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
Hello, Guys please help me out here!
Especially the ones who are not fond of SR paper 2 notes. I went through the notes and consulted Andrew Heywood as well. I find too much overlap in both and personally, I found SR notes to be better as it has many thinkers too to quote in answers although I felt Heywood can be used for concept clarity but for exam orientation I found SR much better maybe I am missing something or I am not in sync with exam needs but can anyone explain why do people consult other books for paper 2. Also, I think contemporary events anyhow have to be covered by reading articles and crash course so how would reading heywood or baylis smith add value to the notes, and even if we get extra 2-3 points, is it worth investing time in reading complete textbooks.
I think clarity is the main reason to explore other books. Beyond that, insome places SR notes may not be enough, so you can selectively refer to them. Another reason is that if your entire paper is written based only on SR notes, there's not much scope for being unique. Especially with some of the more generic questions thay are asked. For an examiner who's reading multiple copies with the same 4-5 points, even a few new interesting points can set a paper apart. Doesn't have to be in every answer.
But the first factor has to be time of course. After all many people have done great with no other source - so in the end how you use those points matters. Value addition can be valuable (:p) but certainly isn't necessary for everyone unless you have time to spare.
EiChan,HeNeArKr
Hello, Guys please help me out here!
Especially the ones who are not fond of SR paper 2 notes. I went through the notes and consulted Andrew Heywood as well. I find too much overlap in both and personally, I found SR notes to be better as it has many thinkers too to quote in answers although I felt Heywood can be used for concept clarity but for exam orientation I found SR much better maybe I am missing something or I am not in sync with exam needs but can anyone explain why do people consult other books for paper 2. Also, I think contemporary events anyhow have to be covered by reading articles and crash course so how would reading heywood or baylis smith add value to the notes, and even if we get extra 2-3 points, is it worth investing time in reading complete textbooks.
I guess it's a personal choice. I don't like her coverage of the Feminist perspective of IR (to use an example) but her notes do act as a good springboard for further reading (since they mention Cynthia Enloe and EB Elshtain). If you don't find a problem writing answers stick with what you're currently referring to.
I haven't read Bayliss and Smith and have only referred to a few chapters of Jackson and Sorensen (mostly for the Contemporary Concerns bit and some of the chapters on Approaches). I have instead read the theoretical perspectives (Approaches to IR) from the Oxford Handbook and I've read many, many Introductions of various books (For most books that SR mentions, I either read its review or its intro; it's painstaking, I know, but I feel secure really knowing what place a scholar is coming from before quoting them)
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Maybe we can just say "Voltaire is widely believed to have said..."
Still feels wrong, but we get to use the quote, and it doesn't matter whether the examiner too believes the misattribution, or whether they know who actually said it, or whether they've never heard of it - always safe.
I was on the side of burying the pedant within me, and going along with the popular misattribution. I'm assuming an examiner won't hold it against me even if he knows the real source?
whatonly,What do you do when a quote is popularly misattributed?eg Voltaire never said "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it". It was first produced in the book "Voltaire and Friends" published after his death.eg2 Sir John Seeley is given credit for "History is past politics. Politics is present history" but was this originally said by Edward Freeman (this is common knowledge for Victorian historians but hasn't percolated down to PolSci)
TINA
If teachers and toppers are dictating the same thing, we have to consume it as it's tough for both us and copy checkers to google each and every such thing.
"You Either Die A Hero(and qualify UPSC), Or You Live Long Enough(by examining everything) To See Yourself Become The Villain"
Hello, Guys please help me out here!
Especially the ones who are not fond of SR paper 2 notes. I went through the notes and consulted Andrew Heywood as well. I find too much overlap in both and personally, I found SR notes to be better as it has many thinkers too to quote in answers although I felt Heywood can be used for concept clarity but for exam orientation I found SR much better maybe I am missing something or I am not in sync with exam needs but can anyone explain why do people consult other books for paper 2. Also, I think contemporary events anyhow have to be covered by reading articles and crash course so how would reading heywood or baylis smith add value to the notes, and even if we get extra 2-3 points, is it worth investing time in reading complete textbooks.
Heywood was not very helpful for me either. Toppers notes and SR mam notes are good enough to comprehend the essence in paper 2.
Instead, I liked OP Gauba very much for Paper 1 as it has surely much content, not being available in SR mam notes.
HeNeArKr,Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Institutionalisation as in how dehyphenation is done between state and national elections, rise of regional parties etc
De-institutionalisation as in how parties are lacking internal/Intraparty democracy. For eg, no intra-party elections after 1974 in Congress.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
I couldn't find where he says it. Do you have a source apart from SR? The only results I found are psir websites. As far as I can tell, Atul Kohli spoke about the deinstitutionalisation of the Congress party during Indira Gandhi's time as she concentrated power with herself.
balwintejas,Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Its written there na as role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Changing voters and parties relation is the further impact of institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties and not the actual meaning of it.
Institutionalisation - Because the essence of federalism is upheld (regional parties), multi-party system, etc
Deinstitutionalisation - Because intra-party democracy is withering away. Zoya Hassan highlighted the same issue how Congress as well as BJP(because of RSS influence) are going towards de-institutionalisation because they lack any substantial intra-party democracy.
Does anyone know the reasons behind "simultaneous institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties" that Yogendra Yadav uses?@whatonly
Political parties in India are going through the process of institutionalization as well as deinstitutionalization. On one hand their reach is increasing but on the other hand the depth and intensity of the voters have been declining. The role of political parties has got reduced to the instrumental act of voting. They have overlooked the broader agenda of democratic nation and nation building. (quoting from SR notes)
I guess it's "depth and intensity of the *allegiance of members" that is declining. I'm asking for the factors behind this phenomenon. Why have political parties declined so, as per YY? Zoya Hasan claims this is due to decline in the role of ideology in Indian politics and rise of one-person-centric or family-centric politics. I'm curious as to what YY thinks.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Changing voters and parties relation is the further impact of institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation of political parties and not the actual meaning of it.
Institutionalisation - Because the essence of federalism is upheld (regional parties), multi-party system, etc
Deinstitutionalisation - Because intra-party democracy is withering away. Zoya Hassan highlighted the same issue how Congress as well as BJP(because of RSS influence) are going towards de-institutionalisation because they lack any substantial intra-party democracy.
Dude I am talking about the thing which is written in the notes not about the theory.
Actually no yogendra yadav doesn't talk about the allegiance of party members here. He is talking about the relationship between voters and political party which lacks depth and intensity.
Sorry, I made a stupid mistake- replace members with voters. I was just pointing out that you were missing a word. "depth and intensity of voters" is a nonsensical phrase. "depth and intensity of the allegiance of voters" would be better, and totally in line with what YY has said in his recent book about the existence of "fickle and unattached social groups"
I couldn't find where he says it. Do you have a source apart from SR? The only results I found are psir websites. As far as I can tell, Atul Kohli spoke about the deinstitutionalisation of the Congress party during Indira Gandhi's time as she concentrated power with herself.
I had found the source before, forgotten all about it, and found it again
He says it on page 6. Some reasons given by him are
>near identification of parties with elections
>inability to settle competing claims to power at the time of nomination (this resulted in a fragmentation i.e. large number of candidates in each constituency)
>inability to maintain an organic relationship with the electorate
>growing loss of legitimacy and trust in parties.. intense dissatisfaction which took the form, among some sections of society, of withdrawal from the arena of electoral politics in favour of social movements
Within the paper he has also discussed regionalisation of politics, but I just skimmed the paper so I'm not too sure about the other points raised.
whatonly,Has anyone written this pyq?"Why does global human security need to be emphasized along with economic security? Explain with examples."
I would give a try.
General intro of security like security is a foundational value(Hobbes).
Realists state centric views upon security.
However, state security and human security cant be dehyphenated. Especially in the post cold war world where security has become multi-faceted. Aristotle gave in his "theory of revolution" that inequalities and human crisis can lead to an upsurge of the state.
Marxists for this reason emphasized human and economic security. Post colonialists also talked about the insecurity dilemma culminating from the human and economic security crisis.
Can be given recent Lebanon protests as an example happening because of economic crisis.
Kant - universal rights of mankind, also asked for liberal trade to deal with the economic security of the state.
R2P Summit of 2005 - all Heads of State and Government affirmed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Feminists and Barry Buzan theory additionally, to give alternative viewpoints as to how security discourses are created neglecting human security.
Examples of Overground workers, stone pelters, etc as by-product of neglect of economic and human security.
@Villanelle @whatonly More points please
Spock,
Write your comment…
