NCERT Solutions for Class 7th Social Science Chapter 18 End-of-chapter exercise — Questions and activities

False. Every republic is not a democracy, and — which is what this statement claims — every democracy is certainly not a republic.

The counter-example is in the chapter itself: “not all democracies are republics; for example, the UK, Canada, and Sweden are democracies but not republics — they each have a monarch.”

Why the two are not the same test.

So the correct statement would be: a country can be a democracy without being a republic (the UK, Canada, Sweden), and it can be both (India, the U.S.A.). India is described as a democratic republic precisely because the two words add different things.

Two reasons, taken from Fig. 6.18 and the text around it.

1. Local leaders know local needs better. “Local leaders know the area, its needs, and the traditions of the people better than distant officials.” India has “over 1.4 billion people, thousands of towns and villages, and many languages and cultures”, so “a single central (union) government cannot meet the needs of all her people.” A decision about which hamlet needs a hand-pump is a decision only somebody in that block can take well — and “the local municipal body can do it faster”.
2. It makes leaders accountable and citizens active. “When leaders are closer to the people, it is easier to question them, ask for answers, and make sure they do their job.” And “people get a chance to be more involved in decisions that affect their daily lives” — a gram sabha or ward meeting is something an ordinary citizen can actually attend.

The other reasons in Fig. 6.18, if you want a third or fourth: local discussions — “local issues (like water supply, roads, or schools) can be discussed and solved by people who face them every day”; and stronger local governments — “with power and responsibility, panchayats and municipalities can become lively places where people participate actively and leaders work responsibly.”

(a) Power should be shared among all the members, not held by the president alone.

A council of one is not a council. Sharing power gives you three things a single decision-maker cannot:

• More knowledge. Members come from different classes and sections and know different problems. A president cannot know what the Class 6 students or the hostel students actually need.
• More voices heard. This is the same argument the chapter makes for decentralisation — “people get a chance to be more involved in decisions that affect their daily lives.”
• A check on mistakes. A decision that has to be explained to twenty members and argued through is a decision that has been tested. One person deciding alone has nobody to catch the error.

A sensible arrangement: the president chairs the meeting and speaks for the council, but decisions are taken by discussion and, where needed, a vote; minutes are written down; and the council reports back to the students who elected it. That is a mini-parliament — and it mirrors India, where the prime minister leads but the legislature decides.

(b) Should the council make rules about the food you eat, or the language you speak? No — those lie outside what such a body should decide.

Why the line falls there. Food and language are not shared arrangements; they belong to a person, a family and a community. A rule about them would be a majority deciding how a minority must live — precisely the “dominance of the majority” the chapter warns against, “a situation where the interests of the majority alone are pursued, to the detriment of the rights of minorities.” India is a country of many languages and many food habits, and the Constitution protects that: “the elected leaders cannot pass laws that go against people’s basic rights — like freedom of speech, religion, or equality before the law.” A student council, being elected, has exactly the same duty on a smaller scale.

The exception, and where it stops: a school may reasonably have rules about food safety or hygiene in the canteen, or ask that a common language be used in a formal assembly so everyone follows. That is different from telling a student what she may eat from her own tiffin, or which language she may speak to her friend.

(c) What can go wrong if the council is the most powerful body and nobody questions it?

• The minority gets ignored. Whoever the elected members do not come from — a smaller section, a hostel, a language group — stops being heard, and rules start being made about them rather than with them.
• Mistakes never get corrected. If no one may question a decision, a wrong decision simply stays. Recall the RWA in the chapter: the delivery ban was reversed only because the harm was pointed out.
• Power gets used for the wrong things. The chapter’s warning applies exactly: without limits, “elected members and government officers might use their power unchecked, which would threaten citizens’ rights.” Positions can turn into favours for friends.
• Students stop taking part. If nothing you say makes a difference, you stop saying anything — and then the council no longer represents anyone, even though it was elected.

(a) Should Parliament be the most powerful institution in the country?

Parliament holds a special place, but “most powerful with no limits” is not how India is designed. Parliament deserves great weight because it is the body directly elected by the people: it makes the laws for the whole country, approves the budget, and the government is accountable to it. In that sense it speaks for the people more directly than any other institution.

But the chapter states the design principle plainly: “The Constitution ensures that no part of the government becomes too powerful.” Parliament itself was created by the Constitution and works within it. So the honest answer is: Parliament is supreme in lawmaking, but the Constitution is above Parliament.

(b) Should Parliament have the power to make any law it wants, even if it affects your rights?

No. The chapter answers this directly: “The elected leaders cannot pass laws that go against people’s basic rights — like freedom of speech, religion, or equality before the law.” And: “Constitutional provisions and the law ensure that rule by a representative majority does not violate the fundamental rights of any citizen.”

This is what makes India a republic as well as a democracy — “in a republic, there are limitations set on the power of rulers through a constitution or laws.” Winning an election gives you the authority to govern; it does not give you the authority to take away someone’s rights.

(c) What could go wrong if lawmaking had no limits? Can it lead to unfair or unjust laws?

Yes, easily. The chapter has already shown how, in miniature.

That is why the chapter says a republic is where “the rule of law is more powerful than the wishes of the majority… It stops the powerful majority from unfairly hurting the rights of smaller groups.”

(d) Who is more powerful in India, the Parliament or the Supreme Court?

Neither one stands above the other. Both stand below the Constitution — and that, on the evidence in this chapter, is the strongest answer.

How to say it in one sentence: Parliament is supreme in making law; the Supreme Court is supreme in interpreting the Constitution and protecting rights; and each of them draws its authority from the Constitution, which is above both. This is what ‘Before we move on…’ means by “checks and balances among the three organs of the government”, and what the chapter means by “the judiciary protects the rule of law, that is, the idea that everyone must follow the law, even the government.”

How to do this activity. Sit down with a parent or guardian with a notebook and ask them to think back over the last twelve months. Prompt them with concrete things rather than the general question — did you pay any tax or bill to a government office? Renew or apply for any document? Take anyone to a government hospital? Deal with a school? Complain about water, electricity, garbage or a road? Vote? For each item note four things: what it was, which office, which level, and what was difficult. Then group the items by level and count them.

What a good answer needs: real items from your own household, not invented ones; the correct level for each (use the list on page 163 — union: defence, foreign affairs, currency, and concurrent subjects; state: police, land, health, agriculture, education; local: water, drainage, streetlamps, parks); an honest note of the difficulty; and a closing sentence on which level was easiest to deal with and why. Report what happened; do not turn it into an opinion about any party or leader.

Sample answer:

Counting the sample list: 3 items at the local level, 3 at the state level, 2 at the union level. Most families find the same pattern — the great majority of their dealings are with the state and local levels, because that is where schools, health, transport, water and civic services sit.

Common challenges, and what the chapter offers for each: