Revision summary
Globalisation links villages to world prices, brands, and migrant wages. Cash crops and remittances reorganise households. Mining and corporate land hit tribal commons; FRA is a counter-file. Factory goods undercut artisans. Caste still filters who captures contracts and who only sells labour.
Model answer
Introduction
Globalisation plugs the Indian village into distant prices, brands, and labour markets. The impact is cash, risk, and a thinner local grain economy.
Body
Markets and labour
- Cash crops, contract farming, and retail brands reach the mandi. Village grain self-sufficiency falls.
- Remittances from Gulf and city work, already hinted in older circular migration, now organise many households.
- Yogendra Singh’s modernisation frame fits: economy differentiates, caste still mediates who gets the contract.
Land and commons
- Corporate land and mining, especially in Fifth Schedule belts, globalise dispossession. FRA claims fight that impact.
- Cheap Chinese and factory goods undercut village artisans, a blow N. K. Bose would have read as a civilisational craft loss.
Social economy
- Phones and television sell aspiration that Srinivas would class with Westernisation.
- Self-help groups and MNREGA are state answers inside the same global fiscal world.
- The village economy is not erased. It is re-priced and partly de-agrarianised.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD G[Globalisation] --> C[Cash crops remittance] G --> L[Land mining FRA] G --> A[Artisan loss aspiration]
Conclusion
Globalisation commercialises the village, raises remittances, and weakens local crafts and commons. Caste and land still decide who wins the new prices.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss the contribution of M. N. Srinivas to the study of Indian society. Examine the influence of British social anthropologists on his ideas
Next question on this syllabus topic (2015 · Q7(c)). View answer →
-
Did globalisation end the jajmani village?
Jajmani was already cracking. Global markets sped cash and labour exit.
-
Is the impact only negative?
Remittances and some prices help. Land loss and craft death are the costs.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q1(d) · Anthropology GS 2 · 10 marks
Caste and social capital -
2021 · Q4(b) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in transforming traditional power hierarchy in rural India -
2021 · Q8(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Examine how structural transformation in economy is affecting traditional social relationships in agrarian society -
2016 · Q3(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Describe the traditional patterns of settlement of Indian villages -
2016 · Q4(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Compare the contribution of L. P. Vidyarthi and D. N. Majumdar to the study of Indian tribes -
2016 · Q6(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Explain Indian village as a social system with suitable examples -
2015 · Q6(a) · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Examine the contribution of village studies towards the understanding of Indian social system -
2015 · Q7(c) · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Discuss the contribution of M. N. Srinivas to the study of Indian society. Examine the influence of British social anthropologists on his ideas
More from this topic
Q8(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
Describe the important Paleolithic sites from South India with suitable examples. What is the significance of South Indian Paleolithic cultures?
Indian Village
Key sites: Attirampakkam (early dated Acheulian), Hunsgi–Baichbal and Isampur (limestone workshops), Pallavaram (Foote), Kurnool caves and Jwalapuram (later Pleistocene). South India is Acheulian country, distinct from classic Soanian cobble tools. Isampur shows organised quarrying; Attirampakkam shows great antiquity. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic appear in caves and river valleys without copying Europe’s labels. Significance is early occupation and behaviour; makers’ fossils are still scarce.
Q3(b) · UPSC Mains 2024 · Anthropology GS 2 · 15 marks
Compare and contrast the approaches of M.N. Srinivas and L.P. Vidyarthi to social change in village India.
Indian Village
Srinivas explained village change through field view, sanskritisation, westernisation and dominant caste. Vidyarthi explained organisation and change through the sacred complex and the nature–man–spirit complex. Srinivas’s motor is internal rank-climbing plus Western and state resources. Vidyarthi’s motor is contact with development, mine, market and mission. Use both: caste plains and tribal-sacred landscapes are not one model.
Q4(a) · UPSC Mains 2022 · Anthropology GS 2 · 20 marks
"Globalisation, on one hand has provided opportunities and on the other hand thrown challenges to Indian villages." Elucidate
Indian Village
Globalisation links villages to distant labour, media, and crop markets. Remittances and phones are real openings. Land, artisan work, and farm risk are the main threats. Chipko and Niyamgiri show local defence against outside extraction. PESA and FRA are legal tools, not automatic shields.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.