The End of BipolarityClass 12 Contemporary World Politics NCERT Solutions
10 Solutions
Generated by KedovoAI
Solution 1 of 10
Q1Exercises
Which among the following statements that describe the nature of Soviet economy is wrong? a. Socialism was the dominant ideology b. State ownership/control existed over the factors of production c. People enjoyed economic freedom d. Every aspect of the economy was planned and controlled by the State
Solution
c. People enjoyed economic freedom
Explanation: The Soviet economy was fundamentally based on the principles of socialism and state control. The state owned and controlled all factors of production, including land and productive assets. The economy was centrally planned, meaning the government decided what to produce, how much to produce, and for whom. This system did not allow for economic freedom for individuals, as private property was abolished and market forces were non-existent. Therefore, the statement that people enjoyed economic freedom is incorrect.
Q2Exercises
Arrange the following in chronological order: a. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan b. Fall of the Berlin Wall c. Disintegration of the Soviet Union d. Russian Revolution
Solution
The correct chronological order is:
- d. Russian Revolution (1917): This event led to the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).
- a. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979): This military action significantly weakened the Soviet system.
- b. Fall of the Berlin Wall (1989): This event symbolised the beginning of the end of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe and the Cold War.
- c. Disintegration of the Soviet Union (1991): The USSR was formally dissolved, marking the end of the bipolar world order.
Q3Exercises
Which among the following is NOT an outcome of the disintegration of the USSR? a. End of the ideological war between the US and USSR b. Birth of CIS c. Change in the balance of power in the world order d. Crises in the Middle East
Solution
d. Crises in the Middle East
Explanation: The disintegration of the USSR had several major outcomes:
- It marked the end of the Cold War and the ideological conflict between communism and capitalism.
- It led to the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) by former Soviet republics.
- It fundamentally changed the global balance of power, leading to a unipolar world dominated by the US.
While the power dynamics in the Middle East were affected by the collapse of the Soviet Union, the crises in the region have deep historical roots and multiple causes that predate and are independent of the USSR's disintegration. Therefore, it is not considered a direct outcome in the same way as the other options.
Q4Exercises
Match the following: a. Successor of USSR i. Mikhail Gorbachev b. Military pact ii. Shock Therapy c. Introduced reforms iii. Russia d. Economic model iv. Boris Yeltsin e. President of Russia v. Warsaw
Solution
The correct matches are:
- a. Successor of USSR matches with iii. Russia. (Russia inherited the Soviet Union's seat in the UN Security Council and its international commitments.)
- b. Military pact matches with v. Warsaw. (The Warsaw Pact was the military alliance of the Soviet bloc countries.)
- c. Introduced reforms matches with i. Mikhail Gorbachev. (He initiated the policies of 'perestroika' and 'glasnost'.)
- d. Economic model matches with ii. Shock Therapy. (This was the model of transition from communism to capitalism adopted by post-communist states.)
- e. President of Russia matches with iv. Boris Yeltsin. (He was the first elected President of Russia after the Soviet Union's collapse.)
Q5Exercises
Fill in the blanks. a. The Soviet political system was based on __________ ideology. b. __________ was the military alliance started by the USSR. c. __________ party dominated the Soviet Union's political system. d. __________ initiated the reforms in the USSR in 1985. e. The fall of the __________ symbolised the end of the Cold War.
Solution
a. The Soviet political system was based on socialist/communist ideology.
b. The Warsaw Pact was the military alliance started by the USSR.
c. The Communist party dominated the Soviet Union's political system.
d. Mikhail Gorbachev initiated the reforms in the USSR in 1985.
e. The fall of the Berlin Wall symbolised the end of the Cold War.
Q6Exercises
Mention any three features that distinguish the Soviet economy from that of a capitalist country like the US.
Solution
Three features that distinguished the Soviet economy from a capitalist economy like the US were:
-
State Ownership vs. Private Ownership: In the Soviet Union, the state was the dominant form of ownership. Land and all productive assets were owned and controlled by the Soviet state. This was a direct contrast to the capitalist system of the US, where private ownership of property and means of production is a fundamental principle.
-
Planned Economy vs. Market Economy: The Soviet economy was a centrally planned system. The state controlled every aspect, deciding what goods were produced, their quantity, and their prices. In the US, the economy is driven by market forces of supply and demand, with minimal government intervention. Companies and individuals make economic decisions based on profit motives.
-
Lack of Consumer Choice and Quality: The Soviet state ensured a minimum standard of living and subsidised basic necessities. However, the domestic consumer industry produced goods of a quality that did not match Western standards. In a capitalist economy like the US, competition among private producers leads to a wider variety of goods and a greater emphasis on quality to attract consumers.
Q7Exercises
What were the factors that forced Gorbachev to initiate the reforms in the USSR?
Solution
Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to initiate reforms in the USSR due to a combination of severe internal problems. The key factors were:
-
Economic Stagnation: The Soviet economy had become stagnant by the late 1970s. Productivity and technology were falling considerably behind the West. The heavy expenditure on maintaining a nuclear arsenal and military presence in Eastern Europe placed a huge burden on the economy, leading to severe shortages of consumer goods.
-
Technological Lag: The Soviet Union was lagging behind the West in the information and technological revolutions. Gorbachev recognised that reforms were necessary to keep the USSR abreast of these changes and to modernise the country's infrastructure and industries.
-
Political and Administrative Issues: The Soviet system had become highly bureaucratic, authoritarian, and unaccountable. The one-party rule of the Communist Party stifled democracy and freedom of speech. Rampant corruption, an inability to correct mistakes, and the centralisation of authority alienated ordinary people, leading to a loss of popular support for the government.
-
Growing Awareness among Citizens: Soviet citizens were becoming more aware of the economic progress and political freedoms in the West. This knowledge of the disparity between their system and Western capitalism created a sense of political and psychological shock, increasing pressure for change and reform.
Q8Exercises
What were the major consequences of the disintegration of the Soviet Union for countries like India?
Solution
The disintegration of the Soviet Union had significant consequences for India, altering its foreign policy and strategic calculations:
-
End of a Key Ally: During the Cold War, the USSR was a crucial political, economic, and military ally for India. It supported India on the Kashmir issue in the UN, provided military hardware when other nations would not, and assisted in the development of public sector industries like steel plants. The collapse of the USSR meant India lost this steadfast support on the global stage.
-
Shift in Foreign Policy: The end of the bipolar world forced India to recalibrate its foreign policy. In a new world order dominated by the US, India had to build new relationships and strengthen ties with the United States and other Western countries, while simultaneously working to maintain its historic relationship with Russia, the successor state of the USSR.
-
Vision of a Multipolar World: India and Russia continued to share a vision of a multipolar world order, where several powers coexist rather than a single hegemonic power dominating. This shared interest became a cornerstone of the post-Cold War Indo-Russian relationship, focusing on collective security, regionalism, and strengthening international bodies like the UN.
-
Continued Strategic Partnership with Russia: Despite the USSR's collapse, India's relationship with Russia remained strong. Russia continued to be India's largest arms supplier, a key partner in energy and space technology, and a collaborator on various scientific projects. This relationship became vital for India to balance its relations with other major powers like China and the US.
Q9Exercises
What was Shock Therapy? Was this the best way to make a transition from communism to capitalism?
Solution
What was Shock Therapy?
Shock Therapy was the model of economic transition from an authoritarian socialist system to a democratic capitalist system, adopted in Russia, Central Asia, and Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism. Influenced by the World Bank and the IMF, it involved a rapid and radical shift to a market-based economy. Key features included:
- Privatisation: This meant the immediate privatisation of state-owned assets and industries.
- Marketisation: It required a complete switch to free trade, openness to foreign direct investment, deregulation, and currency convertibility.
- End of State Control: Collective farms were to be replaced by private farming, and government subsidies and social welfare systems were to be dismantled.
- Integration with the West: It involved breaking up trade alliances among former Soviet bloc countries and linking them directly to the Western economic system.
Was it the best way?
Based on the consequences described in the chapter, Shock Therapy was not the best way to manage the transition. Instead of leading to prosperity, it had devastating effects:
- Economic Collapse: It led to the ruin of economies across the region. In Russia, the state-controlled industrial complex collapsed, as valuable industries were undervalued and sold at throwaway prices in what was called 'the largest garage sale in history'.
- Social Hardship: The systematic destruction of the old social welfare system pushed large sections of the population into poverty. High inflation wiped out people's savings, and the disintegration of collective farms led to food insecurity.
- Increased Inequality: Privatisation led to new disparities, dividing society between a small group of newly rich and a vast majority who were impoverished. A 'mafia' emerged to control many economic activities.
- Weak Democratic Institutions: The focus on economic transformation overshadowed the development of democratic institutions. Constitutions were drafted in a hurry, often creating super-presidencies with weak parliaments and judiciaries.
In conclusion, the abrupt and harsh nature of Shock Therapy brought economic ruin and social disaster rather than the promised utopia, suggesting that a more gradual and state-guided approach to transition might have been more effective and less painful for the people.
Q10Exercises
Write an essay for or against the following proposition: "With the disintegration of the second world, India should change its foreign policy and focus more on friendship with the US rather than with traditional friends like Russia".
Solution
Argument Against: The Case for a Balanced Foreign Policy
The proposition that India should pivot its foreign policy to focus more on friendship with the US at the expense of its traditional relationship with Russia is a flawed and short-sighted approach. While adapting to the post-Cold War unipolar reality and strengthening ties with the US is necessary, abandoning a time-tested partnership with Russia would be a strategic blunder. A balanced foreign policy that nurtures both relationships serves India's national interests far better.
First, the Indo-Russian relationship is built on a deep history of trust and mutual benefit. As the chapter highlights, the Soviet Union was a steadfast ally to India during the Cold War, providing critical military, economic, and political support when it was unavailable from the West. Russia, as the successor state, has continued this legacy. It remains India's largest supplier of military hardware, a crucial partner for its nuclear energy and space programs, and a supporter of India's positions on key issues like Kashmir. This strategic partnership provides India with a reliable source of high-end defence technology and geopolitical support, which is essential for balancing its relations with other powers, particularly China.
Second, India and Russia share a common vision for the future of the international system. Both nations advocate for a multipolar world order where power is distributed among several major countries, rather than being concentrated in a single hegemon. This shared objective promotes an international system based on collective security, regionalism, and decision-making through empowered international bodies like the UN. This vision aligns with India's long-standing policy of strategic autonomy, allowing it to pursue an independent foreign policy without being drawn into any single power bloc. An over-reliance on the US would compromise this autonomy.
Finally, while a strong relationship with the US is undeniably important for economic growth, access to technology, and global influence, it should not be an exclusive focus. International relations are dynamic, and placing all bets on one partner is risky. By maintaining strong ties with Russia, India diversifies its strategic options and enhances its leverage on the world stage. It allows India to engage with Central Asian republics, where Russia has significant influence, and collaborate on issues like counter-terrorism and energy security.
In conclusion, the disintegration of the second world necessitated a recalibration, not a replacement, of India's foreign policy. Focusing solely on the US would ignore the enduring strategic value and historical reliability of the Indo-Russian partnership. The most prudent path for India is to continue strengthening its engagement with the US while simultaneously preserving and nurturing its special and privileged strategic partnership with Russia. This balanced approach is the true hallmark of a mature and independent foreign policy.