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
What is the radical humanist perspective on Indian National Movement?
All the material I've come across only describe MN Roy's concept of radical humanism. They don't explain its links and views on INM.
Please share your ideas.
Radical humanists did not articulate a clear perspective of the Indian National Movement. With concepts like scientific humanism, cosmopolitan look, etc. they gave philosophical color to INM by romanticizing the idea of freedom. Essentially, they deal with 'what freedom means' and thus, take a prescriptive approach.
You are not able to establish a direct linkage because radical democrats did not attempt to describe the Indian National Movement, unlike liberal, Marxist, Dalit approaches.
They just provided a conceptual framework of freedom that is utopian in nature.
What books you used for paper 2? I have mostly done part A from Shubhra ranjan notes and Andrew Heywood's Global politics. For part B I am referring SR notes only...I don't think I will be able to write even average quality answers for this part with those notes. Satyam Gandhi (AIR 10) recommends onlyias IR material for paper 2 part b... What would you recommend? How to go about it?
Yaar i read both Heywood and Baylis for paper 2 and i extensively read on ORF purely out of interest, which really helped. Obviously not feasible for everyone, but if you can get your hands on Baylis and Smith its a brilliant book. Never made any separate notes just underlined in the book itself (which if I would do in an alternate universe). For part 2 i would advise you to remember the points from mains 365 and add some of the part 1 ke thinkers itself as well as supplement with C Raja Mohan, Happymon Jacob, Hash V Pant. Beech beech m daal dena. I also remembered few keywords from diplomats and FS like Amb Nirupama Rao, Amb Vijay Gokhale (brilliant for China analysis), EAM, former NSA etc and i had googled a few book reviews which really helped in my answers. But again all of this remains unproven till the time mains result is out, and more specifically mark sheet.
Edit: as my friend @HeNeArKr pointed out (after calling me a jhooti XD) this seems way more than what I actually told people. It isn’t because it’s about the extent to which you do this. I have one comment from few of the FS, and a few by EAM. I googled 2-3 book reviews and found some blurbs that were helpful and would make me look like I read the book. You can obviously do so much more if you have the time or the energy to not procrastinate.
Also in comparison to paper 1, I prepared a lot for paper 2, but objectively speaking I didn’t do much.
Would you advise reading Baylis and Smith to someone who has read Heywood?
Jammu,
What books you used for paper 2? I have mostly done part A from Shubhra ranjan notes and Andrew Heywood's Global politics. For part B I am referring SR notes only...I don't think I will be able to write even average quality answers for this part with those notes. Satyam Gandhi (AIR 10) recommends onlyias IR material for paper 2 part b... What would you recommend? How to go about it?
Yaar i read both Heywood and Baylis for paper 2 and i extensively read on ORF purely out of interest, which really helped. Obviously not feasible for everyone, but if you can get your hands on Baylis and Smith its a brilliant book. Never made any separate notes just underlined in the book itself (which if I would do in an alternate universe). For part 2 i would advise you to remember the points from mains 365 and add some of the part 1 ke thinkers itself as well as supplement with C Raja Mohan, Happymon Jacob, Hash V Pant. Beech beech m daal dena. I also remembered few keywords from diplomats and FS like Amb Nirupama Rao, Amb Vijay Gokhale (brilliant for China analysis), EAM, former NSA etc and i had googled a few book reviews which really helped in my answers. But again all of this remains unproven till the time mains result is out, and more specifically mark sheet.
Edit: as my friend @HeNeArKr pointed out (after calling me a jhooti XD) this seems way more than what I actually told people. It isn’t because it’s about the extent to which you do this. I have one comment from few of the FS, and a few by EAM. I googled 2-3 book reviews and found some blurbs that were helpful and would make me look like I read the book. You can obviously do so much more if you have the time or the energy to not procrastinate.
Also in comparison to paper 1, I prepared a lot for paper 2, but objectively speaking I didn’t do much.
Would you advise reading Baylis and Smith to someone who has read Heywood?
Yes. Baylis has a more scholarly perspective compared to Heywood. Heywood is good to understand a topic for the very first time, but if youve written at least one mains you are looking for more than just a conceptual understanding of that topic.
AzadHindFauz,@AzadHindFauz Thank you. This makes sense. One more relevant point that I found was 'MN Roy denounced the framework of nationalism also apparently due to the fact that it also subsumes the personality of the human being within meta constructions of nation and nationhood.'I have one more question. Is nationalist perspective the same as liberal perspective on INM?
No, they are not the same. Think about it. Why would the nationalist perspective tow the liberal/imperialist line?
Nationalist views on Indian nationalism and national movement were formed in response to the colonialist view. In the context of Indian historiography, it is often written that colonialist historians adopted an instrumentalist approach, while nationalist historians adopted an idea-centric approach.
The confusion stems when we see Indian nationalism from the lens of early nationalists. Some of the nationalist ideas (those of Moderates) have been adopted from a colonial perspective. Eg: Surendranath Banerjee regarded India as ‘a nation-in-the-making’ towing the imperial line.
This might give you an impression that the nationalist perspective is the same as the imperialist/liberal perspective. However, it is not true. They have a degree of overlap only to the extent of the ideas of Moderates.
So, the nationalist writers have accepted some of the ideas present in colonialist historiography. The likes of RC Majumdar reflect this strand of historians. However, other nationalists (beginning with extremists) have vehemently opposed the colonialist denigration of India. Something liberals wouldn't agree to!
Can anyone please give/point me to a full review of PSIR optional? Thinking to shift from mechanical engineering after giving three mains with it, quite interested in GS2 Polity and International relations.
Choose a shorter optional.
Anthro or Psychology or Pub Ad
If can read Philosophy then that also could be an option.
Choose Sanskrit if you have background in it. Very short syllabus, may be the shortest.
PSIR and Geo are the worst amongst the humanities optional.
Jai Shree Ram !
Dionysus,
Hey guys can we make this group active again? The recent Russian invasion and the IR related stuff such as McDonaldization vs great power politics, security dilemma etc..,@LetsGetThisBread @Villanelle @AzadHindFauz @MachineGunJoe @balwintejas @Pam123
Jammu,@AzadHindFauz would you advice reading Heywood to someone who has raad only subhra mams notes?
If you have time, do it.
Jammu,@AzadHindFauz would you advice reading Heywood to someone who has raad only subhra mams notes?
Heywood has many books IMO don’t read any cover to cover, instead be very selective and read topic-wise for those areas where you feel you cannot answer well. The ultimate purpose is being able to write a 20 marker. If you can do so with ma’am’s notes then feel free to skip heywood
GaneshGaitonde,Jammu
Can anyone please give me a review of Tejal Khandelwaal Ma’am? Would be very grateful. I want to enroll in some PSIR test see
Hi. I contacted her for Mains 20. We agreed that I will write pyq papers year wise and she would evaluate them. 500 for each. I could write only 2 papers. She did evaluate very well in timely manner. She also mentored on telephone. Problem is I did not take the reviews seriously then and did not work on it.
I should have written more. I might join her again sometime in future.
MM,
Write your comment…
