'slacktivism' based on weak ties. States use surveillance and internet shutdowns, and misinformation can fuel counter-mobilisation.
Digital media therefore amplify movements, but lasting change still needs organisation offline.

Question 7 (50 marks)

Q7(a) · Research Methods and Analysis · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Variables, Sampling, Hypothesis, Reliability and Validity
What is sampling in the context of social research? Discuss different forms of sampling with their relative advantages and disadvantages.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
सामाजिक अनुसन्धान के सन्दर्भ में निदर्शन से आप क्या समझते हैं? निदर्शन के विभिन्न प्रारूपों पर उनके सापेक्ष लाभ और हानि के साथ चर्चा कीजिए।
Practise this question Research Methods and Analysis notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(a)
Approach: Define sampling and its key terms, then discuss probability and non-probability forms one by one with their advantages and disadvantages and Indian examples (NSS, PLFS, NFHS, snowball studies), ending with how to choose.
Sampling is the selection of a part of a population (universe) to study it and draw conclusions about the whole. Key terms are the sampling frame (the list from which units are drawn), sampling unit, sample size and sampling error.
Probability sampling gives every unit a known, non-zero chance of selection. Simple random sampling is unbiased and allows estimation of sampling error, but needs a complete frame and may miss small groups. Systematic sampling (every nth unit after a random start) is easy, but periodic patterns in the list can bias it. Stratified sampling divides the population into strata such as caste or region and samples each, ensuring representation of minorities and greater precision, but needs prior information. Cluster and multi-stage sampling select villages or urban blocks first and then households; it is cheap for large, dispersed populations but has higher sampling error. India’s NSS and PLFS use stratified multi-stage designs, and NFHS-5 (2019–21) covered about 6.37 lakh households this way.
Non-probability sampling does not give known chances. Convenience sampling is quick but biased. Quota sampling fills fixed numbers per category, such as gender and caste, but selection within quotas is the interviewer’s choice. Purposive sampling selects informed or typical cases, useful in village studies, but depends on judgement. Snowball sampling reaches hidden groups such as bonded labourers or manual scavengers through referrals, but networks bias it. None permits statistical generalisation.
Flow chart: Research aim → generalisation needed? → yes: probability (random, systematic, stratified, cluster) / no or no frame: non-probability (convenience, quota, purposive, snowball).
A classic warning is the 1936 Literary Digest poll, whose huge but biased sample from telephone and car owners wrongly predicted Roosevelt’s defeat. The choice thus depends on the research aim, frame and resources: probability samples for representative surveys, non-probability samples for exploratory work.
Q7(b) · Religion and Society · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Sociological Theories of Religion
How do theories of Marx, Weber and Durkheim differ in understanding religion? Explain.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
धर्म को समझने में मार्क्स, वेबर और दुर्खीम के सिद्धान्त कैसे भिन्न हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए।
Practise this question Religion and Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(b)
Approach: The question wants a comparison of the three classical theories of religion. Open with the shared question (what does religion do for society), compare Durkheim (integration), Marx (ideology) and Weber (meaning and change) point by point with Indian examples, and end with how they complement each other.
Marx, Durkheim and Weber all explained religion sociologically, but asked different questions: Durkheim how religion holds society together, Marx whose interests it serves, and Weber how religious ideas shape action and change.
Durkheim (The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, 1912) defined religion through the division of the world into sacred and profane. Studying Australian Aboriginal totemism, he argued that the totem symbolises both the god and the clan, so in worshipping the god people worship society itself. Rituals produce collective effervescence and renew solidarity. Kumbh gatherings or village jatras in India show this integrative function.
Marx called religion 'the opium of the people' (1844): an illusory happiness that eases the pain of exploitation and legitimises the rule of the dominant class. The doctrine of karma justifying caste position, and Ambedkar's rejection of scriptures that sanctioned untouchability, fit this conflict view.
Weber treated religion as an independent cause. In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904–05) he argued that Calvinist predestination and the idea of a calling produced the disciplined, rational conduct capitalism needed. In The Religion of India (1916) he held that karma, the most consistent theodicy, and other-worldly ideals blocked such an ethic, a view Milton Singer's study of Madras industrialists challenged.
Flow chart: Durkheim: religion → collective rituals → solidarity (stability); Marx: class domination → religion as ideology → false consciousness; Weber: religious ideas → ethic of conduct → economic change.
Thus Durkheim stresses order, Marx domination and Weber meaning and change. Durkheim is criticised for ignoring religious conflict in plural societies, Marx for reducing belief to economics (neo-Marxists like Otto Maduro show religion can be revolutionary), and Weber for a contested reading of Calvinism and India.
Together they explain Indian religion better than any one alone: festivals integrate, religious mobilisation reflects interests, and Jain and Marwari communities show ethics shaping economic life.
Q7(c) · Religion and Society · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Religion in Modern Society: Science, Secularisation, Revivalism and Fundamentalism
What is the nature of relationship between science and religion in modern society? Analyze with suitable examples.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
आधुनिक समाज में विज्ञान और धर्म के बीच सम्बन्ध की प्रकृति क्या है? उपयुक्त उदाहरणों के साथ इसका विश्लेषण कीजिए।
Practise this question Religion and Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q7(c)
Approach: A short analysis of the science–religion relationship: state the conflict, complementarity and interaction views with one thinker each, illustrate each with an example (preferably Indian), and conclude.
The relationship between science and religion in modern society is not one of simple replacement, as Comte expected, but takes several forms.
Conflict: the Galileo trial (1633) and debates over Darwin's evolution gave rise to the conflict thesis of Draper and White. Today conflict appears over creationism, faith-healing claims and superstition; Maharashtra's anti-superstition law (2013) followed the murder of rationalist Narendra Dabholkar.
Complementarity: Stephen Jay Gould's 'non-overlapping magisteria' assigns facts to science and meaning to religion. Indian scientists who pray before launches, and doctors who also visit temples, show coexistence.
Interaction: Robert K. Merton (1938) showed that Puritan values encouraged English science. Religion in turn adopts technology through online pujas and televised sermons, and science raises ethical questions on which religions speak.
The relationship is thus negotiated: conflict occurs at the boundaries, but most people combine scientific temper, a fundamental duty under Article 51A(h), with faith.

Question 8 (50 marks)

Q8(a) · Social Change in Modern Society · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Development and Dependency
What do you understand by sustainable development? Discuss the elements of sustainable development as proposed in the UNDP's Sustainable Development Goals Report–2015.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
संधारणीय विकास से आप क्या समझते हैं? यू॰ एन॰ डी॰ पी॰ की सस्टेनेबल डेवेलप्मेंट गोल्स रिपोर्ट–2015 में प्रस्तावित संधारणीय विकास के बिन्दुओं की विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question Social Change in Modern Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(a)
Approach: Define sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987), then set out the elements of the 2015 SDG agenda (three dimensions, five Ps, 17 goals, 'leave no one behind') with Indian illustrations and a sociological critique.
The Brundtland Commission (Our Common Future, 1987) defined sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
In September 2015 the UN adopted the 2030 Agenda, 'Transforming Our World', with 17 Sustainable Development Goals and 169 targets, replacing the Millennium Development Goals; UNDP is a lead agency in supporting countries to achieve them. Its elements are: first, three integrated dimensions, economic, social and environmental; second, the 'five Ps' of people (ending poverty and hunger, health, education, gender equality), planet (climate action, life on land and below water, clean energy), prosperity (decent work, reduced inequality, sustainable cities), peace (just and inclusive institutions) and partnership (finance, technology and global cooperation); third, the principle of leave no one behind; and fourth, universality, applying to rich and poor countries alike.
Sociologically, the agenda reflects Amartya Sen's capability approach, which treats development as expansion of freedoms. In India, NITI Aayog's SDG India Index (from 2018) tracks states, and programmes for sanitation, clean cooking fuel and renewable energy map onto specific goals. NITI Aayog estimated that multidimensional poverty fell from 29.17% in 2013–14 to 11.28% in 2022–23.
Flow chart: economic growth + social inclusion + environmental protection → sustainable development → intergenerational justice.
Critics note tensions. Vandana Shiva's ecofeminism and post-development thinkers such as Arturo Escobar see 'sustainable development' as a Western managerial discourse that keeps growth at its core. In India, displacement of Adivasis by mines and dams shows the conflict between growth and justice.
The SDGs thus offer a comprehensive framework, but their success depends on redistribution, community participation and real limits on ecological damage.
Q8(b) · Social Change in Modern Society · 20 marks≈ 14 min
Agents of Social Change
How do 'Civil Society Organizations' such as 'NGOs' and 'Self-Help Groups' contribute to grassroot level social changes? Discuss.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
'नागरिक समाज संगठनों' जैसे 'एन॰ जी॰ ओ॰' और 'स्वयं सहायता समूह' धरातलीय स्तर पर सामाजिक परिवर्तनों को लाने में कैसे योगदान करते हैं? विवेचना कीजिए।
Practise this question Social Change in Modern Society notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(b)
Approach: Define civil society (Tocqueville, Gramsci) and its NGO and SHG forms, show their grassroots contributions with Indian cases (SEWA, MKSS, Kudumbashree, DAY-NRLM), then the critique of NGOisation and microcredit, and conclude.
Civil society is the sphere of voluntary association between the family, the market and the state. Tocqueville saw associations as schools of democracy, while Gramsci saw civil society as the terrain where hegemony is built and contested. NGOs and self-help groups are among its most visible forms in India.
NGOs act as agents of change by mobilising, educating and advocating. SEWA, founded by Ela Bhatt in 1972, organised informal women workers into a union and cooperatives. The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan's public hearings in Rajasthan led the campaign that produced the Right to Information Act, 2005. Pratham's ASER surveys exposed learning gaps, and NGOs have pushed forest rights, child rights and disability rights.
Self-help groups pool savings, give small loans and build solidarity among poor women. NABARD's SHG–Bank Linkage Programme (1992), Kerala's Kudumbashree (1998) and the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (2011, now DAY-NRLM) have mobilised crores of women. Studies show gains in financial inclusion, mobility, confidence and participation in panchayats, linking to the 73rd Amendment's reservation for women.
Flow chart: savings and collective action → credit and skills → income and voice → participation in local governance → grassroots change.
Limits: critics speak of NGOisation: dependence on donor funds can depoliticise movements and make NGOs substitutes for the state. Microcredit can trap borrowers in debt, as the Andhra Pradesh microfinance crisis of 2010 showed, and SHGs may reproduce caste and class hierarchies within villages. Regulation such as tighter foreign-contribution rules has also constrained NGOs.
Civil society organisations are thus vital agents of bottom-up change, most effective when they combine service delivery with empowerment and accountability.
Q8(c) · Systems of Kinship · 10 marks≈ 7 min
Patriarchy, Sexual Division of Labour and Contemporary Trends
In what way does queer kinship challenge the traditional kinship system? Substantiate by giving illustrations.
हिंदी में प्रश्न
किअर नातेदारी किस प्रकार पारंपरिक नातेदारी व्यवस्था को चुनौती देती है? उदाहरण देकर प्रमाणित कीजिए।
Practise this question Systems of Kinship notes
Model answer
Paper and question: Paper I, Q8(c)
Approach: Define queer kinship ('families we choose'), show how it challenges the biology, heterosexual marriage and descent basis of traditional kinship, and illustrate with Western and Indian examples (hijra gharanas, Navtej Johar, Supriyo Chakraborty).
Queer kinship refers to relationships of care and belonging created by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other queer people outside heterosexual marriage and biological descent. Kath Weston (Families We Choose, 1991) and Jeffrey Weeks described such 'families of choice'.
Challenges: traditional kinship theory, from Murdock to Lévi-Strauss, assumed heterosexual marriage, reproduction and descent as its base. Queer kinship shows that kinship can rest on choice and care, supporting David Schneider's critique of biology-based kinship and Janet Carsten's idea of 'relatedness'.
Illustrations: same-sex marriage, legal in the Netherlands since 2001, and adoption or surrogacy by same-sex couples separate parenthood from heterosexual sex. In India, hijra communities form gharanas of guru and chela with kin terms such as mother and daughter (Serena Nanda, 1990; Gayatri Reddy, 2005).
Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalised same-sex relations, but in Supriyo Chakraborty (2023) the Supreme Court declined to recognise same-sex marriage, leaving it to Parliament.
Queer kinship thus challenges the definition of family while still borrowing the language of kinship.

UPSC Mains 2025 Sociology Paper II