Study the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow :

The smaller states in the alliances used the link to the superpowers for their own purposes. They got the promise of protection, weapons and economic aid against their local rivals, mostly regional neighbors with whom they had rivalries. The alliance systems led by the two superpowers, therefore, threatened to divide the entire world into two camps. This division happened first in Europe. Most countries of Western Europe sided with the US and those of Eastern Europe joined the Soviet camp. That is why, these were also called the ‘western’ and the ‘eastern’ alliances.

(i) Name one organisation each related to the ‘western’ and the ‘eastern’ alliances.

(ii) Why were the smaller states interested in joining the super alliances?

(iii) How did the ‘alliance system’ threaten to divide the world?

What distinguished the dominance of the Congress Party in India from the one-party dominance in other countries ? Explain.

Examine the dramatic changes that took place in the party system in India during 1969 to 1977.

Study the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow:

The lack of genuine international support for democratic rule in Pakistan has further encouraged the military to continue its dominance. The United States and other Western countries have encouraged the military’s authoritarian rule in the past, for their own reasons. Given their fear of the threat of what they call ‘global Islamic terrorism’ and the apprehension that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal might fall into the hands of these terrorist groups, the military regime in Pakistan has been seen as the protector of Western interests in West Asia and South Asia.

(i) What is meant by ‘global Islamic terrorism’?

(ii) Why did Pakistan lack genuine international support for democratic rule?

(iii) Why was the military regime in Pakistan considered as the protector of Western interests in West Asia and South Asia?

Study the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow :

Critics of popular movements often argue that collective actions like strikes, sit-ins and rallies disrupt the functioning of the government, delay decision-making and destabilise the routines of democracy. Such an argument invites a deeper question: why do these movements resort to such assertive forms of action? We have seen that popular movements have raised legitimate demands of the people and have involved large scale participation of citizens. It should be noted that the groups mobilised by these movements are poor, socially and economically disadvantaged sections of the society from marginal social groups.

(i) Popular movements resort to which two types of assertive actions ?

(ii) How far do you agree with the arguments given by the critics ?

(iii) Why are groups involved in popular movements mostly from marginal social groups ?