Hello everyone,
For daily answer writing and peer reviewing answers of PSIR, a small Telegram group would be convenient. Join up through this link if interested: https://t.me/joinchat/RqJqqhht0UHCf8kO8xBz8w
Will be deleting the link in a while so as to limit the number of members in the group.Thanks@hashtag2020 joined :D
Make this active again please
@AzadHindFauz @whatonly @Jammu or anyone else please entertain my concern it would be of great help.
While writing an answer if I remember a very good point which I know most won't write for eg- If they asked to do a critical analysis of Plato and I remember that Someone has said " Plato is the biggest Liar" but i don't remember the thinker's name, should i write that thing without the thinker ( If yes, how should i write it) or should proceed with the normal Karl popper and aristotle criticism.
Whoops, I did not know that. I searched for that quote but couldn’t find it. Could you post the full quote or the source if you have it?
And yeah, since Nietzsche obviously will carry weight, it seems good to go :)
@whatonly It's in ma'am's notes only i think. In the post modernism chapter of Ideologies
Whoops, I did not know that. I searched for that quote but couldn’t find it. Could you post the full quote or the source if you have it?
And yeah, since Nietzsche obviously will carry weight, it seems good to go :)
@whatonly It's in ma'am's notes only i think. In the post modernism chapter of Ideologies
Yeah, I also googled it just now, couldn't find it but it is given in ma'am booklet-2 page no. 24 to be precise can't vouch for the authenticity.
@whatonly @AzadHindFauz or anyone else did you make block diagrams or flowcharts or anyother such things in ur answers??
OnlyIAS released some notes (for free) on the whole syllabus arranged topic wise. I found them too late for 2020, but if you’re making your notes now and need some extra material on certain topics, they’re a good source.
Thank you for this looks really concise can be used for value addition !!
@whatonly @AzadHindFauz or anyone else did you make block diagrams or flowcharts or anyother such things in ur answers??
It has always been just paragraphs for me, but Insights has recently come out with a TS with 3D strategy- Demand, Dimensions, Diagrams, so i don't know what to think...
Exactly one of my test copies evaluator gave me feedback to draw diagrams for value addition. When I spoke to him he said even Andrew Heywood and OP Gauba has diagrams why you shouldn't :p
Anyone joining SR CC for 2021 ?
Thanks
@babu_bisleri Planning to. Giving June and July to psir, thought it would be good if answer writing can be included as well. Wbu?
Same plan but i am apprehensive about Online test as I am not sincere so giving test for 3hr at home is achilles heel.
PS : Anyone who faced similar problem and now able to complete 3 hr tests can tell me how to do it !
@babu_bisleri I write sectional test (1.5 hours) every morning. I know this is overkill but it became a necessity for me as I was taking 4-5 hours to complete a 3 hr test at home when I gave it casually ( It was so casual that I even used to have tea breaks between the test). So I decided to time the test and submit the paper as soon as the time's up even if the answer sheet is blank. Believe me, all the sincerity will come when you score a 20-30 out of 120. I did it for 2 weeks, now I complete the paper (full test- which I give every saturday) with 5 minutes to spare .
Anyone joining SR CC for 2021 ?
Thanks
@babu_bisleri Planning to. Giving June and July to psir, thought it would be good if answer writing can be included as well. Wbu?
Same plan but i am apprehensive about Online test as I am not sincere so giving test for 3hr at home is achilles heel.
PS : Anyone who faced similar problem and now able to complete 3 hr tests can tell me how to do it !
@babu_bisleri I write sectional test (1.5 hours) every morning. I know this is overkill but it became a necessity for me as I was taking 4-5 hours to complete a 3 hr test at home when I gave it casually ( It was so casual that I even used to have tea breaks between the test). So I decided to time the test and submit the paper as soon as the time's up even if the answer sheet is blank. Believe me, all the sincerity will come when you score a 20-30 out of 120. I did it for 2 weeks, now I complete the paper (full test- which I give every saturday) with 5 minutes to spare .
@whatonly you overcame this thing after pre ? Must have took some revision ! I feel confident wrt concepts in most of the psir topics but cant recall keyword and scholars of even Part a of Paper1 sometimes. As you suggested will try revising and write the paper. Thanks a ton !!
@Aquaman I can relate to the break b/w writing test thing, it is just me. Can I DM you ? like how you do it and all ?
Yeah sure dude!
Can someone clear a confusion of mine. In the Pluralist theory of State, we basically write Pluralist theory of Sovereignty? Is that so?
There was a question on this in sr test series . I wrote polyarchy they still gave me decent marks and the guy who wrote pluralist theory of sovereignty also got the same marks. I think teacher's are also confused here :p
Although the model answer says it's theory of sovereignty.
I gone through 4 booklets of this.. why people dislike this. I found it very useful to understand topics.
Sr notes are like Machiavelli everyone reads it but no one wants to be caught reading it :p
Hello, what all value addition sources are you guys using for paper 2 section B, to cover it up comprehensively?Value addition? what is your basic source because I don't find ma'ams notes good for 2-B anyone?
@whatonly what basic source did you use for covering 2-B ?
@Aquaman for 2B the line between basic sources and value addition was not very clear for me. The SR notes for 2B have some good points but need a lot of updates. For static parts (first few topics) I used SR notes and some other books*, and after that made notes from various articles for other topics.
*2B: David Malone, Shashi Tharoor (both are old, but help lay a base - but Malone is better and enough), Indian Foreign Policy by Harsh V Pant, Choices by Shivshankar Menon, Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy
(all these are not necessary, just collect the amount of matter you need to answer any realistic question)
You will be covering IR anyway in CA if you are doing some monthly magazines or mains 365. So while making notes it's better to focus more on scholarly opinions.
Thank you !
Okay, I get your point.
I have a concern. I have studied everyhing in notes, etc, but I have never done it theme based / as per syllabus.
Like, I am habitual of writing X’s stuff in Y, Y’s in X, in case I could recollect it quickly. Overtime, I have realised it is not fetching me anything great.
How do you see it, like this question that we are presently referring to, in case I get to write today, I won’t think just from Politics of Participation and Representation but would jot down everything I know from all sections.
Like presently in mind, Rousseau is roaming, so I might quote him, Roussea said Englishman won’t like to wait for another 5 years to change govt, englishman would seek quick legislation. So when voting comes, englishman won’t consider it important. I don’t know in which context he said this, but I am sure I would write it.
How do you see questions, like do you track it to topic in syllabus in mind.
Throw some enlightenment, others are also welcome to shed light.
i dont know if its true, but i have heard topscorers say that scholars and quotes se jyada they are looking for analysis nowadays. People have scored in 150's in paper 2 without quoting scholars. While those focusing on number of scholars have seen scores plummeting.
and i dont think intersectional usage of ideas has any disadvantage, if anything it adds depth to answers if used appropriately
Yeah exactly the questions also are so unconventional they demand originality and analysis I think. I don't remember exactly but there was pyq of paper 2 in which they asked to write an essay on some topic as a 20 marker.
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.@whatonly Do you have any good theory we could place in here?
@KropotkinSchmopotkin what about Hannah Arendt's critique when she says lack of action in public sphere she says we transfer our decision making powers in this sphere to bureaucrats. Also she is a supporter of direct democracy , so in a way she is criticizing representative democracy.
I am not sure about it, what do you think?
@HeNeArKr That's a great point. You can mention how "Action in the highest sphere of human activity" "public sphere is true home of man" yada yada highlighting that active citizenship, as opposed to mere voting, is essential for the moral improvement of humans.You can go mention how lack of participation in RepDem leads to an erosion of Power (people acting in concert) which allows Violence (totalitarian govt) to replace it.
@KropotkinSchmopotkin Yeah true . I was thinking can we add critic of party democracy by gandhi, mnroy and jp as a point here ?
@HeNeArKr That's a great point. You can mention how "Action in the highest sphere of human activity" "public sphere is true home of man" yada yada highlighting that active citizenship, as opposed to mere voting, is essential for the moral improvement of humans.You can go mention how lack of participation in RepDem leads to an erosion of Power (people acting in concert) which allows Violence (totalitarian govt) to replace it.
@KropotkinSchmopotkin Yeah true . I was thinking can we add critic of party democracy by gandhi, mnroy and jp as a point here ?
Which points were you thinking of specifically? The points specifically to parties (power gets concentrated with leaders instead of rank and file) will be irrelevant. The points related to reduced participation and rule by elites will be better covered through Elitist theorists. If there's any other good point that we can quote Roy on I'm all for it
I was talking about partyless democracy given by gandhi,roy as " Parties are prostitutes" not representative of public opinion. Hence we should go for village republics or direct democracy.
@HeNeArKr How far is it advisable to use "Not so good" statements even if given by philosophers eg Prostitution of personality??
If you know the scholar you can and if the scholar is someone renowned. I don't know what's advisable or not just my personal opinion in the above case -political parties were compared with prostitutes by Gandhi so you can quote it. Although in GS I would avoid using such terms ( again my personal opinion)
Why is India considered as an Elephant in IR lexicon.
Is this answered in Does the Elephant dance, if somebody has read it.
I think the term was first used to describe the Indian economy by Gurcharan Das inIndia Unbound. It was published in 2000 so seems like he was the first, although I might be wrong. It seems to have entered IR from there. This is what he says. Pasting a longer excerpt so the context is clear:
“India embraced democracy first and capitalism afterwards, and this has made all the difference. India became a full-fledged democracy in 1950, with universal suffrage and extensive human rights, but it was not until recently that it opened up to the free play of market forces. This curious historical inversion means that India’s future will not be a creation of unbridled capitalism but will evolve through a daily dialogue between the conservative forces of caste, religion, and the village, the leftist and Nehruvian socialist forces which dominated the intellectual life of the country for so long, and the new forces of global capitalism. These “million negotiations of democracy,” the plurality of interests, the contentious nature of the people, and the lack of discipline and teamwork imply that the pace of economic reforms will be slow and incremental. It means that India will not grow as rapidly as the Asian tigers, nor wipe out poverty and ignorance as quickly.
The Economist has been trying, with some frustration, to paint stripes on India since 1991. It doesn’t realize that India will never be a tiger. It is anelephantthat has begun to lumber and move ahead. It will never have speed, but it will always have stamina. A Buddhist text says, “The elephant is the wisest of all animals/the only one who remembers his former lives/and he remains motionless for long periods of time/meditating thereon.” The inversion between capitalism and democracy suggests that India might have a more stable, peaceful, and negotiated transition into the future than, say, China. It will also avoid some of the harmful side effects of an unprepared capitalist society, such as Russia. Although slower, India is more likely to preserve its way of life and its civilization of diversity, tolerance, and spirituality against the onslaught of the global culture. If it does, then it is perhaps awise elephant.”
I followed an interesting trail starting from Malone on your suggestion to discover this :D
@whatonly thanks didn't know that. Also just a wild thought , the constituent assembly seal was an elephant so maybe the word might have been used before too. Again just a hypothesis may be untrue!
any book where i can read about topics like democracy, rights, justice , equality for clearer understanding, SR notes are extensive in this regard but i am not able to attempt certain PYQs.. so i guess i need more conceptual clarity
You can try Heywood’s Political Theory or OP Gauba too.
@whatonly the number of books you've read gives me a FOMO 😆 . Please become a topper soon and share your notes with me , Itni kitaabe nhi padhi jaati hmse :p
How would you guys approach a question asking about the achievement/ significance of NIEO? Would you take an idealist position on it or one that points out the lack of significant achievements?
I would go with lack of significant achievement and add in the last that why it can be the new alternative and why the present LEO is declining.
Constructivism is NOT positivist. They say objective reality don’t exist it is socially constructed.
Doesn't this make them the same as postmodernist? For Postmodernist socially constructed can be replaced by dominant narrative ( as it is legitimized by the majority of society) and the definition becomes the same.
Realists argue that international system is anarchic where only seeking power can help. Hence, one should maximize power.
However, Social constructivists argue that 'Anarchy is what one makes of it'. Realists are interpreting anarchy in a specific way to suit their narrative. This narrative can be changed by changing belief system and values. The realists belief system of suspicion,misconception can be changed by having dialogues and discussions. In a way, they are 'prescribing' states to come to dialogue table and resolve differences. Ex- India-US after 1998 test
Post modernists, on the other hand, see things from a lens of knowledge-power connection. For them, realists are creating a discourse where power is everything. States will indulge in power struggle letting realists discourse(knowledge) gain prominence(power). Post modernists can use similar logic to criticize other theories also like marxist theory or US attempt to spread(impose) democracy. They try to 'describe' the situation.
This is my understanding. Hopefully, others will validate this discourse :p
Yeah valid point but how does that explain the difference? In the words of SR's notes Richard Ashley ( PM scholar ) says " Anarchy does not necessarily mean security dilemma, it is the interpretation of anarchy by realists in a specific way that creates the dilemma." >Now this language comes very close to the social constructivists.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@whatonly really insightful points, Thanks !! Also I am not sure about the last part as I haven't read about it anywhere can you tell me the source from where you read it? maybe it can give more clarity.
Hello, Guys please help me out here!
Especially the ones who are not fond of SR paper 2 notes. I went through the notes and consulted Andrew Heywood as well. I find too much overlap in both and personally, I found SR notes to be better as it has many thinkers too to quote in answers although I felt Heywood can be used for concept clarity but for exam orientation I found SR much better maybe I am missing something or I am not in sync with exam needs but can anyone explain why do people consult other books for paper 2. Also, I think contemporary events anyhow have to be covered by reading articles and crash course so how would reading heywood or baylis smith add value to the notes, and even if we get extra 2-3 points, is it worth investing time in reading complete textbooks.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Its written there na as role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Changing voters and parties relation is the further impact of institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties and not the actual meaning of it.
Institutionalisation - Because the essence of federalism is upheld (regional parties), multi-party system, etc
Deinstitutionalisation - Because intra-party democracy is withering away. Zoya Hassan highlighted the same issue how Congress as well as BJP(because of RSS influence) are going towards de-institutionalisation because they lack any substantial intra-party democracy.
Dude I am talking about the thing which is written in the notes not about the theory.
I think mam has interpreted State is individual writ large assertion of plato upside down. Plato arrives at what should be the Just person after establishing the theory of Just State. In a Just State there is proper stationing of classes based on virtues of Reason,Courage, and Temperance , and each class restricts itself to performing its designated role without interfering with the other class. The end result is a state where perfect harmony and order prevail. Since State is individual write large , Plato argues whats applicable at level of state must also be true at the level of individual. Thus, a Just Man is one in whom Reason, Courage and Appetite are arranged in the correct order, in whom reason is the dominant Virtue. Mam has explained in the reverse order.
"If the state is simply the man writ large, Plato argues , then we
must expect that as justice and the other subordinate virtues begin to deteriorate
at the collective level, they will deteriorate within the souls or personalities
of the citizenry as well. This means that the decline of the ideal state,
from perfect justice to perfect injustice, will be matched by an equivalent decline
of the inner life of the citizenry, from genuine happiness to utter misery."very pertinent idea in present times
Interesting analysis, I didn't know about it. But keep in mind, the theory is vast maybe you have interpreted this by quoting one para of Plato. Can you please confirm the source of the same?
@D503 https://newleftreview.org/issues/i74/articles/hamza-alavi-the-state-in-post-colonial-societies-pakistan-and-bangladesh- Here Hamza Alvi says post colonial states -"In the post-colonial society, the problem of the relationship between the State and the underlying economic structure is more complex than the context in which it was posed even in the Bonapartist State or other examples which arose in the context of the development of European society. It is structured by yet another historical experience and it calls for fresh theoretical insights."
Though I didn't have time to go through the whole article but seems what we read in ma'am's notes is not the whole picture :p
Also, this is an article by Atul Kohli- explaining the different approaches of Latin American(dependency theory) and South Asian economies(structuralist theory) towards globalization. Its a good read can extract some brownie points as well.
https://www.scielo.br/j/rep/a/W9xNTmfQmHhQgxFV4TKyLfj/?lang=en
a situation where state enjoys relative autonomy and is not simply an instrument of bourgeoise. The idea can be traced to marx's 18th brumaire of louis bonaparte, however it became popular after Gramsci's structuralism. marxists like hamza Alavi and anupam Sen have used this analytical tool to explain nature of state in postcolonial societies.rolling back of Farm laws is an example of Relative autonomy of Indian state? It's a clear evidence of hamza alavi's thesis that due to plurality of fundamental classes, no single class can be called as ruling class, and no class is able to completely dominate the overdeveloped state, which dominates all of them.So…Bonapartisim?
What be bonapartism? 😶
So it’s basically just relative autonomy theory? Or am I missing something?
Yes it's the same, Marx termed it Bonapartism. And uske work p jo school of thought hai- It's Relative autonomy approach.
rolling back of Farm laws is an example of Relative autonomy of Indian state? It's a clear evidence of hamza alavi's thesis that due to plurality of fundamental classes, no single class can be called as ruling class, and no class is able to completely dominate the overdeveloped state, which dominates all of them.So…Bonapartisim?
Bonapartism to strong executive hota hai.. when state doesn't have the capacity to implement its laws its a Soft state :p
see it in context of tax breaks to super rich, disinvestments, the thrust of the state in recent years seemed to be moving decisively in favour of capitalist class. Every policy felt as if it was being drafted by ficci aayog (Niti). But with this move govt has shown that it can frustrate capitalist designs for its political gains or read other way it has shown that peasant class can hold its own in front of capitalist assault. india is a case of strong state and weak society, maybe between the 90 and 2010 there was some weakening of grip of state over people due to federalisation and regionalisation , but for most part of history peoples lives have been dependent on state. i dont know why that Gunnar guy called india soft state.rolling back of Farm laws is an example of Relative autonomy of Indian state? It's a clear evidence of hamza alavi's thesis that due to plurality of fundamental classes, no single class can be called as ruling class, and no class is able to completely dominate the overdeveloped state, which dominates all of them.So…Bonapartisim?
Bonapartism to strong executive hota hai.. when state doesn't have the capacity to implement its laws its a Soft state :p
personal opinion
Gunnar was very right in saying so, state to date has not been able to implement interstate water tribunal orders (nor will it ever). Even the farm laws, state couldn't implement them before being repealed. Despite such a strong mandate, it goes for populism. Isko ab soft nhi bolenge to kya bolenge. Favoring the peasant class was more of a political compromise, it had nothing to do with a strong state frustrating the capitalist design. Rather I would say, it's a survival tactic of the capitalist design to remain in power. Just wait till they come to power in Punjab, you will understand what I am saying.
Again personal bias alert :p
Fir ye example use krna hai ya nhi? mujhe toh shi lag rha tha , fit ho rha tha theoretical framework mesee it in context of tax breaks to super rich, disinvestments, the thrust of the state in recent years seemed to be moving decisively in favour of capitalist class. Every policy felt as if it was being drafted by ficci aayog (Niti). But with this move govt has shown that it can frustrate capitalist designs for its political gains or read other way it has shown that peasant class can hold its own in front of capitalist assault. india is a case of strong state and weak society, maybe between the 90 and 2010 there was some weakening of grip of state over people due to federalisation and regionalisation , but for most part of history peoples lives have been dependent on state. i dont know why that Gunnar guy called india soft state.rolling back of Farm laws is an example of Relative autonomy of Indian state? It's a clear evidence of hamza alavi's thesis that due to plurality of fundamental classes, no single class can be called as ruling class, and no class is able to completely dominate the overdeveloped state, which dominates all of them.So…Bonapartisim?
Bonapartism to strong executive hota hai.. when state doesn't have the capacity to implement its laws its a Soft state :p
personal opinionGunnar was very right in saying so, state to date has not been able to implement interstate water tribunal orders (nor will it ever). Even the farm laws, state couldn't implement them before being repealed. Despite such a strong mandate, it goes for populism. Isko ab soft nhi bolenge to kya bolenge. Favoring the peasant class was more of a political compromise, it had nothing to do with a strong state frustrating the capitalist design. Rather I would say, it's a survival tactic of the capitalist design to remain in power. Just wait till they come to power in Punjab, you will understand what I am saying.
Again personal bias alert :p
Krlo example to you can put anything as long as you justify it. Baaki to sab value laden hi hai depends upon how you interpret or how the examiner interprets.
