Test: Class 12 Contemporary World Politics NCERT Based-2 - UPSC MCQ

• The roots of NAM went back to the friendship between three leaders — Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru, and Egypt’s leader Gamal Abdel Nasser — who held a meeting in 1956. Indonesia’s Sukarno and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah strongly supported them.

• These five leaders came to be known as the five founders of NAM. The first non-aligned summit was held in Belgrade in 1961.

• This was the culmination of at least three factors: (i) cooperation among these five countries, (ii) growing Cold War tensions and its widening arenas, and (iii) the dramatic entry of many newly decolonised African countries into the inter - national arena. By 1960, there were 16 new African members in the UN. The first summit was attended by 25 member states. Over the years, the membership of NAM has expanded. The latest meeting, the 17th summit, was held in Venezuela in 2016. It included 120 member states and 17 observer countries.

• Over the years, the membership of NAM has expanded. The latest meeting, the 17th summit, was held in Venezuela in 2016. It included 120 member states and 17 observer countries.

• As non-alignment grew into a popular international movement, countries of various different political systems and interests joined it. This made the movement less homogeneous and also made it more difficult to define in very neat and precise terms: what did it really stand for? Increasingly, NAM was easier to define in terms of what it was not. It was not about being a member of an alliance.

• The policy of staying away from alliances should not be considered isolationism or neutrality. Non-alignment is not isolationism since isolation means remaining aloof from world affairs. Isolationism sums up the foreign policy of the US from the American War of Independence in 1787 up to the beginning of the First World War.

• In comparison, the non-aligned countries, including India, played an active role in mediating between the two rival alliances in the cause of peace and stability. Their strength was based on their unity and their resolve to remain non-aligned despite the attempt by the two superpowers to bring them into their alliances.

• Non-alignment is also not neutrality. Neutrality refers principally to a policy of staying out of war. States practising neutrality are not required to help end a war. They do not get involved in wars and do not take any position on the appropriateness or morality of a war. Non-aligned states, including India, were actually involved in wars for various reasons. They also worked to prevent war between others and tried to end wars that had broken out.

• The idea of a New Inter - national Economic Order (NIEO) originated with this realisation. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) brought out a report in 1972 entitled Towards a New Trade Policy for Development. The report proposed a reform of the global trading system so as to:

(i) give the LDCs control over their natural resources exploited by the developed Western countries,

(ii) obtain access to Western markets so that the LDCs could sell their products and, therefore, make trade more beneficial for the poorer countries,

(iii) reduce the cost of technology from the Western countries, and

(iv) provide the LDCs with a greater role in international economic institutions.

Gradually, the nature of nonalignment changed to give greater importance to economic issues. In 1961, at the first summit in Belgrade, economic issues had not been very important. By the mid-1970s, they had become the most important issues. As a result, NAM became an economic pressure group. By the late 1980s, however, the NIEO initiative had faded, mainly because of the stiff opposition from the developed countries who acted as a united group while the non-aligned countries struggled to maintain their unity in the face of this opposition.

• A non-aligned posture also served India’s interests very directly, in at least two ways: First, non-alignment allowed India to take international decisions and stances that served its interests rather than the interests of the superpowers and their allies.

• Second, India was often able to balance one superpower against the other. If India felt ignored or unduly pressurised by one superpower, it could tilt towards the other. Neither alliance system could take India for granted or bully it.

• However, non- alignment contained some core values and enduring ideas. It was based on a recognition that decolonised states share a historical affiliation and can become a powerful force if they come together.

• It meant that the poor and often very small countries of the world need not become followers of any of the big powers, that they could pursue an independent foreign policy. It was also based on a resolve to democratise the international system by thinking about an alternative world order to redress existing inequities. These core ideas remain relevant even after the Cold War has ended.

• The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) came into being after the socialist revolution in Russia in 1917. The revolution was inspired by the ideals of socialism, as opposed to capitalism, and the need for an egalitarian society.

• This perhaps the biggest attempt in human history to abolish the institution of private property and consciously design a society based on principles of equality. In doing so, the makers of the Soviet system gave primacy to the state and the institution of the party. The Soviet political system centred around the communist party, and no other political party or opposition was allowed. The economy was planned and controlled by the state.

• In the arms race, the Soviet Union managed to match the US from time to time, but at great cost. The Soviet Union lagged behind the West in technology, infrastructure (e.g. transport, power), and most importantly, in fulfilling the political or economic aspirations of citizens.

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 weakened the system even further. Though wages continued to grow, productivity and technology fell considerably behind that of the West.

• Gorbachev’s reforms promised to deal with these problems. Gorbachev promised to reform the economy, catch up with the West, and loosen the administrative system. You may wonder why the Soviet Union collapsed in spite of Gorbachev’s accurate diagnosis of the problem and his attempt to implement reforms.

• Here is where the answers become more controversial, and we have to depend on future historians to guide us better. The most basic answer seems to be that when Gorbachev carried out his reforms and loosened the system, he set in motion forces and expectations that few could have predicted and became virtually impossible to control.

• There were sections of Soviet society which felt that Gorbachev should have moved much faster and were disappointed and impatient with his methods. They did not benefit in the way they had hoped, or they benefited too slowly. Others, especially members of the Communist Party and those who were served by the system, took exactly the opposite view. They felt that their power and privileges were eroding and Gorbachev was moving too quickly. In this ‘tug of war’, Gorbachev lost support on all sides and divided public opinion. Even those who were with him became disillusioned as they felt that he did not adequately defend his own policies.

Self explanatory.

• The collapse of communism was followed in most of these countries by a painful process of transition from an authoritarian socialist system to a democratic capitalist system.

• The model of transition in Russia, Central Asia and east Europe that was influenced by the World Bank and the IMF came to be known as ‘shock therapy’. Shock therapy varied in intensity and speed amongst the former second world countries, but its direction and features were quite similar.

• Consequences of the Shock Therapy: The shock therapy administered in the 1990s did not lead the people into the promised utopia of mass consumption. Generally, it brought ruin to the economies and disaster upon the people of the entire region. In Russia, the large state-controlled industrial complex almost collapsed, as about 90 per cent of its industries were put up for sale to private individuals and companies.

• Since the restructuring was carried out through market forces and not by government-directed industrial policies, it led to the virtual disappearance of entire industries.

• This was called ‘the largest garage sale in history’, as valuable industries were undervalued and sold at throwaway prices. Though all citizens were given vouchers to participate in the sales, most citizens sold their vouchers in the black market because they needed the money.

• The value of the ruble, the Russian currency, declined dramatically. The rate of inflation was so high that people lost all their savings. The collective farm system disintegrated leaving people without food security, and Russia started to import food. The real GDP of Russia in 1999 was below what it was in 1989. The old trading structure broke down with no alternative in its place.

• The old system of social welfare was systematically destroyed. The withdrawal of government subsidies pushed large sections of the people into poverty. The middle classes were pushed to the periphery of society, and the academic and intellectual manpower disintegrated or migrated.

• A mafia emerged in most of these countries and started controlling many economic activities. Privatisation led to new disparities. PostSoviet states, especially Russia, were divided between rich and poor regions.Unlike the earlier system, there was now great economic inequality between people.

• India and the USSR: During the Cold War era, India and the USSR enjoyed a special relationship which led critics to say that India was part of the Soviet camp. It was a multi-dimensional relationship: Economic: The Soviet Union assisted India’s public sector companies at a time when such assistance was difficult to get.

• It gave aid and technical assistance for steel plants like Bhilai, Bokaro, Visakhapatnam, and machinery plants like Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., etc. The Soviet Union accepted Indian currency for trade when India was short of foreign exchange. Political: The Soviet Union supported India’s positions on the Kashmir issue in the UN. It also supported India during its major conflicts, especially during the war with Pakistan in 1971.

• India too supported Soviet foreign policy in some crucial but indirect ways. Military: India received most of its military hardware from the Soviet Union at a time when few other countries were willing to part with military technologies. The Soviet Union Entered into various agreements allowing India to jointly produce military equipment. Culture: Hindi films and Indian culture were popular in the Soviet Union. A large number of Indian writers and artists visited the USSR.

The reason for the revival for most of their economies was the export of natural resources like oil, natural gas and minerals. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are major oil and gas producers. Other countries have gained because of the oil pipelines that cross their territories for which they get rent. Some amount of manufacturing has restarted.

• The expression ‘South Asia’ usually includes the following countries: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

• The mighty Himalayas in the north and the vast Indian Ocean, the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal in the south, west and east respectively provide a natural insularity to the region, which is largely responsible for the linguistic, social and cultural distinctiveness of the subcontinent.

• The boundaries of the region are not as clear in the east and the west, as they are in the north and the south. Afghanistan and Myanmar are often included in discussions of the region as a whole. China is an important player but is not considered to be a part of the region.

• The various countries in South Asia do not have the same kind of political systems. Despite many problems and limitations, Sri Lanka and India have successfully operated a democratic system since their independence from the British. You will study more about the evolution of democracy in India in the textbook that deals with politics in India since independence.

• It is, of course, possible to point out many limitations of India’s democracy; but we have to remember the fact that India has remained a democracy throughout its existence as an independent country.

• The same is true of Sri Lanka. Pakistan and Bangladesh have experienced both civilian and military rulers, with Bangladesh remaining a democracy in the post-Cold War period.

• Pakistan began the post- Cold War period with successive democratic governments under Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif respectively.

Self explanatory.

• The government of India supported the demand of the people of East Pakistan for their independence and helped them financially and militarily. This resulted in a war between India and Pakistan in December 1971 that ended in the surrender of then Pakistani forces in East Pakistan and the formation of Bangladesh as an independent country.

• Bangladesh drafted its constitution declaring faith in secularism, democracy and socialism. However, in 1975 Sheikh Mujib got the constitution amended to shift from the parliamentary to presidential form of government. He also abolished all parties except his own, the Awami League.

• The king accepted the demand for a new democratic constitution in 1990, in the wake of a strong pro democracy movement. However, democratic governments had a short and troubled career.

• During the nineties, the Maoists of Nepal were successful in spreading their influence in many parts of Nepal. They believed in armed insurrection against the monarch and the ruling elite.

• This Led to a violent conflict between the Maoist guerrillas and the armed forces of the king. For some time, there was a triangular conflict among the monarchist forces, the democrats and the Maoists. In 2002, the king abolished the parliament and dismissed the government, thus ending even the limited democracy that existed in Nepal.

In April 2006, there were massive, country wide, pro-democracy protests. The struggling pro-democracy forces achieved their first major victory when the king was forced to restore the House of Representatives that had been dissolved in April 2002. The largely non-violent movement was led by the Seven Party Alliance (SPA), the Maoists and social activists.

• Sri Lanka has retained democracy since its independence in 1948. But it faced a serious challenge, not from the military or monarchy but rather from ethnic conflict leading to the demand for secession by one of the regions.

• After its independence, politics in Sri Lanka (it was then known as Ceylon) was dominated by forces that represented the interest of the majority Sinhala community. They were hostile to a large number of Tamils who had migrated from India to Sri Lanka and settled there.

• This migration continued even after independence. The Sinhala nationalists thought that Sri Lanka should not give ‘concessions’ to the Tamils because Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhala people only.

• The Sri Lankan problem involves people of Indian origin,and there is considerable pressure from the Tamil people in India to the effect that the Indian government should protect the interests of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.

• The government of India has from time to time tried to negotiate with the Sri Lankan government on the Tamil question. But in 1987, the government of India for the first time got directly involved in the Sri Lankan Tamil question. India signed an accord with Sri Lanka and sent troops to stabilise relations between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamils.

• Eventually, the Indian Army got into a fight with the LTTE. The presence of Indian troops was also not liked much by the Sri Lankans. They saw this as an attempt by India to interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka. In 1989, the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) pulled out of Sri Lanka without attaining its objective.

• Despite their differences, India and Bangladesh do cooperate on many issues. Economic relations have improved considerably in the last 20 years. Bangladesh is a part of India’s Look East (Act East since 2014) policy that wants to link up with Southeast Asia via Myanmar.

• On disaster management and environmental issues, the two states have cooperated regularly. In 2015, they exchanged certain enclaves. Efforts are on to broaden the areas of cooperation further by identifying common threats and being more sensitive to each other’s needs.

• The Indian government has been unhappy with Bangladesh’s denial of illegal immigration to India, its support for anti-Indian Islamic fundamentalist groups, Bangladesh’s refusal to allow Indian troops to move through its territory to northeastern India, and its decision not to export natural gas to India or allow Myanmar to do so through Bangladeshi territory.

• Bangladeshi governments have felt that the Indian government behaves like a regional bully over the sharing of river waters, encouraging rebellion in the Chittagong Hill Tracts, trying to extract its natural gas and being unfair in trade. The two countries could not resolve their boundary dispute for a long while.

• India enjoys a very special relationship with Bhutan too and does not have any major conflict with the Bhutanese government.

• The efforts made by the Bhutanese monarch to weed out the guerrillas and militants from northeastern India that operate in his country have been helpful to India. India is involved in big hydroelectric projects in Bhutan and remains the Himalayan kingdom’s biggest source of development aid.

• India’s ties with the Maldives remain warm and cordial. In November 1988, when some Tamil mercenaries from Sri Lanka attacked the Maldives, the Indian air force and navy reacted quickly to the Maldives’ request to help stop the invasion.

• India has also contributed towards the island’s economic development, tourism and fisheries. Indian security agencies see the Maoist movement in Nepal as a growing security threat, given the rise of Naxalite groups in various Indian states from Bihar in the north to Andhra Pradesh in the south.