News

IGNOU (MPS-003) INDIA: DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT Assignment Answer 2024

Answer five questions in all, selecting at least two questions from each section. Each question is to be answered in about 500 words. Each question carries 20 marks.

SECTION-I

  1. Elaborate upon the Communist Party of India’s perspective on Independence.
  2. Assess the potential for transformative change inherent in the Directive
    Principles of State Policy within the Indian Constitution.
  3. “The judiciary is the most significant institution for protecting the rights and
    interests of citizens.” Comment.
  4. Examine the circumstances and factors contributing to India’s centralisation of
    federal powers.
  5. Write a short note on each part of the following questions in about 250
    words:
    a) Jurisdiction of High Courts
    b) Parliamentary Sovereignty

SECTION-II

  1. What is a market economy? Analyse its benefits and drawbacks.
  2. Analyse the economic consequences of liberalisation in India.
  3. Elaborate on the regionalisation of Indian politics.
  4. Discuss the key indicators to measure and assess sustainable development.
  5. Write a short note on each part of the following questions in about 250
    words:
    a) Gender Equity
    b) Planned Economy

Click Here download Assignment Questions from Official IGNOU website

ignou assignment answer

Note: Students should write Only 5 Questions-Answers in this paper, i.e- If you write any 2 Answers in Section-I then you have to write any 3 Answer in Section-II. In that way If you write any 3 Answers in Section-I then you have to write any 2 Answer in Section-II

SECTION-I

The Communist Party of India (CPI) played a significant role in the struggle for India’s independence, offering a distinct perspective that differed from mainstream nationalist movements. Formed in 1925, the CPI brought a Marxist-Leninist ideology to the Indian political landscape, advocating for a class-based struggle and emphasizing the role of the working class in the fight against colonialism.

The CPI’s approach to independence was rooted in the belief that the struggle against British imperialism should be closely tied to the broader goal of achieving socialism. The party argued that political independence alone would not address the underlying socio-economic inequalities perpetuated by capitalism. For the CPI, true liberation meant not only freedom from colonial rule but also the establishment of a socialist society where wealth and power were redistributed among the working class.

One of the key figures in shaping the CPI’s perspective on independence was M.N. Roy, a Marxist theorist who had a significant influence on the party’s early years. Roy argued that the struggle for political independence should not be divorced from the larger struggle for economic and social justice. He envisioned a united front of workers, peasants, and other oppressed classes working together to achieve both political freedom and socio-economic transformation.

The CPI’s involvement in the independence movement was characterized by a commitment to mass mobilization and direct action. The party participated in various anti-colonial protests, strikes, and movements, often collaborating with other nationalist forces. However, the CPI’s unique contribution was its emphasis on class consciousness and the need to challenge not only British rule but also the capitalist system that sustained it.

During the Quit India Movement of 1942, the CPI supported the call for British withdrawal but simultaneously pressed for the establishment of a people’s government. The party believed that the vacuum created by the departure of the British should be filled by a government representing the interests of the working class and other marginalized groups. This stance set the CPI apart from some other factions within the independence movement that focused primarily on achieving political sovereignty.

The post-independence period posed new challenges and opportunities for the CPI. The party participated in the Constituent Assembly, contributing to the drafting of the Indian Constitution. However, as the Cold War intensified, the CPI faced internal divisions and external pressures. In 1964, the party split into two factions – the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] and the Communist Party of India (CPI). This division reflected ideological differences and debates over the party’s stance towards the Indian state and its alignment with the Soviet Union.

Despite the challenges and changes, the CPI’s perspective on independence left a lasting impact on Indian politics. The emphasis on class struggle, social justice, and the interconnectedness of political and economic liberation continues to influence leftist movements in India. The CPI’s legacy serves as a reminder that the quest for independence is multifaceted, encompassing not only the removal of foreign rule but also the transformation of domestic socio-economic structures to ensure equity and justice for all.

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) within the Indian Constitution represent a set of guidelines and principles that outline the moral and socio-economic obligations of the state towards its citizens. While these principles are not justiciable and enforceable by the courts, they hold immense potential for transformative change in the Indian socio-political landscape.

Firstly, the DPSP articulate the state’s commitment to establishing a welfare state that promotes social justice and equality. The principles enshrined in Articles 38, 39, and 41 emphasize the need to minimize socio-economic inequalities and ensure the well-being of all citizens. By highlighting the importance of providing adequate means of livelihood, promoting equal pay for equal work, and distributing wealth and resources to eliminate disparities, the DPSP lay the groundwork for policies that can address the root causes of poverty and inequality.

Moreover, the DPSP underscore the significance of education and healthcare. Articles 41 and 45 advocate for the provision of free and compulsory education for children and healthcare facilities for all citizens. These principles recognize that access to education and healthcare is fundamental to individual development and societal progress. Transformative change can be achieved by translating these principles into actionable policies, ensuring quality education and healthcare services reach every corner of the country.

The DPSP also address the agrarian question and rural development. Article 39(b) and (c) emphasize that the ownership and control of material resources should be so distributed as to subserve the common good. This provides a basis for land reforms and policies that aim to uplift the rural population. Implementing agrarian reforms and promoting sustainable rural development can significantly transform the lives of millions of farmers and marginalized communities.

Furthermore, the DPSP advocate for the protection of the environment and the improvement of animal welfare. Articles 48 and 48A stress the importance of preventing the slaughter of cows and calves and protecting forests and wildlife. Recognizing the ecological interdependence of all forms of life, these principles provide a foundation for policies that promote sustainable development and environmental conservation, contributing to transformative change in India’s approach towards nature.

The DPSP also address the rights of workers and the need for humane working conditions. Article 42 calls for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These principles can be leveraged to advocate for labor reforms, ensuring fair wages, safe working conditions, and social security for workers. Transforming the labor landscape in line with DPSP can have a cascading effect on societal well-being.

Despite their non-justiciable nature, the DPSP serve as a moral compass for the state, guiding policymakers in formulating laws and policies that align with the constitutional vision. While their implementation may face challenges, the potential for transformative change lies in the commitment of the government and society to uphold these principles. The DPSP act as a blueprint for an inclusive and just society, where the state actively works towards the welfare of its citizens, bridging gaps and fostering equitable development. To harness the full potential of the DPSP, there is a need for sustained political will, public awareness, and proactive policy measures aimed at translating these principles into tangible outcomes for the benefit of all citizens.

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in safeguarding the rights and interests of citizens within a democratic framework, making it arguably the most significant institution for upholding justice and ensuring the rule of law. This crucial role extends across various dimensions, including protection of fundamental rights, interpretation of laws, and ensuring checks and balances within the government.

First and foremost, the judiciary serves as the guardian of fundamental rights enshrined in a country’s constitution. In many democratic nations, including India and the United States, the judiciary is entrusted with the responsibility of interpreting and upholding the constitutional rights of citizens. This includes protecting freedoms such as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right to equality, and the right to life and personal liberty. The judiciary acts as a bulwark against any potential infringement on these fundamental rights by the executive or legislative branches of government, ensuring that citizens’ liberties are preserved and respected.

Moreover, the judiciary acts as the final arbiter in legal disputes, ensuring that justice is served impartially. Courts, through their judgments, set precedents that guide future legal decisions and contribute to the evolution of jurisprudence. This function is particularly crucial in ensuring a fair and consistent application of laws. The judiciary’s commitment to the rule of law and its ability to interpret statutes and legal provisions help in maintaining order and fairness in society.

Additionally, the judiciary acts as a check on the powers of the other branches of government. In a system of checks and balances, the judiciary ensures that neither the executive nor the legislative branch oversteps its constitutional authority. The power of judicial review allows the courts to assess the constitutionality of laws and executive actions, preventing potential abuses of power. This role becomes increasingly vital in times of political turmoil or when there is a risk of the concentration of power in any one branch of government.

Furthermore, the judiciary serves as a protector of marginalized and vulnerable groups in society. Through public interest litigation and other mechanisms, the judiciary can intervene to address social injustices and promote inclusivity. Landmark judgments on issues like affirmative action, environmental protection, and minority rights showcase the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that the rights of all citizens, irrespective of their background or social status, are upheld.

The independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of its effectiveness. Judicial independence ensures that judges can decide cases impartially, without fear of external pressure or interference. This independence is often enshrined in constitutions and protected through mechanisms such as secure tenure and financial autonomy. An independent judiciary instills public confidence in the legal system, reinforcing the belief that justice will be served without bias.

However, it is essential to recognize that the judiciary is not without its limitations. The effectiveness of the judiciary is contingent on factors such as judicial capacity, backlog of cases, and the efficiency of the legal system. Access to justice also plays a critical role, as a truly significant judiciary ensures that all citizens, regardless of their socio-economic status, can avail themselves of legal remedies.

In conclusion, the judiciary stands as the cornerstone of a democratic society, acting as the ultimate protector of citizens’ rights and interests. Its role in interpreting and upholding the constitution, ensuring the rule of law, and acting as a check on government powers is indispensable for the functioning of a just and equitable society. A strong and independent judiciary is fundamental to the preservation of democracy and the protection of the rights and liberties of all citizens.

India’s centralization of federal powers has been shaped by a combination of historical, political, and economic factors. Since gaining independence in 1947, India has grappled with the challenge of balancing the need for a strong central authority with the imperative of accommodating its diverse and pluralistic society. Several circumstances and factors have contributed to the centralization of federal powers in India.

  1. Partition and Integration of Princely States: At the time of independence, the partition of British India led to the creation of Pakistan, resulting in a significant reorganization of territories. The integration of princely states into the Indian Union necessitated a strong central authority to maintain cohesion and prevent regional fragmentation. The need for unity and stability in the face of communal tensions and territorial complexities compelled the centralization of powers.
  2. Security Concerns: India’s security challenges, including conflicts with Pakistan and later with China, played a crucial role in centralizing federal powers. The necessity for a unified defense strategy and the maintenance of internal security in the face of regional and cross-border threats led to a concentration of military and security-related powers at the central level.
  3. Economic Planning and Development: The imperative of economic development and the pursuit of a planned economy in the early decades after independence prompted the central government to take a leading role in economic policy and planning. The centralized control over key sectors of the economy, including industries, finance, and trade, was seen as essential for achieving rapid economic growth and reducing regional disparities.
  4. Emergency Period and Constitutional Amendments: The declaration of a state of emergency in 1975 marked a significant episode in the centralization of power. During this period, there was a suspension of democratic institutions, and the central government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, wielded extensive powers. Although the emergency was a temporary phase, it led to constitutional amendments that expanded the authority of the central government, strengthening its ability to assert control in times of perceived crisis.
  5. Economic Liberalization and Globalization: The economic liberalization policies initiated in 1991 opened up the Indian economy to global forces. While economic reforms were characterized by a shift towards market-oriented policies, they also reinforced the central government’s role in formulating and overseeing major economic decisions. The need for a uniform economic policy and response to globalization contributed to the maintenance of a strong central authority.
  6. Political Culture and Dominance of National Parties: India’s political landscape has been marked by the dominance of national parties, particularly the Indian National Congress for several decades. The concentration of power within these national parties often translated into a strong central leadership. The winner-takes-all electoral system, coupled with a political culture that often prioritizes central authority, further contributed to the centralization of powers.
  7. Administrative Efficiency and Uniformity: The centralization of powers has been justified, at times, on grounds of administrative efficiency and uniformity. A central authority is seen as better equipped to implement national policies consistently across diverse states, ensuring standardized governance and service delivery.
  8. Resource Disparities and Fiscal Dependency: Fiscal disparities among states and the uneven distribution of resources have created a dependency on the central government for financial assistance. States with fewer economic resources often rely on central grants and allocations, giving the central government greater influence over their policies and priorities.

In conclusion, the centralization of federal powers in India has been influenced by a complex interplay of historical, political, economic, and administrative factors. While there have been calls for greater decentralization to accommodate regional diversity and promote local governance, the challenge lies in striking a balance that preserves national unity without stifling the autonomy and development aspirations of individual states.

The jurisdiction of High Courts, a critical aspect of the Indian judicial system, is defined by the Constitution and various statutes. High Courts in India, positioned as the second-highest judicial authority in the states and union territories, possess both original and appellate jurisdiction.

  1. Original Jurisdiction: High Courts exercise original jurisdiction in matters of significant legal importance. Cases involving constitutional issues, disputes between the state and the central government, and cases related to the violation of fundamental rights can be directly filed in the High Court. This original jurisdiction empowers High Courts to adjudicate on matters that have a substantial impact on legal and constitutional principles.
  2. Appellate Jurisdiction: High Courts function as appellate courts, hearing appeals from lower courts within their territorial jurisdiction. This includes appeals from district courts and other subordinate tribunals. The appellate jurisdiction covers both civil and criminal cases, providing litigants with an avenue for redressal if they are dissatisfied with the judgments of lower courts.
  3. Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts are bestowed with the authority to issue writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, and quo warranto. This writ jurisdiction enables them to protect and enforce fundamental rights, ensuring that citizens are safeguarded against any infringement by the state or its agencies.
  4. Supervisory Jurisdiction: High Courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals within their territorial limits. This supervisory role allows them to ensure that justice is administered effectively and that lower courts adhere to legal procedures and principles.
  5. Advisory Jurisdiction: High Courts may also possess advisory jurisdiction, allowing the Governor of a state to seek the court’s opinion on legal matters or questions of public importance. While not as frequently invoked, this advisory function adds another dimension to the diverse roles that High Courts play in the legal landscape.

Overall, the jurisdiction of High Courts reflects a blend of original, appellate, and special jurisdictions, emphasizing their pivotal role in upholding the rule of law, safeguarding constitutional rights, and ensuring the efficient administration of justice within their designated territories.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a fundamental principle of constitutional law in countries with a parliamentary system, emphasizing the supreme authority and autonomy of the legislative body, typically the Parliament. This concept, also known as legislative supremacy, implies that Parliament has the unrestricted power to create or end any law and cannot be bound by previous legislation.

In the United Kingdom, often considered the epitome of parliamentary sovereignty, the doctrine holds that no Parliament can pass a law that a future Parliament cannot change or repeal. This means that Parliament can, in theory, enact any law, alter the constitution, or abolish its own existence. While this power is theoretically absolute, it operates within the broader constitutional framework and conventions of the country.

Parliamentary sovereignty is not an absolute license for arbitrary power; it exists alongside other constitutional principles and safeguards. In countries like the United Kingdom, although parliamentary sovereignty is a key tenet, certain constitutional conventions, the Human Rights Act, and the country’s membership in the European Union (prior to Brexit) imposed limitations on the exercise of this sovereignty. Judicial review is another important check, allowing courts to scrutinize the legality of legislative actions.

The principle has been subject to evolving interpretations and debates, especially as constitutional systems grapple with the complexities of modern governance, human rights considerations, and international law obligations. While parliamentary sovereignty remains a foundational element of parliamentary democracies, the extent and boundaries of its application are continually shaped by legal, political, and societal dynamics.