Brian R. Nelson - Western Political Thought_ From Socrates to the Age of Ideology, Second Edition (2015, Waveland Press, Inc.) - libgen.lc.pdfCheck if it's getting downloaded
Learning for Myself:
Personally, I scored 117 in both papers (Total - 234). Was expecting better score than last mains (129+134=263), even though I wasn't able to complete my papers. So would have to focus a lot more on just consolidating on my optional (Proper note making) , writing practice to complete the papers and just hoping Leviathan is merciful next time :)
can you tell us what you think might have gone wrong in this attempt ? was it note-making,revision process or lack of it? or maybe over reliance on shubhra mams note?
will be highly helpful for us 1st attempters at mains.
Brother don't go with preconceived notions. In paper2 last year there was very limited space to quote scholars, but many people did it anyhow bcoz that's what we are always told to do. Similarly, attempting all questions is not a sacred rule. People score good even after leaving 1-2 ques(not more than that). Lastly, understanding is very important. Paper2 is very analytical and very different from p1. Mugging up could help in p1 but not p2. And yes, pyq is very imp from optional pov, more than any other paper.
@whatonly nothing much. I took classes from there only. Ma'am covers 2A better, piyush sir is good in 2b. Overall maam's notes are better, esp. 1B.
2A me sir dictates from Heywood's book. Ma'am mostly relies on Baylis & Smith(as much i have seen). That's the difference in notes. Problem is Sir does not cover the topic comprehensively & organically. It's mostly one para from here another from there, that's why he's not very good for 2A
This quoting scholars thing... is it given as much importance even for actual students in BA/MA pol sci exams? I mean, is it such an important aspect of the study even in a proper academic course? Humanities students would know if there are any here? Since the examiners are likely profs.
It always seemed a bit off to me - surely if people have been doing the same thing for years, and since a lot of the views will tend to get repeated, it should be rewarding to try something different?
It does add weight to your answer, esp in theory part. But I do think scholars should be used to support your argument and not the other way round. And answers should not be completely about scholarly views. Like a ques on nuclear detterence should not be ltd to Waltz, Sagan and theories but extend to current events, history and 2-3 lines of your own. That's what I think, others can elaborate
Q. "Transnational actors have become driving forces of global politics." Elaborate.
How will you all approach this ques?
1. Explain transnational actors.
2. A few lines about Realist, Marxist, Feminist perspective on them.
3. Transnational actors increasing clout. Substantiate through 3D chess board model, globalization, HR consciousness, global civil society, etc.
4. Then write a paragraph each on MNCs, NGOs and Terrorism
5. MNCs - vanguards of liberal democratic order, promote democratic values (pulling out of Saudi Arabia after Kashoggi assassination) seek good governance and accountability even beyond their home state, MNCs of the west with net-worth more than combined GDP of n states, shaping international negotiations on data and how that connects to sovereignty, Cox -"internationalization of state", humanitarian crisis (slave labour, fast fashion brands paying peanuts in countries like Bangladesh), environmental crisis (Shell in Africa), etc.
6. NGOs - participating in UN, bringing local concerns to global level; NGO as consultative bodies in UNHRC and ECOSOC; Western dominated; interference in internal affairs, driving key debates on environment and human rights at the global level (like Fridays for Future and Amnesty and Greenpeace); blame of acting at behest of home state
7. Terrorism - Iran using proxies to balance Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and how that pushes the others forge ties for possible collective security (maybe cite UAE-Israel, Jordan-Israel), ISIS, US-Taliban deal and Taliban's rise from being a insurgent group to the key political actor in Afghan where vested interests of so many nations coincide
8. Conclude.
Good. Some added points -
- Post-1990s, significance has rose
- Glocalization lead to the development of global composite culture
- Has spread awareness about human rights, malnutrition
Bad
- Toppled the regime in may countries
- Agent of state, Lead to drain of wealth from peripheries to core(Wallerstein) - Marxist
- Made human one dimensional i.e consumer - Herbert Marcuse
Conclusion - Richard Cobden: Delegate sovereignty to transnational actors, however, checks and balances needed because the state is still important in global politics.
Hey, do points such as 1D man & globalisation not disgress from the question?
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?
From where and how are you covering Section B of Paper I? I never covered it in a comprehensive manner and I personally find it the most difficult part of PSIR.
Selective topics could be done from BL Fadia(sm, pg)
Freedom movement, perspective from Sekhar Bandopadhyay or Bipin chandra
Selective constitution topics from Bidyut Chakraborty or there is also another good book Oxford Handbook on Indian politics i guess
^^all these are good but very tough to complete in limited time
Would it be fair to say that the relevance of balance of power is increasing in this multipolar world as exemplified by the formation of QUAD as a balancing force/power against a rising China?
Multiple poles me how would you justify BoP? Quad is one aspect of it, but US military is still alone stronger than Chinese, so the "balance" factor militarily is tough to establish.. although on different aspects(ex:trade) it would be more viable
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
Unlike lending from China—and even from IMF and World Bank—Indian lines of credit are demand-driven, consultative, transparent, andnonconditional- Harsh pant
As a rule goods and services forminimum 75%value of contracts covered under Exim loans must be sourced from India - finance ministry
The access to credit is non-conditional, right? The 75% rule is one of the requirements under the loan agreement(much like interest rate, tenure). Under Indian LoC, the beneficiary nation does not have to fulfill any pre-credit condition. Not sure though, just an interpretation.
