Shivshankar Menon's new book, India and Asian Geopolitics, is also worth reading, especially if the subject is new to you.
Have you read the whole thing? If so do you recommend reading it whole? I have read a couple of chapters from the "Past" section which, though interesting, didn't seem like it added much to my prep. I'm hoping that the "Present" section is better in that aspect.
he has also written that becoming vishwaguru is pointless if the people of the country goes hungry, sick, and poor. definitely it might satisfy the ego , but the goal should be welfare and transformation of lives of ordinary people. Further he argues that historically only those rising powers have grown into major powers who have managed to control their urge to flaunt power and built their power silently. He gives example of peloponesian war b/w sparta and athens, Wilhelm germany, japan in 1930's. By being assertive prematurely on global stage , a state attracts wrath of the status quoist powers. Even china followed a policy ofI read somewhere regarding his book. He has written India is not ‘vishwa guru’ yet because world is much more realistic. A country's success is based on material power, hard power, economy, military strength, and ability to handle domestic affairs properly. Do you agree ?
By the way, Menons are in IFS for 3 generations now. Extraordinary !
hide your ambitions and disguise your claws, and only after global financial crisis became assertive and ambitious on global stage. But on the other hand there also arguments against this hiding strength argument. China was assertive right from the day zero, it went on to have a border war with india, a conflict with soviet in 60s, tiannanmen square , involvement in vietnam, korea et al
This reminded me of the funniest article headline that I've read recently
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/28/oh-god-not-the-peloponnesian-war-again/
Hey everyone,
Has anyone enrolled for PSIR advance (Chaubey), if yes then how would you compare it to the crash course at Shubhra's? Also, how's the TS at GSScore?
Thanks. Hope you're all doing alright. Stay safe you lot. :)
I don't know how to compare it to the SR crash course since I haven't seen the latter. I, personally, didn't like the video lectures. Others here didn't like the SR lectures. Maybe lectures just aren't really useful once you've crossed a certain threshold in your preparation.
I liked the TS (apart from the inconsistent evaluation), the solutions given were better than those given in the SR crash course.
@whatonly @AzadHindFauz or anyone else did you make block diagrams or flowcharts or anyother such things in ur answers??
It has always been just paragraphs for me, but Insights has recently come out with a TS with 3D strategy- Demand, Dimensions, Diagrams, so i don't know what to think...
I found this in the OnlyIAS notes-
Mahatma Gandhi wrote,
“Socialism and communism of the West are based on certain conceptions which are fundamentally different from ours. One such conception is their belief in the essential selfishness of human nature.”Now, this is a bad understanding of socialism/marxism- they hold universal egoism to be a bourgeois concept. Gandhi famously read zero theory. He first picked up Das Kapital when he was 75. Which brings me to my question-
Would you write a quote by an illustrious person if you know that they have no clue what they're talking about?
@whatonly Thanks a lot. Also I was wondering whether y'all have a small PSIR group for peer evaluation/discussion etc? There has been an 'otherisation of men' in PSIR peer review groups on TG.
There were some last year after prelims, don't know if there's one now. Could be nice to start early!
Also what do you mean? :o
Yeah if the folks herein are interested, we can form a group limited to peer review and conceptual clarity, if needed.
'OofMen' refers to the phenomenon wherein people(men) respond/review proactively if the questionnaire is of the opposite gender.
hmm.. sounds like incel theory, but okay..
Hey everyone,
Has anyone enrolled for PSIR advance (Chaubey), if yes then how would you compare it to the crash course at Shubhra's? Also, how's the TS at GSScore?
Thanks. Hope you're all doing alright. Stay safe you lot. :)
I don't know how to compare it to the SR crash course since I haven't seen the latter. I, personally, didn't like the video lectures. Others here didn't like the SR lectures. Maybe lectures just aren't really useful once you've crossed a certain threshold in your preparation.
I liked the TS (apart from the inconsistent evaluation), the solutions given were better than those given in the SR crash course.
Thanks for your prompt response. I've done Shubhra's CC in my erstwhile attempt. The IR lectures are alright, help you develop a logical flow towards the current events. She doesn't do justice to 1B and other relatively high-value topics. The course is however designed in a haphazard manner.
Regarding Piyush Sir, it'd be kind you send/share with me 2 videos of PSIR Advance(preferably from different papers). Would help me decide I reckon.
Anyway as our optional all those aforementioned facts/factors are subjective. Thanks.
The videos aren't online anymore, so I can't help you with that, sorry.
Anyone joining SR CC for 2021 ?
Thanks
@babu_bisleri Planning to. Giving June and July to psir, thought it would be good if answer writing can be included as well. Wbu?
Same plan but i am apprehensive about Online test as I am not sincere so giving test for 3hr at home is achilles heel.
PS : Anyone who faced similar problem and now able to complete 3 hr tests can tell me how to do it !
I face the same problem. I am planning to write tests with friends over a Discord server. I've heard of other people doing it on Zoom/Hangout. I'll tell you how it goes.
Got it! I initially thought this Robert Dahl's polyarchy hi, until I saw madam's notes. She has done pluralist and monistic theory of sovereignty too under Theories of State which isn't technically in syllabus...that got me confused.
Thanks yaar :)
Nahi, imo Pluralist theory of sovereignty (of SR notes - MacIver and Laski) should form the core of your answer. Even@whatonly has covered that partially (see "impartial arbiter" "association of associations" in the top point). You can also mention Dahl's Polyarchy but that isn't as theoretically rich as the other one (at least as far as SR's notes are concerned)
EDIT: UPSC asked it in 2019 and I wrote the Pluralist theory of Sovereignty. I'm pretty sure that's the way to go but you can make up your own mind.
Has anyone read Huntington's Waves of Democracy idea apart from what is in SR notes? Did he talk about a 3rd Reverse Wave?-- it's not mentioned in the notes
EDIT: He might not have, considering his book is called Third Wave, and was written in 1990. Have any other scholars referred to a "crashing" of the Third Wave? I'm interested because in the notes we're considering Arab Spring as the beginning of the 4th wave.
EDIT2: Will you consider investing time in Huntington's theory for 2A (Democracy in Contemporary Global Concerns)? SR just gives a scorecard- kahan democracy aayi, kahan democracy giri -__- but Huntington actually goes into the reasons behind the emergence of the Wave, and the process through which existing authoritarian regimes collapse
Has anyone read Huntington's Waves of Democracy idea apart from what is in SR notes? Did he talk about a 3rd Reverse Wave?-- it's not mentioned in the notes
EDIT: He might not have, considering his book is called Third Wave, and was written in 1990. Have any other scholars referred to a "crashing" of the Third Wave? I'm interested because in the notes we're considering Arab Spring as the beginning of the 4th wave.
EDIT2: Will you consider investing time in Huntington's theory for 2A (Democracy in Contemporary Global Concerns)? SR just gives a scorecard- kahan democracy aayi, kahan democracy giri -__- but Huntington actually goes into the reasons behind the emergence of the Wave, and the process through which existing authoritarian regimes collapse
This seems to have been published a few months before his book in 1991. Check out the 7th page of the pdf.
https://www.ned.org/docs/Samuel-P-Huntington-Democracy-Third-Wave.pdf
And yup, seems like a worthwhile investment for 2A. Given the surge of protests in different countries, a question on democratisation would not be surprising!
Turns out that I had already read this paper. I mean, I'm sure I opened it, not sure I got that far in. Thanks for reminding me ( that too with page number!). This helps a lot!
I too think it’s under politics of representation and participation. The question is directly talking about participation and asking for examples, which makes me think they want less general theory (which Huntington’s would be) and more specific reasons.
How would you guys answer?
Didn't we discuss this in our Telegram group? I have some good points written down
>Perceived low value of vote: Dominant party syste, Pragmatic turnover system- both lack substantive choice; In FPTP- wastage of votes;
>Voter Apathy: Corruption, Criminalisation, loss of legitimacy of state eg National Unity govt of Afghanistan
>High cost of voting: recent voter suppression laws passed in US, migrants' vote in India
>Loss of social capital : R.Putnam points out that voting is a social activity and loss of SocCap leads to reduced turnout
>Voter Fatigue: Excessive use of referendums
>Lack of "Participant Political Culture"
Looking at this question now reminds me of Social Contract Theory.Can this point be linked ? Are we done with present contract and seeking new, is this the case for low turnout ?
If I'd use Social Contract, I'd use it in the intro, i.e. low turnout signifies a break down of contract. The answer needs to be spent explaining WHY the contract is breaking
Oh yes! I remember now. These should be more than enough! I wonder if some examples we saw of COVID mishandling will also one day be characterised as detracting from state legitimacy.
I'm not sure. Even if the state does a terrible job in dealing with COVID, it is the legitimacy of the government that will be affected not that of the state. This might lead to a dramatic increase in voter turnout, to throw out the current govt and institute a new one.
At the same time, there's also the"rally around the flag" effectwhere, in times of crisis, support for the state and its existing leaders increases in the short-term. This may happen because the Head of Govt is seen an an embodiment of national unity- which itself is necessary to overcome crises.
Oh yes! I remember now. These should be more than enough! I wonder if some examples we saw of COVID mishandling will also one day be characterised as detracting from state legitimacy.
I'm not sure. Even if the state does a terrible job in dealing with COVID, it is the legitimacy of the government that will be affected not that of the state. This might lead to a dramatic increase in voter turnout, to throw out the current govt and institute a new one.
At the same time, there's also the"rally around the flag" effectwhere, in times of crisis, support for the state and its existing leaders increases in the short-term. This may happen because the Head of Govt is seen an an embodiment of national unity- which itself is necessary to overcome crises.
To substantiate your point , we have US elections , where it was a record turnout and overthrow of present govt.
And for the second point, Maybe we can have bengal elections, I don't think Covid-19 mishandling had any impact or maybe it had but it had been covered with other issues - of regionalism , religion and culture.
The standard example of the second one is the dramatic rise in Bush's approval ratings, right after 9/11. Also, rallying effect of Balakot strike was discussed at the time (a popular cynical view was that Modi did it only because of the upcoming elections).
maybe habermas....communicative action, public sphere kuch tha na aisaSR has asked in her Home Assignments - "Difference in direct and radical democracy?" (sic)Are we talking about MN Roy's Radical Democracy here? If so, can you list the differences? From my understanding of it, Radical Democracy is only a model of direct democracy.
Thanks.. hai ye sab.. "ideal speech scenario" bhi.. in my SR notes it's not called "radical democracy" anywhere iirc. but Google pe I can find many results
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
Theoretical criticism should definitely mention Rousseau. He insists that men are only free when they live under laws that they have created themselves, through active participation. Thus, he claimed that citizens of England are only free once in 5 years. Rousseau asserts that sovereignty comes from the people and stays with the people even after the creation of civil society. Sovereignty cannot be represented since it cannot be alienated. The delegates of citizens are their agents, not their representatives. All decisions taken by them must ultimately be approved by the citizens to be legitimate.
BTW, Elitist Theory is also a theoretical critique. It describes a "market model" of democracy where groups of elites compete for power, and power never flows to the masses. Schumpeter says that not only is democracy not a governmentby the people (only the elite can govern), it doesn't even reflect thewill of the people. The only power with the people is the choice of the group of elites who will represent them.
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.
@whatonly Do you have any good theory we could place in here?
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.- profile of representatives - generally limited to males with law background or public service, at times criminals
- oratory skills / public perception of representative - plays a major role
- Elitist Theory of Power
- procedural aspects - In India, votes secured in percentage terms has no relation with number of representatives elected
- divide between representative and represented - is increasing
- once a representative, becomes representative for 5 years.
while writing these, I feel the flaw is in practise, not in theory.
theoretically, i feel flaw can be just what Derrida says, every communication is miscommunication. Implying every representation is mis representation.
Are you sure about the Derrida quote? I couldn't find it online
@Jammu You should take SR's "quotes" with a grain of salt. Often it's her interpretations of their theory, which in case of someone as incomprehensible and misunderstood (even within the academic community) as Derrida should probably not be used without verification.
What are the weaknesses of representative democracy? Hit me with points. I have some points of my own but I wanna see if I'm missing something.@whatonly Do you have any good theory we could place in here?
Would you recommend writing points for this particular question as theory wise with substantiating key scholars like Feminist says this, Rousseau, then Elitist, etc
or just mentioning points as GS answers and writing scholarly intro and conclusion.
The former. You could first broadly divide the answer into "theoretical criticisms" and "weaknesses in practise". In 1A the answer should be theory heavy imo, but the other points also help, especially when you don't have a lot of theoretical content.
@HeNeArKr That's a great point. You can mention how "Action in the highest sphere of human activity" "public sphere is true home of man" yada yada highlighting that active citizenship, as opposed to mere voting, is essential for the moral improvement of humans.You can go mention how lack of participation in RepDem leads to an erosion of Power (people acting in concert) which allows Violence (totalitarian govt) to replace it.
@KropotkinSchmopotkin Yeah true . I was thinking can we add critic of party democracy by gandhi, mnroy and jp as a point here ?
Which points were you thinking of specifically? The points specifically to parties (power gets concentrated with leaders instead of rank and file) will be irrelevant. The points related to reduced participation and rule by elites will be better covered through Elitist theorists. If there's any other good point that we can quote Roy on I'm all for it
The best I can think of is Hannah Arendt as @HeNeArKr said. Public sphere and active citizenship for sure. In addition, I think mentioning her idea of representative thinking, which is essential to good citizenship and demands much more of people in charge than representative democracy does, will add to the answer. Plus it makes a catchy sentence (“representative thinking, not representative democracy”).
Also, just to deepen the explanation of representative democracy, the two models: delegate model of Locke and Bentham and enlightened representation model of Mill and Burke. The flaws of both can be pointed out separately.
For criticism apart from Arendt, Rousseau as was mentioned here. For an Indian context, Gandhi and Roy should be enough.
Nice! Love the point about "representative thinking". It's going into my notes now. I read the explanation from plato.stanford and its discussion on the role of debate in formation of political opinion makes a great point for Deliberative Democracy
@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
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.
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)
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.
Found this in Amartya Sen's essay Equality of What? - "While Rawlsian equality has the characteristic of being both culture-dependent and fetishist, basic capability equality avoids fetishism, but remains culture-dependent"
Can someone shed some light on how Rawls' Theory of Justice is culture-dependent?
@whatonly @Villanelle @Jammu SR notes say that Dworkin's auction is "endowment sensitive", while Dworkin himself writes that auction must NOT be endowment sensitive. Both mean the same thing which is made clear in the explanation. Should we stick with SR's terminology over the Original Text, or should we favour the original text and risk offending the PSIR gods?
@whatonly @Villanelle @Jammu SR notes say that Dworkin's auction is "endowment sensitive", while Dworkin himself writes that auction must NOT be endowment sensitive. Both mean the same thing which is made clear in the explanation. Should we stick with SR's terminology over the Original Text, or should we favour the original text and risk offending the PSIR gods?
Great catch! Thanks for the tip. I think we should stick with “endowment insensitive” from the original text. The real PSIR gods are the examiners - they’re more likely to have read scholarly works than SR notes :)
While we're at it, ambition and endowment sensitivity are not attributes he uses for for auctions but for distributions. You won't find the term "ambition sensitive auction" anywhere except in UPSC coaching material (either SR or SR-derived)
@KropotkinSchmopotkin I am having doubt in this concept itselfEndowment sensitive means auction should be according to natural capacities. Ambition sensitive means people should have choices to decide.Right?Now, Dworkin wants that those who are at natural disadvantage or having physical disabilities would be given extra clamshell.Iska meaning yhi hua na he want endowment sensitive auction. I am having doubt how he don't want endowment sensitive.
Read my comments again, especially the excerpt from Dworkin's essay.
SR's interpretation is internally consistent but not consistent with Dworkin's scheme-
1. Endowment-sensitive and Ambition-sensitive are not attributes of auction but attributes of distribution.
2. Endowment-sensitive means that distribution will reflect differences in abilities between people with similar ambition. This is NOT desirable for Dworkin.
3. Ambition-sensitive means not only that people have choice, but that the difference in their choices will be reflected in the distribution
@whatonly @Villanelle Would you use "brahminical patriarchy" in an answer, or would you be worried that a conservative examiner would hold that against you? Talking about a purely academic context of course eg "Uma Chakravarty uses the term "brahminical patriarchy" to draw attention to the intersectionof caste and gender oppression."
Context- While writing answers I'm always worried that my urban naxal membership card is showing
The only place where you can find Ernest Barker's quote calling JS Mill a "prophet of empty liberty and abstract individualism" is in the UPSC PSIR ecosystem- all of whom presumably took it from SR notes. Has anyone been able to authenticate it? Does anyone have good quotes on JS Mill they'd like to share?
The only place where you can find Ernest Barker's quote calling JS Mill a "prophet of empty liberty and abstract individualism" is in the UPSC PSIR ecosystem- all of whom presumably took it from SR notes. Has anyone been able to authenticate it? Does anyone have good quotes on JS Mill they'd like to share?
Check this out :D He did say a lot more too though.
Wow! Great find!
Q. Examine the challenges to sovereignty of the State in the contemporary world.(2015)What points would you all give for this?
It will be easy enough to write an answer on challenges to sovereignty posed by globalisation - quote Kenichi Ohmae, David Held, Peter Willet, Susan Strange for different perspectives. Other challenges are a bit harder to find. Maybe, >>global issues- climate change, regulation of commons
>>non-state actors- diffusion of technologies has made them viable opponents to state sovereignty eg Graham Allison predicts that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is almost certain in future.
>>constructive view->humanist norm- equal dignity of all humans is being privileged over state sovereignty; democratic deficit in international system stands de-legitimised -->support for global governance
How is Social constructivist critic of realism different from post modernist's on the same?
Anyone?
I think Contructivism is positivist while PoMo is post-positivist. There is also a Post-modern constructivism- a variant of constructivism that claims that there is no neutral viewpoint from which to assess the validity of analytical and ethical knowledge claims. It is often contrasted with a more mainstream version of constructivism called modern constructivism.
Constructivism is NOT positivist. They say objective reality don’t exist it is socially constructed.
Yeah that was totally wrong. Very embarrassing. I'll just curl up in a corner and wish to die now.
PSIR peeps, help me get this.
Does MEA while deciding on foreign policy decisions think along the lines of these IR theories thought out by think tanks or take inputs from them. Or does any other country for that matter.
Or it is other way round. That is, think tanks try to undertand these foreign policy decisions made by govt and postulate such IR theories.
MEA is known for its closed-shop and elitist nature. Traditionally, it gave little little regard to academic theories. This is gradually changing with the rise of Track 2/Track 1.5 fora where policymakers can discuss issues with academics. National Security Advisory Board is also emerging as a forum for seeking expert opinion.
On the other side of it - Interpretation- there is a lack of policy information due to Official Secrets Act, lack of systematic timelines for de-classifying diplomatic archives, reluctance of diplomats/bureaucrats to talk candidly. Scholars, dependent upon the state for information, rarely take critical stances on official policies due to a fear of facing sanctions and professional disadvantage.
TL;DR- I would say NEITHER; they are neither heard, nor do they have enough info and independence to critically analyse policy. As a result Indian academia distances itself from hard realities of foreign policy.
has anyone read Indian Political System by himanshu roy and MP singh
It looks relevant judging by the table of contents. I didn't find any reputed names among the authors, so it may lack in quotability value. Let me know if you find out more.
PS It's available on libgen, if you didn't know that already
@KropotkinSchmopotkin 30 marks!!Ecpt 2nd bulge,Inclusive pri,Youth bulge,Development angle,national vs state elections,but still cop,EVM doubts,freebies,weak intra party d'cy,ineffective NOTA,Bonds not helping much,cant think much!
A lot of these are not strictly Electoral "behaviour" but electoral demography and electoral issues. "Behaviour" has to do with which issues are most salient to voters and how they influence votes, how identity influences votes etc
» show previous quotesI will divide in 4 phases - nehruvian phase of pluralist parliamentary and single party dominance system, neopatrimonialism of Indira Gandhi accompanied by democratic upsurges and mass movements due to decline of of parliament, 90s phase of multiparty and regional aspirations, and the 4 th phase of BJP system.
1st phase was dominated by patron client relationships, where politics was an elitist occupation, while masses just voted as bloc on calls of their community leaders and under influence of Freedom struggle legacy of congress and stalwarts like nehru.
2 nd phase saw rise of bullock cart capitalist or dominant castes due to land reforms, green revolution etc the concerns of these groups were reservation and greater share in education and administration. Thus caste became a major factor in politics. Another feature was decline of parliament due to neopatrimonialism and centralisation and personalisation of politics. This led to elite disillusionment, and urban educated youth took to politics of street and protests against corruption, price rise etc. Further, regionalism and fundamentalism also began to raise their ugly heads in Punjab, Assam etc
3rd phase saw continuation of above trends with addition of hindu revivalism. Yet it wasn't enough to change electoral behaviour that much and caste and regional issues propelled many regional parties to the national scene. This phase also saw development or vikas making its entry on the political stage as benefits of lpg reforms became conspicuous.
4th phase is seeing return of one party dominant system and consolidation of hindu revivalism withhindu identity trumping all other concerns including those of vikas and price rise etc. the system has become so polarised that identity and ideology have become strong determinants of voting behaviour. Another important factor has been foreign policy and security issues grabbing attention of voters like Asat test, surgical strikes, balakot etc this prompted ashutish varshney to call 2019 elections as national security elections. Other visible trend is that of welfare delivery being made efficient and fine tuned in the form of dbt. Schemes like ujjwala, pmay, pmkisan etc have benefitted large number of people and play a role in these narginalised sections voting for the party.
Forgot to add Parliamentary system being transformed into Presidential one atkeast when it comes to vote
Mankibaat , as i am having a bad day today. again. 😆
Impact of foreign policy on voting behaviour is a good discussion. Earlier FP used to be only an elite concern, but now with rise of India's stature in the international sphere a larger section is paying attention to and taking pride in India's FP. India's role as "Vishwaguru" has entered political consciousness and India's exploits on the world stage are being used by the ruling party to attract votes.
Man ki Baat isn't always useless apparently!
" ..due to the inability of govt. to fulfill its basic responsibilities which leads to voters choosing strongmen or criminals.." Could you elaborate a bit? Are criminals/strongmen better at delivering basic services?
@dragon_rider @sstarrr I did a bit of reading up on it. Vaishnav does claim that there is a voter preference for criminals who can "get things done" in the context of weakening rule of law. However, there is also a counter-view by Abhijit Banerjee et al (2014)-
"Contrary to the voter preference hypothesis, voters presented with vignettes that randomly vary the attributes of competing legislative candidates for local, state, and national office become much less likely to express a preference for candidates who are alleged to be criminal or corrupt. Moreover, voters’ education status, ethnicity, and political knowledge are unrelated to their distaste for criminal and venal candidates. The results imply that the electoral performance of candidates who face serious allegations likely reflects factors other than voters’ preferences for patronage, such as limited information about candidate characteristics or the absence of credible alternative candidates with clean records."
"The recentLok pre-election survey provides an opportunity to adjudicate between these two competing explanations. The survey asked respondents a simple, direct question: “Would you vote for a candidate who delivers benefits to you even if s/he faces serious criminal cases?” In response, 26 percent said that they would vote for a candidate who gets things done but also faces serious pending criminal cases. In other words, one out of four Indians surveyed was willing to openly admit that he/she would vote for a candidate who is involved in a criminal case but is perceived to be an effective representative for the constituency. This seems to support the credibility hypothesis; voters can be well informed and support candidates with criminal reputations."
(edit: image replaced by text)
I would start by saying how the study of electoral behavior is a result of the growth of the behavioral and post-behavioral approaches in political science and how it's important to understand the political atmosphere of a country.
Then I would mention Milan Vaishnav who pointed out the difficulty of studying EB in India due its size and diversity. Substantiate it with Kenneth Arrow's 'impossibility theorem.'
Then I would mention the trend in EB like how individuals vote more based on the party or the PM or CM candidate as in a presidential system than on the MP and MLA candidate. I would point out how people vote differently at national and state level and how the public differentiates between national issues and local issues (supported by the post-poll survey conducted by Lokniti). Also could mention 'federalization' of electoral politics where national elections are also heavily shaped by state-level factors.
I would also point out how people seem to be voting for criminals or those with criminal cases pending against them leading to criminalization of politics (maybe quote Milan Vaishnav again since it's a 30 mark question).
You could also add that voter turnout seems to be increasing as seen in the 2019 LS elections.
This is all I have in my notes, but we should definitely add the role of caste and religion in voting behavior and how it's changed, if it has changed. If anyone has these points, please post it here.
With respect to "federalisation of electoral politics" - in context of India, I don't think this is true. If that must be the case, BJP must have suffered some setback in the hindi hinterland in 2019 elections which it clearly didn't. In today's time I don't think national elections are impacted by state level factors. Not sure just my opinion.
Federalisation of electoral politics was a feature of 1990's (at least Yogendra Yadav thinks so). Now there is separation in voting patterns in state and general elections eg. even in states where BJP was "punished" and pushed out of power in state elections, voter came back to support it in general elections.
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?
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.
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.
Also, this one "Federal units are critical in the making of India's foreign policy. Examine wrt the role of West Bengal vis-a-vis Bangladesh" This was asked for 15 marks in 2014. I know some points- in contemporary context- Teesta Agreement under UPA regime was stalled by coalition partners from Bengal; in historical context- India's intervention in the 1971 war was also influenced by Pan-Bengali feelings.What other points can you think of?1. Sub continent countries – historical and cultural relations, deep cultural linkages, ties felt across border – states play role as any action against those communities influence people in home country : Sri lanka due to TN – voting against sri lanks in matters concerning human rights.
- Recent Myanmar issue – center kept coming with notice to not allow people who were on run from Myanmar , stll the cultural and brotherly ties of Mizoram and Manipur – people across borders were accomdated – due to popular support – impacts reln with junta govt in Myanmar.
2. Boundary linkages : Teesta water – state with popular support influence decision making as any change in the boundary have impacts – security, cultural (influx of citizens), resources etc
3. Our relns with middle eastern countries – large amounts of Indians from southern states, any policy deciison that might have impact over the people out there won’t be preferred by people of kerala and other states- states have an impact.
4. The recent khatarpur corridor – Punjab had played impt role, even its ministers were sent for inauguration- there were news report that opp asking Punjab govt to put pressure on central govt to again open khatarpur corridor – the decision perse to have the corridor even when reln was not good was somehow influenced by Punjab.
I can think only of these.
Good points. I meant to ask about the "West Bengal vis-a-vis Bangladesh" part though..
(Not any advertisement) I got a coupon of a 70% discount through the Edukemy PSIR scholarship test for the "Foundation course of 2022". Anyone wants it, Please take it for free from me. Some needy will get the help as its of no use to me currently.
Anyone planning to take him up on this beware that the Edukemy PSIR test series has been my worst experience out of the 3 that I've joined. I get that they're new so they might get better year by year but they're currently pretty shitty.
