NOTE: Please remember that following ‘answers’ are NOT ‘model answers’. They are NOT synopsis too if we go by definition of the term. What we are providing is content that both meets demand of the question and at the same
General Studies – 1
Topic: The Freedom Struggle — its various stages and important contributors/contributions from different parts of the country.
Difficulty level: Moderate
Reference: Insights on India
Why the question:
The question is part of the static syllabus of General studies paper – 1 and mentioned as part of Mission-2023 Secure timetable.
Key Demand of the question: To write about how Morley-Minto reforms were another tool of despotism rather than being constitutional reforms.
Directive word:
Critically comment – When asked to analyse, you have to examine methodically the structure or nature of the topic by separating it into component parts and present them as a whole in a summary. When ‘comment’ is prefixed, we have to express our knowledge and understanding of the issue and form an overall opinion thereupon.
Structure of the answer:
Introduction:
Start by giving the context for the introduction of the Reforms of 1909 such as the dissatisfaction of the moderates of the Indian Councils Act, 1892 and the rise of the Extremists in the arena of Indian leaders.
Body:
Briefly mention the key changes brought in by the reforms of 1909 and then why it cannot be termed as “Constitutional reform”, as it brought out minor additive changes only and not met the demands of the Indian leaders genuinely such as provision for asking questions and supplementary questions but at the same time the question may be rejected, further the Indian representatives could not question on many forms of expenditure of the British etc.
Mention why the reform was termed Benevolent Despotism, as the British tried to paint a colour of benevolence to the reforms by bringing small additive changes to the existing provisions but it was still an act of despotism as there was no substantial reform meeting the needs or demands of the Indian representatives in the legislative council. The introduction of separate electorates which formalised the British policy of divide and rule.
Conclusion:
Write about the impact of the reforms and response of the nationalists to it.
Introduction
The Morley-Minto reforms named after the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs Lord John Morley and the Viceroy Lord Minto was the alternative name given to Indian Councils Act 1909. It introduced for the first time the method of election, an attempt to widen the scope of legislative councils, placate the demands of moderates in Indian National Congress and to increase the participation of Indians in the governance. The Act amended the Indian Councils Acts of 1861 and 1892.
Body:
Background of the Act
- In October 1906, a group of Muslim elites called the Shimla Deputation, led by the Agha Khan, met Lord Minto and demanded separate electorates for the Muslims and representation in excess of their numerical strength in view of ‘the value of the contribution’ Muslims were making ‘to the defence of the empire’.
- The same group quickly took over the Muslim League, initially floated by Nawab Salimullah of Dacca along with Nawabs Mohsin-ul- Mulk and Waqar-ul-Mulk in December 1906.
- The Muslim League intended to preach loyalty to the empire and to keep the Muslim intelligentsia away from the Congress.
- John Morley, the Liberal Secretary of State for India, and the Conservative Viceroy of India, Minto, believed that cracking down on uprising in Bengal was necessary but not sufficient for restoring stability to the British Raj after Lord Curzon’s partitioning of Bengal.
- They believed that a dramatic step was required to put heart into loyal elements of the Indian upper classes and the growing Westernized section of the population.
Features of the Act
- It considerably increased the size of the legislative councils, both Central and provincial. The number of members in the Central Legislative Council was raised from 16 to 60. The number of members in the provincial legislative councils was not uniform.
- British retained official majority in the Central Legislative Council but allowed the provincial legislative councils to have non-official majority.
- The elected members were to be indirectly elected. The local bodies were to elect an electoral college, which in turn would elect members of provincial legislatures, who in turn would elect members of the central legislature.
- It enlarged the deliberative functions of the legislative councils at both the levels. For example, members were allowed to ask supplementary questions, move resolutions on the budget, and so on.
- It provided for the first time for the association of Indians with the executive Councils of the Viceroy and Governors. Satyendra Prasad Sinha became the first Indian to join the Viceroy’s Executive Council. He was appointed as the law member. Two Indians were nominated to the Council of the Secretary of State for Indian Affairs.
- It introduced a system of communal representation for Muslims by accepting the concept of ‘separate electorate’. Under this, the Muslim members were to be elected only by Muslim voters. Thus, the Act ‘legalized communalism’ and Lord Minto came to be known as the Father of Communal Electorate.
- It also provided for the separate representation of presidency corporations, chambers of commerce, universities and zamindars.
Evaluation of the Reforms:
- The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer and could afford no answer to the Indian political problem. Lord Morley made it clear that colonial self-government (as demanded by the Congress) was not suitable for India, and he was against introduction of parliamentary or responsible government in India.
- The position of the Governor- General remained unchanged and his veto power remained undiluted and the Act was successfully maintained relentless constitutional autocracy.
- The ‘constitutional’ reforms were, in fact, aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks by confusing the Moderates and at checking the growth of unity among Indians through the obnoxious instrument of separate electorates.
- The Government aimed at rallying the Moderates and the Muslims against the rising tide of nationalism.
- The officials and the Muslim leaders often talked of the entire community when they talked of the separate electorates, but in reality, it meant the appeasement of a small section of the Muslim elite only.
- Congress considered separate electorate to be undemocratic and hindering the development of a shared Hindu-Muslim Indian national feeling.
- Besides, system of election was too indirect and it gave the impression of infiltration of legislators through a number of sieves.
- And, while parliamentary forms were introduced, no responsibility was conceded, which sometimes led to thoughtless and irresponsible criticism of the Government.
- Only some members like Gokhale put to constructive use the opportunity to debate in the councils by demanding universal primary education, attacking repressive policies and drawing attention to the plight of indentured labour and Indian workers in South Africa.
- The reforms of 1909 gave to the people of the country a shadow rather than substance.
The Act of 1909 was important for the following reasons:
- It effectively allowed the election of Indians to the various legislative councils in India for the first time, though previously some Indians had been appointed to legislative councils.
- The introduction of the electoral principle laid the groundwork for a parliamentary system even though this was contrary to the intent of Morley.
- It also gave recognition to the elective principle as the basis of the composition of legislative council for the first time.
- It gave some further avenues to Indians to ventilate their grievances. They also got opportunity to criticize the executives and make suggestions for better administration.
- After Jinnah’s death in September 1948, Pakistan lurched towards Islamic orthodoxy and Dalits faced mounting attacks.
Conclusion:
Indian Council Act of 1909 was instituted to placate the moderates and appeasement to the disseminate Muslims from National Movement by granting them separate electorate. The people had demanded self-government but what they were given was ‘benevolent despotism’.
Topic: The Freedom Struggle — its various stages and important contributors/contributions from different parts of the country.
Difficulty level: Moderate
Reference: Insights on India
Why the question:
The question is part of the static syllabus of General studies paper – 1 as mentioned in Mission-2023 Secure timetable.
Key Demand of the question:
To examine the reasoning behind calling off the non-cooperation movement at its peak.
Directive word:
Critically examine – When asked to ‘Examine’, we have to look into the topic (content words) in detail, inspect it, investigate it and establish the key facts and issues related to the topic in question. While doing so we should explain why these facts and issues are important and their implications. When ‘critically’ is suffixed or prefixed to a directive, one needs to look at the good and bad of the topic and give a fair judgment.
Structure of the answer:
Introduction:
Begin by mentioning the violence in Chauri-Chaura, which was against the ideas of ahimsa and satyagraha that lead to the suspension of NCM.
Body:
Write about Gandhi’s response to the violent incidents and recall of most widespread mass struggle, Non-Cooperation movement.
Write about how people questioned the motives of Gandhi. The confusion regarding its withdrawal as to why such a huge movement be suspended for a small incident and doubts that were expressed in Gandhi’s ability to lead the freedom struggle.
Next, mention as to why the withdrawal was the strategic retreat by Gandhi and save the satyagrahis from severe repression of the government.
Conclusion:
Conclude by mentioning Gandhi’s strict adherence to the principles of non-violence even at the cost of doubts among his followers or taking a step back in the arena of the Indian national freedom struggle.
Introduction
On 1st August, 1920, Gandhiji had launched the Non-Cooperation Movement against the government. It involved using swadeshi and boycott of foreign goods, especially machine made cloth, and legal, educational and administrative institutions, “refusing to assist a ruler who misrules”.
Body
Chauri Chaura Incident:
- On 4thFebruary, volunteers congregated in the town, and after the meeting, proceeded in a procession to the local police station, and to picket the nearby Mundera bazaar.
The police fired into the crowd killing some people and injuring many volunteers. - In retaliation, the crowd proceeded to set the police station on fire. Some of the policemen who tried to escape were caught and battered to death. A lot of police property, including weapons, was destroyed.
Justification for the Suspension of the Movement:
- Gandhijion his part, justified himself on grounds of his unshakeable faith in non-violence.
- He felt that the movement was turning violent in many places and the satyagrahis need to be trained properly for mass movement.
- Gandhiji felt that people had not learnt or fully understood the method of non-violence.
- The Government of India Act of 1919, had set up elections in Provincial Councils. Some leaders wanted to participate in elections
- Violent activities could easily be suppressed by the British through more violent and brutal means.
- The movement showed signs of fatigue, because it is not possible to sustain any movement at a high pitch for very long.
- Gandhian strategy of non-violence was based on the premise that the use of repressive force against non-violent protesters would expose the real character of the colonial stateand ultimately put moral pressure on them, but incidents such as Chauri Chaura defeated that strategy.
- Withdrawal or shift to a phase of non-confrontationis an inherent part of a strategy of political action that is based on the masses.
- The Khilafat question had lost its relevance as Turkey became secular
- To gain full independence, leaders like Subash Chandra Bose and Nehru wanted radical mass agitations.
- Poor people could not afford Khadi clotheswhich were very expensive compared to mass produced mill cloth. Hence people could no longer afford to boycott mill cloth for too long.
Negative response to the suspension
- The disillusionment resulting from the suspension of the Non-Cooperation Movement nudged many of the younger Indian nationalists towards the conclusion that India would not be able to throw off colonial rule through non-violence.
- It was from the ranks of these impatient patriots that some of India’s most of the revolutionaries came into picture like Jogesh Chatterjee, Ramprasad Bismil, Sachin Sanyal, Ashfaqulla Khan, Jatin Das, Bhagat Singh, Bhagwati Charan Vohra, Masterda Surya Sen, and many others.
- Besides, sudden termination of the Non-Cooperation Movement disillusioned the Khilafat movement leadersthat created a rift between Congress and the muslim leaders.
- Jawaharlal Nehru and other leadersleading the Non-Cooperation movement were shocked that Gandhiji had stopped the struggle when the civil resistance had consolidated their position in the freedom movement.
- Other leaders like Motilal Nehru and CR Das recorded their dismay at Gandhiji’s decision and decided to establish the Swaraj Party.
- Many felt that the movement, which was at its peak, should not have been withdrawn because of one incident in one part of the country.
- The euphoria of Hindu-Muslim unity was over.
Conclusion
Though withdrawn abruptly, with the Non-Cooperation Movement, nationalist sentiments reached every nook and corner of the country and politicised every strata of population: the artisans, peasants, students, urban poor, women, traders etc. it was this politicisation and activation of millions of men and women which imparted a revolutionary character to the national movement.
General Studies – 4
Topic: dimensions of ethics;
Difficulty level: Moderate
Reference: plato.stanford.edu
Why the question:
The question is part of the static syllabus of General studies paper – 4 and part of ‘Conceptual Tuesdays’ in Mission-2023 Secure.
Key Demand of the question:
To explain the concept of Moral Relativism using examples.
Directive word:
Explain – Clarify the topic by giving a detailed account as to how and why it occurred, or what is the context. You must be defining key terms wherever appropriate and substantiate with relevant associated facts.
Structure of the answer:
Introduction:
Begin the answer by defining moral relativism and its aspects
Body:
Write the core argument on which moral relativism is based on, the existing differences in the moralities that people accept and live by. Mention various factors that give rise to Moral relativism.
Give few illustrations in the context of capital punishment, euthanasia, eating meat etc. and the varied constraints and dimensions based on which the morality of a situation or action is judged.
Conclusion:
Conclude by saying often, morality is more relative than absolute.
Introduction
Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. According to moral relativism, there is not a single true morality. There are a variety of possible moralities or moral frames of reference, and whether something is morally right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust, etc. is a relative matter—relative to one or another morality or moral frame of reference. Something can be morally right relative to one moral frame of reference and morally wrong relative to another.
Body
Moral relativism can be captured in two following points
- Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community).
- No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other.
Different groups of people may play different versions of football. Different societies may have different legal systems. Different people speak different languages. And different people may have different moralities. Moralities accepted at one time may fail to be accepted at another time. Individuals within any given group may have different moralities. A particular person may accept different mutually incompatible moralities at different times and even at the same time.
Various dimensions in which moralities differ
- Moralities differ in what they imply about abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, religion, etiquette, slavery, caste systems, cannibalism, eating meat, what sorts of experiments on animals are permitted, and what sorts of experiments on human beings are permitted.
- They may differ concerning the relative importance of chastity in men and women, how many wives or husbands people can have, homosexuality, incest, and whether people in their twenties have special obligations toward their parents.
- They differ about whether there is an obligation not to lie to strangers and whether there is an obligation to help strangers who need help.
- They differ concerning the relative importance of equality versus liberty, who gets what, preserving natural beauty, and the acceptability of littering.
Over the years moral relativism has attracted a great deal of criticism, and not just from professional philosophers. One reason for this, of course, is that it is widely perceived to be a way of thinking that is on the rise. Another reason for so much trenchant criticism is that a relativistic view of morality is thought by many to have pernicious consequences.
Conclusion
Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is always one right answer to any ethical question. As relativists see it, they are not countenancing immorality, injustice, or moral nihilism; rather, they are trying to say something about the nature of moral claims and the justifications given for them. The main problem they face is to show how the denial of objective moral truth need not entail a subjectivism that drains the rationality out of moral discourse. Their critics, on the other hand, face the possibly even more challenging task of justifying the claim that there is such a thing as objective moral truth.
Topic: social influence and persuasion.
4. Compare and contrast between persuasion and influence.
Why the question:
The question is part of the static syllabus of General studies paper – 4 and part of ‘Conceptual Tuesdays’ in Mission-2023 Secure.
Key Demand of the question:
A straightforward question to distinguish between persuasion and influence and to justify if persuasion is more effective than force.
Directive word:
Compare and contrast – provide for a detailed comparison of the two types, their features that are similar as well as different. One must provide for detailed assessment of the two.
Structure of the answer:
Introduction:
Start by clearly defining Persuasion and Influence In your own words.
Body:
Through suitable illustrations, highlight the contrasting approaches of a Persuasion and Influence. Use examples to clearly outline the difference between the two.
Next, bring out the relative effect of force and persuasion. Write as to the various emotions associated with force and persuasion. Use examples to substantiate your argument.
Conclusion:
Mention how Persuasion is a stronger tool as opposed to Influence.
Introduction
Persuasion is symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people through transmission of a message to change their attitudes or behaviours. While influence is the change in behaviour that one person causes in another, intentionally or unintentionally. It occurs when a person’s emotions, opinions, or behaviours are affected by others
Body
Social Influence:
- Social influence takes many forms and can be seen in conformity, socialization, peer pressure, obedience, leadership, persuasion, sales, and marketing.
- As per Herbert Kelman, there are three broad types of social influence.
- Compliance It is described as a particular kind of response, acquiescence to a particular kind of communication, a request. g.: Tax payment, following traffic rules
- Conformity: It refers to the act of changing a particular belief or behaviour to fit in with one’s social environment. Main factor that influences conformity is social norms. E.g.: leaving footwear outside in religious places, banning of sati.
- Obedience: Person obeys direct orders from another to perform some actions. E.g.: Orders from Military officer to jawans.
- Effect of Social influence is especially visible in the long history of humankind, particularly World War II, where individuals were observed to commit immoral acts because they scuffle to act in sync with their personal judgments when faced with external pressure.
Persuasion:
- Persuasion is one form of social influence on attitude; in fact it represents the intersection of social thinking and social influence of everyday life.
- Persuasion can occur through appeals to reason or appeals to emotion. For example, school-based substance abuse prevention programs using the social influences model consistently produce better results than programs emphasizing only health information.
- The government has also utilized this tool for the success of the initiatives like Swachh Bharat Abhiyan- cleanliness drives; Ujjwala Yojana’s Give it up campaign; Disclosing excess income campaign; Beti Bachao Beti Padhao by making parents understand it is necessary to protect and educate a girl child.
Conclusion
Thus, Persuasion is one form of social influence on attitude; in fact it represents the intersection of social thinking and social influence of everyday life. Understanding these shortcuts and employing them in an ethical manner can significantly increase the chances that someone will be social influenced and persuaded by the public policy.
Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Please subscribe to Our podcast channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube ChannelHERE
Follow our Twitter Account HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE
Follow us on LinkedIn : HERE
