In modern democracies, power sharing can take the following forms:

1. Among organs of government – Legislature, executive, and judiciary share power horizontally through a system of checks and balances. Example: In India, judiciary can check laws made by the legislature.

1. Among levels of government – Power is divided vertically between central, state, and local governments (federalism). Example: Union and State Governments in India.

1. Among social groups – Religious and linguistic minorities are given representation. Example: Reserved constituencies for SCs/STs in India.

1. Among political parties and pressure groups – Competition among parties ensures power is not concentrated. Example: Coalition governments like the NDA or UPA in India.

Source: Power Sharing, Chapter 1, Forms of Power-Sharing

---

The examiner expects all four forms to be named with a brief description and one example each. This is the standard textbook classification. Missing even one form will cost marks. Keep examples short — one line each. The terms "horizontal distribution" and "vertical division" are bonus terminology that can impress examiners.

(B) II and III

Statements II and III are correct — power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups and ensures the stability of political order. Statement I describes majoritarianism (undesirable), and Statement IV is incorrect as power sharing reduces, not brings, socio-political opposition.

The textbook (Why power sharing is desirable?, Chapter 1) clearly states: "power sharing helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups" and "power sharing is a good way to ensure the stability of political order." Statement I describes what power sharing opposes (imposing majority will), and Statement IV contradicts the text entirely. Examiners expect students to identify the two correct prudential reasons for power sharing.

Option A — I, II and III

Power sharing deepens democracy (I), reduces conflicts among social groups (II), and ensures political stability (III). Statement IV is incorrect — power sharing reduces socio-economic struggles, it does not bring them.

The textbook (Chapter 1) states power sharing reduces conflict, ensures stability, and is the spirit of democracy. Statement IV is a distractor — "bringing socio-economic struggles" is not a benefit of power sharing; it contradicts the purpose. Eliminate options containing IV (B, C, D), leaving A as correct.

Power sharing is desirable for two reasons:

1. Prudential reason: It reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups. Social conflict leads to violence and political instability. Imposing majority will over others undermines national unity in the long run.

1. Moral reason: Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. A legitimate government is one where citizens participate and acquire a stake in the system.

Source: Chapter 1 — Why power sharing is desirable?

Examiners expect both reasons clearly named — prudential and moral — with a brief explanation of each. Simply saying "it is good" without these two distinct reasons will lose marks. Use these exact terms as they are from the textbook. For 2 marks, one point per reason is sufficient; no need to elaborate further.

(b) To create a separation of powers to prevent from authoritarianism.

Checks and balances ensure that the legislature, executive, and judiciary each limit the others' powers, so no single organ exercises unlimited authority.

Source: Forms of power-sharing, Chapter 1

The passage explicitly states: "Each organ checks the others. This results in a balance of power among various institutions… This arrangement is called a system of checks and balances." Option (b) is the only choice that correctly reflects this idea. Options (a), (c), and (d) contradict the democratic principle of distributed power described in the chapter.

(d) Ensuring linguistic accommodation.

Brussels formed a separate government to give equal representation to both Dutch and French-speaking communities, ensuring linguistic accommodation.

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1

---

The passage clearly states that Brussels needed a separate government where both communities have equal representation — this was to accommodate the linguistic conflict between Dutch and French speakers in the capital. Options (a), (b), and (c) are not mentioned in the context of forming Brussels' separate government.

Power sharing increases trust between different groups because it ensures that no single group can dominate others. The following points support this statement:

1. Reduces conflict: Power sharing reduces the possibility of conflict between social groups. Social conflict often leads to violence and political instability, so sharing power ensures political stability and order.

1. Prevents majoritarianism: Imposing the will of the majority over minorities undermines national unity in the long run. Power sharing prevents such tyranny and makes minorities feel secure.

1. Promotes participation: People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed. When citizens participate, they acquire a stake in the system, building trust in the government.

1. Accommodates diversity: Power sharing gives space to diverse social, religious, and linguistic groups in government, preventing alienation and fostering mutual respect.

1. Spirit of democracy: Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy — a legitimate government is one where all groups feel represented and heard.

Source: Chapter 1 — Why Power Sharing is Desirable; Forms of Power-Sharing

---

• The question asks you to support the statement, so write in favour of power sharing — no need to present counter-arguments.
• Examiners look for prudential reasons (reduces conflict, ensures stability) and moral reasons (right to participation, legitimacy) from the textbook.
• Use textbook language like "tyranny of majority," "political instability," "accommodates diversity," and "spirit of democracy" — these fetch marks.
• Five points map neatly to 5 marks; keep each point one or two lines.

The Act passed in 1956 and other constitutional provisions created deep conflict between the Sinhala and Tamil communities in Sri Lanka:

1. Official Language Act (1956): Sinhala was recognised as the only official language, completely disregarding Tamil. This made Tamils feel politically and culturally marginalised.

1. Preferential policies: The government favoured Sinhala applicants for university admissions and government jobs, denying Tamils equal opportunities.

1. Constitutional provision: The constitution stipulated that the state shall protect and foster Buddhism, hurting the sentiments of Tamil Hindus and other minorities.

1. Feeling of alienation: Tamils felt the government denied them equal political rights and ignored their interests, straining relations between the two communities.

1. Demands and civil war: Tamils launched struggles for recognition of Tamil as an official language and regional autonomy. Their demands were repeatedly denied, leading to demands for a separate Tamil Eelam and eventually a devastating civil war that lasted until 2009.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

• Examiners expect you to cover all three types of majoritarian measures — language, jobs/education, and religion — plus the consequences (alienation → civil war).
• Name the 1956 Act specifically and link each measure to its impact on Tamils.
• End with the outcome (civil war, refugees, economic setback) to complete the chain of causation.
• 5 points for a 5-mark question is an ideal structure here.

Answer: B — Only I, III and IV are correct.

Belgium formed a community government (I), gave equal representation to language groups in central and Brussels governments (III), and gave additional constitutional powers to regional/local governments (IV). Majoritarian policy (II) was followed by Sri Lanka, not Belgium.

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1

The key is to eliminate Statement II. Belgium's entire approach was to avoid majoritarianism — that was Sri Lanka's mistake. The Belgian model rests on power-sharing, equal representation, community governments, and decentralisation. Examiners expect students to recall that "majoritarian policy" is the negative example (Sri Lanka), not Belgium's solution.

Option A — Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The 1956 Act made Sinhala the only official language, alienating Tamils, which eventually led to civil war.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

The Reason directly explains the Assertion: the majoritarian Act of 1956 was a key step that increased Tamil alienation, leading to conflict and ultimately civil war. So (R) correctly explains (A), making Option A the right choice. Remember — if both statements are true AND the reason logically causes/explains the assertion, choose A.

In India, horizontal distribution of power refers to the division of power among the three organs of government — Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary — at the same level.

The system of Checks and Balances ensures no single organ becomes too powerful:

• The Legislature makes laws, but the Judiciary can declare them unconstitutional.
• The Executive implements laws but is accountable to the Legislature.
• The Judiciary is independent and can review actions of both Legislature and Executive.

This prevents misuse of power and upholds the rule of law in a democracy.

---

The examiner expects students to:

1. Define horizontal distribution briefly.
2. Name all three organs — Legislature, Executive, Judiciary.
3. Give specific examples of how each checks the other (this earns the marks).
4. Conclude with its importance (prevents concentration of power).

Key point: The source passages focus on federalism/decentralisation, but this question draws from Chapter 1 of Political Science (Power Sharing). Answer from standard NCERT knowledge on this topic. Keep the answer tight — three clear points with examples is sufficient for 3 marks.

(C) Cultural diversities

The Belgian leaders recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities, and amended their constitution four times between 1970 and 1993 to work out power-sharing arrangements.

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1 (Power Sharing)

The answer is directly stated in the passage: "They recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities." Students must remember this exact phrase, as options like "administrative" or "religious" diversities are distractors not mentioned in the text.

(d) Division of power among Legislative, Executive and Judiciary.

Horizontal power sharing means power is shared among different organs of government at the same level, i.e., legislature, executive, and judiciary.

• Horizontal = same level (organs of government); Vertical = different levels (Centre, State, Local).
• Option (a) and (b) are vertical/federal sharing between levels of government.
• Option (c) is incorrect because "Army" is not an independent organ of power sharing in this context; it functions under the executive.
• Examiners look for the correct term "organs of government" linked to horizontal sharing.

(a) Both, (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The French-speaking minority was rich and powerful, and Dutch speakers resented this as they got economic development and education much later — R directly explains A.

The passage explicitly states: "The minority French-speaking community was relatively rich and powerful. This was resented by the Dutch-speaking community who got the benefit of economic development and education much later." This makes both A and R true, and R is the direct cause-and-effect explanation for A.

(27.1) If all power is concentrated in one person, quick decisions may be taken but diverse groups and views in society get no voice, which is against the basic principles of democracy.

(27.2) Power sharing is necessary because people are the source of all political power in a democracy. Distributing power among as many citizens as possible ensures everyone has a voice in shaping public policies.

(27.3) When people rule themselves through institutions of self-government, it ensures that diverse groups and views in society receive due respect. Every citizen gets a voice in shaping public policies. This prevents concentration of power in one place and makes governance more inclusive and representative, thereby strengthening democracy.

Source: Chapter 1 – Power Sharing, Forms of Power Sharing

---

• 27.1 is 1 mark — one line linking concentrated power to lack of voice/democratic deficit.
• 27.2 is 1 mark — quote the core principle (people = source of power) and link to distribution.
• 27.3 is 2 marks — needs two connected points: (i) respect for diverse groups/views, and (ii) voice in public policy-making. Examiners look for both ideas from the passage. Don't add outside knowledge; stick to the extract.

(A) Small country of Europe

Belgium is a small country in Europe, smaller in area than the state of Haryana, with a population of a little over one crore.

Source: Belgium and Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

The passage explicitly states "Belgium is a small country in Europe, smaller in area than the state of Haryana." Options B, C, and D are factually wrong on both size and continent. In MCQs, always look for the exact phrase used in the textbook.

Power sharing is necessary in a democracy for the following reasons:

1. Reduces conflict among social groups: Power sharing helps reduce the possibility of conflict between different religious, linguistic, and ethnic groups. Social conflict often leads to violence and political instability.

2. Ensures political stability: Imposing the will of the majority over others may seem attractive in the short run, but in the long run it undermines national unity. Tyranny of the majority is harmful even to the majority itself.

3. Spirit of democracy: Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy. Democratic rule means sharing power with those affected by its exercise. People have a right to be consulted on how they are governed.

4. Legitimate government: When citizens participate in governance, they acquire a stake in the system, making the government more legitimate and accountable.

5. Prudential and moral reasons: Prudentially, power sharing produces better outcomes; morally, sharing power is valuable in itself as it respects every citizen's voice.

Source: Chapter 1 — Power Sharing, "Why power sharing is desirable?" and "Forms of power sharing"

---

• This is a standard 5-mark question. Examiners look for both prudential and moral reasons explicitly stated.
• Mention the key terms: prudential reasons, moral reasons, political stability, tyranny of majority, spirit of democracy.
• You can also briefly reference the Sri Lanka example (majority imposition led to civil conflict) as evidence, but keep it concise.
• Avoid writing a long story about Belgium/Sri Lanka — that wastes marks here. Stick to reasons with brief justifications.

Belgian Model vs Sri Lankan Model of Power Sharing:

| Basis | Belgium | Sri Lanka |
|-------|---------|-----------|
| Approach | Accommodative; power shared among communities | Majoritarian; Sinhala-speaking majority imposed dominance |
| Constitutional Change | Shifted from unitary to federal system (1993); regional governments given constitutional powers | Remained a unitary system; national government retains all powers |
| Minority Treatment | French-speaking minority given equal representation; community governments recognised | Tamil minority's language and interests ignored; Sinhala made official language |
| Outcome | Power-sharing prevented division of country on linguistic lines | Policies led to civil conflict and alienation of Tamil community |
| Lesson | Shows how accommodation and sharing can maintain unity | Shows how majoritarianism creates instability and demands for federalism |

The Belgian model is a positive example of power-sharing through negotiation, while the Sri Lankan model is a negative example showing how denial of power-sharing causes conflict.

Source: Chapter 1 – Power Sharing; Chapter 2 – Federalism

---

• Examiners expect a direct comparison — either in a table (preferred for clarity) or parallel paragraphs.
• Key points to hit: Belgium → federal shift, accommodation, linguistic balance; Sri Lanka → unitary, Sinhala dominance, Tamil alienation, civil conflict.
• Mention the 1993 constitutional change in Belgium and the outcome in each case (unity preserved vs. conflict) for full marks.
• Avoid writing only about one country; both must be covered equally.

Answer: B — Declaring Sinhala as the official language.

In 1956, an Act was passed recognising Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil. This increased alienation among Sri Lankan Tamils, eventually leading to civil war.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

• The question asks specifically about the 1956 law, so option B is the direct answer from the passage.
• Option D (preference for Sinhala in government jobs) was a later policy, not the 1956 Act itself — do not confuse the two.
• Options A and C are incorrect: the law did the opposite of A, and Tamil was not declared official.
• Examiners expect you to identify the correct option and briefly justify it with a factual statement from the chapter.

(36.1) Belgium has a complex ethnic composition. 59% live in the Flemish region and speak Dutch; 40% live in Wallonia and speak French; 1% speak German. In Brussels, 80% speak French and 20% speak Dutch.

(36.2) The term 'ethnic' refers to a social group that shares a common cultural identity, including language, traditions, and heritage, which distinguishes it from other groups.

(36.3) The Belgian Government solved its ethnic problem through a series of constitutional amendments (1970–1993). They adopted a federal system, dividing power between the central government and regional governments (Flemish, Walloon, and Brussels). Equal representation was given to both Dutch and French-speaking ministers in the central cabinet. A separate government was set up for the Brussels region. This power-sharing arrangement ensured that no single community could dominate the other, keeping the country united.

Source: Power Sharing, Chapter 1, Civics (Class 10)

---

• (36.1) is directly from the passage — quote the percentages and regions.
• (36.2) 'Ethnic' is a term from the textbook glossary; it refers to shared cultural/linguistic identity.
• (36.3) goes slightly beyond the passage (as the passage only sets up the problem), but the Belgian model solution is the core concept of this chapter. Examiners expect: federal system, power-sharing, equal cabinet representation, community governments — at least 2–3 points for 2 marks.

(c) 59%

59% of Belgium's population lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch.

Source: Belgium and Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

The passage clearly states: "Of the country's total population, 59 per cent lives in the Flemish region and speaks Dutch language." Note that 40% live in Wallonia (French-speaking) and 80% refers to French-speakers in Brussels — a common distractor in this MCQ.

(b) Sinhala

In 1956, an Act was passed in Sri Lanka to recognise Sinhala as the only official language, disregarding Tamil.

The passage from Chapter 1 directly states: "In 1956, an Act was passed to recognise Sinhala as the only official language, thus disregarding Tamil." This is a factual recall question — just identify the correct language from the source.

(d) (A) is false but (R) is true.

Sri Lanka adopted Sinhala (not Tamil) as the only official language in 1956, disregarding Tamil. However, the Government of Sri Lanka did adopt majoritarian measures to establish Sinhala supremacy, so (R) is correct.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

The key fact to remember: the 1956 Act made Sinhala the only official language — Tamil was disregarded, not recognised. Assertion (A) swaps the two languages, making it false. Reason (R) is accurate — the Sri Lankan government did adopt majoritarian measures. This is a classic "fact-swap" trap in Assertion-Reason questions; always verify each statement carefully against the textbook.

(b) II, III and IV

Statement I is incorrect — majoritarianism undermines democracy. Statements II, III, and IV correctly describe power sharing: it creates balance, reduces conflict, and is the essence of democracy.

The source passage ("Why power sharing is desirable?") states: "power sharing is good because it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups" (Statement III) and "Power sharing is the very spirit of democracy" (Statement IV). It also implies balance and harmony among groups (Statement II). Majoritarianism is explicitly criticised — "Imposing the will of majority community over others… undermines the unity of the nation" — so Statement I is false. Eliminate any option containing I.

In 1956, an Act was passed recognising Sinhala as the only official language, thus disregarding Tamil. This made Sri Lankan Tamils feel that the government denied them equal political rights and discriminated against them in jobs and educational opportunities. They felt none of the major parties was sensitive to their language and culture.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

The examiner wants you to identify the specific 1956 event (the Sinhala-only Act) and link it directly to Tamil alienation. Two points are needed for 2 marks: (1) the Act making Sinhala the sole official language, and (2) the resulting feeling among Tamils of discrimination/denial of rights. Avoid writing about later events like the civil war — stay focused on 1956.

(a) Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true and Reason (R) is the correct explanation of the Assertion (A).

Belgium amended their constitution four times (1970–1993) specifically to work out arrangements to enable everyone to live together within the same country.

The passage directly states: "they amended their constitution four times so as to work out an arrangement that would enable everyone to live together within the same country." Both statements are factually correct, and R directly explains why A happened — making (a) the right choice.

(C) Statements I and II are true and II is the correct explanation of I.

Statement I is true — power sharing is good for democracy. Statement II correctly explains this: it reduces conflict between social groups, ensuring political stability.

The textbook (Why power sharing is desirable?, Chapter 1) explicitly states this as a prudential reason: "power sharing is good because it helps to reduce the possibility of conflict between social groups." Statement II directly explains why Statement I is true, making option (C) the correct choice. Don't confuse this with option (D) — here the link between both statements is direct and explicit.

(C) Only I, III and IV are correct.

Statement II is incorrect because power sharing does not barricade (delay/block) decision-making as an argument in favour of it — that is an argument against it.

The question tests knowledge of arguments in favour of power sharing. Statement II ("Barricades the decision-making process") is actually a criticism/argument against power sharing (opponents argue it slows decisions). Statements I, III, and IV — reducing bias, accommodating diversities, and increasing people's participation — are all standard prudential/moral reasons given in favour of power sharing, as discussed in Chapter 1.

(D) Accommodating linguistic and regional interest.

Belgium amended its constitution to share power among Dutch, French, and German-speaking communities, accommodating linguistic and regional diversities to prevent conflict and division.

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1

The key phrase from the chapter is that Belgian leaders "recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities" and worked out power-sharing arrangements so all communities could live together. Options A and B are opposite to Belgium's federal, decentralised model. Option C is too narrow (community government handles cultural/educational matters, but that is not the primary objective). Option D correctly captures the overall aim.

Horizontal power sharing means power is shared among different organs at the same level — legislature, executive, and judiciary. Each organ checks the others (system of checks and balances), so no single organ has unlimited power.

Vertical power sharing means power is divided among governments at different levels — Central, State, and Local governments. Higher and lower levels of government share power, as in India's federal system.

Source: Forms of Power-Sharing, Chapter 1

The examiner expects you to clearly contrast the two types using the key terms: same level (horizontal) and different levels (vertical). Give one example for each — legislature/executive/judiciary for horizontal; Central/State/Local for vertical. Avoid writing long explanations; two crisp points with examples are enough for 2 marks.

(D) I, II and III

Statements I, II, and III are correct features of Belgium's power-sharing model. Statement IV is incorrect — Belgium adopted accommodative arrangements, not majoritarian measures.

Statement IV is the false one. Majoritarian measures were adopted in Sri Lanka, not Belgium. Belgium did the opposite — it accommodated minorities through constitutional amendments. Examiners expect students to clearly identify which statement contradicts the passage.

Answer: B — Sinhala-speakers

Sinhala-speakers are the majority community in Sri Lanka. Their leaders sought dominance and passed measures establishing Sinhala supremacy, including making Sinhala the only official language in 1956.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

The passage clearly states that "the leaders of the Sinhala community sought to secure dominance over government by virtue of their majority." This confirms Sinhala-speakers are the majority group. For MCQs, one line with the option and a brief justification from the text is sufficient. Avoid writing more than needed.

The Sri Lankan government took several majoritarian steps that increased alienation among Tamils:

1. Official Language Act (1956): Sinhala was declared the only official language, disregarding Tamil entirely.
2. Preferential Policies: Sinhala applicants were favoured for university admissions and government jobs, reducing Tamil opportunities.
3. Constitutional Provisions: The constitution directed the state to protect and foster Buddhism, sidelining Tamil religious identity.

These consecutive measures made Tamils feel that the government denied them equal political rights, discriminated against them in education and employment, and ignored their cultural interests, deepening the sense of alienation.

Source: Majoritarianism in Sri Lanka, Chapter 1

---

• The question asks you to explain, so listing 3 distinct government measures with a brief impact each is the ideal approach for 3 marks.
• Each measure = approximately 1 mark. End with a concluding line linking the measures to alienation.
• Avoid adding information about civil war or Tamil Eelam unless asked — that goes beyond what this question requires.
• Keywords to include: Sinhala, official language, preferential policies, Buddhism, alienation.

Answer: (B) European Union

The passage states: "When many countries of Europe came together to form the European Union, Brussels was chosen as its headquarters."

Source: Accommodation in Belgium, Chapter 1

The passage directly mentions Brussels as the headquarters of the European Union. For MCQ questions, always look for the exact fact in the source passage. The other options — UNO (New York), NAM (no permanent HQ), and SAARC (Kathmandu) — are not mentioned in connection with Brussels.

(28.1) Power-sharing promotes stability by reducing the risk of conflict. When power is shared among diverse groups, no single group feels excluded, which reduces social tensions and prevents political instability.

(28.2) Pressure groups represent the interests of specific sections of society. By influencing government decisions and policies from outside the formal structure, they ensure that power is not concentrated in one place, making them part of the power-sharing mechanism.

(28.3) Power-sharing is the very spirit of democracy because people are the source of all political power. It gives due respect to diverse groups and ensures everyone has a voice in shaping public policies. Distributing power among as many citizens as possible reflects the democratic principle of self-governance and prevents authoritarian concentration of power.

Source: Chapter 1 – Power Sharing, Political Science (Democratic Politics II)

---

• 28.1 focuses on the "prudential reason" for power-sharing — stability and conflict reduction. One crisp line is enough for 1 mark.
• 28.2 is slightly beyond the passage (pressure groups are from a different section of the chapter), so use your textbook knowledge. Examiners expect you to link pressure groups to the idea of dispersed power.
• 28.3 requires 2 marks, so give 2 clear points: (i) people as the source of power / self-governance, and (ii) respect for diversity / voice in policy. Always tie back to the passage for source-based questions.

Option C: Uneven distribution of wealth amongst nations

The cartoon depicts disparity between rich and poor nations, which best illustrates the concept of uneven distribution of wealth amongst nations.

The cartoon visually shows the gap between wealthy and poor nations. Option A (inclusive growth) and D (balanced growth) are opposites of what is shown. Option B (stagnation) refers to no growth, not disparity. Examiners expect students to read the visual carefully and match it to the correct economic concept. The keyword in the cartoon description is "disparity," which directly points to uneven distribution.

Option A — Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

Belgian leaders recognised regional differences and cultural diversities, which directly led them to design power-sharing arrangements accommodating linguistic divisions.

The passage explicitly states: "They recognised the existence of regional differences and cultural diversities" and then describes how they amended the constitution to create power-sharing arrangements. R directly causes A, so R is the correct explanation of A. Choose Option A, not B.

28.1 Pressure groups influence the government by participating in governmental committees or by bringing influence on the decision-making process.

28.2 Political parties represent different ideologies and social groups. In the long run, power is shared among these parties, allowing various social groups to have a share in governmental power and benefit from power sharing arrangements.

28.3 In a democracy, citizens must have the freedom to choose among various contenders for power. This takes the form of competition among different political parties in contemporary democracies. By voting and choosing their representatives, citizens ensure that power does not remain in one hand. They also participate through interest groups (traders, farmers, workers, etc.) that influence governmental decisions.

Source: Power Sharing, Class 10 Political Science (Democratic Politics II)

---

• 28.1 is 1 mark — one direct line from the passage is enough.
• 28.2 is 1 mark — link "parties representing social groups" to power sharing benefit; one line suffices.
• 28.3 is 2 marks — needs two distinct points: (i) freedom to choose/vote among competing parties, and (ii) competition ensures power doesn't concentrate. Mentioning interest groups adds depth. Examiners look for both points clearly stated. Always anchor answers in the passage for source-based questions.

(C) (A) is true, but (R) is false.

Assertion is correct — both countries faced ethnic/linguistic diversity. But the Reason is false: Sri Lanka had a Sinhala majority (74%), not Tamil majority; Belgium had a Dutch-speaking majority (59%), not French-speaking majority.

The key error in Reason (R) is that it reverses the majorities. The textbook clearly states Sinhalas are 74% in Sri Lanka and Dutch-speakers are 59% in Belgium. Examiners expect you to identify this factual mistake to choose option (C). Always re-check which community holds the majority in each country.

(C) Non-Ferrous Minerals

Bauxite is a non-ferrous mineral (used to produce aluminium), so the blank middle box in the flowchart should read Non-Ferrous Minerals.

Source: Chapter 5 (Minerals and Energy Resources), Classification of Minerals

The flowchart classifies minerals into three types: Ferrous (e.g., Nickel/Iron), Non-Ferrous (e.g., Bauxite/Aluminium), and Precious (e.g., Gold). Non-ferrous minerals do not contain iron. Bauxite is the ore of aluminium, making option (C) the only correct fit. Students often confuse non-ferrous with non-metallic — remember: non-ferrous minerals are metallic but lack iron content.

28.1 Balance of Power means a situation where each organ of government checks the others, ensuring no single organ exercises unlimited power, thus maintaining equilibrium among institutions.

28.2 Although judges are appointed by the executive, they can independently check the functioning of the executive and review laws made by the legislature. This freedom makes the judiciary independent.

28.3 Power is shared among the legislature, executive, and judiciary through horizontal distribution of power. Each organ operates at the same level but exercises different powers. No organ can exercise unlimited power as each checks the others — for example, ministers are responsible to Parliament, and judges can review executive actions. This is called a system of checks and balances.

Source: Power Sharing, Horizontal Distribution of Power

---

• 28.1 is 1 mark — one crisp line defining Balance of Power directly from the passage.
• 28.2 is 1 mark — focus on the key idea: appointed by executive yet can check it = independence.
• 28.3 is 2 marks — mention horizontal distribution, all three organs, "no unlimited power," and checks and balances. Examiners look for these specific terms from the passage, so use them explicitly.

(C) Nationalist Congress Party & Shiv Sena

Options A, B, and D pair parties from the same state/alliance grouping, while NCP and Shiv Sena belong to Maharashtra but are ideologically opposing parties with no common alliance historically.

The examiner expects you to identify that CPI(M) & BJP are national parties, RJD & Janata Dal share ideological/organisational roots, and UDP & NPP are both regional parties of Meghalaya. NCP and Shiv Sena are the odd pair as they represent contrasting ideologies and have traditionally been rival parties in Maharashtra, making them the mismatched option.

(A) Both (A) and (R) are correct and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

The civil war arose from failed political accommodation of ethnic (Sinhala-Tamil) differences, and the resulting distrust between the two communities directly caused the widespread conflict.

Both statements are factually correct as per the textbook. The Reason directly explains the Assertion — majoritarian policies led to distrust between Sinhala and Tamil communities, which escalated into civil war. So (R) is the correct explanation of (A), making option (A) the right choice.