CBSE EXAMINATION PAPER-2024

Answer: In the nineteenth century, the status and rights of women in India became a significant concern within various middle-class social reform movements. Two important reform movements that addressed the woman’s question were the abolition of Sati and the campaign against child marriage. The abolition of Sati was a major reform that sought to end the practice where widows were compelled or coerced to immolate themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre. Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy played a crucial role in getting the British government to outlaw this practice in 1829. This movement highlighted women's right to life and dignity. Another significant reform was against child marriage, which was a common practice adversely affecting the health and education of young girls. Reformers such as Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar worked tirelessly to raise the minimum age of marriage through legal reforms, leading to the Child Marriage Restraint Act in 1929. Both these movements aimed to improve women’s social position and protect their rights by challenging regressive and harmful traditions in Indian society. These reforms varied regionally but collectively contributed to the gradual advancement of women’s rights in modern India.

Answer: The term Sanskritisation was coined by the sociologist M.N. Srinivas. Sanskritisation is a social process where a lower caste or social group tries to raise its status by adopting the rituals, customs, and lifestyle of the higher caste, particularly the Brahmins. This process helps the lower caste gain prestige and acceptance in society. On the other hand, de-Sanskritisation is the opposite process. It occurs in regions where non-Sanskritic castes are dominant and involves changes in cultural practices that reduce the influence of Sanskritised traditions. While Sanskritisation leads to the spread of Brahminical culture, de-Sanskritisation causes a decline or transformation of such influences. These concepts help explain the dynamic nature of social change in Indian society as studied by Srinivas.

Answer:

During British colonial rule in India, two major land revenue systems were introduced: the Zamindari system and the Raiyatwari system. The Zamindari system was implemented mainly in Bengal and some other regions, where the British recognized zamindars as landowners and made them responsible for collecting taxes from the farmers (cultivators). The zamindars had greater control over the land and extracted revenue, often leading to exploitation of the actual cultivators. In contrast, the Raiyatwari system, which was prevalent in parts of Madras and Bombay presidencies, dealt directly with the cultivators (raiyats), who were responsible for paying land taxes directly to the government. This system considered the tillers as landowners, though many were not actual cultivators but landlords. Both systems significantly influenced the agrarian structure of colonial India, with heavy land taxes often putting pressure on farmers and impacting agricultural productivity.

Answer: India is still largely an agricultural country even though the services sector is growing rapidly. One reason is that a large portion of the Indian population, about 42% as of 2018-19, is employed in agriculture and related rural activities. Many people depend on farming, as well as other rural occupations such as animal husbandry, fishing, and forestry, for their livelihood. Secondly, agriculture remains the main source of income for a majority of the rural population, even though its contribution to the GDP has declined. Lastly, despite urbanization and industrial growth, a significant part of the country still lives in rural areas where agriculture is the primary economic activity. Therefore, the size of the agricultural sector in terms of employment is still very large compared to the service or industrial sectors.

Answer: A nation is often described as a large community connected by common elements such as language, culture, religion, ethnicity, or a shared history. However, defining a nation precisely is challenging due to the diversity and complexity of these factors. Unlike other communities like ethnic groups or religious communities, nations typically have their own state, which makes them distinct. Yet, not all communities with common cultural or historical features form nations, and not all nations are homogenous in these aspects. This absence of universal characteristics makes it difficult to provide a concrete definition. Essentially, a nation can be viewed as a community that has succeeded in acquiring a state of its own, but this criterion alone cannot capture all aspects of nationhood. Nations are, therefore, complex communities of communities with no fixed features, making their clear definition both difficult and peculiar.