@sunnykumarroy658377 could you please link to the test series page? Can’t find one for 2020 mains on her website
What test series are you people thinking of? Don’t think we can take topper testimonials about promptness of correction and quality of comments at face value. Anyone have any reliable reviews from previous attempts?SR crash course is a one-stop solution in my opinion. It helped me last year. The only issue with SR test series is their pathetic evaluation. There is no standard criteria, but the test-discussion is good.
As regards the test-evaluation, I am a strong votary of peer evaluation in PSIR.
I have no knowledge of GS Score PSIR test series. Many people join it. May be they can enlighten.
Thanksss! Could you tell me a bit about what the crash course involves? Could only find a schedule on the website. Are the classes supposed to be comprehensive and cover the whole syllabus? Or just paper discussion? And how long are the lectures? I’ve already taken coaching for PSIR, and covered the syllabus twice (once last year and once after the prelims was extended), so I don’t know if I should take more classes or just tests. Whenever you find some time :)
Thank you@Porus and@AzadHindFauz :D will be very helpful!
How are you approaching Optional Revision?
Can anyone among you share your tentative schedule and strategy? Would be grateful.
I’m revising my notes and making super concise post-its (Dhananjay Singh Yadav style). Will be putting aside a couple of hours for answering PYQs from the topics I cover everyday. Yet to make a plan for IR (II-B) - planning on giving it an hour every night to cover significant topics and then modify plan as needed. Along with the below I’ll also be doing world history and GSIV giving it a couple of hours everyday.
07/10 - western political thought
08/10 - Indian political thought
09/10 - political ideologies
10/10 - justice, equality, rights, democracy
11/10 - political theory meaning & approaches
13/10 to 15/10 - freedom struggle from Bipan Chandra, doing in detail as it will be useful in GSI as well
16/10 - my notes for paper I-B
17/10 - Laxmikanth, any loose ends in paper I
18/10 to 21/10 - my notes for paper II-A
22/10 - Answer Writing only
Hey@Hitman2021,this would be my first attempt so I’m not really in a position to give advice.@Porus has outlined a great approach - that would be my ideal as well this time.
I spent quite some time time making notes aligned with the syllabus - half this time last year and half after prelims was postponed, and that has become extremely helpful now, I can tell already. And as Porus said, if you really come to love the subject it won’t feel like too much of a burden - until now I’ve enjoyed every bit and am really excited about the coming months. Since you’re preparing for 2021 you have a decent amount of time, so my only suggestion would be to take your time with understanding the concepts - it will pay off when you have to revise.
As regards I-B, I read Oxford’s Companion to Politics in India. It has an overlap with most of the topics in the syllabus. It is a dense read but can be quite enjoyable. I made notes from it. For the freedom struggle part I’m going with Bipan Chandra as it will also be useful for GSI. I also went through selective chapters of Bipan Chandra’s India Since Independence for topics like land reforms, agrarian struggles. The rest I think Laxmikanth should be enough. I went and bought D D Basu in a fit of excitement but don’t think I’ll have a chance to use it yet.
I also ordered Shubhra Ranjan ma’am’s notes through the postal correspondence course they offer, but somehow I did not find it suitable for me at least for a first reading. I spent some time worrying about this since virtually everyone recommends her notes, but I gave up and used the book by Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy instead. Took longer but I understood the ideas well - after that I was able to go through the notes and pick additional points. For Indian thought I used V R Mehta’s book and then the notes. So see what works for you - just make sure you understand the ideas clearly.
I took coaching last year from an institute here in Hyderabad. Our teacher was not like your usual coaching faculty - he was more academic, a professor. Those were a beautiful five months I spent soaking in every bit of knowledge he imparted. It was awesome. So that has helped tremendously as well.
Engineering here as well. I really hope you fall in love with this subject!
All the best!
Hello everyone,
For daily answer writing and peer reviewing answers of PSIR, a small Telegram group would be convenient. Join up through this link if interested: https://t.me/joinchat/RqJqqhht0UHCf8kO8xBz8w
Will be deleting the link in a while so as to limit the number of members in the group.
Thanks@hashtag2020 joined :D
This month’s Yojana looks interesting - it’s about foreign policy. Haven’t read it yet but seems worth the time.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TC-rlcJ9ZBPuEZANLyPu8nRDPJHzhDgC/view
This month’s Yojana looks interesting - it’s about foreign policy. Haven’t read it yet but seems worth the time.
Thank you Sir.
Can You resend as its not downloading
Put a link instead. And I’m not a sir - but please don’t call me ma’am either :p
@whatonly April one also. It's on human rights. Quotes good scholars
Oh awesome! Thanks!
I joined it last year in anticipation that I will clear Prelims(didn't clear eventually though). Key takeaways-
1. Useful for additions in Part B of Paper 2.
2. Also many PYQs covered by mam.
3.Very poor paper checking. Kind of a deal breaker here.
4.Also since it will be online this time around, I guess not everybody is comfortable attending 3 hours classes.
5.Takes a good proportion of your time. Say you will be spending 3 hours,3 days a week.
An alternative I am looking to join this year-
Some not-so popular PSIR Test Series. This will help in a better feedback on Answer Writing. Most probably going with Lukmaan Ias.The faculty over there looked quite good(from the Youtube videos uploaded). If anybody has an idea about Lukmaan faculty, do contribute.
@mightyraju Looking for a less famous test series too - but Lukmaan has only pub ad test series, not PSIR, at least from their website. Have you checked out SleepyClasses? They’re coming up with a test series soon but not sure exactly when.
@whatonly sleepy is little risky for optional.. their main guy was socio optional i guess.. and is it full fledged TS or answer writing & review type?
Not sure about details. Mailed them asking for details but no reply yet. And that’s also why I’m a bit sceptical. Think SR crash course might be too much for me and I’ll end up getting overwhelmed with the new content, but also haven’t found another test series that’s as reliable.
I joined it last year in anticipation that I will clear Prelims(didn't clear eventually though). Key takeaways-
1. Useful for additions in Part B of Paper 2.
2. Also many PYQs covered by mam.
3.Very poor paper checking. Kind of a deal breaker here.
4.Also since it will be online this time around, I guess not everybody is comfortable attending 3 hours classes.
5.Takes a good proportion of your time. Say you will be spending 3 hours,3 days a week.
An alternative I am looking to join this year-
Some not-so popular PSIR Test Series. This will help in a better feedback on Answer Writing. Most probably going with Lukmaan Ias.The faculty over there looked quite good(from the Youtube videos uploaded). If anybody has an idea about Lukmaan faculty, do contribute.
@mightyraju Looking for a less famous test series too - but Lukmaan has only pub ad test series, not PSIR, at least from their website. Have you checked out SleepyClasses? They’re coming up with a test series soon but not sure exactly when.
They have a faculty for PSIR-Tejal Khandelwal. I remember logging on to their website in February and PSIR Test Series was available then. When I checked now, it is only showing a course by the name PSIR Foundation. Drop a mail(or otherwise I can do this). Also Unique too has a name but I have no reviews yet. I will like to avoid Sleepy Classes because I don't find them too reliable for an Optional Test Series.
*Also avoid Chaubey Sir. He is very knowledgeable(I took PSIR coaching in IAS Score) but then he is lazy as hell and largely avoids putting any efforts.
Done. Will update when they reply. And yes optional is too big a deal to risk with unreliable options. Thanks for the detailed input :D
@Hitman2021 they are building a good name since 3-4 years. The issue is they also have a Delhi centre. So who would check copies? Pune people might be good, not sure of the centre hereBro I will give exam next year. (Skipped this year due to state services) Just shared it because that topper had joined it.
You can contact them and ask if the Pune one is available in online mode.
No idea :/
they have not given schedule of syllabus of the tests in SR !! so how will we know what to study?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rF2TopC9s92wZRdmjcigV3cIBi9_7yVi/view
Schedule is here
Thank you both! :)
@Caesar could you tell me whose those are?
Thank you both! :)
@Caesar could you tell me whose those are?
I think they are of Pooja Ranawat ma'am.
She got 319 marks in psir in 2017 exam.
You can find her strategy here :
https://poojaranawat.wordpress.com/2018/06/05/political-science_ideal-vs-real-approach/
In this link only you will get her copies google drive link.
( I think her strategy is very helpful for us)
Thank you so much! Her strategy is brilliant.
@Nadir_Shah i used the book by Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy. It covers some aspects not in the notes and explains them clearly. But it doesn’t have Gramsci and Arendt. The Stanford docs are great for Arendt as suggested above and for Gramsci you can get some extra points from this one (don’t remember where I got it from).
@whatonly I was looking into some writings in the pdf of that book, found this book bit time-consuming to digest. All I need is some book in which Plato to Arrendt is lucidly explained for a beginner like me. (Engg background)
If you’re a beginner you’re preparing for 2020 right? Try reading the IGNOU material. That is the simplest explanation you’ll find and reading other sources will become easier after that. They have chapters on thinkers in their BA or MA course. However they don’t have Arendt, and Gramsci is covered in very little detail. For those two, you’ll need to read from separate sources (mentioned above). Just the IGNOU material won’t be enough though. Ma’am’s notes have all the thinkers from Plato to Arendt. If you are able to gain a clear understanding of every concept from the notes then you’re set. If you’re having difficulty you’ll have to read one of the standard books (Brian Nelson, Mukherjee & Ramaswamy etc). It is time-consuming, but necessary because you need to have absolute clarity on every topic.
And don’t worry, engineering background is not a disadvantage. Can actually be quite helpful in my experience. Good luck :)
@MarcusA Very true. I mainly was looking for critiques to see what could possibly be said.
Both good points, thanks!
I also think notwithstanding her redefinition of the political, her criticism of the “rise of the private” would still be open to the feminist “the personal is the political” argument.
Pasting this is from the Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Might not be directly useful in an answer but still found it interesting:
Marxists have likewise pointed to the consequences of confining matters of material distribution and economic management to the extra-political realm of the oikos, thereby delegitimating questions of material social justice, poverty, and exploitation from political discussion and contestation. The shortcoming of this distinction in Arendt’s work is amply illustrated by a well-known and often-cited incident. While attending a conference in 1972, she was put under question by the Frankfurt School Critical Theorist Albrecht Wellmer, regarding her distinction of the “political” and the “social,” and its consequences. Arendt pronounced that housing and homelessness (themes of the conference) were not political issues, but that they were external to the political as the sphere of the actualization of freedom; the political is about human self-disclosure in speech and deed, not about the distribution of goods, which belongs to the social realm as an extension of the oikos. It may be said that Arendt’s attachment to a fundamental and originary understanding of political life precisely misses the fact that politics is intrinsically concerned with the contestation of what counts as a legitimate public concern, with the practice of politics attempting to introduce new, heretofore ‘non-political’ issues, into realm of legitimate political concern.
@whatonly I would recommend GS Score's test series because the course instructor, Piyush Choubey, checks it himself. Yes, just as others have suggested, their admin is pretty bad, but that doesn't matter much with the test series + Choubey has been quite accessible so far. He checked one of my tests quickly after I got in touch with him for feedback.
Thank you! I ended up joining the crash course myself after spending too much time trying to decide, but might be helpful to someone else here :)
Thanks for the analysis@Porus . Hope this year is really your year.
Those who have written mains before - did you find Paper 2 harder last year than previous years? It’s either that or the examiners’ expectations must have increased, right? Seems like that’s where the most scope for improvement is - makes sense considering it’s the least organised part of the syllabus, sources-wise.
That is the push that was needed for me to start taking it more seriously.
@whatonly Its been definitely the area with highest potential for marks variation, historically. Also I’ve seen GS Scores students usually have the edge here (I maybe wrong) with scores as high as late 170s.
Makes sense! Especially given the fact that a significant number of students are likely following almost exactly the same source every year.
Do you know what GS Score does differently?
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?
@Caesar @Villanelle Okay. Guess we just have to collect more independent content then!
Shubhra Ma'am notes were 100% solely part of my prep. Nothing absolutely NOTHING beyond them. This was a conscious choice since i prepared after prelims mostly.
Her crash course notes are a gold mine for paper 2. In paper 2 i attempted 2 ques in 2B part all thanks to her notes. 142 in paper 2 only because i could quote books and scholars from her crash course answers.
In paper 1, it seems i need to add more content for which i think test series, pyq and selected reading of standard books might help.
Although this time csat is stuck so not so hopeful :(
Amazing... you must have revised them really really thoroughly! Especially if you prepared mostly after prelims. Hope you get a chance to excel this year too :)
@whatonly can u pls share reviews about piyush sir valued addition classes.
(I was irregular in studying IR related article and majorly my studies was pre oriented.) considering this
I haven’t taken them, think you confused me with someone else
@KropotkinSchmopotkin thank you! DMd you.
Hey guys, does SR have any other material for the PT meaning & approaches other than what’s in the notes?
Thanks :D
@MarcusA great answer! But I think it needs to cover the “no law, no justice” part a bit more. Since for upsc covering and showing by underlining that you’ve covered the keywords in the question is important. The only angle I can find is that Hobbes saw justice relating only to man in society and acknowledged no moral character in man that could lead to a sense of justice without law. It’s a rather obvious and simple point and is implicit in what you’ve already said, but I think we would still have to mention it.
Hello everyone,
For daily answer writing and peer reviewing answers of PSIR, a small Telegram group would be convenient. Join up through this link if interested: https://t.me/joinchat/RqJqqhht0UHCf8kO8xBz8w
Will be deleting the link in a while so as to limit the number of members in the group.Thanks@hashtag2020 joined :D
Make this active again please
Should actually have another! Would anyone be doing 1B and want to exchange PYQs the rest of this week?
thats what i had tought!! however, I find it difficult to shove so many views within 250 words, even more, difficult when I write impromptu.
Yepp! I think a good way is to think of all your points in terms of their degree of distance from the demand of question. This is what I have subconsciously been doing. So for example in that question the first degree would consist of 7 points: short intro to Hobbes, briefly why common power is needed (SoN etc), nature of common power/sovereign, nature of law/his authority, justice, what the synthesis of these three means (political obligation), conclusion. Any other point is second degree. I’ll only move to second degree if I have the space and time to cover all the 7 points of first degree sufficiently. Otherwise it ends up looking like an imbalanced answer. Would love to know if anyone has a better answer writing approach!
Hello everyone,
For daily answer writing and peer reviewing answers of PSIR, a small Telegram group would be convenient. Join up through this link if interested: https://t.me/joinchat/RqJqqhht0UHCf8kO8xBz8w
Will be deleting the link in a while so as to limit the number of members in the group.Thanks@hashtag2020 joined :D
Make this active again please
Should actually have another! Would anyone be doing 1B and want to exchange PYQs the rest of this week?
@dragon_rider don’t know specifically for IR but check out@Hitman2021’s and@Caesar’s comments on page 4
@Villanelle @CSE20 thank you :)
Well interests has been at the core of foreign policy throughout history for sure, but in the few decades after the establishment of the UN ideology played a significant role (liberalism and democracy). For example, NAM was a policy created as both an ideology and in the self-interest of developing nations. In the current scenario, NAM has lost its relevance. Not because it's ideology is flawed but because nations like India find no real benefit from it i.e. interests. So I would argue that while interests were always a core part of foreign policy, the role of ideology has decreased which causes the relative importance of interests to increase in foreign policy formulation. So the statement that the theory of interests is superseding ideology doesn't mean interests were not present before, but only that it is gaining more importance than ideology. Though I think the realist school of international relations would argue that ideology has never played a role in international relations and that it was only interest or the drive for power that shaped international politics.
That’s a good explanation.
Is there any example of a decision being made by a country choosing ideology and sacrificing a significant interest? Most examples have both in the same direction.
This would be a realist view, but one could say that ideology has always been a nice way to package and back up decisions that were made based on practical interests, like the European identity ideal for the EEC/EU, or NAM. As the world order stabilises with respect to one country’s dominance (US), or as a nation’s confidence and consequence in the world rise (India) the ideological cover might simply become unnecessary to sell a stand taken, both at home and globally. Might enables assertion of right. Besides, an ideology compatible with present day issues, that are far more complex, is naturally harder to devise. Perhaps what seems like pragmatism today, with enough academic writing and debate about it, might even be representable as ideology tomorrow!
Hey, 1 was fine. Rushed in the end a bit on the part-B 15 markers but I think I wrote what was needed. Paper 2 was weird because there was so little theory but I think I managed, tried to quote people wherever possible. However I still don’t know for sure what a good answer is, because SRIAS evaluation is so random. Don’t have any confidence except self-confidence. Feel content :)
This telegram group was a lifesaver for 2B: https://t.me/lukmaaniaspsir
They post articles regularly. I had virtually no current affairs notes collected for 2B, so I just went in the group and searched country names and made notes and quotes from the 2-3 articles there for each. Saved a lot of time and they’re good, useful articles.
hi
i m deciding on picking psir as optional.. i hav gone thru SR mam's notes.. i find the subject interesting but worried about the current part.. do i hav to necessarily makes notes of scholars views from think tanks & newspapers..
i hav seen the crash course material of SR mam & she gives ample scholars in those notes.. is it enough to rely on those scholars or shud i make my own notes on scholars views.. plzz help
Hey, gave my first mains this year. Given that this is the beginning of your preparation, I think you should focus first on finishing the notes thoroughly. You can occasionally note down quotes and the like from editorials or random things you read/watch and compile them in the end, as an addition. The crash course has many quotable scholars, but a problem that might arise there is that the notes may be uploaded too close to the exam - which is what happened at least this year. So towards the end if you feel there are topics you need more material for, you may have to collect some yourself. I did this collection exercise only towards the end before the exam, and did not face the problem of not having scholars to quote in the paper (however will know for sure only when marks are here). To save yourself the stress you could do it earlier, maybe once every couple of weeks. This will not be needed for all topics though - just the most dynamic parts. Good luck :)
Hey guys. I don’t want to talk about my strategy before scores come either. I have no clue which papers in particular went well, so it could be misleading. Some things I did consciously that I feel were helpful in making the prep faster and easier, irrespective of my final performance in PSIR, were:
1. Read Andrew Heywood, OP Gauba, Bayliss & Smith, some IGNOU material, VR Mehta (will add more if I remember) before I started the SR correspondence notes, because I couldn’t truly get the concepts from just the SR notes. This made sure I had clarity in concepts. I made notes from these sources. It helped solidify them in my understanding, but it also took a lot of time. The result was that I started reading the SR notes properly after prelims. I then made notes again that combined SR and my own notes from the extra sources. Since SR is so huge, it was about 80% of the consolidated notes. My own notes yielded some extra points. This made sure everything was in one place, making it easy to revise. (However, it was scary and stressful to have all of SR notes left to do after prelims - would not advise if you can manage time better)
2. From my consolidated notes, I wrote down scholars’ quotes, critiques of one another, important works, and keywords separately. Around 5-10 pages for each half of each paper. This was what I revised the day before the exam, on the way, and in the lunch break. It helped me recall the underlineable things quicker in the paper, and everything else followed.
3. For 2B, I took a shortcut. I had neglected to collect IR news over the year, and SR crash course was too slow and didn’t cover all the countries/organisations. So I went to the Lukman PSIR channel where they had posted articles everyday. I made a list of countries/organisations on which notes were needed. Searched for each in the channel, and just quickly made notes from the articles that came up. This obviously isn’t ideal - but if anyone finds themselves in such a situation they could try this way.
This is all I can think of for now. I will add anything as it occurs to me. All the best everyone. :)
@dingding2021 I somehow missed your comment, sorry!
I don’t know about the SR tablet course. I didn’t take it.
This was my experience with the crash course. It might help someone make a choice. This was my first time, maybe it was different in previous years and COVID slowed it down this year. They did say that was the reason. Anyone who knows more, please feel free to add something.
Mock test questions:Great. They’re good at identifying which topics might be asked in the exam. There was a lot of overlap.
Mock test evaluations:Poor. They started out average and became completely ridiculous by the end. Some were just a series of ticks with no comments. Also, inflexible schedule unlike others and an unclear policy. They said tests submitted within three days of the scheduled date would get an evaluation within 10 days. The rest had to wait pretty much without any kind of timeframe.
Lectures:I didn’t listen to any of the lectures due to lack of time, so can’t comment. For others in my situation - first attempt, notes yet to be made fully - it might be the same. From what I gathered, the idea was to focus on IR for 2B since that’s the most dynamic part. However in the beginning they uploaded more of the other papers. Which was fine, but delayed IR. The result was that you couldn’t rely on them for IR current affairs and analysis - which was the point of the course.
Lecture notes:A bit disorganised, and difficult to add to your material quickly when time is already precious. The content added value - especially by giving you scholars and quotes. However, could be overkill for some topics. In the end you’ll never be able to write 4 scholars for one small subtopic.
I guess a lot of this gets tolerated because of their dominance in the market. Hope it’s better next year!
@whatonly please share a link to lukmaan psir channel
@Tejasvi95 I somehow don’t have the file for solved PYQs anymore :/ I have uploaded a model answers file I had instead.
If anyone has the solved PYQs file saved please send it to me so I can update it. Many thanks!
Can anyone enlighten me on this question. How many scholars we need to write on a particular answer ? Does writing some answers without any scholars makes my answer very bad . Like in national commission for women type questions do I need to write scholar opinion in this question too or I can just write the facts .@AzadHindFauz @whatonly
I'm a bit hesitant to give advice before I know my PSIR marks. For questions like NCW I had tried to make a list of quotes that I could use in pretty much any related question, and intended to use these in the exam. However I did not end up quoting scholars in every question in the exam, partly because sometimes it didn't seem to add much value and partly because I couldn't recall a relevant scholar.
So I think quoting a scholar is the best way to make an answer seem scholarly (:p) but you can achieve the same thing by analyzing the concepts related to the facts as well, as@AzadHindFauz said above with the NCW-feminism example. If you do that I think the answer will be complete even without a thinker quoted - but I won't be able to say so for certain until I know my marks.
@sstarrr I'd say the same thing - understand the ideas inside out, make consolidated notes, and practice with PYQs before worrying about a test series.
Make sure that for every item of the syllabus, you have the material figured out, and unless you have everything concisely in one place available, I'd suggest that you make notes from all the sources for that topic in one place. I didn't do this part until after prelims even though I studied optional during the postponement, leading to a lot of panic and stress. After prelims you can make even shorter notes if you feel like it. The idea is to get it to a level where you're able to revise the whole syllabus at least 2-3 times in the 5 day gap between GS and optional papers during mains.
I agree with@DeekshitaP on doing the same PYQs multiple times thing. I only managed to do this for a few topics but it really helped for those (this too I did only after prelims but it would have helped to do it sooner). I think you can focus on PYQs right now as a way to make sure your concepts are clear and that you can express them coherently. I don't think you need to worry too much about getting these answers checked just yet. You'll notice the difference yourself between progressive answers you write.
I had joined the SR crash course after prelims. You're right about the paper checking. I could never make time to watch the videos or even read the model answers, so the only way it helped was that the questions were really good. Many came in the mains. Crash course notes are good too, if it doesn't become overkill. I was in a similar dilemma about test series, but ended up joining because of the lack of an alternative. So I don't have an answer to this question.
Last year some of us had made a telegram group to share answers among ourselves and review them. That's certainly better than SR checking. I think after you get the hang of answer writing, you won't even really need someone to review your answers. You'll be able to figure out a lot on reading them a couple of days after you write them. (However marks are not out yet, I still don't know if this style I figured out for myself worked well - so ek chutki namak.) Also, well selected toppers copies will help. I do think this can wait until after prelims though unless you really have time to spare.
Also if you haven't already and if you're able to make time I'd suggest make some notes for 2B now. You can always update after prelims. I again did this only after prelims and it was not fun.
All the best :D
Topic-wise PYQs (until 2019): 
Topic-wise PSIR PYQs.pdf
@Rewl1 Hey, I did not do AWFG, but I also think optional is your best bet for now. If you get your notes ready and get some practice writing answers now, it'll take a huge load off after prelims, and you can focus on GS properly then. Depends on your capacity to multitask :) if you can spare time for GS along with doing optional fully, no harm in doing GS. But make optional your first priority.
@dragon_rider I tried to prepare separate notes for essay but didn't manage to do it properly. So I mostly used whatever we learn in GS and optional itself. I wrote mock essays but did not specifically prepare for them. And whatever little I prepared on was for non-abstract topics. Won't be able to help on this :/
@dragon_rider Anudeep’s list of topics: List of Topics for Essay.pdf
@naviiin hey, I used only the syllabus list to organise the notes. In my notes, within those topics, I added whatever sub topics I found useful in the source material.
@Rewl1 I used to look at answer copies of Megha Arora and Trupti Dhodmise. Both had very different styles and got good marks (300+). I used to look at Megha Arora's copies, pick out questions from them to write, and compare with her answers to figure out exactly how to improve. I would suggest sticking to one or two people after looking at a few who have gotten good marks, depending on whose style you like, and then trying to see what you can take from them.
Didn't really listen to any talks. I read articles by Megha Arora, Ananya Das, and Dhananjay Singh.
https://medium.com/firestarter
https://unravellingcse.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/political-science-preparation-by-ananya-das-air-16/
Need some help regarding psir preparation. I have read basic material once but facing difficulties in grasping everything properly. going to write exam in 2021. i was thinking of joining any classroom course. so can anyone suggest what to do ? because shubhra mam's course will run for 6 months starting this july so i don't think that's a viable option. should i join some other classroom course ? also i found some audios of mam's 2018 batch on telegram so would those be reliable ? another option i have heard of is chaubey sir and some other free youtube series. so please anyone who has taken any classroom course before please help me out.
Thank You
Hey. Reading everything just once is not enough to grasp it fully for most of us, especially if you don’t have the background. It’ll take another round or two of revision to understand concepts clearly and be able to see connections between them. I suggest you do this, instead of joining any classes at this point. I have not attended either Shubhra Ranjan ma’am’s or Chaubey sir’s classes, but from what I have heard SR classes go quite slow, and that is bound to be worse this year.
Have faith in yourself :) if you’re feeling confused and lost in the syllabus at this point after having read everything once, it’s natural. But since you’re short on time, you will need to make the most of the next month or two, depending on how much time you’re devoting to optional. I would suggest you go back and read the material again and spend enough time with it to understand it fully. If there are parts you need help for, you can always find videos or other material online, or even here. That seems like the most effective use of your time now.
Keep up your spirits. Good luck :)
How to make crisp notes for psir.. I had made earlier and later ended up writing the whole thing which again has become bulky.. it's like everything seems important to me. Should I segregate things like - quotes of thinkers in one place, keywords in another, critics in one..
Please suggest 🙏
Hey. It really helped me to think of my notes in levels.
Level 1: I made notes from all books except SR notes. Never went back to those books again.
Level 2: Made notes combining level 1 notes and SR notes. Enough detail that I could just revise from these. Arranged according to syllabus list. Revised multiple times.
(Did this is mindmaps for 1A, and handwritten for others for lack of time. If you have time to make mindmaps, please do it! It really helped me remember things. In the exam I could visualise my mindmap for 1A and navigate it inside my head. Mindmaps rule.)
Level 3: A few days before the exam, I scribbled keywords, scholars, book titles etc. Just a random collection of words that wouldn’t make sense to anyone else. This is best done at the point where you just need to see the keyword to recall everything related to it.
In the 5 day gap between GS and mains, I gave 4 days to revising my level 2 notes. On the 5th day and on the exam day, I revised level 3 notes a few times. I think it really helped recall things quickly in the exam.
Samples:
Level 2 Gramsci:
Level 3 Gramsci
Yeah! That happens sometimes. I think SR notes are good mainly because they are organised syllabus wise and have a lot of material, but some links are definitely missing.
Yup, reference books. These are the ones I used:
1A: OP Gauba, Andrew Heywood, Sushila Ramaswamy, VK Mehta, IGNOU material
1B: I read Oxford Handbook, helped in understanding some topics but did not add many points to the material in the end. Skippable.
2A: Bayliss & Smith, Global Politics by Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies by Andrew Heywood
2B: David Malone, Shashi Tharoor (both are old, but help lay a base - but Malone is better and enough), Indian Foreign Policy by Harsh V Pant, Choices by Shivshankar Menon, Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy
I don’t think these are all necessary. From some of them, I just did a few chapters. You can pick based on what you find necessary. :)
@dragon_rider The mind maps look very neat.Is there an app /software for this?
XMind is also very good. The free version has all the features you need. It’s super convenient to use and makes the whole process very enjoyable.
okay sure thanks a lot :) i'll focus on re-reading and understanding. but in mam's postal notes sometimes i find some points are missing and some disconnect is there. so what should be done for that ? any reference book or anything else. which you might've referred to?
good luck to you too :)
Yeah! That happens sometimes. I think SR notes are good mainly because they are organised syllabus wise and have a lot of material, but some links are definitely missing.
Yup, reference books. These are the ones I used:
1A: OP Gauba, Andrew Heywood, Sushila Ramaswamy
1B: I read Oxford Handbook, helped in understanding some topics but did not add many points to the material in the end. Skippable.
2A: Bayliss & Smith
2B: A few chapters from a lot of books. Will collect and write if you’d like to know.
I don’t think these are all necessary. You can pick based on what you find necessary. :)
thanks a lot. yes you're right i won't be referring to all the above mentioned books considering the time i've at my disposal, but, i'll use them for connecting the missing links. Yes, for 2B whenever you find time do let me know of your sources because mam's notes for this portion are not too good plus i have not been a regular follower of newspapers or daily current updates, though, i have read vision monthlies.
Updated the original comment for 2B. Had also forgotten to mention some others.
@AzadHindFauz @whatonly @Jammu or anyone else please entertain my concern it would be of great help.
While writing an answer if I remember a very good point which I know most won't write for eg- If they asked to do a critical analysis of Plato and I remember that Someone has said " Plato is the biggest Liar" but i don't remember the thinker's name, should i write that thing without the thinker ( If yes, how should i write it) or should proceed with the normal Karl popper and aristotle criticism.
Learning how to make the most out of a half-remembered point is a useful skill indeed :) You can say things like “it has been said that...”, “there is a school of thought that believes...”, or something like that and draw attention away from the fact that you’ve forgotten the author.
But for that the point that you remember has to be useful without the author.
If you write “it has been said that the Plato was the first fascist” because you don’t remember the author, it is still a valuable point because it still conveys something substantial by itself and gives the reader something to consider, independently of who said it.
But if you write “it has been said that Plato is the biggest liar” it would not add any value because it’s not a substantial criticism, it is more of an insult. I would say don’t write this point even if you remember the author, because it doesn’t really convey anything except the author’s dislike for Plato without any explanation. Only if it is a really well-known author will the sentence have an impact - if Aristotle had said that, it would be valuable in an answer, but not if it was someone the reader is reading about for the first time.
If you want to find unique points and have the time, one idea is to go to the Wikiquote page for, say Plato, and scroll down to the section containing quotesabout him. You might find something short and useable.
Whoops, I did not know that. I searched for that quote earlier but couldn’t find it. Could you post the full quote or the source if you have it?
And yeah, since Nietzsche obviously will carry weight, it seems good to go :)
Whoops, I did not know that. I searched for that quote but couldn’t find it. Could you post the full quote or the source if you have it?
And yeah, since Nietzsche obviously will carry weight, it seems good to go :)
@whatonly It's in ma'am's notes only i think. In the post modernism chapter of Ideologies
Lolol. Thank you. Every time I open those notes there's something new :p
Shivshankar Menon's new book, India and Asian Geopolitics, is also worth reading, especially if the subject is new to you.
I 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 !
I agree. The goal itself is so vague and nebulous, and in any case as recent events have proved it is a very very long road ahead. By the time we achieve the milestones that seem necessary now, the world order may have changed again.
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.
The “Present” section is better for having points directly useable in the exam I think. Especially since the author is so quotable. I especially liked the chapter on globalisation. However, the other chapters on China and the rest of Asia don’t cover much that we won’t already know from collecting info in the general course of prep, and whatever is new covers too small an area to be asked in the exam, so this section can be read selectively.
The “Past” covers the history of Asian geopolitics (who’d have thunk) so it’s good for understanding the present dynamics but there won’t be much opportunity to use it in the exam. But i was reading about many of these events for the first time ever, so maybe it isn’t necessary for someone who knows enough about them already.
From the exam pov, selected chapters from the second half should be good, but that too only if the other standard sources are already done. :)
OnlyIAS released some notes (for free) on the whole syllabus arranged topic wise. I found them too late for 2020, but if you’re making your notes now and need some extra material on certain topics, they’re a good source.
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. :)
https://forumias.com/post/detail/PSIR-Strategy-resources-discussion-1601965839?JS1DPFIuIyRgCmAK
Stay safe too! :)
@whatonly @AzadHindFauz or anyone else did you make block diagrams or flowcharts or anyother such things in ur answers??
Only paragraphs everywhere :)
@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
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?
If the question were about Gandhi's views on socialism, or India and socialism, I would still write it - even if it's a bad understanding, if Gandhi reached it and wrote about it, it's bound to become somewhat popular at least and merits mention for that reason. I wouldn't say it's bad in the exam though - might not go down well with the examiner :p If there is time and space, I would say something like "In spite of socialism holding universal egoism to be a bourgeois concept, Gandhi believed that..."
But otherwise on a question just about socialism where there's so many other people to quote I would avoid it.
Guys for simulating a real 3 hour mains exam I think changing where you sit, if possible, will help. Or just clearing your desk. Anything to set it apart from the usual condition and reinforce to yourself that the 3 hours are not business as usual.
From my limited experience, feeling tired and fatigued in a test won't happen if you know the answers well. You will feel excited to write the answers and won't even realise how the three hours go by. So finding the exam difficult to give could be a symptom of revision not being enough, and not a problem in itself that you need to worry about separately.
So true about revision thing. May be I am unable to recall and write answers and hence running away.
Could be. Happened to me too for some time last year :/ But now thankfully there is time. You could take giving your first mock itself as a challenge and forget about the quality of answers for this one. Just focus on writing it and getting rid of the fear.
And you could try a previous paper for this instead of wasting a precious test series paper. Or even read and mentally prepare for the questions beforehand, revise those topics, and then give it so you feel good writing the answers. Once the hesitation to write a paper is gone it'll take a great load off and you'll feel more confident :)
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 !
@babu_bisleri I write sectional test (1.5 hours) every morning. I know this is overkill but it became a necessity for me as I was taking 4-5 hours to complete a 3 hr test at home when I gave it casually ( It was so casual that I even used to have tea breaks between the test). So I decided to time the test and submit the paper as soon as the time's up even if the answer sheet is blank. Believe me, all the sincerity will come when you score a 20-30 out of 120. I did it for 2 weeks, now I complete the paper (full test- which I give every saturday) with 5 minutes to spare .
@whatonly you overcame this thing after pre ? Must have took some revision ! I feel confident wrt concepts in most of the psir topics but cant recall keyword and scholars of even Part a of Paper1 sometimes. As you suggested will try revising and write the paper. Thanks a ton !!
@Aquaman I can relate to the break b/w writing test thing, it is just me. Can I DM you ? like how you do it and all ?
Haan after prelims only. I didn't even do answer writing before prelims. That was not smart and could have backfired in my face, but I do think doing full length tests can wait until after prelims. Revision is far more important now.
This is all I found. Had not done this properly. 😅
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.
True, I have Laski and MacIver under a separate section on sovereignty. Anyway writing only polyarchy will not be enough content even for a 10 marker, so all three of them would be best.
Hey guys 2021 will be my first attempt and after the postponement, I am a bit confused about how to structure my prep.
I have done the tablet course of PSIR from SR and I haven't revised it as such.
I was wondering that after which reading did you guys start making short notes and should I make notes right now, considering my GS prep is average and a lot of improvement is to be done in the static portion in GS?
I am thinking of giving June and July for PSIR plus mains and after that exclusively for pre.
Any help would be great! :p
I would say read it once, get an idea of what is where in the sources, and start making notes :) notes are not just a revision tool, making them is an exercise in itself that helps you understand the concepts better. Plus, it's better to revise from your own notes than a variety of sources any day, so the sooner they're ready the more useful your revisions will be.
GS static parts will probably be covered significantly in prelims prep. The smaller outsider topics can be covered after mains. I would say use this time to solidify optional, because after prelims you'll get busy with giving mock tests and balancing it with GS.
Nine-Nine :)
Hello junta, is your thread too crowded? Is your optional getting too "Political"?
WORRY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come join us at History Optional thread and begin your fun life!
There you will have ample space( no crowding)
Personal attention to each comment will be provided.
We value each member as a family.
Come, join the true camaraderie and feel the bliss.
Come, join History. :)
It is uncanny how on point this is 😂 I am tempted
Ek bar padha tha. Uske bad se notes bnake thikaane laga diya hai inn notes ko. :P Hope to never see them again.
Absolutely. The joy of putting them away makes up for the hernia you get lifting them :')
That was for leisure. And a long time back. It is a beautiful book. UPSC is a different game altogether.
I gone through 4 booklets of this.. why people dislike this. I found it very useful to understand topics.
Definitely super useful :) we were just kidding around. If we didn't have these and had to find sources ourselves it would take two years just to finish the syllabus
could anybody please tell me what are the contents of the crash course of SR , does she provide some current affairs material as well for IR part , is the content different than the monthly magazines of Vision ??
The crash course contains:
1. Test series (model answers are uploaded too)
2. Discussion videos on the test questions
3. Lecture videos on different topics (not sure how they are chosen)
4. Material on different topics, usually corresponding to the videos but some extras too
I joined the 2020 one. I couldn't find time to watch any of the videos so can't comment on that. The material is usually a collection of facts and scholar quotes. Some IR topics were covered, some weren't. Since it's IR it contained current events too under these topics, but I don't recall any separate current affairs (others please correct if I'm wrong).
You will still need the Vision magazines (or any CA source). Even for IR, you can't rely entirely on the crash course material, because a) it doesn't cover every topic, and b) the schedule is unpredictable. I think the way to use it is to make your notes on your own, and add points that you find useful from the crash course material.
could anybody please tell me what are the contents of the crash course of SR , does she provide some current affairs material as well for IR part , is the content different than the monthly magazines of Vision ??The crash course contains:
1. Test series (model answers are uploaded too)
2. Discussion videos on the test questions
3. Lecture videos on different topics (not sure how they are chosen)
4. Material on different topics, usually corresponding to the videos but some extras too
I joined the 2020 one. I couldn't find time to watch any of the videos so can't comment on that. The material is usually a collection of facts and scholar quotes. Some IR topics were covered, some weren't. Since it's IR it contained current events too under these topics, but I don't recall any separate current affairs (others please correct if I'm wrong).
You will still need the Vision magazines (or any CA source). Even for IR, you can't rely entirely on the crash course material, because a) it doesn't cover every topic, and b) the schedule is unpredictable. I think the way to use it is to make your notes on your own, and add points that you find useful from the crash course material.
Then why is there so hype about her test series? checking is pathetic and so is her crashcourse. Whats good then?
Same thing we hear every five years: aur option hi kya hai :p
But jokes apart, I've heard crash course videos especially about the test answers are quite helpful.
Paper checking is terrible but the questions themselves covered many topics which came in the actual paper.
@Aquaman for 2B the line between basic sources and value addition was not very clear for me. The SR notes for 2B have some good points but need a lot of updates. For static parts (first few topics) I used SR notes and some other books*, and after that made notes from various articles for other topics.
*2B: David Malone, Shashi Tharoor (both are old, but help lay a base - but Malone is better and enough), Indian Foreign Policy by Harsh V Pant, Choices by Shivshankar Menon, Oxford Handbook of Indian Foreign Policy
(all these are not necessary, just collect the amount of matter you need to answer any realistic question)
You will be covering IR anyway in CA if you are doing some monthly magazines or mains 365. So while making notes it's better to focus more on scholarly opinions.
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!
A fun read on Machiavelli
Have we got Machiavelli all wrong? | Books | The Guardian
The author says that on closer reading of Machiavelli, it can be argued that through The Prince, Machiavelli was actually trying to warn people against tyrants and despotic regimes. And even later philosophers like Bacon, Spinoza and Rosseau thought of it this way. Rousseau called The Prince "a book of republicans" under the guise of giving advise to kin.
I like this reading of him :) thanks for sharing. It’ll make a good conclusion to an answer even.
If he were just a cynic that would indeed display a great deal of intelligence, because he understood exactly how the world around him worked. But, having understood it, if he was trying to warn people, it displays something more and better. A phrase Gramsci used: pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
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?
reasons could be - decline of parliament and legitimacy crisis, neo liberal policies leading to govt playing a minor role in citizens' life as people depend more on private sector for services so voting has little value for them, fake news and political interference by foreign state actors like russia, changing political attitudes with respect to democracy.USA is one example i remember, but i dont have precise data.
Haan. All good points!
Also
1. The failure of political parties to provide a real choice.
2. As people move up the social mobility ladder and acquire a certain standard of living, their day to day lives will not depend on the government schemes that elections will determine.
It will be interesting to see if this year and the next, due to the pandemic, turnout among demographics where it is hitherto low now increases. I know a lot of people who until now were apolitical and didn't care much who ruled, but having suffered have strong opinions about their government.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
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?
Okay, I get your point.
I have a concern. I have studied everyhing in notes, etc, but I have never done it theme based / as per syllabus.
Like, I am habitual of writing X’s stuff in Y, Y’s in X, in case I could recollect it quickly. Overtime, I have realised it is not fetching me anything great.
How do you see it, like this question that we are presently referring to, in case I get to write today, I won’t think just from Politics of Participation and Representation but would jot down everything I know from all sections.
Like presently in mind, Rousseau is roaming, so I might quote him, Roussea said Englishman won’t like to wait for another 5 years to change govt, englishman would seek quick legislation. So when voting comes, englishman won’t consider it important. I don’t know in which context he said this, but I am sure I would write it.
How do you see questions, like do you track it to topic in syllabus in mind.
Throw some enlightenment, others are also welcome to shed light.
I do think writing stuff drawn from syllabus as a whole is important. But as you say the risk might be that you miss the crux.
In this question they mentioned turnout which is directly related to participation. And the issue of turnout itself is there under the participation wala topic, in SR notes itself. For me it's rarely a process of actually thinking about where the question has been drawn from. Usually i just see the question and the keywords take me to a certain place in my notes - it's very mechanical.
Maybe you can go through topic wise sorted PYQs. It will help map any new question to a topic.
BUT it is also important to be able to answer a question that isn't obviously from one topic. So what you're doing has a huge benefit.
reasons could be - decline of parliament and legitimacy crisis, neo liberal policies leading to govt playing a minor role in citizens' life as people depend more on private sector for services so voting has little value for them, fake news and political interference by foreign state actors like russia, changing political attitudes with respect to democracy.USA is one example i remember, but i dont have precise data.Haan. All good points!
Also
1. The failure of political parties to provide a real choice.
2. As people move up the social mobility ladder and acquire a certain standard of living, their day to day lives will not depend on the government schemes that elections will determine.
It will be interesting to see if this year and the next, due to the pandemic, turnout among demographics where it is hitherto low now increases. I know a lot of people who until now were apolitical and didn't care much who ruled, but having suffered have strong opinions about their government.
It won't change much. India has 90cr voters. And a lot diverse to predict the increase trend.
I don’t mean overall turnout. But, say, in wealthy 30 somethings who live in Mumbai, if we observed an increase in turnout I would not be surprised.
@whatonly @KropotkinSchmopotkin
This question came in PSIR 2A (2019)
At that time, I had superficial knowledge about 2A. I knew in case ‘Democracy’ is asked, Huntington is to be quoted. I didn’t know then if in case, he has given 3rd Reverse Wave. I do remember this was how I introduced the answer. I feel it turns out very well. The examiner for sure, considered my negligence as extra ordinary assessment :D
Waise, I feel this question was asked in context of Yellow Vest Movement, France and in reference to growth of Social Movement seeking issue based instant justice.
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?
Okay, I get your point.
I have a concern. I have studied everyhing in notes, etc, but I have never done it theme based / as per syllabus.
Like, I am habitual of writing X’s stuff in Y, Y’s in X, in case I could recollect it quickly. Overtime, I have realised it is not fetching me anything great.
How do you see it, like this question that we are presently referring to, in case I get to write today, I won’t think just from Politics of Participation and Representation but would jot down everything I know from all sections.
Like presently in mind, Rousseau is roaming, so I might quote him, Roussea said Englishman won’t like to wait for another 5 years to change govt, englishman would seek quick legislation. So when voting comes, englishman won’t consider it important. I don’t know in which context he said this, but I am sure I would write it.
How do you see questions, like do you track it to topic in syllabus in mind.
Throw some enlightenment, others are also welcome to shed light.
I do think writing stuff drawn from syllabus as a whole is important. But as you say the risk might be that you miss the crux.
In this question they mentioned turnout which is directly related to participation. And the issue of turnout itself is there under the participation wala topic, in SR notes itself. For me it's rarely a process of actually thinking about where the question has been drawn from. Usually i just see the question and the keywords take me to a certain place in my notes - it's very mechanical.
Maybe you can go through topic wise sorted PYQs. It will help map any new question to a topic.
BUT it is also important to be able to answer a question that isn't obviously from one topic. So what you're doing has a huge benefit.
Turnout wala kahan hai ? I read analysis of how different caste and class in SR ma'am but turnout wala can't recall.
Maybe it was in the crash course then. I'll check and update.
Like all concepts of Political Science, mapping of this question based on topic in syllabus is also contested :D
Source is La Excellence PYQ.
I feel answer to this question would be very comprehensive covering various sub topics, inter sectional as well. Maybe that is why, the institute has kept it under Global Concerns : )
Hahah. Here making your answer inter sectional can indeed make it intersectional :D
Like all concepts of Political Science, mapping of this question based on topic in syllabus is also contested :D
Source is La Excellence PYQ.
I feel answer to this question would be very comprehensive covering various sub topics, inter sectional as well. Maybe that is why, the institute has kept it under Global Concerns : )
Areh, they have made many such mistakes.
Kept Kautilya PYQ of Saptanga theory of state under Theories of State.
I think how they classify is by running a keyword search, they must have classified it under that due to "democracies" mentioned in question.
Whoops though. I put it in the thread description. If anyone has a better document please suggest, I'll update.
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"
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.
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.
Right. Irrespective of government performance, the primacy of the state will actually only be reinforced - made clear either through its actions to secure its people or the lack of such actions.
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?
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.
@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
I think quoting Indian critics will still be valuable even if the points are not very new, simply because they’re Indian. And we can potentially expand on it giving examples of the Indian experience - in this case under British rule.
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
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.
@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!
@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 :)
@AzadHindFauz @whatonly Any recommendations for indian political thought? except VR mehta.
Check out IGNOU MA notes. Some thinkers are available.
@AzadHindFauz @whatonly Any recommendations for indian political thought? except VR mehta.
Check out IGNOU MA notes. Some thinkers are available.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/ijt0p6b00azcg/Indian_Political_Thought_-_IGNOU_notes
Does anyone have a pdf of political theory by Rajeev Bhargava?
Can anyone suggest a source for constitutional & statutory bodies ? -- not the static part of it but their performance analysis part (i.e successful areas of intervention, criticisms by analysts,etc)
There isn't one specific source but you can build the material for it by googling articles about each body separately. Since most people's answers on this topic are bound to be very similar, the more eye-catching our unique points are the better. If there are editorials about them you can pick up lines from them directly as quotes.
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.
How would you guys approach a question asking about the achievement/ significance of NIEO? Would you take an idealist position on it or one that points out the lack of significant achievements?
Both I think. I would say it was a valuable idea and had a lot of potential, but did not lead to significant results because of both the circumstances at the time and the failings of the members. Looking at the situation today it is still a valuable idea and still holds potential, and we need a new theory of NIEO that keeps the principle intact but also learn from the mistakes of the first time in practice.
Hey does anyone have good sources to study 'Principal Organs of the Union & State' part of the syllabus? Does BL Fadia have chapters on these? SR has shared some chapters but this is not included.@whatonly are there any good academic texts shedding light on this?
I did not do anything except GS stuff on this :/ will update here if I find anything
Can anyone throw light on this?
Sorry, nothing that I know of :/ I just used the syllabus topics itself and put whatever I could find in different material into my notes.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@HeNeArKr to my understanding, they are similar in that they challenge the hegemony of the realist interpretation, and say that the realist interpretation (which stresses rivalry, vigilance, constant competition, security dilemma) is not a natural, inevitable state of affairs, but rather a way of looking at the world.
Social constructivists focus on the principle that different “constructions” can exist based on different ideas, and it is important that these ideas are exchanged and pitted against one another to synthesise lasting constructions. Realism is just one construction, and new constructions can come up. Their goal is primarily to show that other constructions can exist.
Post-modernists focus on the connection between “knowledge” of the world and power. They hold that realism is a view that is hegemonic because its proponents have power, and it serves the purpose of keeping their power intact. Thus they seek to undermine its validity - it is an instrument of exerting and protecting power, and not a legitimate way of interpreting the world. They are more concerned with how certain discourses come to be dominant, and not so much with how the ideas behind the discourses are formed in the first place. This is the same approach they take to their critique of pretty much everything.
In short I think the difference is that social constructivists are concerned withhow interpretations of IR are formed, and post-modernists are concerned withwho forms them. As far as social constructivists are concerned, (in theory) new “constructions” can emerge and they don’t focus on power. In the social constructivists view, it might be possible for any construction other than realism, even from the global south, to one day become dominant, if the exchange of ideas happens effectively. However in the post-modernist view, there is an analysis of why it is hard for other interpretations to gain prominence, as well as how realism has come to attain the position it holds.
I’m not very confident about my understanding - please correct if I’m wrong.
@whatonly really insightful points, Thanks !! Also I am not sure about the last part as I haven't read about it anywhere can you tell me the source from where you read it? maybe it can give more clarity.
I don't remember reading it as such anywhere 😅 I was just extending what I understood to be the logic of both. I will get back to studying this stuff soon, and I'll update here if I can find anything solid to back it up.
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
To my understanding the kind of conditions that India imposes involve mostly procurement quotas. Technically these do make the loans conditional, but it’s what we call “tied aid”, and it’s pretty common. In international lending, whether bilateral or multilateral, when we say conditional loans it does not usually refer to this tied aid, but to conditions which go beyond the loan projects themselves, such as democratic reforms, progress on environmental parameters, and in China’s case, access to natural resources and keeping other countries out of the playing field. So I don’t think the two statements are really inconsistent :)
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
To my understanding the kind of conditions that India imposes involve mostly procurement quotas. Technically these do make the loans conditional, but it’s what we call “tied aid”, and it’s pretty common. In international lending, whether bilateral or multilateral, when we say conditional loans it does not usually refer to this tied aid, but to conditions which go beyond the loan projects themselves, such as democratic reforms, progress on environmental parameters, and in China’s case, access to natural resources and keeping other countries out of the playing field. So I don’t think the two statements are really inconsistent :)
i am not sure about what counts as conditional aid. I was reading a chapter on india's developmental aid in oxford handbook , and the author doesnt own india's argument of altruistic, benign aid policy. According to the author from the very beginning India's aid was geopolitically driven. In case of nepal and bhutan, the majority of indian aid projects were concentrated on developing road infra as per indian military priorities. The ITEC program commenced in backdrop of '62 war in order to rival china's aid and development assistance. The writer finds a positive correlation between Indian and chinese assistance and negative one between indian and soviet, reflecting the alliances of the time.
In another chapter, constantino xavier puts question mark on India's diplomatic jargon of demand driven, non prescriptive aid to africa. According to him there's not much difference between so called neo-mercantilist and rapacious chinese approach and altruistic Indian approach.
hence the confusion
Haan. I was just speaking about the technicality. The motives and planning of the aid/loans can be debated. Even I have to read more on this.
Fellow lol-mates, how would you approach the question “critically assess the changing nature of the concept of national security.” (2014/15 marks) what critics would you quote?
This is how I would approach it. I have not revised since mains so I'm not able to think of scholars immediately, will update if I find anything else.
1. Start by mentioning the historical evolution of the concept of security, and how it has been linked with the concept of the state since the start (the state evolved to provide individuals with security of life, among other things)
2. Realist view of security (as the starting point) - seen through the lens of power, maintained via balance of power, deterrence etc.
3. Mention contradicting views (to show how change has come about, ideologically) - critical view, feminist view, social constructivist view.
Maybe a feminist school quote here (Ann Tickner). Also a criticism of the security dilemma concept which arises from the realist view.
4. Barry Buzan's securitisation theory, showing how issues are "securitised", which broadens the ambit of what we call national security
From there to
5. New challenges to security (to show how change has come about, threat-wise) - cyber attacks, drone attacks, info wars, biological warfare etc.
6. End by saying the realist conception of national security as one of, if not the most, important functions the state still holds, but the other schools of thought may be helpful in synthesising a new, broader understanding of national security that can take into account the new circumstances mentioned in the previous para.
@whatonly How many thinkers for a 10 or 15 marker?
Depends on the answer but I think broadly 1-2 for 10 and 2-3 for 15
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)
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.
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.
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.
Hey. There are 6 books in the original notes I got from the website. The handwriting is legible enough, but there are mistakes in spelling. Can you post a link to the ones you found online? So that I can compare with the original ones I have and tell you if there's any difference.
Hey guys. Posting this here because I posted so many things here and I am worried someone might take it too seriously :/
I have done quite poorly in PSIR. 119+129=248. I am shocked - expected to do so much better. Was saved by other papers.
So just a disclaimer to take everything I've posted here with several generous pinches of salt 😅
@Tina1997 Thank you so much! :D I will indeed be writing again, so it will help! And may I say what a lovely name you have! And ✊ for Hyderabad!
All the very best to you :D May you come out with flying colors this time too!
Thanks :p But that is neither my real name nor my pet name. It's actually a dig at TINA - There is No Alternative, Margaret Thatcher's Neoliberal philosophy :p
Thank you! :D all the best to you too!
And I got what the name meant, given your dp. That's why I mentioned it. Should have been clearer hehe. Everytime I see anyone named Tina that is what I'll think of now.
@Tina1997 Thank you so much! :D I will indeed be writing again, so it will help! And may I say what a lovely name you have! And ✊ for Hyderabad!
All the very best to you :D May you come out with flying colors this time too!
Thanks :p But that is neither my real name nor my pet name. It's actually a dig at TINA - There is No Alternative, Margaret Thatcher's Neoliberal philosophy :p
Thank you! :D all the best to you too!
And I got what the name meant, given your dp. That's why I mentioned it. Should have been clearer hehe. Everytime I see anyone named Tina that is what I'll think of now.
Anjali ka TINA bhi Rahul hi tha… sorry that was terrible
That was beautiful and you should be proud
