PAPER-III

POLITICAL SCIENCE Signature and Name of Invigilator

Note This paper is of two hundred marks containing four sections. Candidates are required to attempt the questions contained in these sections according to the detailed instructions given therein.


Note This section consists of two essay type questions of twenty marks each, to be answered in about five hundred words each. ×
20 40 marks)

Discuss Gandhi's Theory of Swaraj.

Discuss critically Maurice Duverger's classification of political parties.

Discuss the problems of Nation-Building in India.

Discuss the process of planning after the introduction of the policy of economic reforms.

Examine India's nuclear policy with reference to Indo-American deal.

Bring out the differences amongst the classical social contractualists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) on their views of the state of nature.

SECTION II
Note This section contains three questions of fifteen marks each, each to be

answered in about three hundred words. ×15 45 Marks)

7. Explain Gramsci's views on the relationship between State and Civil society.

8. Discuss the present status of the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

9. Trace the origin and evolution of 'war crimes' and its present status.

SECTION III

Note This section contains nine questions of ten marks each, each to be answered

in about fifty words. ×10 90 Marks)

10. 'Aristotle's Ideal State is the second best State of Plato'. Discuss.

11. Mao's theory of contradictions.

12. First-past-the-post system.

13. Huntington's critique of Modernization theory.

14. Article 370 of the Constitution of India.

15. Position of Governor in State Administration.

16. The principle of 'Unity of Command'.

17. Feminist perspective in International Relations.

18. India and ASEAN.


SECTION IV


Note This section contains five questions of five marks each based on the following passage. Each question should be answered in about thirty words.

× 5 25 Marks)

19. Answer the below questions according to the passage


International-relations research has been guided by a variety of concepts, theories, models and paradigms. One widely cited authority on the history of science, Thomas S. Kuhn, has suggested that in the natural sciences, periods of "scientific revolution" have alternated with eras of "normal science." One set of concepts has furnished the basis for cumulative knowledge only eventually to be discarded and superseded by yet another paradigm. Science advances in such a fashion that one dominant paradigm is replaced by another, with each in turn furnishing a new framework for intellectual inquiry, setting the research agenda, and providing the basis for the cumulative growth of scientific knowledge and theory. He defines scientific revolutions as "non cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one."
According to Arend Lijphart, the study of international relations has followed such a pattern of development. The traditional paradigm, based on conceptions of state sovereignty and international anarchy, was challenged, as noted previously, even though a large body of theory about international relations had evolved, dating from antiquity and furnishing a "basis for a coherent tradition of research." The scientific revolution embodied in the quantitative and behavioural phase was based on a large number of new approaches and methodologies. It was believed that Kuhn's characterization of paradigmatic change in the natural sciences was similarly applicable in the social sciences. In turn, the paradigm that eventually emerged in the study of international relations, it was assumed, would form the basis for broad theoretical advances based on the widespread application of agreed methodologies to important research questions. It is this assumption that has been questioned, and often rejected, by the advocates of post behavioral, postpositivist, and post-modernist approaches to international-relations theory. In this interpretation, however valid the applicability of Kuhn's understanding of paradigmatic development for the physical sciences, it does not provide an adequate explanation of the evolution of international-relations theory. In retrospect, the behavioralist phase was focused more on research methods, or methodology, as a basis of theory, rather than on the development of a new paradigm or other theoretical basis for building theory.


According to Kuhn, what is the definition of scientific revolution

20. Why does Lijphart think that the study of international relations follows the Kuhnian paradigm

21. What is the traditional paradigm of studying international relations

22. What are the basic characteristics of the behavioural phase in the study of international relations

23. What are the major approaches to the study of international relations in the post behavioural phase