The End of Bipolarity Class 12 NCERT Solutions

Concept used. A planned (command) economy is one where the state, not the market, owns the means of production and decides what is made, how much, and at what price. The Soviet economy was the classic example. To find the wrong statement, test each option against this definition.

1. (a) Socialism was the dominant ideology: correct. The USSR was built on socialist ideals after the 1917 revolution, opposed to capitalism and aimed at an egalitarian society.
2. (b) State ownership over factors of production: correct. Land and productive assets were owned and controlled by the Soviet state; state ownership was the dominant form.
3. (c) People enjoyed economic freedom: wrong. The economy was planned and controlled by the state, leaving citizens little economic freedom. The system was also bureaucratic and authoritarian.
4. (d) Every aspect of the economy was planned and controlled by the State: correct. This is the defining feature of the Soviet command economy.

(c) People enjoyed economic freedom. This is the wrong statement, because the Soviet economy was planned and controlled by the state.

Concept used. Chronological order means arranging events from the earliest to the latest by their year. Attach the correct year to each event, then sort.

1. (d) Russian Revolution: 1917. The socialist revolution in Russia that led to the founding of the USSR. This is the oldest event.
2. (a) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan: 1979. This costly war weakened the Soviet system further.
3. (b) Fall of the Berlin Wall: November 1989. The wall's fall symbolised the beginning of the end of the communist bloc.
4. (c) Disintegration of the Soviet Union: 1991. In December 1991 the USSR was formally disbanded. This is the most recent event.

Correct order: d (1917) → a (1979) → b (1989) → c (1991), that is, Russian Revolution, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Fall of the Berlin Wall, Disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Concept used. An outcome is a direct consequence that followed from an event. The chapter lists three broad consequences of the Soviet collapse: the end of Cold War confrontations, a change in world power relations, and the emergence of many new countries. Test each option against these.

1. (a) End of the ideological war between the US and USSR: a genuine outcome. The collapse ended the capitalist-versus-socialist ideological dispute, which was the heart of the Cold War.
2. (b) Birth of CIS: a genuine outcome. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was formed in December 1991 out of the former Soviet republics.
3. (c) Change in the balance of power in the world order: a genuine outcome. The US became the sole superpower and a unipolar order emerged.
4. (d) Crises in the Middle East: not an outcome. The Middle East crises have their own long-running causes (oil, regional rivalries, the Arab-Israeli conflict) and were not caused by the Soviet disintegration.

(d) Crises in the Middle East. This is NOT an outcome of the disintegration of the USSR.

Concept used. A matching question pairs each item on the left with the one description on the right that fits it best. Identify what each term is, then attach the matching label.

1. Mikhail Gorbachev: the last Soviet leader, who began the reforms of perestroika and glasnost in 1985. Match with (c) Introduced reforms.
2. Shock Therapy: the World Bank and IMF model for a sudden, complete switch from communism to capitalism. Match with (d) Economic model.
3. Russia: after 1991 Russia was accepted as the successor state of the USSR and took its UN Security Council seat. Match with (a) Successor of USSR.
4. Boris Yeltsin: the first elected President of Russia, who led the opposition to the 1991 coup. Match with (e) President of Russia.
5. Warsaw: the Warsaw Pact was the Soviet-led military alliance of the socialist bloc. Match with (b) Military pact.

i–c, ii–d, iii–a, iv–e, v–b. (Gorbachev: introduced reforms; Shock Therapy: economic model; Russia: successor of USSR; Yeltsin: President of Russia; Warsaw: military pact.)

Concept used. A fill-in-the-blanks question rewards exact recall of the chapter's key terms. Read each sentence, decide what kind of word fits the blank (an ideology, an alliance, a party, a person, a place), and supply the precise term from the text.

1. (a) ideology: the Soviet system was built on socialist ideals, opposed to capitalism. Answer: socialist.
2. (b) military alliance: the bloc was held together by the Warsaw Pact. Answer: Warsaw Pact.
3. (c) dominant party: the system centred on one party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Answer: Communist.
4. (d) reformer of 1985: Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary in 1985 and began the reforms. Answer: Mikhail Gorbachev.
5. (e) symbol of the Cold War's end: the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 symbolised the end of the Cold War. Answer: Berlin Wall.

(a) socialist; (b) Warsaw Pact; (c) Communist; (d) Mikhail Gorbachev; (e) Berlin Wall.

Concept used. The question asks you to contrast two economic systems: the Soviet planned (socialist) economy and the US market (capitalist) economy. A good answer states a Soviet feature and, ideally, names how the US differs on the same point. Three clear features are enough.

The Soviet economy differed from a capitalist economy like that of the US in these ways:

1. State ownership versus private ownership. In the USSR, the state owned and controlled the factors of production: land and productive assets belonged to the Soviet state. In the US, private individuals and companies own most property and businesses.
2. Central planning versus the market. The Soviet economy was planned and controlled by the state, which decided what to produce and at what price. In a capitalist economy, production and prices are decided largely by market forces of demand and supply.
3. Guaranteed welfare versus competition. The Soviet state ensured a minimum standard of living, with subsidised health, education, childcare and other welfare schemes, and no unemployment or no great inequality of the capitalist kind. A US-style economy leaves more to private effort and competition, allowing greater inequality.

A further point you may add: the Soviet state ran a vast domestic consumer industry that produced "everything from pins to cars", though its quality did not match Western goods.

Three distinguishing features: (1) state ownership of all factors of production versus private ownership; (2) central state planning versus the free market; (3) a state-guaranteed minimum standard of living and subsidised welfare versus a competitive, less-regulated capitalist system.

Concept used. This is a causes question. You must list the internal weaknesses and external pressures that made reform unavoidable for Mikhail Gorbachev, who became General Secretary in 1985. Group the factors so they are easy to mark.

The main factors that forced Gorbachev to begin reforms were:

1. Economic stagnation and the arms-race burden. The Soviet economy had become stagnant. It used much of its resources on a huge nuclear and military arsenal and on maintaining satellite states in Eastern Europe and the Central Asian republics, an economic burden the system could not bear.
2. Technological backwardness. The USSR lagged behind the West in technology, infrastructure (transport, power) and in meeting the people's needs. Reforms were necessary to keep up with the information and technological revolutions taking place in the West.
3. Consumer shortages and food imports. Wages grew but productivity and technology fell behind, causing shortages of all consumer goods. Food imports rose every year. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 weakened the system further.
4. Political stagnation and lost legitimacy. The Communist Party had ruled for over 70 years and was unaccountable to the people. Rampant corruption, a stifling bureaucracy, the absence of openness, and party bureaucrats enjoying privileges left ordinary people alienated, and the government lost popular backing.
5. Awareness of the West. Citizens grew more knowledgeable about the economic advance of the West and could see the gap between their system and the Western one, which came as a psychological shock.

Gorbachev was forced to reform by economic stagnation, the crushing cost of the arms race and the satellite states, technological backwardness, consumer shortages and rising food imports, a corrupt and unaccountable party, the Afghanistan war, and people's growing awareness of how far the West had advanced.

Concept used. The disintegration of the USSR ended the bipolar world and created a unipolar order led by the US. This question asks how that shift affected countries like India: both the wider change and India's specific gains and adjustments.

For countries like India, the major consequences were:

1. End of bipolarity and a unipolar world. The collapse left the US as the sole superpower, and the capitalist economy became the dominant international system. Bodies like the World Bank and the IMF grew powerful as advisors and lenders to countries making the transition.
2. Rise of liberal democracy and capitalism as models. Liberal democracy emerged as the favoured way to organise political life, and a free-market, capitalist path became the dominant economic model. This influenced India's own move towards economic reform and openness.
3. Emergence of many new states. The end of the Soviet bloc created many new countries, each with its own aspirations, giving India new partners to build relations with, especially the post-communist republics.
4. Continued, valued ties with Russia. India kept its strong relationship with Russia, the successor state, which remained important for arms, energy, space technology (for example the cryogenic rocket) and support on issues like Kashmir.

The Soviet collapse left a unipolar, US-led world with capitalism and liberal democracy dominant and the World Bank and IMF powerful. For India it meant adjusting to this order and reforming its economy, gaining many new post-communist partners, while keeping its valued ties with Russia for arms, energy and diplomatic support.

Concept used. Shock Therapy was the model, influenced by the World Bank and the IMF, for a sudden and complete switch from a state-controlled socialist economy to a capitalist one in Russia, Central Asia and East Europe in the 1990s. The question has two parts: define it, then judge whether it was the best route. A reasoned "no" is the stronger answer.

What Shock Therapy involved:

1. Total shift to capitalism. Each country had to root out all Soviet-era structures completely and make private ownership the dominant pattern, with immediate privatisation of state assets.
2. Privatisation and private farming. State industries were sold off; collective farms were replaced by private farming and capitalism in agriculture. No "third way" between socialism and capitalism was allowed.
3. Opening to the world. A sudden, complete switch to free trade, foreign direct investment (FDI), financial deregulation and currency convertibility, with old Soviet-bloc trade alliances broken and each state linked directly to the West.

Why it was not the best way. The evidence in the chapter shows it brought ruin, not the promised utopia of mass consumption:

• In Russia the large state industrial complex almost collapsed, as about 90 per cent of industries were put up for sale, often undervalued, in "the largest garage sale in history".
• The value of the ruble fell sharply, inflation wiped out people's savings, the collective-farm system broke down, and Russia had to import food. Russia's real GDP in 1999 was below its 1989 level.
• Welfare was destroyed, subsidies were withdrawn, poverty spread, the middle class was ruined, a mafia took over many activities, and new rich-poor disparities appeared. Building democratic institutions was neglected.

Shock Therapy was the IMF and World Bank model for an abrupt, complete switch from communism to capitalism: total privatisation, private farming, free trade, FDI and currency convertibility, with no middle path. It was not the best way: it brought economic collapse, runaway inflation, lost savings, mass poverty, a powerful mafia and neglected democracy, so a more gradual, home-grown transition would have served the people better.

Concept used. This is an argumentative essay. You may take either side, but you must take a clear stand and defend it with reasons from the chapter. A balanced "against" answer, India should keep Russia while engaging the US, is well supported by the text, which stresses the depth of Indo-Russian ties.

Stand: Against the proposition. India should not drop Russia for the US; it should deepen ties with the US and keep its traditional friendship with Russia. The reasons:

1. A multi-dimensional, trusted relationship. Indo-Russian relations rest on a history of trust and common interests, backed by popular goodwill. They are not a Cold War leftover but a living partnership, with more than 80 bilateral agreements signed under the Indo-Russian Strategic Agreement of 2001.
2. Defence dependence. India gets most of its military hardware from Russia, which has agreed to joint production of equipment. India is the second-largest arms market for Russia, so the relationship benefits both sides.
3. Energy and resources. As an oil-importing nation, India has repeatedly been helped by Russia during oil crises; Russia is important to India's nuclear energy plans and its imports of oil and gas from Russia and the Central Asian republics.
4. Science, space and diplomacy. Russia assisted India's space programme (for example the cryogenic rocket) and many scientific projects, and supports India on Kashmir, terrorism and energy. The two share a vision of a multipolar world order.
5. Engage the US too, without choosing sides. The US is the sole superpower and a valuable partner for trade, technology and investment. But friendship with the US need not come at Russia's expense; India's interest lies in good relations with both.

Against the proposition. India should not abandon Russia for the US. The Indo-Russian relationship is deep and multi-dimensional, vital for defence, energy, space and diplomatic support, and built on lasting trust and a shared vision of a multipolar world. India should strengthen ties with the US as well, but balance, not a one-sided tilt, best serves its interests.