NCERT Solutions Class 10 Civics Chapter 1 Power-sharing PDF

Concept used. Power sharing means dividing the powers of government among different organs, levels, communities and parties so that power is not concentrated in one pair of hands. NCERT groups the arrangements of modern democracies into four forms. A clear answer names each form, says between whom power is shared, and gives one real example.

1. Horizontal distribution of power. Power is shared among the different organs of government, the legislature, executive and judiciary, all placed at the same level. None can have unlimited power; each keeps a check on the others. This is called a system of checks and balances.
   Example: In India, the courts can declare a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional, so the judiciary holds the legislature in check.
2. Vertical division of power (federal division). Power is shared among governments at different levels, a general government for the whole country and governments at the regional or provincial level.
   Example: In India, power is divided between the Union (Central) Government, the State Governments, and below them the local self-governments (panchayats and municipalities).
3. Power shared among different social groups (community government). Power is shared among groups such as religious and linguistic communities, often through community government or reserved seats, so that minorities also feel they share power.
   Example: The `community government' in Belgium is elected by people belonging to one language community, and reserved constituencies in India.
4. Power shared among political parties, pressure groups and movements. In a democracy citizens choose between competing parties and groups. This competition keeps power in check, and power may be openly shared by two or more parties forming a coalition government.
   Example: A coalition government in which several political parties together form the ruling alliance.

The four forms are (1) horizontal (among organs: legislature, executive, judiciary), (2) vertical (among levels: Union, State, local), (3) community (among social groups) and (4) political (among parties / pressure groups), with the examples shown above.

Concept used. NCERT gives two kinds of reasons for sharing power. A prudential reason is based on careful calculation of gains and losses: we share power because it produces better outcomes. A moral reason is based on values: we share power because it is the right thing to do, since power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A full answer states one of each and ties each to an Indian example.

1. Prudential reason. Power sharing is good because it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups. Since social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, sharing power is a good way to ensure the stability of the political order.
   Indian example: India is a land of many languages, religions and regions. By dividing power between the Centre and the States and by giving States their own governments, India keeps regional and linguistic tensions from boiling over into conflict, which keeps the country stable.
2. Moral reason. Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. A truly democratic government is one in which citizens, through participation, acquire a stake in the system. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.
   Indian example: Through the Panchayati Raj system, power is given to local bodies so that ordinary people directly take part in decisions about their own village or town. This honours the democratic right of people to rule themselves, quite apart from whether it “works better”.
3. Put together. The prudential reason looks at the result (stability, fewer conflicts); the moral reason looks at the principle (democracy means people share in power). Both support the same conclusion: power should be shared.

Prudential: power sharing reduces conflict and ensures stability, e.g. the Centre–State division keeps India's diversity peaceful. Moral: power sharing is the spirit of democracy, e.g. Panchayati Raj lets ordinary people share in ruling themselves.

Concept used. The chapter argues that power sharing rests on two kinds of reasons: prudential reasons, which depend on a society having divisions to manage, and moral reasons, which apply to every democracy because power sharing is the spirit of democracy itself. The correct conclusion must be the one that captures both reasons, not just the prudential one.

1. Why Thomman is incomplete. Thomman ties power sharing only to religious, linguistic or ethnic divisions, that is, only the prudential reason. He misses the moral reason that applies even where there are no such divisions.
2. Why Mathayi is incomplete. Mathayi limits power sharing to big countries with regional divisions. But even small and socially uniform democracies share power among organs of government and with citizens; size is not the test.
3. Why Ouseph is right. Ouseph says every society needs some form of power sharing, small or large, divided or united. This is correct because, beyond settling conflict, power sharing is the moral foundation of democracy: people everywhere have the right to be consulted and to share in how they are governed.

I agree with Ouseph. Power sharing is not only a tool for divided or large societies (the prudential reason); it is the very spirit of democracy (the moral reason), so every society, even a small, undivided one, needs some form of it.

Concept used. The Belgian model of power sharing is built on accommodation: instead of letting any one language group dominate, Belgium changed its Constitution so that Dutch, French and German speakers share power equally, with a special community government for cultural, educational and language matters. Any measure that suppresses one community's language works against this spirit.

1. State the verdict. No, the ban is not in keeping with the spirit of Belgium's power sharing arrangements.
2. Reason one, it denies equality. Belgium's whole arrangement was designed to give the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities equal respect and rights. Banning French in schools treats French speakers as inferior, exactly the domination the model was created to prevent.
3. Reason two, it forces assimilation, not accommodation. Belgian power sharing accommodates differences; it does not force everyone to give up their language. “Integration” achieved by banning a language is forced assimilation, which can revive the very tension the arrangement settled.

No. The ban goes against the spirit of Belgium's power sharing, which is based on equal respect and accommodation of all language communities. Suppressing French amounts to one community dominating another, the opposite of the accommodation Belgium chose.

Concept used. A prudential reason for power sharing is one based on practical benefit, it points to a good outcome (better government, less corruption, more efficiency) rather than to the principle of democracy. To answer, scan the passage and pick the line that promises a practical gain, not the line that praises democracy as such.

1. Sort the passage's claims. Moral claims: “establishes true democracy”, “restores power to the people”. Prudential claims: “reduce corruption”, “increase administrative efficiency”, “eliminate the corrupt middlemen”.
2. Pick one prudential reason. Giving power to the panchayats is a way to reduce corruption and increase administrative efficiency, because when people themselves plan and carry out development schemes, they keep a closer watch and cut out the corrupt middlemen.
3. Confirm it is prudential. This reason praises a practical outcome (less corruption, more efficiency), so it is prudential and not moral.

One prudential reason: giving more power to the panchayats reduces corruption and increases administrative efficiency, since people who plan and run their own schemes control them better and remove the corrupt middlemen.

Concept used. An argument is in favour of power sharing when it names a benefit of sharing power, and against when it names a drawback. We test each statement A–G, keep the benefits, drop the drawbacks, then match the surviving set to a code.

1. Judge each statement. A. reduces conflict, benefit (keep). B. decreases arbitrariness, benefit (keep). C. delays decision making, drawback (drop). D. accommodates diversities, benefit (keep). E. increases instability and divisiveness, drawback (drop). F. promotes people's participation, benefit (keep). G. undermines the unity of the country, drawback (drop).
2. Collect the favourable set. The statements in favour are A, B, D, F.
3. Match the code. The set A, B, D, F is exactly option (a).

Correct option: (a) A B D F.

Concept used. We must judge each statement against the actual facts of the chapter. The key fact for Belgium is that the French-speaking minority was relatively rich and powerful, which is what the Dutch-speaking majority resented, so it was not the Dutch majority that sought to dominate. Sri Lanka's facts are about majoritarianism by the Sinhala majority.

1. Statement A, false. In Belgium it was the relatively wealthy and powerful French-speaking minority that had the upper hand in the early years; the Dutch-speaking majority did not impose domination. So A is incorrect.
2. Statement B, correct. In Sri Lanka the government followed majoritarian policies (Sinhala as the only official language, preference to Sinhala applicants, state protection of Buddhism) to ensure the dominance of the Sinhala-speaking majority. B is correct.
3. Statement C, correct. The Sri Lankan Tamils launched struggles and demanded a federal arrangement to protect their language, culture and equal opportunity in education and jobs. C is correct.
4. Statement D, correct. Belgium peacefully changed from a unitary to a federal set-up and created community government, which prevented a possible split of the country along linguistic lines. D is correct.
5. Assemble. Correct statements are B, C and D (A is wrong), which is option (d).

Correct option: (d) B, C and D. Statement A is false because in Belgium it was the French-speaking minority, not the Dutch majority, that was dominant.

Concept used. Each item in List I is one form of power sharing; each item in List II is the name of the government system that realises it. We match by definition: separation of powers = sharing among organs; federal government = sharing among levels; community government = sharing among social groups; coalition government = sharing among parties.

1. 1 (organs) to B (Separation of powers). Sharing power among legislature, executive and judiciary is the horizontal form, called separation of powers.
2. 2 (levels) to D (Federal government). Sharing power among governments at different levels (Union, State, local) is the federal form.
3. 3 (social groups) to A (Community government). Sharing power among social / language groups is done through community government.
4. 4 (political parties) to C (Coalition government). Sharing power among two or more parties is a coalition government.
5. Read the code. The pairing 1-B, 2-D, 3-A, 4-C is option (c).

Correct option: (c) B D A C, i.e. 1→B, 2→D, 3→A, 4→C.

Concept used. Statement A states the moral reason for power sharing (it is good for democracy); statement B states the prudential reason (it reduces conflict between social groups). The chapter accepts both reasons, so we check whether each is true on its own merits.

1. Test A. Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy: it gives citizens a stake in the system and respects their right to be consulted. So A is true (the moral reason).
2. Test B. Power sharing reduces the chance of conflict between social groups, since social conflict tends to cause violence and instability. So B is true (the prudential reason).
3. Combine. Both A and B are true, and they simply state the moral and prudential reasons respectively. The matching code is option (b).

Correct option: (b) Both A and B are true. A is the moral reason and B is the prudential reason for power sharing.