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.
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
I was going to say this too. The name derives from the animal most associated with India in local and international imagination. The comparisons are made post facto to fit with the animal already assigned.
whatonly,.
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.
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.
What@farzicoder said. I wanted to add that "Balance of Power" can mean different things in different circumstances and when used by different actors, as seen in the 8 meanings of BoP listed by Ernst Haas (you can find this in your SR notes)
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.
Hey. Everything@farzicoder and@KropotkinSchmopotkin said. Just wanted to add that while BoP is a hardcore IR term, "balancing act" seems to be more from general parlance. Just a way to fulfill two obligations that pull in different directions.
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.
Agree with what everyone said. There can be two meanings of balancing act, both of which are in slightly different contexts. The first would imply balance the US-India relations with interests with other countries as well, namely Russia, a relationship that US traditionally doesn’t take kindly to, or Iran (S400 deal, sanctions etc). The second could imply a balancing act in the regional sphere of influence, namely balancing China- Pak axis as well as a belligerent Iran and Turkey. So it needs to be read in context.
Dionysus,Jammu
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 : )
I think since I almost have an year, I should probably read books to enhance the understanding and also to balance out the queasy feeling
Thank you so much! I'll just send you a message! :)
Jammu,whatonly,Jammu@whatonly hahahahaha, I've really come to admire how you very efficiently address a whole flood of questions lunging at you!I am indeed appearing for 2022, though there's a full year at hand but somehow it feels less when it comes to this particular monster of an exam. It's perplexing, to say the least.I have started out with looking at books for thinkers, the difference of verbiage between Maam's notes and textbooks like Sushila Ramaswamy is shocking! Hopefully, reiterations will make things better and more into perspective and could better the assimilation part as you said.Thank you so much!
Hehe, you’re too kind. Now I only hope the mains examiner thinks so as well :p
Your username reminds me of Steve Irwin. I’m sure you can slay this monster as well as he would :) all the best!
Is it right to term Locke's Liberalism as Justification of Capitalism?
His statement "No Law, No liberty" which gives us Due process of Law did limit the arbitrary power of State
Yes, I think so. Locke focused mainly on negative liberty and natural rights (Right to Property mainly).
Through his Labour Theory of property, Locke went on to justify unequal ownership of property.
Locke refuted Robert Filmer. Filmer used the theological idea of Adam (who inherited all the resources on earth) to justify how all citizens have equal stake in natural resources. Locke, while agreeing that everyone equally inherited resources, said that when labour is mixed with resources to produce something new, it becomes private property to the one who produced it.
This very notion of converting public assets into private assets became the central idea of Capitalism. Hence, he justified absolute right to property and was called father of possessive individualism, etc etc.
I don’t think limiting arbitrary power of the State is an argument against Capitalism to be honest, if anything, it’s a case for it. Because individualism, and keeping self prior to the whole, putting limits on the State are again features of Capitalism.
Is it right to term Locke's Liberalism as Justification of Capitalism?
His statement "No Law, No liberty" which gives us Due process of Law did limit the arbitrary power of State
Read Macpherson's critique of Locke for justification. I'll write some down-
1. Locke as "supporter of unlimited acquisition"- his limitations on right to property are insincere eg. limitation of spoilage is negated by the use of money
2. Locke insists that disparity in property-holding is natural (myth- those that are more industrious come to acquire more property). This is a justification of inequality.
3. Purpose of civil society is to protect natural rights; thus its sole purpose is to preserve the unequal distribution of wealth
4. Macpherson claims that Locke didn't consider the labour class part of the body politic, their consent was not considered in the social contract
The opposing view is given by Isiah Berlin and John Dunn who highlight that Macpherson overlooks the overriding role of Natural Law and the idea of Common Good that it implies (I hope that this is the point you are raising)
However, the problem is that Locke's Natural Law is also not understood uniformly eg Sabine writes that he took the medieval concept of natural law and changed its meaning completely. While the earlier version was concerned with common good, "Locke set up a body of innate, indefeasible, individual rights which limit the competence of the community" to secure common good
Is it right to term Locke's Liberalism as Justification of Capitalism?
His statement "No Law, No liberty" which gives us Due process of Law did limit the arbitrary power of State
Yes, I think so. Locke focused mainly on negative liberty and natural rights (Right to Property mainly).
Through his Labour Theory of property, Locke went on to justify unequal ownership of property.
Locke refuted Robert Filmer. Filmer used the theological idea of Adam (who inherited all the resources on earth) to justify how all citizens have equal stake in natural resources. Locke, while agreeing that everyone equally inherited resources, said that when labour is mixed with resources to produce something new, it becomes private property to the one who produced it.
This very notion of converting public assets into private assets became the central idea of Capitalism. Hence, he justified absolute right to property and was called father of possessive individualism, etc etc.
I don’t think limiting arbitrary power of the state is an argument against Capitalism to be honest, if anything, it’s a case for it. Because individualism, and keeping self prior to the whole (putting limits on the state) are again features of Capitalism.
Are you sure about Filmer being a supporter equitable distribution of resources? I thought his "inheritance of Adam" idea was to place all resources squarely in the hands of the monarchy (heirs of Adam).
Although, I'm not very sure. My understanding of Filmer comes mostly from SR notes.
Are you sure about Filmer being a supporter equitable distribution of resources? I thought his "inheritance of Adam" idea was to place all resources squarely in the hands of the monarchy (heirs of Adam).
Although, I'm not very sure. My understanding of Filmer comes mostly from SR notes.
Yeah. I’m not too sure either. I read that he did not believe in natural property rights. So in theory, while property is equally inherited…there was to be no ownership of property. And in practice, this would mean property being managed the way King sees fit.
Is it right to term Locke's Liberalism as Justification of Capitalism?
His statement "No Law, No liberty" which gives us Due process of Law did limit the arbitrary power of State
Read Macpherson's critique of Locke for justification. I'll write some down-
1. Locke as "supporter of unlimited acquisition"- his limitations on right to property are insincere eg. limitation of spoilage is negated by the use of money
2. Locke insists that disparity in property-holding is natural (myth- those that are more industrious come to acquire more property). This is a justification of inequality.
3. Purpose of civil society is to protect natural rights; thus its sole purpose is to preserve the unequal distribution of wealth
4. Macpherson claims that Locke didn't consider the labour class part of the body politic, their consent was not considered in the social contract
The opposing view is given by Isiah Berlin and John Dunn who highlight that Macpherson overlooks the overriding role of Natural Law and the idea of Common Good that it implies (this is the point you are raising)
However, the problem is that Locke's Natural Law is also not understood uniformly eg Sabine writes that he took the medieval concept of natural law and changed its meaning completely. While the earlier version was concerned with common good, "Locke set up a body of innate, indefeasible, individual rights which limit the competence of the community" to secure common good
Thanks@KropotkinSchmopotkin This clears many things.
Thanks@Villanelle for your response. But my point was that by limiting Arbitrary power, he furthers individual liberty. Looks like he has not focused on this and there is ambiguity regarding his views on Natural law as pointed out by@KropotkinSchmopotkin .
Write your comment…
