Character Judgement in a Prose Passage: Evidence vs Label
In a 5-mark Sahitya question, Class 10 students read this short prose passage: 'एकः सेवकः राज्ञः अश्वं रक्षन् अपराह्ने क्षुधितः आसीत्। राज्ञा दत्तं फलं सः न अखादत्, यतः तत् राज्ञः पुत्राय दातव्यम् इति सः अचिन्तयत्। राजा तस्य त्यागं ज्ञात्वा तस्मै स्वर्णमुद्राम् अददात्। सेवकः तां न गृहीतवान्, मम वेतनेन मम कार्यं पूर्णम् इति उक्त्वा।' The question asks: 'सेवकस्य चरित्रं कथं प्रकटम्?' Of 36 answers, 14 describe the servant as मूर्खः because he refused both the fruit and the gold coin; 9 call him आदर्शवान् but cite only the gold coin; 13 mention both refusals and the reason given. The teacher must return the scripts tomorrow and wants a defensible rubric, not a purely impressionistic mark.
1. Which reading is best supported, and what textual details must a full-mark answer cite? Explain why 'मूर्खः' is a weak conclusion.
Read the worked answer
Best-supported reading: the servant displays restraint and self-respect, not foolishness.
Evidence a full-mark answer must cite:
- He does not eat the fruit because he reasons राज्ञः पुत्राय दातव्यम् - the fruit belongs to the prince.
- He refuses the gold coin with an explicit reason: मम वेतनेन मम कार्यं पूर्णम् - his wages already cover his work.
Why 'मूर्खः' is weak: The passage supplies motives, not accidents. Both refusals are reasoned, and the second is explained in direct speech. Calling him foolish imports an outside judgement and ignores the यतः and उक्त्वा clauses. A student could defend 'foolish' only by showing that the servant misunderstood a consequence or harmed himself; the passage does not show that. The label is therefore unsupported, even though it is a possible modern opinion.
2. Construct a 5-mark rubric that rewards evidence over label, and say how you would treat the 9 answers that call him आदर्शवान् but cite only one action.
Read the worked answer
Rubric:
- 1 mark: identifies a defensible trait (e.g. संयम, त्याग, आत्मसम्मान).
- 2 marks: cites both refusals, not just one.
- 1 mark: explains the servant's stated reason (वेतनेन कार्यं पूर्णम्).
- 1 mark: expresses the answer in clear Sanskrit with relevant quotation.
The 9 answers: They have the right trait but incomplete evidence. Under this rubric they should receive about 3/5: 1 for trait, 1 for one citation, 0 for the missing second citation, 1 for expression. They should be told to add the fruit episode and to quote the reason for refusing the coin. This is different from the 'मूर्खः' answers, which may receive 1/5 for mentioning the refusals as facts but 0 for the unsupported judgement. The rubric thus separates a correct conclusion with thin support from a misreading.
3. What follow-up question would separate a lucky guess from genuine understanding?
Read the worked answer
Ask: 'सेवकः स्वर्णमुद्रां किमर्थं न अगृहीतवान्? स्वशब्दैः लिखत।' A student who understands must point to मम वेतनेन मम कार्यं पूर्णम्, not merely say 'he was good'. Then ask: 'यदि सेवकः मूर्खः आसीत्, तर्हि किं कथम् अकरिष्यत्?' This forces the student to state what evidence would have supported the alternative judgement. A lucky guess usually cannot specify missing evidence; a genuine reading can.