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
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
“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 ?
Jai Shree Ram !
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!
whatonly,
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! )
In entirely Marxian terms western political thought would technically be the base. Sorry couldn’t resist
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 : )
whatonly,“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
EiChan,babu_bisleriWhy 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.
whatonly,@crikeymate If you're going to read any books and are short on time, start from topics other than 1A. SR focuses most of her time and energy on that, so the rest of your sections will be relatively weak. I've read Gauba among the books that you mentioned and it really helped me. Apart from books plato.stanford is a really rich source of information and insight.
We love to hate SR notes on this forum. We also like to tell ourselves that despite their poor quality SR notes are helpful because they provide a basic structure for our preparation, because they cover all topics of the syllabus, because they give us a helpful list of authors that we can look up on our own time. I don't know if all that is true or if it's just us trying to justify our sunk cost. All I know is that I feel held hostage by those notes. I hate that I'm trying to build a palace of content upon that heap of dung.
EDIT: I don't know anyone who has done it without her notes, and I won't push you to be a pioneer. I just feel that it CAN be done if someone is brave enough
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
Another hypothesis is that country's are reakted generally to what they refer to as their 'heritage animal' & this connection is creatively utilised as a writing metaphor to make connections. For eg even though writings on China have linked it to a dragon repeatedly (an imaginary animal that too), China didn't display any dragon like image for a large part of its existence. It's in recent times that this metaphor has been increasingly used to link with its stupendous growth. There are whole lot of articles online on how this is used as a soft power narrative. I also have a theory that using elephant for India (know for its longer & sure footed existence )also means to show that even though the dragon can be fast & aggresive, it can't last the elephant.
Found another interesting correlation by Shashi Tharoor here -
Indian diplomacy, a veteran told Shashi Tharoor many years ago, is like the love-making of an elephant: it is conducted at a very high level, accompanied by much bellowing, and the results are not known for two years (gestation period of elephants)-- Extract from Pax Indica
“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
Shi baat hai bhai.. yeh wali cheez try krta
Jai Shree Ram !
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
Yes. And Malone's analysis is whether and where we are moving quickly('Dancing') in the contemporary world. 'Elephant' might also simply be used for the large size of the country.
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
Another hypothesis is that country's are reakted generally to what they refer to as their 'heritage animal' & this connection is creatively utilised as a writing metaphor to make connections. For eg even though writings on China have linked it to a dragon repeatedly (an imaginary animal that too), China didn't display any dragon like image for a large part of its existence. It's in recent times that this metaphor has been increasingly used to link with its stupendous growth. There are whole lot of articles online on how this is used as a soft power narrative. I also have a theory that using elephant for India (know for its longer & sure footed existence )also means to show that even though the dragon can be fast & aggresive, it can't last the elephant.
Found another interesting correlation by Shashi Tharoor here -
Indian diplomacy, a veteran told Shashi Tharoor many years ago, is like the love-making of an elephant: it is conducted at a very high level, accompanied by much bellowing, and the results are not known for two years (gestation period of elephants)-- Extract from Pax Indica
sab countries apna ek animal choose krlein, then all can have a Pokemon match :p
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! )
Bhai I haven't given mains. And non psir background hai mera + mujhe books bhi padhna pasand nhi. Notes bhi yaad nhi hote :(. Books etc kaafi personal choice hai but main nhi padhunga kabhi. I havent even read ncerts in my school days toh psir ki books toh itni moti hoti hai .. kaun padhe. Only notes + crash course material ( agar kabhi zindagi me pre clear hua toh :P)
Jai Shree Ram !
crikeymate,
Write your comment…
