There is no clear historical record of a specific individual or scholar who first called Aristotle the "father of Political Science." This title has emerged over time due to Aristotle's significant contributions to political thought, particularly through his work Politics.

The designation likely developed as political science began to be recognized as a formal field of study, especially during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods, when scholars revisited ancient Greek philosophical works. Aristotle’s systematic approach to studying governance, citizenship, and political institutions set him apart as a pioneer in the field, eventually earning him this title.

Thus, rather than being attributed to a single person, Aristotle's status as the "father of Political Science" evolved through centuries of scholarly acknowledgment of his lasting influence on the discipline.

Among the given options, the social contract theory was used by (ii) John Rawls and (iv) Robert Nozick.

• John Rawls: In his famous work A Theory of Justice (1971), Rawls used a modern version of the social contract to develop his theory of justice. He introduced the concept of the "original position" and the "veil of ignorance" to argue that rational individuals, under fair conditions, would agree on principles of justice that ensure fairness and equality.
• Robert Nozick: Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), critiques and responds to Rawls's theory of justice. Although he rejects many aspects of social contract theory, his work is part of the broader discourse that emerged from the social contract tradition. He focuses on individual rights and a minimal state, grounded in libertarianism.

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin did not use the social contract theory. Marx's theories are based on historical materialism and class struggle, not on a contractarian framework. Lenin, following Marxist principles, focused on revolutionary action and the role of the state in the context of class conflict, not the social contract.

In the context of France, the concept of "two sets of courts" refers to the dual court system that divides the judiciary into two main branches: ordinary (judicial) courts and administrative courts. This dual system reflects the long-standing separation of powers between ordinary law and public law in France, a system that dates back to the Napoleonic era.

1. Judicial Courts (Ordinary Courts):

These courts handle disputes between private individuals, as well as criminal cases. They deal with matters that fall under private law (civil law, criminal law, commercial law). Judicial courts are divided into two primary types:

• Civil Courts: These handle private disputes, such as contractual disagreements, family matters (divorces, inheritances), and property rights.
  • Tribunal judiciaire: This is the main civil court in France, dealing with a broad range of civil matters.
• Criminal Courts: These handle cases of criminal offenses (misdemeanors, felonies).
  • Tribunal correctionnel: Handles less serious criminal offenses.
  • Cour d'assises: Deals with the most serious criminal offenses like murder, rape, and terrorism.

2. Administrative Courts:

These courts are specialized to handle cases involving public law, specifically disputes between individuals and public authorities (the state, regional governments, or public bodies). The administrative court system ensures that the actions of the state and other public authorities comply with the law and the rights of citizens.

• Tribunal administratif: The first instance court for disputes involving administrative law (e.g., challenging a government decision, disputes over public contracts).
• Cour administrative d'appel: The appellate court for cases from the Tribunal administratif.
• Conseil d'État (Council of State): The highest administrative court in France, which also serves as an advisor to the government on legislative matters. It is responsible for reviewing appeals in administrative matters, as well as ensuring the proper application of public law.

Key Features of the Dual Court System:

• Separation of Competencies: Ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction over public law disputes, while administrative courts cannot decide on cases that belong to the domain of private law.
• Conflict of Jurisdiction: The Tribunal des conflits is a special court in France that resolves disputes over which court (judicial or administrative) has jurisdiction when there is uncertainty between the two.

Historical Background:

This system was formalized after the French Revolution but has its roots in the principles established under Napoleon Bonaparte, who structured the judiciary to maintain a clear distinction between state matters (public law) and individual/private matters (private law). The creation of the Conseil d'État in 1799 marked the beginning of a formal administrative court system in France.

This dual court structure is a defining feature of the French legal system and distinguishes it from some other countries, like the United States or the UK, which generally have a single unified court system.

Explanation:

1. Load: Refers to the stress or demands placed on a system.
2. Lag: Represents the delay in the system's response to the load.
3. Lead: Indicates proactive adjustments or anticipatory changes to handle the load effectively.
4. Gain: Denotes the system's capacity to amplify its output or improve efficiency based on the adjustments made.

This sequence highlights the dynamic process of how systems cope with external pressures and adapt over time.

Source: The Nerves of the Government

Book Page No - 187

The United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) was a political coalition in India, formed in 2007, with a primary focus on establishing a "third front" that could serve as an alternative to the two dominant national coalitions: the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The alliance primarily consisted of regional and left-wing parties, with a key agenda of providing a non-Congress, non-BJP platform to challenge the prevailing political dominance of these two parties.

Formation of the UNPA (2007)

The idea of the UNPA emerged from the dissatisfaction of several regional political parties with both the Congress-led UPA and the BJP-led NDA. The coalition was formally launched on March 15, 2007. It included a number of significant regional and national political parties, such as:

• Samajwadi Party (SP) (led by Mulayam Singh Yadav)
• Telugu Desam Party (TDP) (led by N. Chandrababu Naidu)
• All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) (led by J. Jayalalithaa)
• Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) (led by Om Prakash Chautala)
• Asom Gana Parishad (AGP)
• Jharkhand Vikas Morcha (JVM) (led by Babulal Marandi)

This alliance was often referred to as the "Third Front" in the political sphere.

Key Objectives and Vision

The UNPA aimed to challenge both the UPA and the NDA, offering a fresh platform that was neither aligned with the Congress nor the BJP. The coalition highlighted issues such as:

1. Pro-Regional Autonomy: Advocating for the rights of states and regional issues.
2. Agrarian Crisis: Focusing on policies for the welfare of farmers, addressing the agrarian crisis.
3. Economic Policies: Opposing the economic liberalization policies of both the Congress and the BJP that they believed harmed the poor and marginalized communities.
4. Secularism: Promoting secularism and regional diversity, particularly in opposition to the BJP's perceived majoritarian politics.

2007 Presidential Election

One of the first significant actions of the UNPA was its attempt to put forward a common candidate for the 2007 Presidential election in India. However, the alliance failed to nominate a successful candidate, and the Congress candidate, Pratibha Patil, went on to win the election.

Internal Differences and Decline

Despite its ambitions, the UNPA struggled with internal cohesion. The alliance consisted of parties with divergent ideologies and regional bases, which made it difficult to sustain a unified approach. There were also leadership clashes, particularly with prominent leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Chandrababu Naidu taking dominant roles.

In 2008, when the UPA government faced a confidence vote in Parliament after the withdrawal of support from the Left Front over the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the Samajwadi Party broke ranks with the UNPA and supported the UPA government. This was a significant blow to the UNPA's unity and credibility as an alternative force.

Collapse and Aftermath

After the 2009 general election, the UNPA effectively disintegrated. Some of its constituent parties realigned with the UPA or NDA. For example:

• The Samajwadi Party later aligned with the UPA.
• The Telugu Desam Party eventually joined the NDA in the 2014 general elections.
• The AIADMK remained independent for a while but also flirted with alliances with the NDA.

The UNPA experiment is often seen as one of the many attempts in Indian politics to create a third front, but like similar efforts before and after, it was marred by a lack of unity and ideological coherence.

Conclusion

The United National Progressive Alliance was a brief political experiment aimed at forming a third alternative in Indian politics, challenging both the Congress and BJP-led alliances. However, internal differences, a lack of clear leadership, and divergent regional interests led to its quick decline. It serves as an example of the difficulties in sustaining a "third front" in India's complex and diverse political landscape.

Shri Deve Gowda resigned as the Chief Minister of Karnataka on May 30, 1996 to be sworn in as the 11th Prime Minister of India.

Here is the chronological order of the commissions, along with a brief explanation of each:

1. States Reorganization Commission (1953)
   This commission was established in 1953 by the Government of India to recommend the reorganization of India's states on a linguistic basis. It led to the formation of several states based on linguistic lines, significantly altering India's political map in 1956.
2. Sarkaria Commission (1983)
   This commission was set up in 1983 to examine the relationship and balance of power between the Centre and the States in India. It made several recommendations to improve Centre-State relations, with a focus on cooperative federalism.
3. National Commission to Review the Constitution (2000)
   Formed in 2000, this commission was tasked with reviewing the working of the Indian Constitution and suggesting possible amendments. Headed by former Chief Justice M. N. Venkatachaliah, it aimed to ensure that the Constitution remained relevant and effective in light of new challenges.
4. Knowledge Commission (2005)
   The National Knowledge Commission was established in 2005 by the Indian government to advise on transforming India into a knowledge society. It focused on reforms in education, research, and innovation to enhance the country’s knowledge capabilities.