Category: Optional

IAS Score

Pub Ad as an optional for IAS: Why to choose by Ashutosh Pandey

  • by IAS Score

Since the Wilsonian dichotomy public administration has traversed a chequered path, not so because its roots were not firmly planted as a discipline but more so because it was a continuous “polylogue” of multiple thoughts and ideas, constantly impinging upon its contours. These multiple approaches have lent a dynamic character to the discipline. Initially perceived as a plain managerial endeavour -where Americanization was the safest bid, it came to be turned upside down with the growing realization that, governmental operations and character are conditioned by “ecology”, which was pointed …

In the Indian context, the constitutional order and institutional framework, the history of administrative growth  and diversification including the massive impact of colonialism on our administration, the myriad  and pluralistic society have all been interrogating public administration, since independence.

As teachers and aspirants of UPSC ,we are not much confronted by the theoretical underpinnings of the discipline, but more by the utilitarian maxim of “will public administration” serve as a useful tool in achieving my “dream destination” of a berth in IAS, well the answer may be a pessimistic NO or an optimistic “WHY NOT”. First of all we need to understand the core framework of UPSC exam….

1. Mains exam basically evaluates three aspects –scholastic aptitude-information retention –and –analytical ability, strictly in that order.
2. Questions are broadly framed in order to assess the overall understanding of the subject along with its practicability ,which is a trend  Post-2011.
3. The syllabus is only an indication not the conclusion.

This framework seems more pronounced in case of Public administration than in other optional, which may have created disenchantment than inclination towards the subject. But reality is the “Glass is half full”. If we analyze the UPSC paper of PUB AD, we find-

• The questions are getting more and more analytical.
• There is general trend towards popping up “unknown” names and conceptual linkages.
• Increasing number of questions with sub-parts and sub-sub-parts.
• Thorough intermixing of paper-1 and paper-2, freely and non-commitally.
• Decreasing scores and increasing efforts.

Though all the points maybe valid but may not be totally non-contestable——

• Right from the change in syllabus, be it general studies or an essay paper, there is a growing percentage of analytical questions, so why PUB AD would be left out…it’s a natural process of evolution of the exam.
• Understanding and mugging theoretical facts will erode the utility of PUB AD as an optional, which is not only PREPARING YOU FOR EXAM,BUT FOR NEXT #30 yrs IN SERVICE. So practical aspects need to be emphasized, which can be easily comprehended by reading newspapers which we do inevitably for GS.
• The trend is an useful guide where the static approach to deal with the exam is needed, if you are thorough with the CONCEPTS ,it hardly matters, more so without interlinkages how can you develop CONCEPTS ,in the FIRST PLACE.

Public administration has an esteemed place in the galaxy of optionals for Civils preparation, its utility is practical than theoretical where it can be punished –or –rewarded but not IGNORED.

Considering the adhocism in the preparation of public administration we as teachers and well wishers of students are trying to simplify your public administration woes by zeroing down to the best conclusive methodology of preparation….

Here is the list of 29 approaches ,which if done in detail would help you sail through PAPER- 1, whatever be the trend:

1. Structural
2. Functional
3. Structural-functional
4. Classical
5. Neo-classical/human relations
6. Behavioral
7. Beauracratic
8. Ecological
9. Comparative
10. Developmental
11. Public policy
12. Empirical
13. Normative
14. Descriptive/prescriptive
15. Post-modernism
16. Humanistic-phenomenological
17. Positivist
18. Decision making approach
19. Post –behavioral
20. Post-bureaucratic
21. Marxist
22. Neo-Marxist
23. Systems
24. Gender
25. Governance
26. Critical/realist
27. Techno centric
28. Anti-developmental
29. Neo-liberal

And mind you these approaches may not take more than 11/2 month to study with intelligent sources at hand,, fetching you cool 200 plus marks.

We would be publishing you the detailed notes on these over the time, with specific inputs from our student and now a bureaucrat…ASHISH PAL, who scored 220 plus in PUB AD, mains 2013….in our next article.

Remember “HISTORY IS CREATED BY THOSE WHO BREAK THE RULES”
KEEP WORKING AND DON’T STOP “PUBADDING”

IAS Score

Feminist Critique of Realist Theory

  • by IAS Score

Since the end of the Cold War and the increased interdependence resulting from the globalization process, the field of international relations has faced major challenges to its core theoretical structure. It no longer revolves solely around the realist issues of war and security, but rather, international relations has broadened to include traditionally liberal concerns, such as the international political economy, socioeconomic development, human rights, non-state actors, and civil society. Apart from the two main theories of realism and liberalism, the feminist theory brings new perspectives to the international relations table.

the processes of forming and learning theory is constructed around on automatically-accepted ideas of what is standard and normal, rather than first challenging the ‘norm’ and questioning if the ‘standard’ is objective enough. In this case, ‘theory’ lacks female perspective because it is not objectively sought at the onset of formulating ideas. Tickner argues that IR is gendered to “marginalize women’s voices,” and stresses “that women have knowledge, perspectives and experiences that should be brought to bear on the study of international relations.” For example, Tickner would argue that security, a main topic in IR, should not only be understood as “defending the state from attack,” but should also consider that security for women “might be different because women are more likely to be attacked by men they know, rather than strangers from other states.

In other words, in contrast to traditional IR views that view security as protecting the state from other states, feminists argue the topic of security should address acts of rape and violence, not only from foreign perpetrators, but from their own fellow citizens as well. Feminists would also add that occurrences of rape increase during times of war, and is even used as a method of ethnic cleansing among the rivalries within their state, yet would never enter into typical IR discussions that focus solely on state to-state interaction, simply because IR discussions traditionally remain focused on states as the key actors. Thus, the topic of security shows how gender consideration, excluded from the very beginning of the discussion, results in policymaking that would be subsequently exclusive of, and likely detrimental to, women. Prior to discussing any IR topic, standpoint feminist IR theory would first challenge those participating in the discussion, and those defining the key terms and issues, by critically asking them if the normative perspectives and working vocabulary are broad enough to effectively accommodate issues affecting women.

Realism centres its theoretical structure on how the state seeks power and defends its national interests against other competing states within a global anarchy, or where there is the lack of authority higher than the state. States seek security through a balance of power in the international arena, primarily through military means, and resorting to war, if necessary. Realists generally view the state as the key actor in international politics, and de-emphasize – or, as feminist theory argues, ignore — the role of the individual. Much feminist IR theory stems from a critique of realism, whose “socially constructed worldview continues to guide much thought about world politics.”

First, feminists argue that realists overvalue the role of the state in defining international relations, without questioning how the state itself is internally structured, politically and socially. Feminist theory would consider how the state includes, or excludes, the views of its individual citizens, and how, in turn, the state’s domestic views translate into foreign policies. In challenging the concepts of a state defending its national interests, feminists would ask: who is defining the national interests? If women were included in such discussions, would the national interest be interpreted differently, and if so, how? How would such an outlook change foreign policy? How would the definition of ‘security’ change? Would military and defence capabilities still be atop the agenda? Would women necessarily be less militaristic in their approach to IR issues?

Another feminist critique of realism concerns how realists define and emphasize power in IR discussions. Feminists would ask: who defines power, who has it, and how is it used? If power is defined by a patriarchal and realist society, which seeks global balances of power, then power is equated with military and economic strength. But how would this change if the discussion included women’s viewpoints? Would the indicators of power be measured differently? Would power be seen as leadership in peace agreements, or might it be measured in terms of the ability to achieve transnational cooperation? In relation to realism, feminist theory is clear: realism is the antithesis to achieving gender equality, both in discussion and practice, and even in its tools of war and security, patriarchy remains the central theme. States are the actors and the individual is of little importance. When the individual is deemphasized, there is even less acknowledgement of a female individual, which effectively excludes feminist discussion.

IAS Score

Functional Critiques of Realism

  • by IAS Score

While realism was not initially the dominant perspective in International Relations, historically, it has been the dominant tradition in the discipline and perhaps it is for this reason that it has been subjected to so much criticism. Liberalism and structuralism can both be used to develop a critique of realism. In more recent years realism has been subjected to complicated critiques from Critical Theorists, postmodernists, feminists, social constructivists and Green theorists amongst others. Some of the major points of Criticisms against Realism are:

  1. The fact that realism is simple and understandable is presented as a strength of the perspective. However, an opposing argument would suggest that realism is too simplistic, reducing the complex reality of international relations to a few general laws which are said to be applicable over time and space and which therefore omit much of interest and importance from our analyses.
  2. Realism, in emphasising the principle of power politics and the enduring features of the international system, fails to allow for the possibility of real change. Realists accept that great powers rise and fall, and wars come and go, but insist that the basic rules of the game cannot be changed. In failing to embrace the idea of substantive changes, realism is inherently conservative and anti-innovative, meaning that it is highly attractive to, and politically malleable by, those who would have things continue as they are. Whether intentionally or not, realism may also serve to justify injustice on the grounds that nothing can be done to change things.
  3. By considering states to be the only important type of actor in international relations and by only viewing the agency of non-state actors such as MNCs as part of state agency, realists have been criticised for not being able to fully account for a range of issues and processes in international relations.
  4. While realism has a cyclical view of history (a repetition of patterns of behaviour) it has failed to successfully make any specific predictions. Most startlingly, realists failed to predict the end of the Cold War; given its pretensions to be, if not scientific, then at least useful, this is a very serious weakness.
  5. Realism does not help us explain which decisions will be made by states’ representatives, but only why they will be made. Thus states people will make decisions rationally and on the basis of national interest. However, how do we know if it is the national interest of State A to attack State B? Perhaps it would serve the national interest better to delay an attack or to seek an alliance against State C. Is national interest a self-evident thing? After the event, when State A has attacked State B, the realist could say this was based on a rational calculation of the national interest, but the realist offers no way of deciding which option is actually in the national interest and simply tells us that this is the motivation.
  6. If we accept the possibility that the assumptions of realism are relevant only in a particular context, there is possibly great danger in treating them as if they were universal truths: that is, applicable everywhere and at all times. Far from providing universal truths, realism may simply have seemed the most appropriate way of viewing a short historical phase; the idea of universal truth may have held back scholarship which would have been better directed at freeing us from realist despair.
  7. In emphasising the centrality of the state and the national interest, realism encourages people to view the world from a very narrow, ethnocentric perspective.
  8. The simplistic view of human nature as being inherently selfish and unchanging has been criticised, in particular by more progressive approaches such as Green Thought and liberalism. Here it is claimed that the nature of the society one lives in can change over time and can thus change human nature or at least allow humans to be less selfish.
  9. Realism ignores or significantly downplays the degree to which states might have collective or mutual interests, and so underestimates the scope for cooperation and purposive change in international relations.
  10. We should ask if foreign policy really is conducted rationally and indeed what is implied in the idea of rationality. Rationality seems unlikely to be the same for the leaders of states with strong ideological or religious bases as it is for leaders of liberal democracies. Furthermore, even within, for instance, liberal democracies, can we be sure that in the hurly-burly world of foreign policy, decisions will always be made rationally? The decision maker is likely to be bombarded with information, denied sleep and asked to make several choices at once; it seems plausible at least that rationality will be compromised, affected by mood, modified by spur-of-the-moment decisions and so on.

While, in its simplified form, realism can present an easy target for criticism, realism’s detractors, bent on exposing its shortcomings, have often found it a formidable task. Indeed after some 15 years (or more) of fending off criticisms on all fronts, realists might argue that the post-9/11 world is one in which realist propositions are clearly vindicated by current practice. For example, the euphoric atmosphere of the post-Cold War period might have opened up a space within International Relations to imagine other possibilities, including the pursuit of human security founded in respect for human rights. However, the security risk to US citizens, highlighted by the terror attacks on the twin towers, the subsequent ‘war on terror’ and the unwillingness of the USA to listen sympathetically or seriously to investigate allegations of human rights abuses in relation to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, can on the face of it be used to vindicate realist propositions.

Modifications of realism have been proposed by various authors and many differences exist within the broad category of realism. Moreover, realists acknowledge a changing world and are aware of ecological threats, gender issues and so on. However, and crucially, realists believe that their basic assumptions capture the real essence of international relations, and they argue that they are perfectly entitled to privilege some areas and issues in international relations, and, indeed, to marginalise or ignore others. However, it would be difficult to overcome the decades of dominance that realism has had in the discipline and therefore the tendency to regard it almost as a natural starting point for talking about IR, even for those eager to criticise it or offer a more adequate framework for analysis. Furthermore, while realism may be under attack from all sides in academic circles, it continues to find favour amongst policy makers and states people and accordingly is implicit in rationalisations of policy offered by foreign-policy decision makers.

IAS Score

WHY POLITICAL SCIENCE? ADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AS AN OPTIONAL IN UPSC

  • by IAS Score

 

  • It is very much GS-Friendly. In Preliminary Exam every year, 8-10 questions are asked from Indian freedom movement and 15 to 20 questions are asked from Indian polity and Governance section. Nowadays the level of difficulty of these questions is increasing per year, therefore a student with in-depth knowledge of Indian Constitution and Politics is much better equipped to successfully handle such questions and gain crucial marks. Besides 3 to 8 questions can be expected from International Affairs/International Institutions section. And to remind you, the questions from this section would be basically answerable and won’t be complicated. A Political Science student is mandated by his syllabus to master these sections anyway.
  • Also it is quite helpful in tackling other sections sometimes for e.g. in CSAT 2014; the geography question regarding the location of Turkey was a sitter for students with
    Sci. optional as area in question was integral to the “Ukraine Crisis”. Similarly questions on Arab Spring, BRICS Summits, AGNI –IV and Region often in news (Chechnya, Darfur & Swat Valley) were directly from IR portion of Pol. Sci. (Paper 2).Consequently the student found these areas in prelims to his advantage.
YEAR No. Of Questions From Polity
2010 5
2011 8
2012 18
2013 18
2014 15(Including IR And Defence)

 

  • In other words, anyone who intends to clear prelims can never neglect Indian Polity section. Anyone who takes Political Science as optional would study Indian Polity and Governance along with International Relations anyway consequently saving time for other topics for the preliminary exam. In this way the preparation for Prelims and Mains would get integrated for a Political Science student.

“I made no distinction in study for Prelims and Mains till April 2010, and later only started paying more attention to factual details”– Karthik Iyer, All India Rank 7 in 2010 CSE with Political Science as one of the optional while referring to his preparation of Paper 1 – Section B of Political Science.

  • In the newly revised General Studies Mains syllabus nearly 60 Percentage of Political Science Syllabus topics is covered. If one sees the questions from General Studies Paper 2 –Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, Indian Diaspora and International relations – and relate with Political Science Question Papers I and II, it could hardly make any difference between the two. For example in the year 2013, all questions from International Relations section in GS-II were directly from the topics covered in Paper 2 of Political Science and International Relations.
  • In Essay paper [200 marks] almost every year there is one topic related to Indian Government and Politics and International relations.
  • The subject being very dynamic because major area of focus under Political Science syllabus is on applied dimensions. [For instance-actual workingof principal organs of the Union Government and those of the state government (paper 1 topic no 4 (a) & (b)], you are constantly mandated to keep in touch with the newspaper. A Political Science student would feel that the entire newspaper every day is some way or the other related to his syllabus. Extracting useful information every day from newspapers and magazines is a cumbersome and time consuming task, therefore guidance from an expert faculty becomes indispensable in terms of which topics to focus on and which ones to avoid.
  • The UPSC move of revision of syllabus of General Studies has generated golden opportunity to score high marks in the subject. In fact as of now, even those students who don’t have the background of political science have fared better in many respects. Since almost all the factual parts of the syllabus have been deleted in the new syllabus, the conceptual understanding in Political Science theory section would make a better presentation of the answers possible.
  • Also, answer writing practice especially for the conceptual portions of the subject gives experience for answering questions in the general studies papers.
  • There is general notion that Political Science syllabus is exhaustive and extensive, technically it’s not as

(a)-Repetition of Topics is there-Marxism, Marx, Gramsi, Marxist notion of state

(b)-Topics are interrelated –Thoughts of Mill, Bentham and Liberal notions of state, democracy, justice are complementary to each other

(c)-Ideas of Marxism, Liberalism, Feminism, new social movement and issues like environment, democracy, Human rights is in Paper-1 as well as in paper-2

  • Lastly, in interview the subject comes to be extremely handy as a good knowledge of Governance, Polity and IR can result in very good marks and finally scale the gap between getting a recommendation and missing it by a few marks and investing one more year of your life in preparation.
IAS Score

Relevance of Public administration as an optional subject

  • by IAS Score

Friends, I want to share my experience with the public administration optional subject, a subject which has made me fall in love with this entire UPSC preparation. Had this subject not been there with me, neither I would have enjoyed this preparation to such a great extent, nor I would have cleared UPSC in my first attempt in just a span of 8 months of preparation.

By: Ashish Pal, IRTS 2013
Pub ad Marks: 221

Friends, I want to share my experience with the public administration optional subject, a subject which has made me fall in love with this entire UPSC preparation. Had this subject not been there with me, neither I would have enjoyed this preparation to such a great extent, nor I would have cleared UPSC in my first attempt in just a span of 8 months of preparation.

Before I started preparing for UPSC in March 2013, I had a diverse work experience of 6+ years in various areas such as software development, investment banking, marketing and entrepreneurship. Just like most other aspirants, I myself was very confused about which optional to take up. I talked to many fellow aspirants and seniors around and all had their own views regarding which subject can fetch you maximum marks. Almost, everyone was saying no to public administration since this subject was not given good marks.

But, my way of seeing things and selecting optional was *fortunately* very different from others. The factors that I considered were these –
1.    I wanted to take up a subject which will be entirely new to me, which gives me new things to learn (rather than taking up my own engineering subjects in which I had already done my bachelors). Reason was very simple, 8-10 months down the line, I didn’t want myself to feel that I have wasted 8 months studying/revising something which I had been doing something for last 6 years.
2.    I wanted to extend my knowledge specifically in public administration for the only reason that this is not one of the subjects, but this is the only subject, which has relevance in whichever service you go in after clearing UPSC,  and has relevance in almost the entire private sector world as well.
3.    The linkages of this subject with psychology, sociology, political science, and other arts subjects gave me practical understanding of whatever I see around in the society. For every action you take in your day to day life, be it in your family life, social life, or official life, you learn enormously from this subject . (This one factor made me really fall in love with this subject during my preparation of 8 months)
Today, when I see myself coming from an engineering background, a person who was never used to seeing various shades of grey in your life, this one subject has made me come such a long way in just a span of 8 months that in most practical aspects this subject has changed me as a person.

Now, coming to the marks-scoring aspect – When I was deciding the optional, in spite of everyone saying me that this subject won’t give you higher score, I had a very strong feeling about two things –
1.    If I am in love with my subject, the answers will come out from my heart, and if I have understood the basics properly, the examiner will be bound to give me marks (irrespective of the fact whether others are getting good or bad marks). And, this is what happened, my first tryst with this subject (for just about 8 months) fetched me 221 marks in this optional in Mains-2013 (which I heard was among top 10 all india). So, my conclusion is – pick up any subject, but make sure that you actually fall in love with the subject and you are bound to be a topper. Don’t take subjects like Pali, literature, geography, public administration, etc. just for the sake of the reason that others get good marks in some subject or vice versa.
2.    I was very clear in one aspect that if I don’t clear UPSC in my first attempt, only thing I don’t want is to feel guilty after not clearing Mains that I have wasted my 1 crucial year of my life. This thought came very clear to me after meeting fellow aspirants, among whom 9 out of 10 aspirants I found were always feeling guilty after studying subjects like Pali, History, Literature, or Geography – which they never liked at the first place, and later when they don’t clear UPSC they get very depressed thinking that last 1 or 2 years of their life they have simply wasted and haven’t added any value whatsoever in their own life or their personality). So, conclusion is that pick up a subject which is really intellectually stimulating and which opens your horizon to as much extent as possible. Don’t treat UPSC prepartion period as something where you have to waste your crucial years of life. These preparation years can be the most productive ones for you (just like I had).

Some tips about how to go about studying this subject
•    First thing first – Get the basics absolutely right. For example, studying constitution, parliament from the best of basic books like Subhash Kashyap, DD Basu, etc. Don’t pick up Laxmikant of Polity just because it is simple or just because it will make you clear your prelims. Pick the best book which will make you clear UPSC and not Prelims.
•    Second, get in touch with the right mentor. I was so very fortunate that I cleared my UPSC in 8 months of time, just because I had got in touch with a mentor, friend and guide (Ashutosh Sir). This is so very important because, I didn’t want to spend 4 years of mine figuring out myself that what are the right steps to take during the preparation. Ashutosh Sir had 6-7 years of relevant experience under his belt not just as a teacher but also as a student of UPSC (which was the most wonderful thing I could have got), that helped me make all the right moves at right times and I could crack this exam in 8 months and that too with Public Administration Optional.
•    Third, don’t be afraid to go deep into the subject. This is the best advice that I got from my mentor. Seeing my mentor’s knowledge and effort, I got so motivated that when all other pub ad students were studying the traditional books, I finished 3 books by mohit bhattacharya, I finished all 15 ARC reports, all 7 Punchhi commission reports, around 25 awesome World Bank case studies on Indian Public Administration …. And eventually this is what paid off (I got 121 in Paper-2).
•    Have a mentor, who keeps updating his knowledge as these are the areas which are still evolving.
•    Last but not the least, have belief in yourself and your mentor. There were innumerous times when I blindly followed my mentor and my own hunches (forget about what other aspirants are doing or following). Remember – If you follow the rat race, then your result will also be like a rat race.

Winners don’t do different things but they do things differently.