UPSC Mains and Optionals 2015 – Solved Question Papers
|Essay Question Paper (UPSC Mains 2015)||Click here|
|General Studies (GS) Paper 1 Question Paper (UPSC Mains 2015)||Click here|
|General Studies (GS) Paper 2 Question Paper (UPSC Mains 2015)||Click here|
|General Studies (GS) Paper 3 Question Paper (UPSC Mains 2015)||Click here|
|General Studies (GS) Paper 4 Question Paper (UPSC Mains 2015)||Click here|
|Download Hindi Language Paper||Click here|
|UPSC Optional 2015:-Political Science & IR Question paper 2015||Click here|
Essay, Main's GS1, GS2, GS3, GS4, Optionals etc.
UPSC Preliminary Examinations and General Studies Main's (RESOURCES)
Indian Culture,General Studies 1 Click here
Indian History. General Studies 1 Click here
World History. General Studies 1 Cleck here
Indian Geography.General Studies 1 Click here
World Geography.General Studies 1 Click here
indian Society. General Studies 1 Click here
Constitution of India general studies 2 Click here
Governance general studies 2 Click here
Indian Polity general studies 2 Click here
Social Justice general studies 2 Click here
International relations and foreign policy general studies 2 Click here
Science and Technology general studies 3 Click here
Economic Development general studies 3 Click here
Environment, Ecology, Bio-diversity general studies 3 Click here
Internal Security general studies 3 Click here
Disaster Management general studies 3 Click here
Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude General studies 4 Click here
NCERT Books Click here
Economic Survey Click here
UPSC Essay Paper Click here
Current Event's Click here
UPSC Optional Political Science and IR (RESOURCES)
Political Science and International Relations Click here to Download
1. Comment on the following in about 150 words each:
(a) Idea of Natural Rights
Ans. Natural rights mean natural law. Natural law mean D Declaration of Independence
In classical political philosophy “natural right” refers to the objective rightness of the right things, whether the virtue of a soul, the correctness of an action, or the excellence of a regime. Thus Aristotle says in Politics that no one would call a man happy who was completely lacking in courage, temperance, justice, or wisdom. A man who was easily frightened, unable to restrain any impulse toward food or drink, willing to ruin his friends for a trifle, and generally senseless could not possibly lead a good life.The virtues and actions that contribute to the good life, and the activities intrinsic to the good life, are naturally right.
Natural rights on the other hand, are the rights that all men possess, because of which they may be obligated to act, or to refrain from acting, in certain ways. According to the teaching developed primarily by Hobbes and Locke, there are many natural rights, but all of them are inferences from one original right, the right that each man has to preserve his life. All other natural rights, like the right to liberty and the right to property, are necessary inferences from the right of self-preservation, or are conceived as implicit in the exercise of that primary right. Similarly, the natural law founded upon natural rights consists of deductions made from the primary right and its implications.
Locke assumed that humans were by nature rational and good, and that they carried into political society the same rights they had enjoyed in earlier stages of society, foremost among them being freedom of worship, the right to a voice in their own government, and the right of property. Jean Jacques Rousseau attempted to reconcile the natural rights of the individual with the need for social unity and cooperation through the idea of the social contract. The most important elaboration of the idea of natural rights came in the North American colonies, however, where the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine made of the natural rights theory a powerful justification for revolution.
(b) Aristotle’s Conception of Equality
Ans. Aristotle rarely addresses the concept of equality explicitly or independently of a larger point. He does, however, make statements that one could manipulate in order to hypothesize what his view on equality might consist of, if enunciated, and these statements are with regard to economic and not just civil and political equality. According to Aristotle The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. Aristotle describes three regime forms in Book Three: rule by one, rule by few, and rule by many.
Economic Equality within the Aristocracy :-This arrangement seems to describe not one city, but two, or a city within a city. In thepostlude, I discuss the consequences of such an arrangement. Our central concern in this essay isequality, and whether we can discover if Aristotle finds either political or economic equality (or both) beneficial, and under what circumstances. Clearly, under his best regime, the aristocracy, equality is not only unimportant, it is to be avoided. In order to create a virtuous few, some of the city’s residents must be slaves and subjects with no political rights.
Formal Equality:- When two persons have equal status in at least one normatively relevant respect, they must be treated equally with regard to this respect.This is the generally accepted formal equality principle that Aristotle formulated in reference to Plato: “treat like cases as like”.
Proportional Equality:- According to Aristotle, there are two kinds of equality, numerical and proportional. A form of treatment of others or as a result of it a distribution is equal numerically when it treats all persons as indistinguishable, thus treating them identically or granting them the same quantity of a good per capita. That is not always just. In contrast, a form of treatment of others or distribution is proportional or relatively equal when it treats all relevant persons in relation to their due. Just numerical equality is a special case of proportional equality.
Moral Equality:- Until the eighteenth century, it was assumed that human beings are unequal by nature, that there was a natural human hierarchy. This postulate collapsed with the advent of the idea of natural right and its assumption of an equality of natural order among all human beings. Against Plato and Aristotle, the classical formula for justice according to which an action is just when it offers each individual his or her due took on a substantively egalitarian meaning in the course of time, viz. everyone deserved the same dignity and the same respect. This is now the widely held conception of substantive, universal, moral equality.etc.
(c) ‘Difference Principle’ in Rawls’ Theory of Justice
In A Theory of Justice, Rawls argues for a principled reconciliation of liberty and equality, it is meant to apply to the basic structure of a well-ordered society. Rawls belongs to the social contract tradition. However, Rawls’ social contract takes a different view from that of previous thinkers. Specifically, Rawls develops what he claims are principles of justice through the use of an artificial device he calls the Original position in which everyone decides principles of justice from behind a veil of ignorance.
The Two Principles of Justice
The First Principle of Justice “First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.”The basic liberties of citizens are the political liberty to vote and run for office, freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience, freedom of personal property and freedom from arbitrary arrest.
The Second Principle of Justice
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle).
(b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity
Rawls argues that self-interested rational persons behind the veil of ignorance would choose two general principles of justice to structure society in the real world:
Principle of equal liberty:-Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. (Egalitarian.)
Difference principle:- Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
Distributive principles vary in numerous dimensions. They vary in what is considered relevant to distributive justice (income, wealth, opportunities, jobs, welfare, etc.) in the nature of the recipients of the distribution (individual persons, groups of persons, reference classes, etc.) and on what basis the distribution should be made equality, maximization, according to individual characteristics, according to free transactions, etc.
In 1974, Rawls’ colleague at Harvard, Robert Nozick, published a defense of libertarian justice, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Another Harvard colleague, Michael Walzer, wrote a defense of communitarian political philosophy, Spheres of Justice, as a result of a seminar he co-taught with Nozick. In a related line of criticism, Michael Sandel, also a Harvard colleague, wrote Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, in which he criticized Rawls for asking us to think about justice while divorced from the values and aspirations that define who we are as persons and that allow us to determine what justice is.
(d) Difference between Participatory and Deliberative Democracy.
is comprised of forms of democracy whereby citizens invest their time and knowledge to participate in informed decision-making on laws and policy.
is a variant of participatory democracy. In a deliberative democracy, citizens invest time to deliberate or authentically weigh all arguments before voting or deciding by consensus on the laws which will govern them. If citizens cannot come to a consensus after deliberation, then laws are enacted by majority vote. This deliberative process is what gives laws their legitimacy.
(e) Gandhi’s Views on State
In Gandhi’s assessment, the state (Western type) was the symbol of violence in concentrated form. In order to ensure allegiance from the citizens the state (which means its authority) applies coercion or violent measures mercilessly.
State and Ram Raj: Definition and Nature: Prof. Jayantanuja Bandyopadhyay has defined Ram Raj (literally Divine Rule) in the following words: “It is possible to distinguish between two levels of the social and political thought of Gandhi-the ideal and the practical.Rama or Rahim were of equal importance to him. By Ram Raj is meant sovereignty of people on pure moral authority.
Sovereignty of State: Gandhi was not interested at all in building up a comprehensive and well-argued political theory. He was a mass leader, philosopher and freedom fighter. On various issues and situations he expressed opinions which constitute certain aspects of political theory and state sovereignty is such a theory. In Western political thought, state sovereignty is a much talked theory and large number of scholars and philosophers has dealt with this concept. Bodin and Hobbes are chief among them.
Popular Sovereignty: “Gandhi was an ardent advocate not of traditional state sovereignty but of popular sovereignty strongly advocated by one of the social contract theoreticians.” J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau wanted to introduce popular sovereignty of the Greek city-state in his home state. In the scheme of Rousseau’s popular sovereignty the citizens had the opportunity to assemble in open places periodically and to participate in the variety of functions of state. Gandhi contemplated the same type of popular sovereignty for India.
State and Society: Though Gandhi does not deal with society and its relationship with state it is not difficult to frame certain conclusions about his attitude to society keeping his general outlook and philosophy in mind. His inordinate love for liberty rights of the individual and democracy and strong opposition to violence and coercion make it abundantly clear that he stressed more importance on society and less importance to state.
In his judgment society is the best place for the free play of individual’s opinion, in society people enjoy freedom of speech and expression and mainly in society individuals get ample opportunities to mould and remould their views This is due to the fact that the area of state is vast and always it is not suitable for individual’s tree and spontaneous activities.
2.(a) Examine the challenges to sovereignty of the State in the contemporary world.
Although many see threats to state sovereignty from a wide variety of sources, many of these can be grouped in three broad areas: the rise of human rights, economic globalization, and the growth of supranational institutions, the latter being partially driven by economic integration and the cause of human rights. The emergence of human rights as a subject of concern in international law effects sovereignty because these agreed upon principles place clear limits on the authority of governments to act within their borders.
The growth of multinational corporations and the free flow of capital have placed constraints on states’ ability to direct economic development and fashion social and economic policy. Finally, both to facilitate and to limit the more troubling effects of these developments, along with a range of other purposes, supranational organizations have emerged as a significant source of authority that, at least to some degree, place limits on state sovereignty. It is too early to tell for certain, but recent US action in Afghanistan and Iraq suggest that sovereignty will be further constrained in the fight against transnational terrorism.
The Protection of Human Rights: NGOs emerged in the 1960s-70s fighting for the cause of human rights. Groups such asAmnesty International and Human Rights Watch serve as watchdogs to publicize the human rights record of governments limiting state action in some ways. The publicity is sometimes enough to alter state behavior. At other times, the information serves to prompt other states to applydiplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and increasingly common to contemplate humanitarian intervention. In the 1990s, the Security Council began to reinterpret the Charter to more frequently favor human rights over the protection of state sovereignty. Through a series of resolutions, the United Nations has justified intervention in the internal affairs of states without their acquiescence.
Economic Globalization: economic globalization places significant limits on the behavior of nation-states at present. For those who see the retreat of the nation-state, the growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change. As will be further elaborated below, the growth of multilateral institutions to manage the global economy constrains state action.etc
CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES TO THE NATION STATE: Separatism, secessionism, irredentism, ethnocentrism, globalisation and fundamentalism. At the beginning of the 21st century, the perception of the nation-state is increasingly challenged by the neo-liberalist movements of economic globalisation and supra-national entities. In coalition with economic globalisation is cultural globalisation or Westernisation. Whilst not the intended results of economic globalisation, Westernisation is a significant by-product that can undermine national cultural identities compounding nationalism issues. In recent decades, the increasing rise of religious fundamentalist organisations, combined with quasi-political movements and non-state actors, have also sought the redefining of nationalist beliefs. Nationalism at the turn of the 21st century is still a potent political force; however its aims and goals are as varied as its practitioners.
(b) Discuss the key features of pre-Marxist socialist theory.
The pre-Marxist “Utopian socialist” thinker Henri de Saint-Simon believed that the nature of the state would change under socialism from that of political rule (via coercion) over people to a scientific administration of things and a direction of processes of production. Specifically, the state would become a coordinating entity for production as opposed to a mechanism for political control. According to Fredrick Engels, Saint-Simon foreshadowed the classical Marxist notion of the development of the state in a socialist society. Karl Marx understood the state to be an instrument of the class rule, dominated by the interests of the ruling class in any mode of production.
Socialism before the 20th century might be considered non-Marxist since marx and Engel’s ideas didn’t really take off until after his death. Take Robert Owens’ New Harmony experiment for instance. Most socialism today is Marxist, but some modern Communists insist the the Soviet Union, China, etc are/were not “real” communism, so that might be non-Marxian.THE IDEA of a socialist society is a very old one–as old as class society itself. THE UTOPIANS were brilliant critics of industrial capitalism. But they did not look to the class struggle. Instead, they sought to create socialist communities that could be an example to convince the world–including capitalists–of the superiority of socialism.Engels put it this way: “The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain.” Read more plz wait..
(c) Compare and contrast the views of Kautilya and Machiavelli on Statecraft.
Kautilya believed that nations acted in their political, economic and military self-interest. He thought that foreign policy or diplomacy will be practiced as long as the sell-interest of the state is served because every state acts in a way to maximize the power and self interest. In his words he defines diplomacy as, “A King who understands the true implication of diplomacy conquers the whole world”. Kautilya’s work comes from his myths and beliefs where as Machiavelli mainly writes based on his experiences and examples from history. One of benefits of Kautilya’s work is that this imagination has given his work a robust structure and can last over a period of time. In addition Machiavelli’s work can be considered as one of the possible subsets of Kautilya’s statecraft. The weakness of Kautilya’s work is that it is not empirical and is not time tested. Machiavelli and Kautilya both managed to blur the distinction between utility and morality.
Machiavelli and the Moral Dilemma of Statecraft
Machiavelli was a pragmatist in many respects, his positions place him firmly within the classical Western tradition of statecraft. In The Discourses, Machiavelli describes the cycle through which most civil states go, from oligarchy to revolution to democracy to anarchy. Niccolo Machiavelli was the Renaissance leader on political power and the statecraft. He was employed by the Florentine Republic in 1498 and went on many journeys to France and Germany to witness the statecraft in those countries first hand. However with all his experience Machiavelli was born at the wrong time because he had lived in Italy during the time of the French and Spanish war he was not able to accomplish much politically.
Nonetheless in 1512, after the Spanish took Italy, and the Medici family was reinstated in Florence, Machiavelli was expelled and lived the rest of his life in reflection and thought upon politics and the power that it holds. It was likely because of his exile that most people know of him because it was during this time that he wrote The Prince. A book on political power and how to maintain it.
He believed, and wrote in The Prince, that, assuming every ruler understood the basis of human nature that is that humanity was self-centered, rulers were to first and foremost preserve their own power, and were to base all of their decisions on achieving this goal.
1.Both were political thinkers, and symbolized a political theory; precisely about statecraft
2.Both deliberated at great length the acquisition, retention and perpetuation of this political power
3.Both helped or at least worked towards re-unification of ‘nation’; and saw conditions of their present “state” as abject
4.Both were chillingly realist about the intention and decisiveness of the ‘state’
5.Both are synonym for shrewd in their native language
1.Chanakya (or Kautilya) died in 283 BC, Machiavelli was born in 1469 AD
2.Machiavelli was more of a revolutionist while the school of thought Chanakya propagated was developed to some extent before him, for example at great learning centers like the ‘university’ at Taxila.
3.Chanakya almost single-handedly led to the formation of Mauryan Empire, first of the great empires in Indian history and one of the greatest empire in ancient world history. Forces united by him were a factor in the halt of Alexander the Great and later in the defeat of generals after Alexander’s retreat.
4.Political influence of Machiavelli is dwarfed by that of Chanakya, but the reverse is true for the philosophical influence. The overall effect of Machiavelli in the Europe of those times and subsequently the West and the whole world, is unparalleled. Francis Bacon, John Milton, Hume, Adam Smith … the list of all time greats who were influenced by him seems endless.
5.Consequently, Chanakya is much taller figure in India while Machiavelli is so for the West in particular and the world in general.etc.
3.(a) “Plato was an enemy of the open society.” (Popper) Comment.
Ans.“The Open Society and Its Enemies” is a work on political philosophy by Karl Popper, a critique of theories of teleological historicism in which history unfolds inexorably according to universal laws. Popper criticizes and indicts as totalitarian Plato, Hegel and Karl Marx for relying on historicism to underpin their political philosophies, though his interpretations of all three philosophers have been criticized. Written during World War II, The Open Society and Its Enemies was first printed in London byRoutledge in 1945. Originally published in two volumes, “The Spell of Plato” and “The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath”, a one volume edition with a new introduction by Alan Ryan and an essay by E. H. Gombrich was published by Princeton University Press in 2013.The work was on the Modern Library Board’s 100 Best Nonfiction books of the 20th century.
Popper develops a critique of historicism and a defense of the open society, liberal democracy. The subtitle of his first volume, The Spell of Plato, makes clear Popper’s central premise — namely, that most Plato interpreters through the ages have been seduced by his greatness. In so doing, Popper argues, they have taken his political philosophy as a benign idyll, without taking into account its dangerous tendencies toward totalitarian ideology.
Contrary to major Plato scholars of his day, Popper divorced Plato’s ideas from those of Socrates, claiming that the former in his later years expressed none of the humanitarian and democratic tendencies of his teacher. In particular, he accuses Plato of betraying Socrates in the Republic, wherein Plato portrays Socrates sympathizing with totalitarianism (see: Socratic problem).
Popper extols Plato’s analysis of social change and discontent, naming him as a great sociologist, yet rejects his solutions. This is dependent on Popper’s reading of the emerging humanitarian ideals of Athenian democracy as the birth pangs of his coveted “open society”. In his view, Plato’s historicist ideas are driven by a fear of the change that comes with such a liberal worldview. Popper also suggests that Plato was the victim of his own vanity, and had designs to become the supreme Philosopher King of his vision.etc..
(b) Discuss the relationship between base and superstructure in Marxist theory.
Ans. In Marxist theory, human society consists of two parts: the Base and superstructure. The Marxist theory of history explains the fundamental relationship between material conditions and ideas through the concept of base and superstructure. The base comprises the forces and relations of production—employer-employee work conditions, the technical division of labour, and property relations—into which people enter to produce the necessities and amenities of life. These relations determine society’s other relationships and ideas, which are described as its superstructure. The superstructure of a society includes its culture,institutions, political power structures, roles, rituals, and state. The base determines (conditions) the superstructure, yet their relation is not strictly causal, because the superstructure often influences the base; the influence of the base, however, predominates. In Orthodox Marxism, the base determines the superstructure in a one-way relationship.
The most important passage on this can be found in Marx’s preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:
In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or — this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms — with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.For Marx, the most important conditioning elements in a society are the relationships through which it produces and distributes its wealth.
Upon this economic ‘base’ arises a complex ‘superstructure’. This is composed of state structures of law, institutions and political organisation which reflect the dominant social relationships; it also comprises an immense range of conventions and ideas, such as politics, philosophy, morality, and (most importantly for this blog) art. In class society, these are largely, though not exclusively, defined by the ruling class, to justify and maintain the unequal social relationships upon which their privileges depend. The ‘definite forms of social consciousness’ of the superstructure are known to Marxism asideology.
(c) Distinguish between Power and Authority.
Ans.Power and authority are separate but related concepts. A manager in an organization has authority if he or she has the right to direct the activities of others and expect them to respond with appropriate actions to attain organizational purposes. Authority most often comes from the duties and responsibilities delegated to a position holder in a bureaucratic structure. A company president can order a product design change, for instance, or a police officer has the authority to arrest an offender of the law.
Power is the possession of authority, control, or influence by which a person influences the actions of others, either by direct authority or by some other, more intangible means. A prime source of power is the possession of knowledge. A person with knowledge is oftentimes able to use that knowledge to directly or indirectly influence the actions of others. The authority of knowledge is often independent of levels or positions. Power can reinforce authority, and authority is one of the primary sources of power.
Authority is the right given to a manager to achieve the objectives of the organisation. It is a right to get the things done through others. It is a right to take decisions. It is a right to give orders to the subordinates and to get obedience from them. A manager cannot do his work without authority.
Power is a broader concept than authority. Power is the ability of a person or a group to influence the beliefs and actions of other people. It is the ability to influence events. Power can be personal power. A person gets his personal power from his personality or from his expert knowledge.etc.
4. (a) Discuss the ‘crisis of legitimacy’ in capitalist societies. (Habermas)
(b) Discuss Gramsci’s notion of ‘organic intellectuals’
(c) Discuss David Easton’s model of systems analysis.
5. Comment on the following in about 150 words each:
(a) Secularism in the Indian Constitution
The Preamble to the Constitution of India signifies that India is a secular state. The Preamble reflects the way of life adopted by Indian citizens for themselves after independence. In fact every civilization has also been a mirror of way of life as well as reflecting movement of human spirit. Religion in each civilizastion has indicated about the faith of human beings in absolute values and a way of life to realize them.
Religious faith is continuously providing the passion to preserve in the way of life and if it declines, obedience degenerates into habit and habit slowly withers way. Therefore laws, customs, conventions and fashions etc. are not the only means of social control but the religion and morality also formulate and shape the human behavior. Religion and morality are the most influential forces of social control as well as the most effective guides of the human behavior. The social life of a man in addition of its economics, political, philosophical, scientific and other aspects, has also religious aspects. Religion is the major concern of man.
Man is always having religious quest which makes him able to become a restless creature even beyond the satisfaction of his physical needs. Religion revolves around man’s faith in the supernatural forces. Religion is concrete experience which is associated with emotions, especially with fear, awe or reverence. Many societies have a wide range of institutions connected with religion and a body of special officials, with forms or worship, ceremonies, sacred objects titles, pilgrimages, and the like. Looking at the definition of religion by Ogburn, “Religion is an attitude towards super human power, it may be submitted that religion explains the relation of man with god and also elaborate rules of conduct. Further Maxmuller defines, “Religion as a mental faculty or disposition which enables man to apprehend the infinite.
Maxmuller has attempted to define religion as a matter of belief in supernatural forces. Man believes that he is at the mercy of the supernatural forces and shows his subordination to them by means of prayers, hymns, and other acts, man believes that his disrespect and negligence towards religion would bring disaster so he engaged in endless endeavour to adjust himself with the supernatural. He attempts to do only the acts which are righteous and sacred to please the supernatural. Behaving in accordance with the norms laid down by religion is righteous and going against them is ‘sinful’.
Donald E. Smith, Professor of Political Science in Pennsylvania University provided what he regarded as a working definition of a secular state. This was in his book India as a Secular State. “The secular State is a State which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor does it seek to promote or interfere with religion”.
The definition given by Smith reflects three aspects of secularism in the form of inter-related relations as:
1.Religion and Individual
2.Individual and State
3.State and Religion
These relations can be comprehensively elaborate by this triangle. These three associates are the three sides of a tri-angle, touching each other necessarily at three points and creating their mutually related angles. These three sets of angular relationship contain the total of religious freedom available in a society.
First of all these three angles, reflects the relationship between the religion and individuals. This relation contains’ positive freedom of religion’ which implies ‘reasonable unrestrained liberty of believing & practicing one’s religion.’ In other words, every person should be free to follow any religion, and to act upon its teachings and reject all other without any interference from the state. Religious freedom is the soul of principle of liberty enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of India.
(b) Satyagraha as a Strategy in the Indian National Movement
Ans. Satyagraha goal is winning over people’s hearts, and this can be achieved only with tremendous patience, Satyagraha is more than a political tool of resistance. The similarities of the Satyagraha to some of the greatest philosophical and religious tenets of the world have been observed and much written about. However, in the specific context of India, Satyagraha was an immense influence. It went a long way in instilling among the Indians a dignity for hard labor and mutual respect. In the traditional Indian society torn apart by caste and creed based discriminations, Satyagraha stated that no work was lowly. It championed secularism and went a long way in eradicating untouchability from the heart of India’s typically stratified society. Satyagraha glorified the role of women as an important member of the society. All in all, Satyagraha instilled in the Indian mind a dignity and a self respect that is yet unprecedented in its modern history. Gandhi’s system of Satyagraha was based on nonviolence, non-cooperation, truth and honesty. Gandhi used non violence in India’s freedom struggle as main weapon and India became independent from British rule.
Relevance of Gandhian Strategy
In modern times, nonviolent methods of action have been a powerful tool for social protest. There are many examples of non violence like civil resistance, non- violence resistance, and civil revolution. Here certain movements particularly influenced by a philosophy of nonviolence should be mentioned, including Mahatma Gandhi leading a decades-long nonviolent struggle against British rule in India, which eventually helped India win its independence in 1947, Gandhi had to pay for his ideals with his life, but he never veered from his innate faith in non-violence and his belief in the methods of Satyagraha. The significance of Satyagraha was soon accepted worldwide. Martin Luther King adopted the methods of Satyagraha in his fight against the racial discrimination of the American authorities in 1950.
Gandhigiri The public face of the movement, Anna Hazare, describes himself as a Gandhian. His social movement, centered in Ralegaon Siddhi in rural Maharashtra, harks back to Gandhi’s Phoenix farm and Sabarmati ashram. Many of his campaigns, against alcoholism or untouchability, make the Gandhian connect between social reform and political emancipation. His preaches non-violence is comfortable with religious idioms (a portrait of Bharat Mata hung behind him while he fasted for the Jan Lokpal Bill), 14 and makes personal probity the centre piece of the campaign. Yet, while the movement claims Gandhi’s morals and employs his methods, its political vision is as far as can be from Gandhi himself. Ironically, this is what makes it so successful in21st century India. Understanding this neo-Gandhian activism, “Gandhigiri” is key to understanding the Anna Hazare movement.
Gandhi dreamed of a new world of non-violence with overall peaceful environment. Non-violence is a universal phenomenon and it has great relevance and significance. It is the ultimate solution of all kinds of problems and conflicts in the society, nation and world. However, its result depends upon its understanding and proper application. The present scenario of violence and exploitation all over the world has raised an important issue. Any nation which has been suffered with communalism, dictatorship, corruption and power games really needs to go back to Gandhi’s conviction of nonviolence and truth as his mission. By adopting nonviolence, social, political, economic and religious conflicts shall be removed. Undoubtedly, the social doctrine of non violence that has emerged from Gandhian ideas has now become the key to forge and sustain the new social and political order. Today, there is need to adopt Ghandhian philosophy and ideology in overall world to remove all kind of problems and creating peaceful environment. Gandhi is not the past, he is the future. He is an early sign of what we can be.
(c) 99th Amendment of the Indian Constitution
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment vide the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014 passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 August 2014 and by the Rajya Sabha on 14 August 2014.The NJAC would have replaced the collegium system for the appointment of judges as invoked by the Supreme court via judicial fiat by a new system. Along with the Constitution Amendment Act, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014, was also passed by the Parliament of India to regulate the functions of the National Judicial Appointments CommissionThe NJAC Bill and the Constitutional Amendment Bill, was ratified by 16 of the state legislatures in India, and subsequently assented by the President of India Pranab Mukherjee on 31 December 2014.The NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from 13 April 2015.
On 16 October 2015 the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court by 4;1 Majority upheld the collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional after hearing the petitions filed by several persons and bodies with Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) being the first and lead petitioner. Justices J S Khehar, MB Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel had declared the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice Chelameswar upheld it.
As per the amended provisions of the constitution, the Commission would have consisted of the following six persons:
1. Chief Justice of India (Chairperson, ex officio)
2. wo other senior judges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice of India – ex officio
3. The Union Minister of Law and Justice, ex-officio
4.Two eminent persons
These (two) eminent persons would have been nominated by a committee consisting of the
1.Chief Justice of India,
2.Prime Minister of India, and
3.Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or where there is no such Leader of Opposition, then, the Leader of single largest Opposition Party in Lok Sabha), provided that of the two eminent persons, one person would be from the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC or minority communities or a woman. The eminent persons shall be nominated for a period of three years and shall not be eligible for re-nomination.
Functions of the Commission
As per the amended constitution, the functions of the Commission would have included the following:
1. Recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India, Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of High Courts and other Judges of High Courts.
2.Recommending transfer of Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts from one High Court to any other High Court.
3.Ensuring that the persons recommended are of ability, merit and other criteria mentioned in the regulations related to the act.
(d) Structure and Function of NITI Aayog
Ans. NITI Aayog is a Government of India policy think-tank established by PM Modi replacing the Planning Commission. The stated aim for NITI Aayog’s creation is to foster involvement and participation in the economic policy-making process by theState Governments of India, a “bottom-up” approach to planning in contrast to the Planning Commission’s tradition of “top-down” decision-making
Composition of NITI Ayog, Chairperson -Prime Minister Governing Council – Its members are Chief Ministers and Administrators of the Union Territories Regional Councils -These would be created as per need and its members would be chief ministers and administrators of UTs of respective regions. Vice-Chairperson – The Vice-chairperson of the Niti Ayog will be appointed by Prime Minister. The first Vice-Chairperson of Niti Ayog is Arvind Panagariya.
Niti Ayog has full time members (number unspecified), part time members (maximum 2 , these would be scholars from universities and research institutions), Ex-officio members (maximum 4, these are ministers from Union Council of Ministers), Special Invitees (appointed by PM for fixed tenure. Finally, there is a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Niti Ayog, who is appointed by Prime Minister and has a rank similar to Secretary to the Government of India. Current CEO was named on January 10 (Sindhushree Khullar ). The secretariat will be established if deemed necessary.
1.To evolve a shared vision of national development priorities sectors and strategies with the active involvement of States in the light of national objectives
2.To foster cooperative federalism through structured support initiatives and mechanisms with the States on a continuous basis, recognizing that strong States make a strong nation.
3.To develop mechanisms to formulate credible plans at the village level and aggregate these progressively at higher levels of government.
4.To ensure, on areas that are specifically referred to it, that the interests of national security are incorporated in economic strategy and policy.
5.To pay special attention to the sections of our society that may be at risk of not benefitting adequately from economic progress
6 To design strategic and long term policy and programme frameworks and initiatives, and monitor their progress and their efficacy.
7.To provide advice and encourage partnerships between key stakeholders and national and international like-minded Think tanks, as well as educational and policy research institutions.
6.To create a knowledge, innovation and entrepreneurial support system through a collaborative community of national and international experts, practitioners and other partners.
9.To offer a platform for resolution of inter-sectoral and inter departmental issues in order to accelerate the implementation of the development agenda.
10.To focus on technology upgradation and capacity building for implementation of programmes and initiatives etc.
(e) Cooperative Federalism in India
Article 263 of the Constitution has provided for the setting up of an Inter-State Council for investigation, discussion and recommendation for better coordination of relation between the Centre and the States. Constitution of India has nowhere used the term ‘federal’, it has provided for a structure of governance which is essentially federal in nature.
What is Cooperative Federalism:-
Federalism, or the relationship between a central authority and its smaller, constituent parts, can vary quite widely. Throughout history, different people have come up with different ways of dividing the responsibilities of government. One method of dividing this power is through cooperative federalism, in which the national government (often the legislature) enjoys almost unlimited authority to force the smaller parts of government (typically the states) to administer and enforce national policies.
In the US, cooperative federalism, nicknamed ‘marble cake federalism,’ became prominent during the New Deal of the 1930s. During this time, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Congress created a variety of federal programs as part of the New Deal, and these programs were administered by the states to help alleviate the effects of the Great Depression. For instance, the Works Progress Administration program put millions of unemployed to work maintaining roads, building state parks, and completing beautification projects across the United States.
How Does Cooperative Federalism Work:-
It’s creates a relationship in which the national govt. strongly influences the policies and behaviors of state governments, often through the use of funding for programs. For example, if the federal government is interested in ensuring that national highways are well-maintained, they might create grants in aid, a specific kind of grant from the federal government that provides funds for the states to pursue a policy. In this case, the grants in aid would likely be for purchasing asphalt or other supplies, or might provide funding to pay contractors and road construction workers.In some cases, the national government might give the state governments more control over a program through a block grant.
I think in contemporary word the cooperative federalism is much more popular under the PM Modi governance. There are many Advantages and Disadvantages of Cooperative Federalism:-
The major benefit of this change is that both the federal government and the state governments can now attack various problems. We can see this, for example, in the field of education. Cooperative federalism gives the national government the ability to participate in making education policy, but the states still have the power to do things on their own. This puts more perspectives to work on a given problem.
The major disadvantage is that there is now much less in the way of state power. With cooperative federalism, there is not as much room for states to be sovereign. The federal government reaches into more and more areas of policy that were once reserved for the states.etc.