I think Shubhra Ma'am herself clarified in the video discussion that the idea behind putting IR/random questions was to keep an element of surprise in the question paper. In her POV, real paper will always have these things. So, they are trying to prepare us which sounded reasonable.SR TS lost credibility in my eyes. I had joined the TS that they launched like a while back for 2021 Mains and I didn't like it. In the 1st exam the topics covered were Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli and yet one of the question was about the Indus Water Treaty. I mean there was only a total of 8 questions so it wouldn't have been that hard to just double or triple check the questions are from the proper topic at the least. It just made me feel like they're not being diligent in their efforts. I could be completely wrong and they are indeed very diligent and this was just a random mistake.
Also, I wanna point out that I didn't think their questions and model answers were bad at all. In fact, I think they're good to help us figure out a structure/framework for our answers and how to kind of connect a relatively vague question to something concrete in the syllabus.
I think context of balancing China has to be looked via balancing it in Asia. China wants to be a regional hegemon in Asia. Both US and India can't let that happen. That's why US has gone with 'pivot to Asia' and 'Indo-pacific'. Similarly, India can't balance China alone. It needs US help and hence is getting closer with Quad, Malabar, foundational agreements etc.Why do they call india getting close to usa a balancing act. Balance of power means weaker states coming together agaiant a stronger one. So if anything it is when India combined forces with china and Russia to form RIC or brics against US unipolar moment , that it was balance of power in true sense ? Assuming US is still the sole superpower way ahead of its nearest competitor china.
How is Social constructivist critic of realism different from post modernist's on the same?
Anyone?
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.
Agree with what others said.
In my view, the difference lies what they do after criticism. Social constructivists 'prescribe' dialogues to change belief system. One can create new "constructions" with new belief.
On other hand, post modernists don't prescribe anything. Otherwise it may become another discourse. They 'describe' the Knowledge-Power connection.
Regarding Richard Ashley, he talks about anarchy being interpreted by realists. He does not suggest any new interpretation. On other hand, Nina Tannenwald (social constructivist) talks about nuclear weapons and its harmful effects. She gives a 'new' interpretation and 'prescribes' to see them as a taboo rather than weapon of strength. The difference is prescription v/s description.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I need some help in PSIR. Feels as if I have not yet learnt writing language of the subject. And was adequately punished in marks assigned.
Also Is some strict checking being pursued in PSIR ? Found one analysis in which average marks was in mid 260s
The more number of times you revise the better your hold of the subject will be. Also try and identify the keyword from your notes and revise those multiple times
Thanks, will try this time. There was too much beating around the bush in the exam !!
