Can anyone enlighten me on this question. How many scholars we need to write on a particular answer ? Does writing some answers without any scholars makes my answer very bad . Like in national commission for women type questions do I need to write scholar opinion in this question too or I can just write the facts .@AzadHindFauz @whatonly
As many you can fit without altering the logical flow of arguments.
It comes down to one's writing style really. There are people who would be able to mention 6-7 scholars per answer. There are people who would be able to write 2-3 scholars only.
It doesn't matter which category you fall in. What really matters is whether you are mentioning scholars to substantiate a particular viewpoint. Use of scholars shouldn't be just for the sake of mentioning them.
As long as I can extract logic from your arguments, I don't care about the number of scholars. That being said, you must mention at least 2 scholars as that is bare minimum to establish the difference between a GS answer and an optional answer- latter being more analytical.
However, you point out rightly the problem of mentioning scholars in questions like NCW. You need to be smart here. Here's how I would think about introducing scholars in such questions-
- NCW is about empowering Indian women in general. I will bring feminist perspective of politics in some way.
- Views of any Indian feminist, if possible.
- A remark on NCW by any famous Indian or institutions like SC, HC, NHRC etc.
The idea should be to let the thoughts flow freely across the paper without digressing from the demand. You have complete freedom to talk about Plato who talks about philosopher women and JS Mill who talks about the sorry state of women. It depends on your skill to put them to use.
In a bid to mention all these, you must be careful not to miss out on the flow. Flow is more important than the number of scholars.
Very much enriching thoughts : )
@dingding2021 I somehow missed your comment, sorry!
I don’t know about the SR tablet course. I didn’t take it.
This was my experience with the crash course. It might help someone make a choice. This was my first time, maybe it was different in previous years and COVID slowed it down this year. They did say that was the reason. Anyone who knows more, please feel free to add something.
Mock test questions:Great. They’re good at identifying which topics might be asked in the exam. There was a lot of overlap.
Mock test evaluations:Poor. They started out average and became completely ridiculous by the end. Some were just a series of ticks with no comments. Also, inflexible schedule unlike others and an unclear policy. They said tests submitted within three days of the scheduled date would get an evaluation within 10 days. The rest had to wait pretty much without any kind of timeframe.
Lectures:I didn’t listen to any of the lectures due to lack of time, so can’t comment. For others in my situation - first attempt, notes yet to be made fully - it might be the same. From what I gathered, the idea was to focus on IR for 2B since that’s the most dynamic part. However in the beginning they uploaded more of the other papers. Which was fine, but delayed IR. The result was that you couldn’t rely on them for IR current affairs and analysis - which was the point of the course.
Lecture notes:A bit disorganised, and difficult to add to your material quickly when time is already precious. The content added value - especially by giving you scholars and quotes. However, could be overkill for some topics. In the end you’ll never be able to write 4 scholars for one small subtopic.
I guess a lot of this gets tolerated because of their dominance in the market. Hope it’s better next year!
I second this : )
@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.
In my personal opinion, I feel Plato is such a big name, he is father of Pol Philosophy. Such a big allegation of being a biggest liar must be substantiated with name of scholar. Without scholar, it would look rude.
In case question asks you to comment, even then I believe you should avoid writing extreme views.
I don't remember reading this either. But then, Nietzsche did straight up call Plato a "bore" :P XD
Seriously though, I think he might have criticized Plato, for Plato differentiated b/w experienced reality (forms) and actual reality but for Nietzsche true reality is whatever is experienced.
Still, quoting him out of context, might not be worth it.
Not sure about Nietzsche but Bertrand Russell traced the ideas of Fascism to the Republic:
Yes calling him Fascist is a trend. But I never came across someone calling him Liar. I think Karl Popper also said him fascist, not sure abhi. Have to revise : )
I see Post Modernist calls every body a liar. But calling someone ‘biggest liar’ is a cause of concern :DWhat if someone “reverse Uno card” the postmodernists and call their version of truth as a lie instead. One can’t argue against objectivity, but expect themselves to be taken as objective XD
To my understanding, Post modernists never claim finality. They don’t seek filmfare award of objectivity. They are just offering alternate way of thinking, just like the way you are doing presently : )
@Jammu Can't say about Karl Popper. I don't have PSIR optional. A physics guy here.It's just that I am fascinated by the ideas and works of Nietzsche a lot. So I tend to kill a lot of time by listening podcasts and reading blogs about his works. I haven't ever come across Nietzsche's statement on Plato and Fascism.Bertrand Russell's statement, on the other hand, is given in Subbarao itself.
Nietzsche always looks uber cool on the surface. Reddit always jokes about how woke teens and edge lords on the Internet get carried away by Nietzsche :P
In one of his books Ecco Homo, he has written chapters on himself titled “why I am so wise”, “why I write such good books” and “why I am destiny”. So taking that into account, Nietzsche might just be the first ever troller in philosophy, and for that he has my utmost respect :P XD
Nietzsche would never like his admirers to judge a book by its cover : )
I see Post Modernist calls every body a liar. But calling someone ‘biggest liar’ is a cause of concern :DWhat if someone “reverse Uno card” the postmodernists and call their version of truth as a lie instead. One can’t argue against objectivity, but expect themselves to be taken as objective XD
To my understanding, Post modernists never claim finality. They don’t seek filmfare award of objectivity. They are just offering alternate way of thinking, just like the way you are doing presently : )
Areh, I was only kidding. Why so serious?
No dost, i am not : )
Shivshankar Menon's new book, India and Asian Geopolitics, is also worth reading, especially if the subject is new to you.
I read somewhere regarding his book. He has written India is not ‘vishwa guru’ yet because world is much more realistic. A country's success is based on material power, hard power, economy, military strength, and ability to handle domestic affairs properly. Do you agree ?
By the way, Menons are in IFS for 3 generations now. Extraordinary !
Shivshankar Menon's new book, India and Asian Geopolitics, is also worth reading, especially if the subject is new to you.
I read somewhere regarding his book. He has written India is not ‘vishwa guru’ yet because world is much more realistic. A country's success is based on material power, hard power, economy, military strength, and ability to handle domestic affairs properly. Do you agree ?
By the way, Menons are in IFS for 3 generations now. Extraordinary !
I agree. The goal itself is so vague and nebulous, and in any case as recent events have proved it is a very very long road ahead. By the time we achieve the milestones that seem necessary now, the world order may have changed again.
Hahaha, loved the dynamism in last line : )
Really liked his last minute revision notes , link is at the end of article
He has prepared book and scholars list for PSIR.. gone through GS notes.
Am I only one who get panic attacks after going through such notes how much these people studied like maniac?? I am like we will std books mains 365 and newspaper.. all done:(
Hi dost, I believe a trade off needs to be there. And it will vary for everyone.
Prepare only as much notes as you can revise after Prelims.
Honourable Officer cleared mains in 2018, then UPSC used to give 4 months after prelims. We will have less than 3 this time. Hence prepare notes accordingly. And the sources you mentioned, I believe are sufficient.
Anyone joining SR CC for 2021 ?
Thanks
Pre ke bad will most probably join
This time, Maam is covering half of the cash course before pre itself.
Tentative hote hai time table. In last two years, i have never seen the institute sticking to the schedule. Infact, test discussion videos are, at times, posted very very late.
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 !
Initial tests toh sectional honge, 1.5 hours each.
initially i had trouble in writing 3 hours test, but sooner i realised with practise only it will come. Initially write open book answers, would be very effective exercise of answer writing for optionals. Good luck : )
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?
Yes, answer writing before pre would be good. Would make journey post prelims comfortable and smooth.
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 .
Hi dost, doing it every morning is so good. Nice habit. Trust me, it won’t be overkill. Keep doing it : )
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 !
If anything I was pretty good with regards to timing for this mains. Initially I used to take 4-5 hours as well. But what helped me was to cut myself off after the 3 hr limit, irrespective of whether I completed or not. So my first few tests were all incomplete. Each test i would try to at least write one more answer than the previous test. Another tip is to print out the sheets given by the test centres because register pages are much bigger and you’ll basically lose time writing in those sheets as well. I also roped in my mother to be an “invigilator”. She would walk into my room in the middle of the test etc. I actively encouraged her to make some small noises/ disturb me on the pretext of “signing entry sheet” etc so that I would not get flustered during the actual exam as well. Plus you’ll realise that once you are thorough with the material your time taken per answer automatically drops. I also suggest keeping a watch and planning how much time you want to give per question and adhering very strongly to that.
I can relate to this very well : )
Ye PSIR wale konsa chawanprash khate hai?jo SR muh se thook de !
lol
Why did I read this
Not a good day to have eyes
Yes, in fact, it is the first comment on page. Everytime, someone will come, would read this.
requesting@babu_bisleri to edit it and then delete.
could anybody please tell me what are the contents of the crash course of SR , does she provide some current affairs material as well for IR part , is the content different than the monthly magazines of Vision ??The crash course contains:
1. Test series (model answers are uploaded too)
2. Discussion videos on the test questions
3. Lecture videos on different topics (not sure how they are chosen)
4. Material on different topics, usually corresponding to the videos but some extras too
I joined the 2020 one. I couldn't find time to watch any of the videos so can't comment on that. The material is usually a collection of facts and scholar quotes. Some IR topics were covered, some weren't. Since it's IR it contained current events too under these topics, but I don't recall any separate current affairs (others please correct if I'm wrong).
You will still need the Vision magazines (or any CA source). Even for IR, you can't rely entirely on the crash course material, because a) it doesn't cover every topic, and b) the schedule is unpredictable. I think the way to use it is to make your notes on your own, and add points that you find useful from the crash course material.
Then why is there so hype about her test series? checking is pathetic and so is her crashcourse. Whats good then?
Hi dost, @whatonly has very well explained what crash course is all about.
Since she has not watched videos, let me deliberate on this issue. I have watched her every video, right from before Prelims was conducted to a night before PSIR actual exam.
- In case you have any inconvenience in writing answers or making structure of answer, she, in her initial videos would very well illustrate on it. These are like workshop videos, where she would make you write first, and then after 10 min she will tell minute changes in how to write intro and conclusion for different topics. No personal attention though. Like Ideologies, quotation based thinkers, IR questions all have different way of writing, so she focuses very much on what is demand of question and how to write. She will give insights as to what a Political Science Professor, who would be checking your answer, would be looking for there. So first model answer will be discussed in 6-8 hours. Subsequent model answers would take 60 minutes only and handout of model answers would be given.
- There is no fixed pattern, as to when videos would be uploaded. Test 2 video might upload after test 5 is conducted
- Towards the mains exam, her frequency of video upload would triple. Task would be to end everything before time.
- Then there are zoom calls where you can ask doubts. In case your doubt is genuine and speaks of your chances of clearing Mains, she will definitely explain. Otherwise, she might say something that will make you feel embarassed that why did you even ask for it. If same doubt is repeated, it will annoy her.
- Videos are even uploaded after GS subjects are over, in fact a night before PSIR actual exam. These videos would enhance your ‘feel good factor’ and bring you with hope.
However, in case you are atma nirbhar and have faith that you can manage well, these videos would be of no use at such a crucial time. Like all these videos are 40 days X 2 hours approximately
Her content in Model Answer is superb. It will make good value addition in your already prepared notes. She would give excellent intro and conclusion for most probable questions. Also, IR is very well covered. But itna zyada ho jayega ki retain bhi nahi kar paoge.
In case you need her 4 years Model Answers or other value additions, I can help you with that : )
Has anyone read Huntington's Waves of Democracy idea apart from what is in SR notes? Did he talk about a 3rd Reverse Wave?-- it's not mentioned in the notes
EDIT: He might not have, considering his book is called Third Wave, and was written in 1990. Have any other scholars referred to a "crashing" of the Third Wave? I'm interested because in the notes we're considering Arab Spring as the beginning of the 4th wave.
EDIT2: Will you consider investing time in Huntington's theory for 2A (Democracy in Contemporary Global Concerns)? SR just gives a scorecard- kahan democracy aayi, kahan democracy giri -__- but Huntington actually goes into the reasons behind the emergence of the Wave, and the process through which existing authoritarian regimes collapse
Yes dost, Huntington, in my crash course notes, did give grounds for 3rd reverse wave. He said It would occur when Neo liberal world order (which was about to be at peak when his Book Third Wave came) would collapse.
The year is no doubt, 2008. I just checked out, in case, he has done some work post Global Financial Crisis 2008. But no, he died the same year.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
At that time, I was not aware about the syllabus.
But now, looking at the syllabus, isn’t it from Global Concerns. I am sure I didn’t link the answer to CP anyway.
EDIT : Democracy is exclusively mentioned under Contemporary Global Concerns, just checked.
I guess, this would be the right place to ask this doubt.
Are previous PSIR questions repeated in GS2 in some form or other? I saw one paper of psir has questions similar to GS2. Maybe it'll help in noting down micro topics. Any suggestions?
I’m not sure if it is deliberately done. In case you have find any, it could be just a co incidence.
i have observed, GS II questions are specific, PSIR questions are generic.
for GS II, see Mains mock question papers of Vision, Forum. I am sure there would be great overlap with UPSC.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
I too think it’s under politics of representation and participation. The question is directly talking about participation and asking for examples, which makes me think they want less general theory (which Huntington’s would be) and more specific reasons.
How would you guys answer?
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.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
I too think it’s under politics of representation and participation. The question is directly talking about participation and asking for examples, which makes me think they want less general theory (which Huntington’s would be) and more specific reasons.
How would you guys answer?
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 do think writing stuff drawn from syllabus as a whole is important. But as you say the risk might be that you miss the crux.
In this question they mentioned turnout which is directly related to participation. And the issue of turnout itself is there under the participation wala topic, in SR notes itself. For me it's rarely a process of actually thinking about where the question has been drawn from. Usually i just see the question and the keywords take me to a certain place in my notes - it's very mechanical.
Maybe you can go through topic wise sorted PYQs. It will help map any new question to a topic.
BUT it is also important to be able to answer a question that isn't obviously from one topic. So what you're doing has a huge benefit.
Yes dost, I see a point. Mapping question as per topic in syllabus is really a great idea. Entire April, I have done mapping of notes wrt syllabus. Would do mapping of PYQ to Syllabus now.
Yes, like starting se I was under impression ki jitna zyada link karoge, examiner would appreciate smartness. And LESS IS MORE. I believed in Reuse and Recycle principle. I think aisa hota bhi hoga.
But may be while writing for a larger picture, I am missing the essence or context of question being asked.
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
I totally agree on the new inverse relationship between scholars and marks secured.
I believe 2A still has utility for scholars, especially in later half of 2A syllabus
2B, I feel scholars are not much useful.
But I think what works in Paper 2 is still not documented.
@Jammu i wanted to ask you about something. can i pm you ?
Yes sure.
You can ask here as well, in case it is not personal :D
Like all concepts of Political Science, mapping of this question based on topic in syllabus is also contested :D
Source is La Excellence PYQ.
I feel answer to this question would be very comprehensive covering various sub topics, inter sectional as well. Maybe that is why, the institute has kept it under Global Concerns : )
@Jammu i wanted to ask you about something. can i pm you ?
Yes sure.
You can ask here as well, in case it is not personal :D
no, nothing personal. just not related to psir but some other topic :D
Hahahaha, come to pm : )
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.
- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
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.- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
Are you sure about the Derrida quote? I couldn't find it online
It was not in context of Representative Democracy. I think this is the mistake that I’ve become habitual of doing.
It must be in your notes under Post Modernism as Rule of Deconstruction that every communication is mis communication.
’Implying representation as misrepresentation’ was a personal comment.
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?
Would you recommend writing points for this particular question as theory wise with substantiating key scholars like Feminist says this, Rousseau, then Elitist, etc
or just mentioning points as GS answers and writing scholarly intro and conclusion.
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.- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
Theoretical criticism should definitely mention Rousseau. He insists that men are only free when they live under laws that they have created themselves, through active participation. Thus, he claimed that citizens of England are only free once in 5 years. Rousseau asserts that sovereignty comes from the people and stays with the people even after the creation of civil society. Sovereignty cannot be represented since it cannot be alienated. The delegates of citizens are their agents, not their representatives. All decisions taken by them must ultimately be approved by the citizens to be legitimate.
BTW, Elitist Theory is also a theoretical critique. It describes a "market model" of democracy where groups of elites compete for power, and power never flows to the masses. Schumpeter says that not only is democracy not a governmentby the people (only the elite can govern), it doesn't even reflect thewill of the people. The only power with the people is the choice of the group of elites who will represent them.
Rousseau’s point of sovereignty is inalienable is beautiful. Calling them agents, not representatives.
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.- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
14 tarik ke test ki tyari achhi lag rhi hai :P
I’ve not enrolled anywhere.
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.i don't have psir optional and also a beginner(just started) but still trying to answer from gs perspective
- we don't choose our representative which is opposed to the definition in which we choose it.
- change of thought of representative due to indirect process( money, muscle power).
- less interaction among people ( representative like pm cm, before elections).
- difference in winning ( we chose to vote party A but the PM become of party B) we haven't chosen them still he is our PM.
- distortion representation of all people, a person may represent more people still has the same value of the person who represents few( in PM case).
take the points if you find good by moulding as per your needs of optional
Dost, these are all beautiful points. You can consider choosing PSIR as optional.
@KropotkinSchmopotkin Identity Politics from 1B can be very well quoted 😅
@Jammu or anyone, where can I find SR’s crash course video explaining structure of answers, etc.
I don’t think it is there on public platform anywhere. The videos in my portal to which I subscribed last year are no more there.
Maybe you can search for people who subscribed to her year long TS. There were batches that started in Oct, Dec 2020 for Mains 2021.
Why is India considered as an Elephant in IR lexicon.
Is this answered in Does the Elephant dance, if somebody has read it.
Copied from Quora. Kehna main bhi yehi chahta tha but niche english achhi likhi hai
India is often regarded as elephant for two main reasons:
- Due to its unrealised might and untapped potential.
- And an elephant not being attacked by carnivorous for its strength and size yet not exploiting it's strength and rather staying peaceful
Point 2 looks legitimate. Elephant despite its size and strength doesn’t exploit anybody, goes for mutual co habitation : )
@HeNeArKr thanks, since words are by former PM himself, it definitely looks appealing to refer India as Elephant in Mains : )
Hi to all the very cool, but erudite veterans here,
I've started out recently, armed with PSIR as the weapon of choice, absence of familiarity with the subject led me to seek refuge under the very towering Shubhra Ranjan, she's started out promisingly with Western Political Thought, which I feel (after stalking this thread here) is probably the superstructure of the PSIR syllabus.
My question here is besides revising Ma'am's class notes everyday, should I also be supplementing this with a textbook at this stage, like OP Gauba, Sushila Ramaswamy, or should I wait for Western Political Thought to get over, get really cozy with Maam's notes and then begin reading other texts?
Also, I have made a booklist for PSIR, but after scouring through the internet, I saw quite a handful of toppers vouch for just Maam's notes and some addition value addition here and there. Do you all attest to this? Are there books which are essential must reads? (Gauba, Sushila Ramaswamy, Bhargava, Baylis and Smith, Andrew Heywood) I feel a little uneasy with the idea of taking up an optional and not going through the textbooks. SR also very convincingly in her first lecture dissuaded from taking up any readings, she then very reluctantly, doled out the names of certain textbooks.
To avoid complacency, I've started out with reading Maam's notes of Paper-2, so that I would also be covering the Paper-2 groundwork on my own simultaneously with Maam's lectures of Paper-1.
Please help me out here, any help on this front would be a lifesaver! @whatonly @Villanelle @babu_bisleri @KropotkinSchmopotkin @Jammu
(this thread is absolutely dope, a lot of golden nuggets here, thank you to all of you! )
Thank you for kind words.
If in case, I have to start again, I would advice myself to take steps based on priorities and time in hand. Reading supplementary sources would definitely reinforce conceptual understanding, but you have to see how much time you have.
Also, anything not revised before prelims or mains, is of no use in exam. It may help in conceptual understanding, but it won’t reflect directly in answer sheets or OMR sheets. And marks are awarded based on that only.
Also, in case you are going to read books, don’t do it cover to cover, but do only for topics where you feel gaps are there
If you have subscribed to Mam’s course, she has given supplementary chapters topic wise in google drive. If this is not the case, pm me your telegram id, I will send you. Good luck : )
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
This is gold, thank you : )
“There have been some prominent shifts in the world, in the recent past leading towards gradual unfolding of a new world order in coming future”. Comment .
Maine jyada likha isme and hence shi se structure nhi hua .. wrote from 2001 and 2008 later about Russia resurgence .. also axis of evil and China rise .. middle kingdom ... end me how India sees the multipolar world. But kuchh zyada ho gya likhne ka .. Joseph Nye ka 3D chess board likhna hi bhul gya ...yeh sab kahani btane ke chakar me. End me socha likhun but answer end krr rha tha tab .. lol .. how you guys manage this thing... wrote my first answer after like 6 months
Anyone ?
Regarding managing this thing, when I started writing, I was a miserable writer. I used to write stories of Plato, Aristotle, and analysis was completely missing.
Then, I started answer writing as a workshop thing. Like along the margins, I would jot down points that I want to include. Then while writing, I would connect those points. This exercise would take 2-3 minutes extra in framing the answer and then another 2-3 minutes in thinking while writing.
After some time, I could jot down those points in mind, and then while writing, everything soon started coming in flow. This was more amazing when I started writing in perfectly time bound manner.
In Optional answer writing, I have observed depth is more important than multiple dimensions. So even if some points are missed, while is likely the case given that we have to write in paragraphs and there is word limit, it’s totally fine.
Primacy should be given to writing what is asked, and addressing the context, which your points wrt specific question have very well addressed
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!
Yes, in Laxmikant, they have given the reason that it is due to vast size of Constitution.
But here when Gurcharan Das, Dr Manmohan Singh are referring to India as Elephant, the context I believe is mainly economy.
This is a western worldview wrt India and we have embraced it like many of other their views for us had been accepted either readily or reluctantly. for example The land of serpent.Apart from what other said about qualities of elephants which is more or less similar to India like its huge size, its nature of calm & compose until one poke their nose, non aggressive in nature, (India can also be depicted as Royal Bengal Tiger or Lion but it didn't either by west or even by us( our leaders/worldview from Nehru to S. Jaishankar have never tried to imitate the notion of Western POWER or try to somewhat project India as a non aggressive power).I would like delve into another aspect - regarding why India is often compared with elephant. A historical view. The first historical encounter of West (Greek world) with us was happened during the time of Alexander and his army for the very first time met with an army which employed a very new kind of war machine i.e; Elephant. This was their first experience of use of elephants in battle field.
Yes friend, considerably true. Lion is another graceful animal that is seemingly wrongly placed in India :D
Couple of months back, S Jaishankar was asked who, in his opinion, were the two greatest leaders India ever had. Answering one of’course is easy. Natural choice is Gandhi, but if two are asked, a realist personality like Kautilya, in my opinion would have looked appealing. But he said Lord Buddha. May be intention was to capitalise the legacy of Buddhism.
Going by the logic, if some day, who is the greatest animal is asked, answering it would not be difficult :D
This is a western worldview wrt India and we have embraced it like many of other their views for us had been accepted either readily or reluctantly. for example The land of serpent.Apart from what other said about qualities of elephants which is more or less similar to India like its huge size, its nature of calm & compose until one poke their nose, non aggressive in nature, (India can also be depicted as Royal Bengal Tiger or Lion but it didn't either by west or even by us( our leaders/worldview from Nehru to S. Jaishankar have never tried to imitate the notion of Western POWER or try to somewhat project India as a non aggressive power).I would like delve into another aspect - regarding why India is often compared with elephant. A historical view. The first historical encounter of West (Greek world) with us was happened during the time of Alexander and his army for the very first time met with an army which employed a very new kind of war machine i.e; Elephant. This was their first experience of use of elephants in battle field.
Yes friend, considerably true. Lion is another graceful animal that is seemingly wrongly placed in India :D
Couple of months back, S Jaishankar was asked who, in his opinion, were the two greatest leaders India ever had. Answering one of’course is easy. Natural choice is Gandhi, but if two are asked, a realist personality like Kautilya, in my opinion would have looked appealing. But he said Lord Buddha. May be intention was to capitalise the legacy of Buddhism.
Going by the logic, if some day, who is the greatest animal is asked, answering it would not be difficult :D
Correction - Two greatest Indians were asked. Not Indian Leaders. Just checked.
Yes friend, considerably true. Lion is another graceful animal that is seemingly wrongly placed in India :D
Couple of months back, S Jaishankar was asked who, in his opinion, were the two greatest leaders India ever had. Answering one of’course is easy. Natural choice is Gandhi, but if two are asked, a realist personality like Kautilya, in my opinion would have looked appealing. But he said Lord Buddha. May be intention was to capitalise the legacy of Buddhism.
Going by the logic, if some day, who is the greatest animal is asked, answering it would not be difficult :D
Kautilya was never the leader btw. He was always the Amit Shah.
Lion is America out and out. An elite and hegemon, whose command everyone follows.
Ohh you are unaware what a realist Buddhist were. Buddhism denotes expansion. Culture as well as territorial. In Sanatan Dharam only Buddhism and Jainism (till some extent) follows expansionism.
PS : yeh info Kahan milti hai jaishankar ne kya kaha ? 🤔🤔🤔
This is great. I have never seen Buddhism this way.
I follow him on Twitter. His Twitter is like 90% ‘Birthday wishes Diplomacy’ :D
I’ve subscribed to MEA Youtube Channel as well. But I dont recommend them from PSIR’s point of view. ROI is poor.
Also, this news got a big controversy because Nepalese PM said Lord Buddha was Nepalese, not Indian :’)
Is there a difference between "procedural equality" and "equality of opportunity"?Context- I think they're the same but SR's assignment on Equality has different questions on the two - "What is PE?", "What is EoO?"- so I thought I'd ask just to be sure.
I also feel they are similar, but yes I feel Socialists would use the term Procedural Equality, and Liberals would use Equality of Opportunity.
Just like difference between freedom and liberty.
Can anyone please give me a review of Tejal Khandelwaal Ma’am? Would be very grateful. I want to enroll in some PSIR test see
Hi. I contacted her for Mains 20. We agreed that I will write pyq papers year wise and she would evaluate them. 500 for each. I could write only 2 papers. She did evaluate very well in timely manner. She also mentored on telephone. Problem is I did not take the reviews seriously then and did not work on it.
I should have written more. I might join her again sometime in future.
@Jammu so you are saying it’s worth investing at Level up? Over other institutions eg Shubhra Ma’am etc?
If it is first mains, join any popular TS.
If it is second, join any popular TS + seek mentorship from Tejal mam or anyone else. I’m unaware about Levelup.
