The Orchard, the Surgery, and the One-Word Verdict
A non-detailed text excerpt in a practice paper describes Kamala, a widowed farmer in a village near Mandya. She refuses to sell her 2-acre ancestral mango orchard to a developer who offers ₹5 lakh. Her younger brother, Suresh, wants the sale because his daughter needs ₹80,000 for surgery. The orchard yields about ₹40,000 a year. Kamala says, “ఈ మామిడి చెట్లు మా తాత చేత నాటబడినవి; అమ్మాయి చికిత్సకు డబ్బు వేరే మార్గంలో సంపాదిస్తాను.” Suresh replies, “నీ మొండితనం వల్లే మా అమ్మాయి బాధపడుతోంది.” Two examinees must answer a 5-mark question: ‘Is Kamala selfish or principled?’ One writes only ‘principled’ with no evidence; the other writes only ‘selfish’ because she refuses ₹5 lakh. The teacher warns that a one-word verdict will lose marks and that the question tests balancing competing goods. The excerpt gives no bank loan details and no government scheme.
1. Construct the strongest case for reading Kamala as principled, and the strongest case for reading her as selfish, using only details in the excerpt.
Read the worked answer
Principled case: Kamala treats the orchard as inherited, not disposable. The phrase “తాత చేత నాటబడినవి” gives the trees ancestral and emotional value. She also proposes a plan - “వేరే మార్గంలో సంపాదిస్తాను” - rather than simply refusing to help. The orchard yields ₹40,000 a year, so the land is productive, not dead capital. Selfish case: Suresh’s daughter needs ₹80,000 immediately, and the developer’s ₹5 lakh would cover the surgery and leave a surplus. Kamala’s alternative is unspecified; the excerpt gives no bank loan, no scheme, and no timeline. From Suresh’s viewpoint, her refusal delays urgent medical care. The strongest answer acknowledges that both readings have evidence and that the word ‘selfish’ is too blunt for a 5-mark response.
2. Choose a defensible thesis for a 5-mark answer and explain how you would qualify it so that it does not ignore the brother’s medical need.
Read the worked answer
A defensible thesis is: Kamala is principled in her attachment to the ancestral orchard, but her principle is not automatically justified because she has not shown a workable alternative for the surgery. Qualification is essential. The answer should first concede Suresh’s urgency - ₹80,000 for his daughter - and then argue that Kamala’s refusal is not proven selfish because she explicitly promises to find another way. The weakness is that the excerpt gives no details of that way. So the verdict should be: principled but incomplete, not ‘selfish’ and not ‘heroic.’ This earns marks because it uses textual evidence, weighs competing goods, and avoids a one-word moral label.
3. Explain how the detail ‘తాత చేత నాటబడినవి’ changes the theme from a simple property dispute to something else.
Read the worked answer
The detail shifts the theme from price versus need to inheritance versus urgency. If the orchard were merely a 2-acre asset worth ₹5 lakh, the question would be a straightforward calculation: sell and pay for surgery. But “తాత చేత నాటబడినవి” makes the trees a record of family labour and memory; selling them would be a rupture, not just a transaction. The conflict becomes intergenerational: Kamala is responsible to the past and to her niece’s future at the same time. That is why a one-word verdict fails. The best answers treat the orchard as symbolic capital as well as economic capital, while still admitting that Suresh’s medical need is real.