Paper I was fairly simple...

Paper II was a bit of a problem for me...

My answers to both questions of section II of paper II were so general...

In fact, I didn't even know the specifics of the last American president's visit to India. I just wrote about how Obama visited India whilst snubbing Pakistan, a country that's actually doing its bidding and the negative impact was felt at all levels here and what not... I wrote about how the US wants to use India as a shield against China in the region whilst only maintaining a 'strategic' partnership with Pakistan, etc, etc. It was fairly general. Too general, in fact.

The evolution of the two-nation theory was also very typical - the downfall of Muslims in 1707, their subsequent political fragmentation, which led to their social and economic downfall... followed by the rise of the Sikhs, Marhatas and the British and the rejection of Western education.. And with this, the apparent incompatibility between Muslims and Hindus as two distinct nationalities got to the forefront..

With regards to the judiciary question, I just mentioned how in the past, the supreme court issued and upheld its cowardly Doctrine of Necessity, which opened the floodgates for men like Ayub, Zia and Musharraf. But this particular CJ stood up against a dictator on a legal principal against all odds and now, no one will think about usurping power illegally because the judiciary has once and for all established itself as a separate organ of the state...


Overall, I wasn't satisfied with my answers. I thought they lacked the specific knowledge that makes good answers stand out. I'm not expecting more than 40% in this paper and that also if I'm lucky. But since paper I went well, I'm hoping to reach 100/200 at the very least. *fingers crossed*

__________________
He conquers who endures.