POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
PRESENTED BY ASHNA SISODIA
APPROACH TO PSIR – SYLLABUS AND
STRATEGY
 SYLLABUS – PAPER 1- SECTION A
 Section A : This section has 4 different subsections namely
A. Political Theory- From Point 1 to 7
B. Political Ideologies- Point 8
C. Indian political thought- Point 9
D. Western political thought- Point 10

1. Political Theory: Meaning and approaches.

2. Theories of the State: Liberal, Neoliberal, Marxist, Pluralist, Post-colonial and Feminist.
3. Justice: Conceptions of justice with special reference to Rawl’s theory of justice and its
communitarian critiques.
4. Equality: Social, political and economic; Relationship between equality and freedom;
Affirmative action.
5. Rights: Meaning and theories; Different kinds of rights; Concept of Human Rights.
6. Democracy: Classical and contemporary theories; Different models of democracy –
representative, participatory and deliberative.
7. Concept of Power, Hegemony, Ideology and Legitimacy.
8. Political Ideologies: Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Gandhism and
Feminism.
9. Indian Political Thought: Dharamshastra, Arthashastra, Buddhist traditions; Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan, Sri Aurobindo, M.K. Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, M.N. Roy.
10. Western Political Thought: Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, John S.
Mill, Marx, Gramsci, Hannah Arendt.
 PAPER 1- SECTION B (INDIAN GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS)
 This section cab be broadly divided into 3 subsections namely
A. Nationalism and Constitution-Point 1 and 2
B. Core Polity topics- Point 3 to 7
C. Various diverse topics- Point 8 to 11
1. Nationalism:
 (a) Political Strategies of India’s Freedom Struggle: Constitutionalism to mass Satyagraha, Non-
cooperation, Civil Disobedience; Militant and revolutionary movements, Peasant and workers’
movements.
 (b) Perspectives on Indian National Movement: Liberal Socialist and Marxist; Radical humanist and Dalit.
2. Making of the Indian Constitution: Legacies of the British rule; Different social and political
perspectives.
3. Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: The Preamble, Fundamental Rights and
Duties, Directive Principles; Parliamentary System and Amendment Procedures;
Judicial Review and Basic Structure doctrine.
4. (a) Principal Organs of the Union Government: Envisaged role and actual working
of the Executive, Legislature and Supreme Court.
(b) Principal Organs of the State Government: Envisaged role and actual working
of the Executive, Legislature and High Courts.
5. Grassroots Democracy: Panchayati Raj and Municipal Government; Significance of
73rd and 74th Amendments; Grass root movements.
6. Statutory Institutions/Commissions:
 Election Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, Finance Commission, Union
Public Service Commission,
 National Commission for Scheduled Castes, National Commission for Scheduled
Tribes, National Commission for Women; National Human Rights Commission,
National Commission for Minorities, National Backward Classes Commission.
7. Federalism: Constitutional provisions; Changing nature of centre-state relations;
Integrationist tendencies and regional aspirations; Inter-state disputes.
8. Planning and Economic Development: Nehruvian and Gandhian perspectives; Role
of planning and public sector; Green Revolution, Land reforms and agrarian relations;
Liberalisation and economic reforms.
9. Caste, Religion and Ethnicity in Indian Politics.
10. Party System: National and regional political parties, ideological and social bases of
parties; Patterns of coalition politics; Pressure groups, Trends in electoral behaviour;
Changing socio- economic profile of Legislators.
11. Social Movements: Civil liberties and human rights movements; Women’s
movements; Environmentalist movements.
 PAPER 2 : SECTION A – INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
 Section A: This section can be divided into 3 sub sections namely-
A. Comparative politics-Point 1 to 3
B. Theories and concepts in international relations-Point 4 to 7
C. Global institutions and groups- Point 7 to 11
1. Comparative Politics: Nature and major approaches; Political economy and political
sociology perspectives ; Limitations of the comparative method.
2. State in comparative perspective: Characteristics and changing nature of the State in
capitalist and socialist economies, and, advanced industrial and developing societies.
3. Politics of Representation and Participation: Political parties, Pressure groups and Social movements
in advanced industrial and developing societies.
4. Globalisation: Responses from developed and developing societies.
5. Approaches to the Study of International Relations: Idealist, Realist, Marxist, Functionalist
and Systems theory.
6. Key concepts in International Relations: National interest, Security and power; Balance of power and
deterrence; Transnational actors and collective security; World capitalist economy and globalisation.
7. Changing International Political Order:
a) Rise of super powers; strategic and ideological Bipolarity, arms race and Cold War; nuclear threat;
b) Non-aligned movement: Aims and achievements;
c) Collapse of the Soviet Union; Unipolarity and American hegemony; relevance of non-alignment in
the contemporary world.
8. Evolution of the International Economic System: From Bretton woods to WTO;
Socialist economies and the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance); Third
World demand for new international economic order; Globalisation of the world
economy.
9. United Nations: Envisaged role and actual record; Specialized UN agencies-aims and
functioning; Need for UN reforms.
10. Regionalisation of World Politics: EU, ASEAN, APEC, SAARC, NAFTA.
11. Contemporary Global Concerns: Democracy, Human rights, Environment, Gender
justice, Terrorism, Nuclear proliferation.
 PAPER 2 : SECTION B - INDIA AND THE WORLD
1. Indian Foreign Policy: Determinants of foreign policy; Institutions of policy-making;
Continuity and change.
2. India’s Contribution to the Non-Alignment Movement: Different phases; Current
role.
3. India and South Asia:
a) Regional Co-operation: SAARC – past performance and future prospects.
b) South Asia as a Free Trade Area.
c) India’s “Look East” policy.
d) Impediments to regional co-operation: -river water disputes;
4. India and the Global South: Relations with Africa and Latin America; leadership role
in the demand for NIEO and WTO negotiations.
5. India and the Global Centres of Power: USA, EU, Japan, China and Russia.
6. India and the UN System: Role in UN Peace-keeping; demand for Permanent Seat in
the Security Council.
7. India and the Nuclear Question: Changing perceptions and policy.
8. Recent developments in Indian Foreign policy: India’s position on the recent crisis
in Afghanistan, Iraq and West Asia, growing relations with US and Israel; vision of a
new world order.
 BOOKS TO FOLLOW :
 Paper 1 – Part A :
1. Political Theory : O.P Gauba or Rajeev Bhargava or Andrew Heywood
2. Political Ideologies : Andrew Heywood
3. Western Political Thought : Brian Nelson or Mukherjee and Susheela Ramaswamy (Plato
to Marx)
4. Indian Political Thought : V.R. Mehta
 Paper 1 – Part B : IGP - BL Fadia
1. India’s struggle for Independence : Bipan Chandra
2. Introduction to the constitution of India : DD Basu
 Paper 2 – Part A : International Politics – Andrew Heywood or Baylis n Smith
 Paper 2 – Part B : International Relations – V R Khanna or Rajiv Sikri or Does the elephant
dance ?
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
www.examrace.com
 INTRODUCTION

 The different approaches used to analyse International relations offer quite different interpretations of the
dynamics that regulate States’ behaviour in the international environment.
 Realism and Idealism attempt to deal with the anarchy of the international system.
 The main problem of an anarchic system is the Security Dilemma: the absence of a centralized
government implies that countries fear other countries may cheat and the lack of reliable information leads
to a subjective vulnerability. As we have seen, the two perspectives have the same starting point but their
outcomes are very different.
 Realism - entirely refuses the idea of cooperation and peace among States. Global harmony cannot be
reached because of the very nature of countries and human beings that are seen as egoistic, brutal and
selfish entities. Even the neorealist perspective – that accepts the existence of international
institutions – believes that the structure of the international order is a mere reflection of game
powers among countries, and not a genuine attempt to create peaceful relations.
 Idealism - accepts the possibility of a global cooperative environment enabled by the increase in trade
and by the creation of international institutions that play the role of information providers and that reduce
the likeliness of cheating.
 Realism Idealism

1. State Centric : States are only actors ; 1. Liberal school of thought : Prescriptions for
International organizations and non state Peace – John Locke and Immanuel Kant
actors are expression of state only. 2. human beings can learn from their past and
2. Anarchy : concerned with their own interest their mistakes
and core interest is survival. 3. increase in trade, in the number of international
3. Security Dilemma : continuous struggle of organizations and in the number of democratic
power. countries in the system could lead to peace
• Classical Realism : Morgenthau – 6 laws of
realism
• Neo-Realism – Kenneth Waltz – cooperative
actions between superpowers – realism is a
timeless wisdom.
 REALISM VS IDEALISM IN FOREIGN POLICY

 The basic assumption behind the construction of the major IR theories is that we live in
an anarchic world. The lack of a centralized government or enforcement mechanism has
posed many challenges to the definition and the support of international cooperation. In
fact, while international institutions have flourished and international law has become
more comprehensive, there is still no “international governance”.
 Within a country, there is a government, a clear set of laws, a judiciary system and an
executive apparatus. Conversely, at the international level there is no such thing as a
superior centralized government, able to dictate rules and to enforce them. In the realm
of foreign policy, relations are among States, and there is no guarantee that international
rules and norms will be respected.
 Indeed, in the international scenario, institutions and rules to regulate the dynamics
among States have been created. The main ones are:
 International organizations: United Nations (UN), International Labor Office (ILO),
World Health Organization (WHO), International Office for Migration (IOM), European
Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), among others;
 Such institutions deal with security, development, human rights, humanitarian
assistance, and provide (or should provide) a common, neutral ground where
negotiations and discussions among Members States can take place. However, States
willingly give up part of their sovereignty and autonomy to become parties to such
organizations and to abide by their rules.
1. International treaties encompassing both economic and Political issues; and
2. Bilateral or multilateral agreements.
 Yet, despite the existence of such bodies, the lack of a centralized government or
enforcement mechanism has posed many challenges to the definition and the support of
international cooperation.
 THE SECURITY DILEMMA
 The major difficulty that the world anarchy presents is the “Security dilemma”. This term refers to a situation
in which actions by a State that aims to increase its security (i.e. creating alliances or increasing its
military strengths) are perceived as a threat by other States. Such dynamics and perceptions lead to an
increase in tensions that may result in a conflict.
 The Security Dilemma can be articulated in three main points.
1. Countries fear that other countries could cheat: the absence of a unitary central mechanism to control
countries’ behaviour could result in cheating as countries will not incur in any repercussions for their
dishonest behaviour;
2. The Security Dilemma is based on a subjective perception of vulnerability; therefore, States could
misinterpret other countries’ behaviour because of their own biased judgment.
3. The balance between offensive and defensive weapons is at the core of the balance among countries.
Yet, as it is not easy to distinguish among defensive and offensive arms, mistrust and tensions easily arise.
 Many scholars have dealt with the assumption of an anarchic world and the consequent insurgence of the
Security Dilemma. It is interesting to note that from the same starting point, opposite outcomes have been
reached. The two main opposed perspective are realism and idealism (or liberalism) – that have, then, evolved
into neorealism and neoidealism (or neoliberalism).
 REALISM:
 Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau – the most prominent realist scholars – had a clear and pessimistic view of the
world.
 In fact, classical realists viewed States – and human beings – as selfish and egoistic entities whose only goal was power and
survival in an anarchical society. For instance, according to the classical scholars, States lived in a status of war against
each other and every action was dictated by self-interest and struggle for power.
 In the realist perspective:
1. There can be no cooperation among States:
2. In order to maintain peace within a country and to dominate the egoistic and brutal instincts of the citizens, the
government must act as a strong and merciless power;
3. States and human beings have the same corrupt and selfish nature;
4. Just as human beings want to prevail over other human beings, States wants to prevail over other States;
5. There can be no trust among States; and
6. Anarchy cannot be controlled.
 Classical realism also rejects the possibility of creating international institutions where negotiations and peaceful debates
can take place. Indeed, this assumption has changed with the passing of time when international institutions (both
governmental and non-governmental) have begun to play a more important role in the international scenario. Realism has
evolved into neorealism.
 NEOREALISM:
 While maintaining the sceptical stance of the realist perspective, neorealists accept the existence
of an international structure that constrains States’ behaviours.
 They affirm that:
1. The international asset is achieved through asymmetrical cooperation; and
2. The international structure reflects the distribution of power among countries.
 The exponential growth of international institutions is undeniable and under everyone’s eyes.
Therefore, neorealists cannot claim that the possibility of creating international organizations is
an illusion.
 Yet, they believe that institutions are a mere a reflection of the distribution of power in the world
(based on self-interested calculations of great powers) and that they are not an effective way to
solve the world’s anarchy.
 On the contrary, according to the neorealist perspective, the institutionalized structure of our
anarchic world is the very reason why States are egoistic and selfish.
 IDEALISM AND NEOIDEALISM:
 Idealism (or liberalism) has a more positive perception of the world of international relations and, according to this
perspective, international institutions play a pivotal role in the creation and maintenance of a peaceful international
environment.
 The idealist theory has its roots in Kant’s belief that there is the possibility of perpetual peace among States. According
to Kant, human beings can learn from their past and their mistakes. In addition, he believed that an increase in trade, in the
number of international organizations and in the number of democratic countries in the system could lead to peace.
 Kant (and the idealist perspective) believe that:
1. Human beings and States are not necessarily selfish, brutal and egoistic;
2. There is no need to have a strong and merciless power to maintain peace both within the country and among different
countries;
3. There are elements that can increase the possibility of having peaceful relations among countries:
4. Increase in trade (both bilateral and multilateral);
5. Increase in the number of international institutions;
6. Increase in the number of democracies in the international system – such assumptions links back to the democratic
peace theory that assumes that democracies are less likely to initiate conflicts with other countries; and
7. Global cooperation and peace is possible.
 As in the case of realism and neorealism, neoliberalism (or neoidealism) is the recent
elaboration of classical idealism.
 Again, the main difference between the classical and the new form is the idea of structure.
Neoliberals think that the structure of the international system fosters the creation of
international organizations that are information providers and reduce the likeliness to cheat. In
this case, the structure of the system itself implies the possibility of cooperation.
 Keohane, one of the main scholars of the neoliberal tradition, identifies the three main strands of
this perspective:
1. International regimes: defined as the spontaneous emergence of international norms
around specific issue;
2. Complex interdependence: the growing complexity of international relations inevitably
leads to the creation of strong and tangled ties among countries; and
3. Democratic peace: just as in the classic perspective, democracies are believed to be less
likely to initiate conflicts.
 As we can see, the three pillars of the neoidealist perspective are an elaboration of the Kantian’s
theory.