PSIR - Strategy, resources & discussion
Hi peeps. Let’s do this!
1. Previous papers from 2009 (both papers are in the same PDF):here2. Topic-wise PYQs: here
3. Look for PDFs of books here: b-ok.cc, http://libgen.rs/, archive.org
4. Model answers from SR:here
5. OnlyIAS notes, if you need extra matter for a few topics:here
6. SR notes, typed:politicsforindia.com
whatonly,
In today's editorials in the Hindu there was a line I really liked. "Theory of interests is superseding ideology in foreign policy." I felt like this statement also goes along very well with the "world of convergences" as described by our EAM.
Has this been not mostly the case with India? Interests over ideology?
whatonly,In today's editorials in the Hindu there was a line I really liked. "Theory of interests is superseding ideology in foreign policy." I felt like this statement also goes along very well with the "world of convergences" as described by our EAM.Has this been not mostly the case with India? Interests over ideology?
Well interests has been at the core of foreign policy throughout history for sure, but in the few decades after the establishment of the UN ideology played a significant role (liberalism and democracy). For example, NAM was a policy created as both an ideology and in the self-interest of developing nations. In the current scenario, NAM has lost its relevance. Not because it's ideology is flawed but because nations like India find no real benefit from it i.e. interests. So I would argue that while interests were always a core part of foreign policy, the role of ideology has decreased which causes the relative importance of interests to increase in foreign policy formulation. So the statement that the theory of interests is superseding ideology doesn't mean interests were not present before, but only that it is gaining more importance than ideology. Though I think the realist school of international relations would argue that ideology has never played a role in international relations and that it was only interest or the drive for power that shaped international politics.
whatonly,
whatonly,Well interests has been at the core of foreign policy throughout history for sure, but in the few decades after the establishment of the UN ideology played a significant role (liberalism and democracy). For example, NAM was a policy created as both an ideology and in the self-interest of developing nations. In the current scenario, NAM has lost its relevance. Not because it's ideology is flawed but because nations like India find no real benefit from it i.e. interests. So I would argue that while interests were always a core part of foreign policy, the role of ideology has decreased which causes the relative importance of interests to increase in foreign policy formulation. So the statement that the theory of interests is superseding ideology doesn't mean interests were not present before, but only that it is gaining more importance than ideology. Though I think the realist school of international relations would argue that ideology has never played a role in international relations and that it was only interest or the drive for power that shaped international politics.
That’s a good explanation.
Is there any example of a decision being made by a country choosing ideology and sacrificing a significant interest? Most examples have both in the same direction.
This would be a realist view, but one could say that ideology has always been a nice way to package and back up decisions that were made based on practical interests, like the European identity ideal for the EEC/EU, or NAM. As the world order stabilises with respect to one country’s dominance (US), or as a nation’s confidence and consequence in the world rise (India) the ideological cover might simply become unnecessary to sell a stand taken, both at home and globally. Might enables assertion of right. Besides, an ideology compatible with present day issues, that are far more complex, is naturally harder to devise. Perhaps what seems like pragmatism today, with enough academic writing and debate about it, might even be representable as ideology tomorrow!
Well interests has been at the core of foreign policy throughout history for sure, but in the few decades after the establishment of the UN ideology played a significant role (liberalism and democracy). For example, NAM was a policy created as both an ideology and in the self-interest of developing nations. In the current scenario, NAM has lost its relevance. Not because it's ideology is flawed but because nations like India find no real benefit from it i.e. interests. So I would argue that while interests were always a core part of foreign policy, the role of ideology has decreased which causes the relative importance of interests to increase in foreign policy formulation. So the statement that the theory of interests is superseding ideology doesn't mean interests were not present before, but only that it is gaining more importance than ideology. Though I think the realist school of international relations would argue that ideology has never played a role in international relations and that it was only interest or the drive for power that shaped international politics.
That’s a good explanation.
Is there any example of a decision being made by a country choosing ideology and sacrificing a significant interest? Most examples have both in the same direction.
This would be a realist view, but one could say that ideology has always been a nice way to package and back up decisions that were made based on practical interests, like the European identity ideal for the EEC/EU, or NAM. As the world order stabilises with respect to one country’s dominance (US), or as a nation’s confidence and consequence in the world rise (India) the ideological cover might simply become unnecessary to sell a stand taken, both at home and globally. Might enables assertion of right. Besides, an ideology compatible with present day issues, that are far more complex, is naturally harder to devise. Perhaps what seems like pragmatism today, with enough academic writing and debate about it, might even be representable as ideology tomorrow!
Yupp exactly. Ideology will never survive unless it overlaps with interests.
whatonly,Hello guys!. Preparing for 2022. As I have started just 2 months back. Thinking of PSIR as an optional. As I am working so the dynamic part and overlap with GS may help and I am interested in thinkers. Is PSIR good for a working professional? And What about coaching? Shubra Ranjan tablet course will do? Or Piyush Choubey? Guide please.
I personally think if you are someone that can decently understand concepts when you read about them and just spend some time thinking things through coaching is not necessary. Like if you can comprehend what is being written in books like OP Gauba and Andrew Heywood, coaching is not a must. I personally read the basic books and used SR notes for value addition. This works for Section A of both papers. For IR, I just read a lot of articles and books on it because I have a lot of interest in the subject. For Section B of Paper I, I don't really know. It's, by far, my weakest part of PSIR.
Hitman2021,
dragon_rider,
Villanelle,Ideology is just a facade used for calculated political gains - more so back home, than in the international arena. Drum beating helps with political gains, like has been the case with Turkey. Foreign policy wise, nearly all nations are juggling contradictory and self defeating stances.
Caesar,
Write your comment…
