Analysis of UPSC Prelims 2018 | Indian Polity - Videos

14
76

UPSC Prelims 2018 Analysis and Answer key: https://goo.gl/fK6dHN ———————————————————————————————————–
Download links for slides :
– Indian Polity, Geography, Environment, Science & Tech: https://goo.gl/AvkDy2
– Economics & Current Affairs (except government schemes): https://goo.gl/ysbLA4
– Indian History, Art, Culture & Current Affairs (Government schemes): https://goo.gl/9wsxKG
———————————————————————————————————–
Analysis of UPSC Prelims 2018:
– Polity: https://goo.gl/fEh2jZ
– Economics: https://goo.gl/L7b9Vs
– Geography, Envt. and S&T: https://goo.gl/NN4Zfm
– Indian History, Art & Culture: https://goo.gl/CEtWUr
– Current Affairs: https://goo.gl/rHVNdA
———————————————————————————————————–

source

14 COMMENTS

  1. Would have loved to see Suryawanshi Sir for this year's analysis.
    With respect to the question on law and liberty, I believe that the institutes are overly emphasizing on certain preconceived notions based on statements by political philosophers. The second statement was made by Locke and Hobbes alike to perpetuate and propogandise the divine theory of the sovereign. Did we not have umpteen number of laws during the British rule, most of which restricted our liberty. Law is merely one form of social control, there are others like morality, religion as well- which often granted people greater liberty than law in earlier days. The first statement on the other hand which is supported by thinkers such as AV Dicey goes to another extreme by assuming that too many laws are liberty restricting. Both these statements have their fair share of truth but are not all encompassing.
    The fourth statement on the other hand is more balanced. Please focus on the words "too often" therein. So in case I want to start a business today, but the law prohibits the same tomorrow, my economic liberty is at danger. Again i may make a defamatory statement today, which is declared to be non-defamatory tomorrow. One may argue that this enhances liberty rather than prejudicing it. But what if the law says day after tomorrow that the statement is still defamatory. Would it not affect my liberty? Would it not make me think twice before I make a statement thereafter? Also note that this statement is more balanced than the first two statements mainly due to the words "too often". Certainty and stability of law is a vital facet of rule of law.

  2. Sir regarding money bill question why not option 1 is correct. It gives the meaning that a bill is said to be money bill if it deals only with tax alteration and not concerned with any other provisions

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here