Complete solutions to all ten exercise questions printed at the end of NCERT Class 12
Political Science, Contemporary World Politics, Chapter 1 The End of Bipolarity.
The questions are reproduced in the English edition’s own wording and numbering, and each answer
is written the way it should be written in the exam. The questions the chapter asks in its margins, and its class activity, are answered at the end.
Both editions of this chapter print ten exercise questions in the same order, so the
numbering here matches the Hindi book too. One wording differs: in question 2 the English edition
prints “Soviet invasion of Afghanistan” where the Hindi edition prints the Afghan crisis. It is
the same event of 1979, so the chronological answer is unchanged.
1 Question 1
Q. 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
Answer: (c) People enjoyed economic freedom.
This is the wrong statement. The Soviet economy was planned and controlled by the state, and
“State ownership was the dominant form of ownership: land and productive assets were owned and
controlled by the Soviet state”. Economic freedom in the sense of private ownership and private
enterprise did not exist; in fact the Soviet revolution was “the biggest attempt in human history
to abolish the institution of private property”.
The other three are correct descriptions. The revolution “was inspired by the ideals of
socialism, as opposed to capitalism”; the state owned and controlled the factors of production;
and “The economy was planned and controlled by the state”.
2 Question 2
Q. 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
Answer: d, a, b, c
| Order | Event | When |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | d. Russian Revolution | 1917 |
| 2 | a. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan | 1979 |
| 3 | b. Fall of the Berlin Wall | 9 November 1989 |
| 4 | c. Disintegration of the Soviet Union | December 1991 |
The chapter dates each of these itself: the USSR “came into being after the socialist
revolution in Russia in 1917”; “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 weakened the system
even further”; the wall “was finally broken by the people on 9 November 1989”; and in December
1991 Russia, Ukraine and Belarus “declared that the Soviet Union was disbanded”.
3 Question 3
Q. 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
Answer: (d) Crises in the Middle East.
This is not an outcome of the disintegration. The chapter’s account of the consequences never
mentions the Middle East; the crises there have their own separate causes and long predate 1991.
The other three are outcomes the chapter states directly. It “meant the end of Cold War
confrontations”, because “The ideological dispute over whether the socialist system would beat the
capitalist system was not an issue any more” (a). The Commonwealth of Independent States was formed
in December 1991 (b). And “power relations in world politics changed”, with the US becoming the
sole superpower (c).
4 Question 4
Q. Match the following:
i. Mikhail Gorbachev ii. Shock Therapy iii. Russia
iv. Boris Yeltsin v. Warsaw
a. Successor of USSR b. Military pact c. Introduced reforms
d. Economic model e. President of Russia
Answer:
| List I | List II | Why |
|---|---|---|
| i. Mikhail Gorbachev | c. Introduced reforms | He “introduced economic and political reform policies of perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness)” |
| ii. Shock Therapy | d. Economic model | It was “the model of transition in Russia, Central Asia and east Europe” influenced by the World Bank and the IMF |
| iii. Russia | a. Successor of USSR | “Russia was now accepted as the successor state of the Soviet Union” |
| iv. Boris Yeltsin | e. President of Russia | “The first elected President of Russia (1991-1999)” |
| v. Warsaw | b. Military pact | “The Warsaw Pact, a military alliance, held them together” |
5 Question 5
Q. Fill in the blanks.
Answer:
| Blank | Answer |
|---|---|
| a. The Soviet political system was based on ______ ideology. | socialist |
| b. ______ was the military alliance started by the USSR. | The Warsaw Pact |
| c. ______ party dominated the Soviet Union’s political system. | The Communist (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) |
| d. ______ initiated the reforms in the USSR in 1985. | Mikhail Gorbachev |
| e. The fall of the ______ symbolised the end of the Cold War. | Berlin Wall |
Each answer is the chapter’s own: the revolution was “inspired by the ideals of socialism”;
the Warsaw Pact was the military alliance that held the socialist bloc together; “The Soviet
political system centred around the communist party, and no other political party or opposition
was allowed”; Gorbachev “had become General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
in 1985” and initiated the reforms; and the Berlin Wall “was its greatest symbol”, so its fall
stood for the end of the Cold War.
6 Question 6
Q. Mention any three features that distinguish the Soviet economy from that of a
capitalist country like the US.
Answer:
1. Ownership. In the Soviet Union state ownership was the dominant form of ownership,
and land and productive assets were owned and controlled by the Soviet state. In a capitalist
country like the US, private ownership is the dominant form and the factors of production are
owned by individuals and companies.
2. Planning. The Soviet economy was planned and controlled by the state; every aspect of
it was decided by the state rather than by the market. A capitalist economy is driven by market
forces, by the decisions of buyers and sellers and by competition.
3. Welfare and the minimum standard of living. The Soviet state ensured a minimum
standard of living for all citizens, and the government subsidised basic necessities including
health, education, childcare and other welfare schemes. In a capitalist system these are largely
paid for by the citizen, and there is no such guarantee.
A fourth point you can add: there was no competition in the Soviet system and no private
enterprise, so the domestic consumer industry “produced everything from pins to cars, though their
quality did not match that of the Western capitalist countries”.
7 Question 7
Q. What were the factors that forced Gorbachev to initiate the reforms in the USSR?
Answer:
1. The economy had become stagnant. Wages continued to grow, but productivity and
technology fell considerably behind that of the West. This led to shortages in all consumer goods,
food imports increased every year, and the Soviet economy “was faltering in the late 1970s and
became stagnant”.
2. The cost of the arms race. The Soviet Union managed to match the US “from time to
time, but at great cost”, and its resources went into maintaining a nuclear and military arsenal
and developing its satellite states in Eastern Europe and the five Central Asian Republics. That
was a weight the economy was no longer able to carry.
3. Technological backwardness. Reforms were necessary “to keep the USSR abreast of the
information and technological revolutions taking place in the West”. The country lagged behind in
technology and infrastructure such as transport and power.
4. The war in Afghanistan. “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 weakened the
system even further.”
5. Administrative and political stagnation. The Communist Party had ruled for over 70
years without being accountable to the people. Ordinary people were alienated by slow and stifling
administration, rampant corruption, the inability of the system to correct its mistakes, the
unwillingness to allow openness, and the centralisation of authority in a vast land, while party
bureaucrats gained more privileges than ordinary citizens.
6. The knowledge of the West. Ordinary citizens became more knowledgeable about the
economic advance of the West and could see the disparities, and “the reality of its backwardness
came as a political and psychological shock”.
8 Question 8
Q. What were the major consequences of the disintegration of the Soviet Union for
countries like India?
Answer:
1. The end of the bipolar world and the rise of a single superpower. The end of the Cold
War left the US as the sole superpower, and countries like India had to deal with a world in which
one power dominated instead of two balancing each other. Backed by the power and prestige of the
US, the capitalist economy became the dominant economic system internationally.
2. A shift towards capitalist economic policy. Institutions like the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund became powerful advisors to the post-communist countries because they
gave them loans for their transitions to capitalism. Liberal democracy emerged as the best way to
organise political life, so the appeal of the socialist model that India’s public sector had drawn
on weakened.
3. Many new countries to deal with. The end of the Soviet bloc meant the emergence of
many new countries, each with its own identity, interests and difficulties. India had to build
fresh relations with all of them, and it “has maintained good relations with all the
post-communist countries”.
4. Russia remained India’s strongest partner. The strongest relations are still those
between Russia and India, and Indo-Russian relations are an important aspect of India’s foreign
policy. India benefits on Kashmir, energy supplies, sharing information on international terrorism,
access to Central Asia, and balancing its relations with China; Russia benefits because India is
the second largest arms market for Russia.
5. A shared vision of a multipolar world. Russia and India share a vision of a multipolar
world order, which they understand as the co-existence of several powers, collective security,
greater regionalism, negotiated settlements of international conflicts, an independent foreign
policy for all countries, and decision making through bodies like the UN. More than 80 bilateral
agreements have been signed as part of the Indo-Russian Strategic Agreement of 2001.
9 Question 9
Q. What was Shock Therapy? Was this the best way to make a transition from communism to
capitalism?
Answer:
What it was. 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. Each country was required to make a
total shift to a capitalist economy, rooting out completely any structures evolved during the
Soviet period. Private ownership was to be the dominant pattern of ownership; privatisation of
state assets and corporate ownership patterns were to be brought in immediately; collective farms
were to be replaced by private farming. The transition ruled out any alternate or “third way”.
Externally it meant a sudden and complete switch to free trade, foreign direct investment as an
engine of change, deregulation and currency convertibility, and the break-up of the existing trade
alliances among the Soviet bloc countries so that each state was linked directly to the West.
No, it was not the best way. The chapter’s own verdict is that it “did not lead the
people into the promised utopia of mass consumption” and that “Generally, it brought ruin to the
economies and disaster upon the people of the entire region”. The evidence:
1. About 90 per cent of Russia’s industries were put up for sale, entire industries virtually
disappeared, and the sale was called “the largest garage sale in history”.
2. Citizens were given vouchers but most sold them in the black market because they needed the
money, so ordinary people gained nothing from privatisation.
3. The value of the ruble declined dramatically and inflation was so high that people lost all
their savings.
4. 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.
5. The old system of social welfare was systematically destroyed and the withdrawal of subsidies
pushed large sections of the people into poverty; the middle classes were pushed to the periphery
of society and a mafia emerged.
6. About half of Russia’s 1,500 banks and other financial institutions went bankrupt.
7. Democratic institutions were neglected: constitutions were drafted in a hurry, presidents were
given the widest possible powers, and elected parliaments were left relatively weak.
The better way would have been a gradual transition, in which the change was managed by
government-directed policy rather than by market forces alone, in which the existing structures
were reformed rather than dismantled overnight, and in which building democratic institutions was
given the same priority as economic transformation.
10 Question 10
Q. 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”.
Answer (an essay AGAINST the proposition):
India should not replace its friendship with Russia by a closer alignment with the US. India’s
foreign policy has never been about choosing a camp, and the disintegration of the second world is
not a reason to start.
1. The relationship rests on trust, not on the Cold War. Indo-Russian relations are
“embedded in a history of trust and common interests and are matched by popular perceptions”.
Indian heroes from Raj Kapoor to Amitabh Bachchan are household names in Russia and many
post-Soviet countries, and India is part of the popular memory there. A relationship of that kind
is not built again quickly if it is dropped.
2. India’s hard interests still run through Russia. India benefits on Kashmir, energy
supplies, sharing information on international terrorism, access to Central Asia, and balancing
its relations with China. The Indian military gets most of its hardware from Russia; Russia is
important for India’s nuclear energy plans and gave the cryogenic rocket when India needed it;
and it has repeatedly come to India’s assistance during oil crises.
3. The two countries want the same kind of world. Russia and India share a vision of a
multipolar world order: several powers co-existing, collective security, greater regionalism,
negotiated settlements, an independent foreign policy for all countries, and a UN that is
strengthened, democratised and empowered. A foreign policy that focused on the sole superpower
would work against that vision.
4. Russia needs India too, so the relationship is balanced. India is the second largest
arms market for Russia, and the two have collaborated on various scientific projects. A
relationship in which both sides gain is more durable than one in which India is the junior
partner.
Conclusion. The sensible course is not to swap one friend for another but to widen the
circle. India should build its relations with the US on their own merits, keep and deepen its
partnership with Russia, and continue the good relations it has maintained with all the
post-communist countries. That is exactly what an independent foreign policy in a multipolar
world means.
If you argue FOR the proposition, the strongest points are that the US emerged as the
sole superpower and the capitalist economy became the dominant economic system internationally,
that the World Bank and the IMF, which the US backs, became the powerful advisors on economic
transition, and that Russia in the 1990s was itself in economic ruin and in no position to be a
reliable partner. Answer either way, but use the chapter’s own evidence.
11 In-text Questions (asked within the chapter)
The chapter also asks questions in its margins and gives one class activity. They are not in the exercise list, but they test the same ideas, so an answer to each is given here in the order the book prints them.
In-text Q1. I am amazed! How could so many sensitive people all over the world admire a system like this?
Answer: Because the Soviet system stood for real achievements as well as for its failures. It came out of a revolution “inspired by the ideals of socialism, as opposed to capitalism, and the need for an egalitarian society”, which the chapter calls “perhaps the biggest attempt in human history to abolish the institution of private property and consciously design a society based on principles of equality”. After the Second World War the Soviet economy was more developed than the rest of the world except for the US, and the state ensured a minimum standard of living for all citizens, subsidising health, education, childcare and other welfare schemes. People elsewhere admired these ideals and achievements. What they saw less clearly was the other side the chapter describes: a very bureaucratic and authoritarian system, the lack of democracy and of freedom of speech, and a one-party state that was unaccountable to the people.
In-text Q2. I heard someone say “The end of the Soviet Union does not mean the end of socialism.” Is that possible?
Answer: Yes. What collapsed was one particular system: the Soviet model of a one-party state, a planned economy controlled entirely by the state, and state ownership of all land and productive assets. Socialism as an idea, the ideal of equality and “the need for an egalitarian society” that inspired the revolution, did not disappear with that state. Many countries continue to use parts of it, such as welfare schemes, subsidised health and education, and a public sector, inside a democratic system. The chapter’s own account of shock therapy, which ruled out any “third way” and brought “ruin to the economies and disaster upon the people”, is itself a reason why people continued to look for alternatives to pure capitalism.
In-text Q3. Locate the Central Asian Republics on the map.
Answer: This is a map task: use the map of Central, Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States printed in your textbook. The five Central Asian Republics to locate are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The chapter describes the region as lying next to Russia, China, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and close to West Asia.
In-text Q4. I can see the shock. But where is the therapy? Why do we talk in such euphemisms?
Answer: A euphemism is a mild or pleasant name given to something harsh. “Therapy” suggests a treatment that heals, but the chapter’s verdict is that shock therapy “did not lead the people into the promised utopia of mass consumption” and “brought ruin to the economies and disaster upon the people of the entire region”: about 90 per cent of Russia’s industries were sold off, the ruble collapsed, people lost all their savings, the real GDP of 1999 was below that of 1989, and large sections were pushed into poverty. So the “shock” is real and the “therapy” is hard to find. Such names are used because they make a painful policy sound like a necessary cure, which helps the governments and advisers who push it, here the World Bank and the IMF, win acceptance for it.
In-text Q5. What is the difference between nationalism and secessionism? If you succeed, you are celebrated as a nationalist hero, and if you fail you are condemned for crimes of secessionism.
Answer: Nationalism is a people’s feeling of being one nation and their desire to govern themselves; secessionism is the demand of a region or group to break away from an existing country. Often they are the same movement seen from two sides, which is the point of the margin note. The Baltic republics, Ukraine and the others whose “rise of nationalism and the desire for sovereignty” broke up the USSR succeeded, became independent states and are remembered as national movements. Chechnya and Dagestan, which have had “violent secessionist movements” inside Russia, have not succeeded, so Moscow treats them as secessionists and has used indiscriminate military bombing against them.
In-text Q6. Make a list of the similarities between India and the USSR in their political and economic ideologies.
Answer:
- Both gave the state a leading role in the economy and planned the economy; India too followed planned development through five-year plans.
- Both built up a large public sector. The Soviet Union assisted India’s public sector companies and gave aid and technical assistance for steel plants like Bhilai, Bokaro and Visakhapatnam and for Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.
- Both were committed to the ideal of an egalitarian society; India’s Constitution calls India a socialist republic.
- Both provided welfare for citizens through the state: subsidised education, health and other schemes.
- Both opposed colonialism and sought a world order not dominated by one power; today India and Russia share a vision of a multipolar world order.
The key difference to add: India remained a multi-party parliamentary democracy with a mixed economy and private property, while the USSR was a one-party state in which no other political party or opposition was allowed.
Class activity (Steps). Select any five Cold War allies each of the Soviet Union and the US, divide the class into ten groups, and let each group prepare a profile of its country during the Cold War and after the collapse of communism, saying what difference the disintegration of the second world made to it.
How to do it: This is a group project, so there is no single answer. Allies of the Soviet Union you can pick include the east European members of the Warsaw Pact, such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia; allies of the US include members of NATO. For each country, compare its political system, economy and society before and after 1991, and use this chapter’s own points: the end of communist regimes in eastern Europe, the wish of the Baltic and east European states to join the European Union and NATO, and the hardships of shock therapy. End each presentation with how the people of that country felt about themselves as citizens, as the book asks.