Preparing history for civil services exam can be quite challenging specially for students from science background. We recommend you to refer these history study material and notes for civil services . Can't I download these notes in pdf. Readers can download the each of the notes as PDF for free using the 'print-pdf' option. Check Indian History notes category, if you want to read the complete. Readers can download the each of the notes as PDF for free using the 'print-pdf' option. Check our World History notes category, if you want to read the.
|Language:||English, Indonesian, Dutch|
|ePub File Size:||22.55 MB|
|PDF File Size:||17.81 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Sign up for free]|
Hi can u send Lakshmi kanth written notes to my mail id..–[email protected] venxilinapsee.tk Hoping a reply from u It wl be more helpful for us.. Thanks in. Searching for Indian History PDF in English? We've listed Indian History Notes And Material PDF for free download on our website. You can get it for free!. Download indian history pdf notes in hindi करे – प्रिय पाठकों, आज SarkarNaukriHelp आप सब छात्रों के लिए भारत के इतिहास(indian History) आप.
They initially ruled over their country, Pandya Nadu, from a seaport called Korkai, which was on the Southern-most tip of the Indian subcontinent.
Later on, they moved their headquarters to Madurai. Pandyans were famous for their contacts and diplomacy; in fact, they even had their contacts with the Roman Empire. The Pandyas have been believed to be found five to six centuries before the birth of Christianity as their records of existence have been found in records dating back to as early as BC. The Pandyan Dynasty was revived under Kadungon in the early 6th century who hunted the Kalabhras out of Southern India.
The Pandyas of the later generations — set their foot in the golden era under the leadership of Maravman Sundara Pandyan and Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan.
The Pandyas also invaded and conquered Sri Lanka. From there, they ruled a significantly larger portion of land in the later part of the 9th Century till the beginning of the 13th Century.
Its economic and cultural power was also very notable and resonated in the works of literature of South Asia and South-East Asia.
The successful expedition of the Ganges by Rajendra Chola I was of great significance to the Chola Empire as it sent a very strong signal to the superpowers of the world. Rajaraja Chola flexed his muscle by conquering peninsular South India and annexed parts of Sri Lanka and islands of Maldives. He also sent an expedition to North India and was victorious as he defeated the Pala ruler of Pataliputra, Mahipala. This was firmly established within the new Italy by the time of his death and it continued to No Alternative to Piedmont Other groups were divided in their aims and lacked the resources and leadership to succeed.
The key issue is the comparison of Cavour and Mazzini.
(Download) UPSC Topper Gaurav Agarwal Study Notes in PDF
Answers should be reasonably balanced in their treatment of the two men. Cavour began by seeking to make Piedmont a more important and extended state in northern Italy and was initially reluctant to embrace the southern states. Mazzini was a democratic republican. Cavour was a monarchist whose ideas of democracy were more limited. Mazzini wished Italians to gain independence by themselves; Cavour aimed to win European support for his designs. Differentiate between aims and methods and support the argument by sound knowledge.
Methods In methods, Mazzini embraced revolutionary methods, for example in the s and in He tried to build an alliance of all classes although he failed to do so. Cavour began by strengthening Piedmont. He opposed revolutions but manipulated plebiscites to give the appearance of popular support for his policies. To the dismay of Mazzini and Garibaldi, Cavour was willing to surrender some Italian territories to gain his wider ends Nice and Savoy to France.
Although not an ally of the Roman Catholic Church, Cavour saw the importance of not alienating the papacy, unlike Mazzini Cavour can be seen as working within the system whereas Mazzini was always an outsider. A study of specific developments, such as Mazzinis attempted revolutions in the s and in , and Cavours achievements in can be used to highlight the contrast.
(Download) UPSC Topper Gaurav Agarwal Study Notes in PDF
Cavour Cavour laid a firm foundation for unification by re-organizing Piedmont. He was a successful politician who managed Piedmont with a combination of skill and bribery. He was a realist and ensured that he obtained foreign assistance, especially from Napoleon IIIs France, before confronting Austria. He preferred to extend Piedmonts influence by plebiscites, apparently democratic but actually carefully managed.
It might be argued that unification went further than he intended but his acceptance of Garibaldis gains in the south confirmed his pragmatism and he was careful not to confront the Papacy.
By the time of his death , Italy was unified with the exceptions of Venetia and Rome. Garibaldi Garibaldi made his name in Italy and outside by his contribution to the failed revolutions of He did as much as anybody to popularize the cause of Italian unification.
The invasion of the south was successful militarily and had knock-on effects by forcing Cavour to recognize the momentum of pressure for a larger Italy.
Although his later career was less successful, his particular claims were to push for the unification of the peninsula as a whole and to win the support of the lower orders. Mazzini Mazzini led the cause in the s and s, for example through the Carbonari and the revolutions.
It might be claimed that his ideas were unrealistic: a secular democracy achieved by Italians alone. However, although he was to be less successful in practical terms than either Cavour or Garibaldi, his claim to have been the most important contributor depends largely on the way in which he began the struggle.
Except for the monarchy, the final shape of Italy closely resembled his programme.
How far do you agree with this judgment? The key issue is the comparison and contrast of the two periods of Bismarcks foreign policy. However, it is reasonable to expect a fair balance between the two periods. Before Candidates will surely agree with Bismarcks success to - He outwitted Austria, relegating it to a less important role in Germany but still maintaining its alliance in spite of imposing a decisive military defeat.
France was overwhelmingly defeated but in a way that did not scar Prussia as the aggressor in the eyes of other countries. After Success There is likely to be more disagreement about his success after Success can be seen in the maintenance of a general peace and the inability of France to gain revenge for the battle of Sedan.
His treaties, for example the Dreikaiserbund, put Germany at the heart of European diplomacy with seemingly strong allies. The Triple Alliance was agreed with Austria and Italy whilst the Re-insurance Treaty seemingly maintained friendly relations with Russia.
Germany was generally on good terms with Britain. Failure On the other hand, he had created a dangerous and lasting rival in France whilst the attempts to maintain friendship with both Austria and Russia might have been doomed to failure in view of their rival interests in the Balkans. Some candidates might refer to imperial policy; this is not a necessary part of the question but should not be dismissed as irrelevant. Nevertheless, Bismarck placed Germany in an extremely important European position.
Examiners should expect a reasonable balance.
However, Frederick William IV did introduce a comparatively liberal constitution that became attractive to other German states. Bismarcks authoritarian attitude and his willingness and ability to override objections in Prussia, for example from the Liberals, were a contrast to the divisions and uncertainties of Bismarck was more skilful in handling the other German states as he was the minister of a universally-recognized monarchy, thus he was more successful in dealing with other countries through his diplomacy and use of war.
Meanwhile, Austria was a weaker rival by the s and less able to prevent German unification. Bismarck did not plan the unification of Germany. He merely reacted to events. How far do you agree with this judgment on the period from to ?
There is a view, partly based on a feeling of inevitability, admiration for Bismarcks prowess and his own claims after unification had been achieved, that German unification was carefully planned. A counter-view is that he sought primarily to secure Prussias position, and especially the position of William I against the Liberals, took advantage of the often mistaken policies of other states and ended by establishing the new German Empire in Some candidates might adopt one argument wholeheartedly.
This might deserve a mark in Band 1 if argued effectively. However, answers in this band will normally need some consideration of both judgments.
On the other hand, this is not a Question in which examiners will look for a balanced argument. The question begins in and candidates should take care when referring to earlier development but it will not be irrelevant to point out that Bismarck had already developed strong anti-Austrian feelings when he was a Prussian representative at the Diet.
His appointment was due to pressures on the Prussian monarch from the Liberals, especially over the army budget.
His early preoccupations were to defeat these Liberals and to disarm and weaken Austria, for example in the SchleswigHolstein and Austro-Prussian Wars and Candidates might consider how far Bismarck was responsible for provoking these crises. The largely Protestant North German Confederation, dominated by Prussia, might well have been as far as Bismarck wished to go at that point.
There are different explanations of developments to Did he provoke France, which was a danger because of its potential links to the largely Catholic southern German states, or was he pushed because of Napoleon IIIs mistaken diplomacy? Certainly, Bismarck used the Ems Telegram as a device to provoke both French and German opinion but the linked issues of the Spanish succession and the Hohenzollern Candidature were not of his making.
Bismarck ensured that Prussia also dominated the new Germany, which could have been planned before hand or improvised 14 How consistent were Bismarcks aims and methods from to ? The key issue is the extent of Bismarcks consistency. The consistent line is that Bismarck always sought German unification and that his methods especially his willingness to use war did not change. The wars against Denmark , Austria and France were simply consequential stages in the same story.
Indian History PDF and Notes (English)
A broader argument about consistency that might be more convincing is Bismarcks defense of Prussian interests rather than his pursuit of unification. For example, it could be argued that Bismarck was consistent because he always saw the interests of Prussia rather than Germany as a priority. More evidence of consistency might be seen in his anxiety not to isolate Prussia but to find external allies to support his policies.
The inconsistency, although offered less frequently, is that he was only an opportunist who took brilliant advantage of events that were often outside his control. The most successful answers should consider how far his aims changed after Did he wish to stop after creating the North German Confederation and destroying Austrias influence in Germany?
It is likely that he did not set out to unify all of Germany. His first aim was to unify the northern Protestant states around Prussia. He was probably persuaded to accept the need to incorporate the southern Catholic states after the defeat of Austria.
Another inconsistency was that, to , he saw Austria as a rival but he then sought Austrias friendship in the struggle against France.
After using France as a friendly power in the struggle against Austria, Bismarck was to fight the final war for unification against Napoleon III. Opportunism was an element that might be considered.
For example, he could not predict Napoleon IIIs mistakes. His methods went beyond fighting wars; diplomacy played an important part.
TNPSC Indian History Notes
Candidates are very unlikely to know much about pressures on Bismarck within Prussia apart from the Budget quarrel with the Liberals. Examine the most important problems that faced Bismarck in unifying Germany during the period from to Answers might be thematic, for example, political, diplomatic, military or economic.
Alternatively, they might consider the problems of the successive stages: the domination of Austria and the establishment of the North German Confederation, the dominance of Prussia over the other states, usually called the southern states, and then the final conflict with France. Bismarck was appointed because of the budget crisis and faced opposition from the Liberals.
By , France was isolated and made to seem the aggressor over the Spanish succession. Reference might be made to the Ems Telegram. The military factor might be discussed.
Although candidates might assert the superiority of the Prussian army, especially with the reforms of Moltke, Prussias victory against both Austria and France was not assured.
William I was sometimes nervous about Bismarcks policies and he also faced difficulties with the Liberals.
Bismarck pushed through the necessary budget in the face of Liberal opposition. From , some of the southern states were unenthusiastic about Prussias dominance and saw French protection as a better alternative. The key issue is the reasons for the importance of Prussia in German unification. A key discriminating factor for marks in Bands 1 and 2 will be the ability to go beyond Bismarcks role. It can hardly be denied that his contribution was vital but Bismarck alone will not take candidates to the highest marks.
It also acquired the industrialized Rhineland states. Before Bismarck, Prussia had already established its importance as the best hope of those who wished to unify Germany. It was the only German state with a significant army but not considered equal to Austrias. Its economy was more advanced and the Zollverein played an important part not only economically but also in giving Prussia political precedence. Role of Monarchy The Revolution was a failure.
William I was not radical but he opposed Austrian power in Germany as this was an obstacle to growth of Prussian power Bismarck From , Bismarcks role became more important but reference might be made to the work of Moltke and Roon. Diplomacy allowed him to make an ally of Austria whilst the lenient Peace of Prague meant that Austria was not permanently alienated from Prussia and Bismarck.
Diplomacy was used to good effect to give him a free hand in the Austrian war and isolated France before the Franco-Prussian War. The use of war depended on the contributions of others and there is evidence that Bismarck was doubtful about success before the Austro-Prussian War whereas he feared that Napoleon III would be willing to negotiate before the war.
His handling of the North German Confederation from and then his achievement of the unification of all Germany in can be interpreted as successful diplomacy. The new German Empire reflected Prussias dominance. Candidates might examine his aims and consistency.
How far did he wish to unify Germany and did he change? These points will be relevant but are not essential to the question. Candidates can be expected to have knowledge and understanding of Cavour, as the most important monarchist, and Garibaldi and Mazzini as leading republicans.
The question ends in and the most successful candidates are expected to show some knowledge and understanding of developments after the death of Cavour in , especially the acquisition of Venetia and the final incorporation of Rome Cavour and fellow monarchists did not alarm the governments of other countries thus Piedmont was open to diplomatic help and more conservative forces within Italy as much as the republicans.
Britain and Bismarcks Prussia also played their part. The monarchist state of Piedmont-Sardinia was the richest in Italy. Cavour began public office in ministries handling the economy and he developed commerce, improved the transport infrastructure and strengthened the army. Weakness of Republicans The republicans depended more on popular support within Italy and this was shown to be inadequate, especially in the revolutions of Insurrection could not deliver audited Italy.
The social class was more concerned with a relatively liberal constitution and a better economic climate rather than unification Importance of Republicans Nevertheless, the contribution of the republicans was not negligible and candidates might note the ways in which Garibaldi helped to unify the south.Unfortunately, at the battle of Balakot in due to treachery of Pathans Syed Ahmed was killed and seemingly, Jihad movement ended.
He took away a lot of amount to restore his Throne.
After 2nd Century AD, the Chera Dynasty started losing its sheen and it saw a rapid decline in stature and power. The monarchist state of Piedmont-Sardinia was the richest in Italy. In Jhansi, Rani Laxmi Bai fought bravely. Bismarck was appointed because of the budget crisis and faced opposition from the Liberals. Syed Ahmed had been hearing about the oppression and tyranny in Punjab.
- STATE BANK OF INDIA KYC FORM PDF
- FMDC PAST PAPERS PDF
- PHP BEGINNER EBOOK
- ECE SEMINAR TOPICS PDF
- PRIMROSE BOOK GENETICS
- UMBERTO ECO ON BEAUTY PDF
- TAY SON BI HUNG TRUYEN.PDF
- ASUS M2V MX SE MANUAL PDF
- 74LS373N DATASHEET EPUB
- FRENCH RECIPE BOOK PDF
- BLOOD SONG ANTHONY RYAN EPUB
- SILVA METHOD BOOK
- MS WORD 2007 BOOK PDF