Psir Test 12 With Solutions PDF

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers
1. Critically examine the limitations of the traditional approach to comparative

politics. Highlight the factors responsible for the emergence of modern
comparative politics.
• Broadly the goal of comparative politics is to encompass the major political
similarities and differences between countries. In order to achieve this, political
scientists employ two major approaches.
• Traditional Approaches
This is the value-laden approach to the study of comparative politics and is mainly
associated with the traditional outlook which underlined the study of state &
government or constitution. There’s an emphasis on the formal institutions &
neglect of the political processes because of the fact that in western societies there’s
not much gap between theory & practice.
• Limitations of traditional approaches
(1) Parochial (localized nature):- These approaches are mostly limited to the study of
the western countries because, in non-western countries, it is not sufficient to study
the constitution. Hence, it is important to understand the environment or context
(social, cultural, economic etc.) while making the comparison.
(2) Static:- Since legal-institutional approach was adopted, the discipline was static in
nature as it overlooked dynamics or operations of socio-cultural economic factors.
(3) Descriptive:- Traditional approach was descriptive and hence didn’t have much
relevance as an explanatory tool or as a method of analysis.
• According to Macridis, the traditional approach was non-comparative, descriptive,
parochial, static & monographic.
Factors giving rise to Modern Comparative Politics
Modern approaches to comparative politics was introduce offer WWI, but it got
significant attention in the post- WWII period
(1) Factor post WWI
(a) Rise of communism & establishment of USSR
(b) Emergence of authoritarian system in countries like Germany & Italy.
These factors forced political scholars to go beyond the constitutional study and
focus on socio-cultural & economic factors responsible for such developments in
the west.
(2) Factors post WWII
In the post WWII period, due to the decolonization process, there was proliferation
of political system with the emergence of new countries and that too with huge
diversity.
Hence, it was realized that there’s a need to expand the scope and change the
approach to comparative politics. This realization led to the emergence of modern
approaches to comparative politics, that mode the discipline ‘comparative’ in the
true sense.
• Modern approaches
The realization that the traditional approaches has limited the scope of
comparative politics to the study & discipline of the organs of government has led
to the rise of modern approaches. It was based on the idea that the structure of
government and political processes are highly affected by the social, economic &
cultural factors. Thus, modern approaches called for replacement of normativism
by empiricism to examine & analyze various factors that affect the working of on
entire political system. The inter-disciplinary nature of the modern approaches
distinguished it from the traditional approaches as it is against the rigid
compartmentalization of disciplines which has led to a reduction of cross-flow
between various fields of research. The major types are sociological approach,
psychological economic approach, system approach, political economy approach.
2. In what way Structural Functional Approach is superior to Systems Approach?
Give reasons as to why Structure Functional Approach is criticized as ‘status-
quoist’.
• Systems approach, which is based on the ‘General Systems Theory’, is a modern
approach to the study of comparative politics. It is a product of the behavioral
https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams
movement in political science. Ever since its introduction in the late 1950s, systems
approach has been regularly used for analyzing relations among nations.
• Systems approach seeks to analyze international relation as a system of interactions
which are independent & inter related. It studies comparative politics as a system
of behavior of international actors (i.e. nations), which act and react in the
international environment and its interaction is characterized by regularities. A/Q
to Mc Clletend, a nation’s behavior is a two- way activity taking from and giving it
to international environment. Therefore, systems approach is applied to explain
how the forces of international system affect the behavior of states and vice versa.
Critical evaluation of systems approach
Systems approach is criticized both by traditionalists as well as Marxists.
(1) Traditionalists:- According to traditionalists, modern approaches in general and
systems approach is particular is just a cosmetic change over the traditional
approaches. Unlike traditional approaches, systems approach brings unnecessary
complex terminologies and thus, appears to be more a scientific approach. There’s
a lack of operationalization of concepts in a way that can make analytical &
explanatory purposes. In addition, systems oriented theorizing hasn’t led to great
deal of empirical work. According to J. David Singer, the unfortunate bifurcation
between theory & research has sharply limited the usefulness of systems approach.
(2) By Marxists
• Marxist criticism of the systems approach is based on the idea that Behaviouralism
is the subtle defense of western way of life. According to Marxists this approach
projects western model as an ideal type and thus, presents any other model as
imperfect, giving an impression that what should be the direction towards which
any political system should more.
• In addition as system approach shows that political system converts inputs into
outputs, therefore, it nowhere explains the phenomena of protests and renditions
thus, it try to give an impression that there’s no contradiction in western countries.
Hence, from Marxists point of view, this approach is hardly scientific & value-
neutral, rather it is ‘status-quiets’.

How structural functional approach addresses limitations of systems approach?

Although structural functional is based on CASTON’S model it takes micro-view
rather than macro-view. Also it aims at formulating more universalistic’ onward
so that if is useful for developing countries also. Almond & Powell have shown that
although all societies performs some essential functions which are necessary,
societies vary with respect to structures performing such functions.
Apart from it, unlike systems approach which is being criticized for being ‘status-
quiets’, structural functional approach takes the dynamic view of political system.
A/Q to it, different political systems are at different stages of development.
• Structural- functional approach is a form of system analysis, which looks at
political system as a coherent whole which inferences and in turn, influenced by
their environment. It seeks to study political system as a set of functions performed
by several structures, hence, this approach is a means of explaining which political
structures perform which basic functions in the political system, both internally and
vis-à-vis other societies.
• As the structural functional approach designates universal components of political
system without dictating specifics functions of each structures, this theory or mode
of investigation allows analysis of different types of systems, such as democracy
and monarchy without any form of ethnocentrism. In this way, this approach is well
devised to comparative politics.
• However a critical examination of the structural functional approach shows that it
is an attempt to justify & defend the status-quiets. critics have found that this
approach is based on deterministic, conservative & restrict ideology. Critics have
found that this approach is based on deterministic, conservative & restrict
ideology. Critics argue that this approach tends to focus primarily on static
relationship rather than dynamics this approach is concerned with the systematic
survival, the requirements of stability & various fortiori and structures oriented
towards maintenance of the system therefore, this approach is assessed of being
anti-change or having conservative-bins. Thus stability and not change is the sheet-
anchor of structural-functionalists.

• A/Q to Sesser, structural functionalists has the serious of being concerned with the
present and having no perspective of the future. It is for the same reason that critics
like Gouldner accuses structural- functionalist of constituting the ‘sociological
conservation corps’.
3. Define political economy approach. What’re the strength and weakness of this
approach.
• Political economy, an inter disciplinary approach involving economics & politics,
is one of the modern approaches to the study of comparative politics. It is the
methodology of economics applied to the analysis of political behavior &
institutions. Since the institutions do not change considerably over time a
comparative perspective helps in identifying institutional influences on political
behavior as well as on social & economic outcomes.
For eg-: (1) Mary related his conception of state to the prevalent note of production
Marxist considers politics as a superstructure on economic base.
(2) Moderates (like Dadabhai) studied the economic exploitation of India by
Britishor’s (DRAIN THEORY) resulting in its political subservience.
• In comparative politics, political economy has participated in three major
theoretical developments-
1. It helped in establishing an analytical perspective to politics in which uncovering
regularities, rather than political
2. Political economists provided path- breaking insights into the interaction b/w
corporations & governments. It explains why polices in autocracies tend to differ
from policies in democracies & government spending is higher in countries with
proportional electoral system than in countries with majoritarian electoral system.
3. Political economists are at the forefront of explaining how government decisions
are altered by the increase in global economic integrations.
• Within the political economy approach the concept of dependency has been widely
used in comparative analysis of the third world systems, particularly in Latin

America political economy approach had been applied by neo-Marxist scholars

like Hamza Alavi in analyzing the nature of economic policies adopted by the post-
colonial states. In contemporary times, Marxist scholars like Immanuel
Wallenstein, has highlighted the exploitative nature of globalization from Marxist
perspective and how globalization has increased poverty. Hunger and social
unrest.
• Proponents of political economy approach argue that, being a combination of
quantitative and qualitative analysis this approach is beneficial from the
perspective of the comparative politics.
For eg:- neo-liberal scholar Amartya son has compared the development model of
India and china and has shown weaknesses of India’s approach.
Moreover the relevance of political economy approach is based on the fact that, in
the contemporary times, political economists have been at the forefront in
explaining how government decisions are inference & altered by the growing
global economic interconnectedness.
However, one of the major weaknesses of this approaches economic
factors/policies. Therefore, it is to be used in combination with other approaches.
4. Explain the changing trends in the nature of state in advanced industrial societies
in recent times. What are the fundamental differences b/w the nature of state in
post-colonial societies and advanced industrial societies?
• The developed countries are known as the ‘Advanced industrial states’. Most of
them have been the imperial power’s in the past and continue to have dominance
on politics, economics and cultural- ideological spheres even after the end of
decolonization. This process is known as ‘neo-colonialism’. There countries
construal the GLOBAL NORTH a term used to identify developed countries. From
the Marxist point of view, they’re the ‘CORE COUNTRIES’.
• From end of WWII fill the end of cold war
During this period, advanced industrial states were divided into 2 ideas –
CAPITALIST & SOCIALIST.

However, the socialist bloc countries couldn’t sustain themselves. The collapse of
soviet union market the end of the cold war with the fall of communism many of
politics & economy. however, most of these countries are now the developing
countries, despite
• From end of cold war to the start of 21st century
This period was characterized by the dominant position or hegemony of the western
countries, especially the USA.
• However, since the advent of 21st century, there’s a substantial decline in hegemony
of west marked by the rise of the rest. The center of gravity started shifting from
ATLANTIC to ASIA PACIFIC. BRICS countries started giving challenge to these
countries in different sectors, particularly manufacturing sector.
Since 2008 financial crisis, these countries aren’t only facing economic crisis, but
also political crisis. This is reflected in rise of neo-rightists in Europe & USA.
People in these countries have become susceptible to political agenda of populist
parties, mainly because of combinational terrorism & so-called islamophobia.
Thus it can be argued that these countries are also in the state of transition.
‘Meaning of state’:- Applicable to an advanced industrialized country is different
from one that is applied to a backward and developing country of the world. In the
developing countries, the concept of state has emerged as a result of decolonization
process. The state or political systems in these countries range from a established
democracy (INDIA) to semi democracy as in Mexico and party-state (China) &
theocracy prevails in states of Sandi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Analyzing the differences among these varied types of political systems is one study
of the most important and interesting tasks in the study of comparative politics. The
nature of state in developing societies is analysis by the liberals, Marxists as well
as thinkers of the third world countries. Liberals believe that these state suffer from
‘democratic deficit’ and are prismatic societies the level of modernization and
political development is low as compared to that of advanced countries.
The state in the developing country a/q to traditional Marxists, are feudal state or
state which represent the co-existence of different methods of production. A/Q to

Immanuel Wallenstein, states in these societies can be categorized as ‘peripheral’

and ‘semi peripheral state’. Scholars like A.G. Frank and Samir Amin believe that
these states suffer from the problem of ‘development of underdevelopment’.
According to some other scholars.
One important aspect contrasting b/q advanced and developing countries is that
politics and government in the letter, are shaped by the basic facts of sconce
economic resourced, extensive poverty and inequality, and a relatively weak
position in the international system. Also, in most of these countries, the state exists
without its specific identity and people identify their state with their society,
government, party and their supreme leader.
However, according to neo-Marxist scholars like Hamza Alavi, States in the
developing countries are more strong them their counterparts in the advanced
countries. He used the concept of ‘overdeveloped’ well as historical specificity of
these states.
The concept of ‘modern state’ was imposed on these countries with traditional
economic system. This resulted into state controlling the economic resources and
strengthening of bureaucracy and military axis-resulting into bureaucratic-military
oligarchy’. This make state in these countries stronger and, hence, the sole agent
responsible for modernization and developing.
• The scholars of political development approach, such as FW Riggs, consider these
states as prismatic society in the words of Riggs; they’re all under ‘Development
Trap’.
• Commenting on the political characteristic of these states Gunnar Myrdal has
referred to them especially India, as ‘soft states’ in the sense that they fail to strictly
& effectively implement their laws. On the other hand, a/q to Samuel P. Huntington,
most of these states have witnessed ‘political decay’.
Moreover, this region has been in the state of transition. These countries, on being
independent, adopt democracy but it didn’t sustain & got replaced by authoritarian
or semi-authoritarian regimes, with exception of India.

5. Participation and representation are the two fundamental elements of democracy.

Discuss the challenges faced by democracy in promoting and assuring inclusive
participation and representation.
• Democracy has been described as one of the part of a conceptual cluster as a

family of concepts, in which the concepts of rights, freedom and equality are most
central. However, despite being one of the central concepts, the concepts of the
democracy is at the center of fierce debates in political theory owing to the fact
that there are varied views on the nature, purpose, form, extent and desirability
of democratic rule. In this context, Noam Chomsky argued that everyone agrees
for democracy in principle but it is only in practice that the things give rise to
stiff objections.
• In spite of being a central concept in the political theory, the democratic tradition
doesn’t advance a single and unanimous ideal of popular rule. On the contrary,
there is a number of theories or model of democracies, each offering its own
version of popular rule.
• Representative Democracy: Since direct democracy is not possible in large and
complex modern societies, the mechanism through which people take part
indirectly in government is through elected representative to carry at their
political will.
• Participatory Democracy: The classical theory of participative democracy is
found in the Rousseau’s General Will and J. S. Mill’s writing. For Mill as well
as for Rousseau, participation has an adequative function for citizens.
Participation is important not only for decision making but also as a way of
protecting common good and ensuring good government.
• Deliberative Democracy: It rules open and public deliberations and discussions
on issue of common concern. It is based on the assumptions of the individual as
autonomous and the social relationship as relations of mutual influence through
reasoned arguments and persuasion.
• Debate on Representation and Participation in Democracy

• Most practicing democracies are indirect/representative in nature, which

involves people delegating their power to rule to elected representatives to rule
on their behalf. However, in territorial constituencies, the process of
amalgamating the interests of diverse electorate as a challenge. Rousseau, while
criticizing electoral democracies and representative mechanisms, argues that
these democracies only substitute the will of a few people for that of a whole
community. Thus an election which is the main vehicle of representative
democracy, is an inadequate mechanism to convert people’s views into policy
directives.
• Therefore, for Rousseau as democracy was the way by which citizens could
achieve freedom by participating directly, actively and continuously in shaping
the life of the community. In this way, Rousseau’s preference to participative
democracy was based on the idea of civic republicanism. For Rousseau,
participation was essential for the self-development of the individual, which is
necessary for the generation of general will that represent collective common
goal of the community.
• All these features of participative democracy makes it important and have led to
a renewed attention to participation. The Right to Information Act, 2005 which
seeks to make government functioning open, is one such as initiative in India.
Critics of centralized government also advocate decentralization through local
self-government institutions like Panchayats.
• However, the main objection to participation has been that it is difficult to make
it work effectively in a large and diverse society. Therefore the point being made
is the both representation and participation mechanism be combined.
6. What is the basic difference in political parties and pressure groups? Compare the role
of pressure groups in developed and developing societies?
• Political parties and pressure groups are important and inevitable features of a
liberal democracy. Most of the times, they’re studies together because of their
accessional interlocking behavior. A/Q to V. O. Key, both are informal & extra-

constitutional agencies that provide & good deal of propulsion for the formal
constitutional systems.
• However, political parties & pressure groups differ from each other on many
grounds. Unlike political parties pressure groups aren’t necessarily political in
nature. Rajni Kothari refers to the politics of pressure groups as ‘non-party
political processes.
A political party is organized by a group of people with a similar political ideology
or broad agreement over a group of related political ideas. Ideological unity is a
sours of unity and cohesion in a political party. The members of a political party,
mostly, base their policies, program and activities on the principles of ideologies
conforms to the ideas of socialism, secularism etc, and communist party advocates
interests of workers, peasants and other weaker sections. In contrast to this, a
specific interest is usually the basis of the formation of a pressure group. It is
organized by the people for the promotion and articulation of common interests.
Pressure groups play a vital role in the process of interest articulation whereas
political parties, as blonde observes, are the main agencies of interest aggregation
however, this doesn’t mean that such a role differential is absolutely rigid. The
scope of function of political parties is much broader them the scope of functions
of pressure groups because it involves functions like activation, recruitment,
mobilization, socialization, communication etc. the pressure groups perform some
of these function certainly on a limited scale and in a restricted circle. The political
parties and the pressure groups can even be differentiated with respect to the
methods undertaken by them. The political parties, theoretically, are committed to
use peaceful and constitutional means for securing power. The interest groups, on
the other hand use means of mutual cooperative and direct action such as strikes,
bandhs, boycotts etc.
However, now-a-days, political parties too, particularly in developing political
systems are increasingly using the direct action means for securing their objectives
chief for catching the attention and winning the sympathy of the voters.
Techniques used by pressure groups

• A/Q to Gabriel Almond, converting of demands into policy alter natives as known
as ‘interest aggregation’. Which is the main role played by pressure groups? The
main techniques employed by the pressure groups are manipulating public opinions
and presenting them as a policy alternative to the government in power. The extent
of enhance of pressure groups on government is mainly determined by their position
to represent public opinion.
• Apart from it, pressure groups attempt at persuading legislators and administrators
etc. for making specific provisions for materialization of their interests. This
involves ‘lobbying’ and is particularly influential in USA. In some instances, they
even try to pressurized government through judicial interventions such as PIL etc.
Comparison of pressure groups in developed & developing societies
(1) Institutional pressure groups (such as organization of civil servant military
pressure etc.) are more prominent in developing countries as the states in these
societies are ‘over-developed’ in nature. On the contrary, in developed countries,
they’re not so powerful because of ‘minimal’ state in these countries.
(2) In developing countries, like India, pressure groups based on community such as
caste, religion etc. are more powerful than the modern groups like business
organists.
(3) In developing countries, the main targets of pressure groups for lobbying purposes
are cabinet & civil services contrary, he targets for lobbying purposes in developed
countries, like USA, are the legislatures (congress in USA).
(4) ‘Anomic’ pressure groups (short-term association) are more prominent in
developing countries because of lack of institutionalization of democracy.
7. The coalition of three geographies will shape the 21 st Century world order. Discuss.
How India should strategies to deal the emerging challenges in the world order?
• According to Samir Saran, for the past seven decades the post-world war, world
has been defined by a strong transatlantic relationship with the USA and EU

dominating the terms of peace, stability and economic prosperity. However, with
the changing world order, the validity of these arrangements are getting
increasingly challenged, which is often described in terms of “rise of the rest”.
• According to Samir Saran, proliferating transnational relation and flows of
finance, trade, information, energy and labour have created three new strategic
geographies namely Indo-Pacific, Eurasia and the Arctic. According to Samir
Saran, one of the major factor for these emerging strategic geographies is the
rise of China and the declining power of the US in the contemporary world order.
In this context, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has been designed to reaffirm its
economic and diplomatic rise.
• According to Samir Saran, based on the ideas of emergence of these three
geographies and their interaction, there are five trends possible.
o Risk of separate cold wars across geographies which will be multipolar
such as between India and China (Indo-Pacific Region), Russia, Europe
and US (Arctic) or between China and Europe (Eurasia).
o More coalitions of convenience are likely to emerge across their
geographies. Eg. Russia, Iran and China entering Afghanistan maritime
security cooperation between India and France
o Possibility for new institutional dialogue in search of new opportunities
(economic and strategic). Eg. ASEAN state making overtures to Arctic
Council.
o The opening up of the Arctic will test the ability of power to provide
security in other parts of the world, such as in Gulf of Aden etc.
o The institutional matrix will also evolve in response to these changes,
specially the relevance of the international institutions will be questioned.
• Therefore Samir Saran argues that owing to the changing geopolitics in the 21st
Century, east and west are becoming increasingly meaningless constructs which
will significantly change state and diplomatic priorities, economic partnership
and security arrangements and will compel states to reimagine their world view.
• Reforms for India’s engagements with world at large.

• Three critical military shift are needed.

o From land to sea
o From physical to virtual (cyber warfare)
o From manpower to firepower
• Champion the cause of globalization as movement of labour, goods and services
is critical for India’s growth.
• Retain flexibility in terms of alignments, be open to larger partnership and global
projects, as well as unilateral actions.
• Partnership with other middle power, especially those concerned by G2
dominant, such as Iran and Russia.
8. Discuss what should be India’s strategies with respect to China-Russia-US triangle.

• The contemporary world order is characterized by USA turning as a ‘reluctant
superpower’, owing to its emerging stance of protectionism, rise of China’s
economic power and political significance and the transformation of the Sino-
Russian relationship from enmity to détente, now entente, mainly due to their
estrangement with the west in general and USA in particular.
• Therefore, according to C. Raja Mohan, owing to the going global uncertainties,
the contemporary world order is characterized by realignment, dealignment and
multi-alignment which also holds good for India facing China-Russia-US
triangle.
• US-China-India
• According to Manoj Joshi, the Indo-US Nuclear Deal (2005), despite India’s
nuclear test in 1998, took China aback since it signaled a strategic shift towards
India by the United States. This created a triangular dynamic that persists till
today. While India has steadily developed important military as strategic ties with
the US, the disputes between India and China specially border disputes, remain
unresolved. Moreover in recent times, India’s involvement in USA’s strategy in

Indo-Pacific specially in the form of QUAD has been a cause of tension in Sino-
India relations.
• However, in the present context of Trump’s protectionists policies, China and
India have demonstrated greater flexibility towards the US and other neighbours.
According to Ashutosh Varshney, for China, anything which arrest India’s
potential drift towards USA and its allies, is good. Therefor in recent times, there
have been attempts at improving their relations. According to Happymon Jacob,
the informal summits have underlined the importance of an ‘entente cordiale’
between India and China which has become increasingly distrustful of each
other. Apart from it, India can opt for involving China in bilateral, regional
security complex such as terrorism, climate change etc. Which can reduce the
persistent security dilemma between them.
• Russia-India-China
• Despite the fact that strong relationship with Russia (and erstwhile USSR) has
been a key pillar of India’s foreign policy. The growing nexus between Russia
and China in strategic, political and economic field, has been a source of recent
differences and divergences between India and Russia.
• However, according to P. S. Raghvan, the India-Russia relationship has to be
placed in the larger context of global geopolitical environment of the 21st
Century. According to C. Raja Mohan, India’s policy towards Russia has been
grounded in sentimentalism, which is not in tune with the changing geo-political
specially Russia-Europe and China-US estrangement that has compelled their
growing closeness.
• Therefore, despite growing closeness between Russia and China, Russia remains
an important partner for India. This is evident from the fact that Russia remains
principle weapon system supplier to India and supplies sensitive technologies
that are not sold to any other country. Apart from it, Russia views a larger role
for India in balancing China in regions like Central-Asia and institutions like
SCO where Russia sees China as a potential strategic adversary.

• Recognizing this, India has been trying to shore up its ties with Russia, which is
maintained in the first informal summit between the two countries in 2018 and
India signing up of deals worth 15 Billion Dollar with Russia, despite the threat
of American sanctions.

Psir Test 12 With Solutions PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psir Test 12 With Solutions PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psir Test 12 With Solutions PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

1. Critically examine the limitations of the traditional approach to comparative

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

How structural functional approach addresses limitations of systems approach?

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

America political economy approach had been applied by neo-Marxist scholars

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

Immanuel Wallenstein, states in these societies can be categorized as ‘peripheral’

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

5. Participation and representation are the two fundamental elements of democracy.

• Democracy has been described as one of the part of a conceptual cluster as a

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

• Most practicing democracies are indirect/representative in nature, which

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

• Three critical military shift are needed.

8. Discuss what should be India’s strategies with respect to China-Russia-US triangle.

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

PSIR Test 12 Model Answers

https://t.me/pdf4exams Website:- pdf4exams.org https://t.me/pdf4exams

You might also like