my UPSC Interview 2.0

                                   My UPSC Interview 2.0

                 This was my 2^nd interview and was also my 2^nd attempt in UPSC exam. In my 1^st interview in 2013 I could not make it to the final list, but gracefully I have made it in the 2^nd attempt.

         I had my interview on 5^th June 2014 and that was the last of this year’s interview. One bad thing about this was that I had to wait for more than two and half months for my interview after my Mains result and the good thing about this was that the final results were out within one week after my interview was over i.e, on 12^th June 2014.

        I already told you that my interview was on last day, it was not only last day but also the last session. My interview was in the afternoon session. Since it was the last day and the last session, the board members were doing their job in an accelerated manner and my interview was just for around 20 minutes. 

Here is the transcript of my  interview.

Board : Manbir Singh

Date: 5^th June 2014

Time: Around 3.40 PM to 4.00 PM

Manbir Singh Sir :

1.What are the provisions of the Food Security Act(FSA)?

2.Govt is spending a lot on FSA, instead the same money can be spent for providing education and employment to the people and thereby we can empower them to earn their own food. What is your view on this? Is the FSA necessary?

 

Member 1:

1.What are the pros and cons of a nuclear family?

2.What is your view regarding physical punishment to children in schools, Should teachers give punishment or not?

Member 2:

1.Tell me good and bad things about migration?

2.Where do you draw the line to stop migration?

3.What will you do to stop migration?

4.If you are asked to give two suggestions to Finance Minister for his budget this year what suggestions do you give?

Member 3:

1.In recent days everyone, starting from experts to media, are comparing India with China. Why do you think is this so?

2.Why not compare with other developed countries like USA or UK? Why only with China?

3.What do you think, Should we compete or Cooperate with China?

4.What are the issues between India and China?

5.What is the budgetary defence allocation of China as % of its GDP?

Member 4:

1.Have you heard about Robin Hood? He does all illegal things like extortion, dacoity etc, but not for himself  but for the welfare the local people. What is your view on this? Should it be allowed or not?

2. How do you stop him from doing this?

3. You are a manager of a Football team. There is a match and there is a star player in the opposite team. You are sure that if you make sure that he does not play the match, then you will win that match. So would you ask your player to injure him and keep him off the ground so that you can win the match?

Urbanisation - Asset or Liability?

                  Urbanisation - Asset or Liability?

       According to the recent census of 2011, India has a population of 121 crore and out of this around 30% of the population lives in urban areas. The rate of urbanisation is also increasing at a greater pace day-by-day. Broadly the reassons for urbanisation can be categorised into two types- viz, (1) Urban Pull Factors and (2) Rural Push Factors.

Urban Pull Factors are the positive factors which attract the people to urban areas because of their advantages like better living conditions, better employment opportunities, better health conditions, better education facilities etc. On the other hand Rural Push Factors are rhe negative factors which force the people to leave rural areas because of  lack of livelihood opportunities in rural areas.

      Urbanisation by itself is not a problem, it is both an asset as well as a liability. If managed in a better way urbanisation can be made an asset and the fruits of urbanisation can be reaped.

      For making urbanisation an asset, focus should be on improving the infrastructure in the country- both urban and rural. More focus should be on developing small and medium towns as this will reduce the burden on big urban centres. Also the problem of urbanisation can be controlled by effective rural development i.e, by promoting agro-based industries, MSMEs, by providing vocational training for skill development and by providing self-employment opportunities to the rural people, especially to rural youth.

    The Govt of India has started JNNURM programme for improving the infrastructure in cities. It covers a fewer cities and it is just a beginning and in future this should be extended to more cities.

    Thus the urbanisation should not be considered as a problem. By better management and by necessary policy initiatives the urbanisation should be made an asset for the benefit of the country.

Supreme Court Judgements - A Comparison

                                    SC Judgements - A Comparison

            Recently (April, 2014) the Supreme Court gave a judgement  declaring that 'transgender community' as a 'third gender' along with male and female.
      The Supreme Court also directed the centre and the states to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally backward classes and extend reservation for them in educational institutions and in public employments. The Supreme Court also observed that transgenders are also citizens of India  and they should be given equal  opportunities to grow and attain their potential.
        This judgement is considered as a progressive one and it will help in mainstreaming of hitherto socially excluded transgenders. Historically, they were never socially exclude from the society in India, but it was the British who with their colonial mindset  made legislations which regarded transgenders as criminals and this was the reason for their alienation from the mainstream. By this judgement Supreme Court has upheld the rights of transgenders and also Supreme Court has the right precedence in doing so. Remember, the Supreme Court has given a progressive judgement in this case.
      But the same Supreme Court in last month (March, 2014) on an issue related to LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community gave a judgement which is contradictory to the principle of the first judgement above. The Supreme Court  in LGBT issue ordered that  the Section 377 of IPC which criminalises unnatural sex(sex among LGBT) is constitutional and those practising unnatural sex are liable for punishment under the law. But earlier the Delhi High Court ordered that  the Section 377 of IPC is unconstitutional and void as it violates Articles 14,15 and 21 of the constitution. But the Supreme Court reversed this order of Delhi High Court and recriminalised sex among LGBT i.e, the Supreme Court said that Section 377 of IPC is valid. This judgement is a regressive judgement and it has the effect of social exclusion of LGBT community.
       Thus the Supreme Court in the first judgement talks about rights of transgenders and gives a progressive judgement and in the second case the same Supreme Court gives a contradictory judgement which is regressive in nature.
     Recently the Supreme Court has accepted the Curative Petition regarding the Section 377 of IPC and has agreed to hear it in the open court. Let us hope that the Supreme Court considers the right of LGBT community to choose their partners as their individualistic right and overrule its earlier judgement and make  Section 377 of IPC as unconstiutional and void. Let the Supreme Court give another progressive judgement.

Left Wing Extremism- Possible SOLUTIONS

               Left Wing Extremism - Possible SOLUTIONS

         Extremism,no doubt, is the greatest threat to the internal security of our nation. In order to achieve our aim of inclusive growth this internal security issue should be addressed effectively.

         The main reason for existence of the extremism is regional imbalances in growth and development and these extremist affected areas,called Red Corridor regions, are least developed. The reason for this scenario of imbalance is not merely becoz of govt but also extremists themselves are responsible for this situation. The extremists are generally against any initiative or step of the govt taken in these regions. This is becoz the extremists leaders may have vested interests in doing so.

        The problem of extremism certainly has solutions and according to me the possible solutions are:

   Firstly, all efforts should be made to disarm the extremists by way of negotiation. And police action(not military action) should be used as a final resort for disarming of extremists who have picked up arms against the State. Disarmament of cadres should be the first step followed by intensifying the pace of development, becoz development and peace go hand-in-hand and there is no precedence between the two. This can be seen by the fact that the majority of the developmental activities by the govt are stopped/halted by the threat or act of violence by the extremists. So disarmament of cadres should be the first step.

    Followed by disarmament, the govt should focus on intensifying the pace of development in these regions through people-centric developmental models and by using local resources and local population. The presence of govt should be made felt to the people by taking small developmental programs like providing housing, drinking water, hospitals, schools etc to reduce the trust deficit in the people.

      Along with taking developmental programs, the govt should explore all possibilities of talks with the extremists and govt should try to convince them that it exists for the welfare of the people.

        Presently the main problem is that the people do not have trust in the govt and extremists organisations are encashing on this trust deficit to fight against govt by using local people. Therefore there is an immediate need from the govt to increase its image in eyes of the people of the red corridor regions. The govt should take steps on its perception management among the people. This can be done by frequent meetings with the local people by politicians and officials to establish a connect between the govt and the people. This can also be done by conducting various awareness campaigns in the region to educate the people about their rights and govt initiatives taken in the region.

      Also there should be better coordination between the central and state govts in addressing this issue. Instead of thinking on short term political gains, the govts at centre and states should work in synergy to solve the problem of extremism.

     Also steps should be taken to strengthen the state police and there should be better coordination between intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies.

     Since the extremists are active near or along two or more state borders, there should be a mechanism for sharing of information between the states to combat extremism. And National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) is a great step in this direction. NCTC should be setup early with necessary modifications and its objective should be converted into action with full faith and spirit.

      With these steps I think the problem of extremism can be solved significantly. 

     Let us hope that the govts, both centre and states, will take the issue of extremism seriously and in the greater national interest work together and achieve the goal of eradicating extremism from the country.

   

    

camPAIgNing

                                                       camPAIgNING

                   The world's largest democracy (India) is currently under general elections. The general elections are being conducted to elect 543 members to the 16th Lok Sabha (Lower House of our Parliament). Elections are regarded as festivals in democracy. But this great festival i.e, general election is not celebrated in full faith and spirit. This festival is celebrated by voting and campaigning by political parties to woo the voters to vote for their respective parties/candidates. Generally Campaigning should highlight the  futuristic goals/policies of a political party or a candidate. But it is sad to see that this campaigning is filled with full of hate speeches, one party accusing the other, making derogatory speeches, verbal attack on leaders of one party from others etc. Every political party, including the two mainstream parties(BJP and Congress) have also resorted to this strategy of accusing the other party - Congress is questioning the secular credentials of BJP's PM candidate Modi and BJP is focussing on corruption and scams of Congress government. These are the major election issues in the present Lok Sabha elections. But no one is focussing on their future steps if they come to power. Only on the day of releasing their manifestos, they talked about their future policies. But thereafter there are rare cases of any political leader speaking about their future goals/policies. The least importance given to the manifesto can be seen by the fact BJP released its election manifesto on the day when first phase of elections started. This behaviour and action of a major(national) political party is not acceptable. So this campaign is all about giving pain to opposite parties. Almost every candidate/political leader resorts to hate speeches and accusing the opposite candidate/party. The innumerous cases of violation of model code of conduct is a testimony to this.
               Any election should be an issue-centric or manifesto-centric and every candidate/party should focus on advertising their manifesto or futuristic goals to the electorate instead of resorting to accusing opposite parties/leaders. It should NOT be like - Since Mr.A is bad, vote Mr.B. But rather it should be like - Since Mr.A is good, let us vote for Mr.A.  This way of voting should be followed and each candidate/party should bring out their strengths and keep them in front of the electorates and based on assessment of these strengths electorates should elect their representatives. This has to be understood by the politicians and they should refrain from accusing one another and instead they should campaign in a positive manner. And finally the people of India should make their choice correctly by giving their vote to the most desired candidate.
    "Let the largest democracy of the world survive and stand tall forever and ever."

IN(dian) TOLERANCE

 

                                      IN(dian) TOLERANCE
          Many believe and profess that we Indians have a great level of tolerance and they also believe that this tolerance is not restricted by issues/ideas/things, but it is extended to all issues. BUT according to me this belief regarding Indians' tolerance is not true. Most of the people of India are not tolerant or open to many of the ideas/issues. People broadly practice tolerance in public, but when it comes to their private life they suddenly become intolerant. For instance, if you ask anyone his/her views about inter-caste/inter-religion marriage, they will be tolerant, but if you ask whether they truly allow their children to get inter-caste/inter-religion marriage, their tolerance turns into intolerance. This can also be understood by the fact that many parents in present days also brief their children that they should not marry anyone out of their caste. But generally these parents will be tolerant towards range of issues/ideas, in theory but not in practice. Thus the concept of tolerance in Indian society is largely theoritical and it is leastly practised in India.


    Let us look into the tolerance of State(INDIA) towards various issues. Our Constitution declares that the state is neutral to all religions i.e, India is secular. No doubt India is secular by the letter of law. But 'India' by itself is not organic. India as a state is represented by humans(elected members/legislature, bureaucracy/executive, judiciary and citizens). For India to be secular, its people have to be secular. Indian society is not yet fully secular- The periodic communal riots, booking of Jammu & Kashmir students under sedition charges for supporting Pakistan cricket team etc are a few testimonies to the fact that Indian society is not yet fully secular. The Constitution aspires India to be secular(an example/form of tolerance), but the problem is that tolerance is an independant and individual choice and it cannot be forced onto anyone.

      So the change has to take place at the grass-root level(individual level) to make Indian society tolerant towards many issues.

      I hope that the belief that many people have about Indians' tolerance become true and the people of India practice tolerance not only in words but also in action.

CONsensus

                                                   CONsensus

          Recently there occurred two instances in which all the political parties of the country which are having different ideologies have come to consensus. These consensuses have been reached without much discussions or difficulties.

       I feel quite surprised when all the parties having different ideologies come to a consensus (agreement) easily on any matter. There are many issues pending with the govt without consensus viz., Lokpal, Food Security Bill, FDI issues, NCTC and so on. But recently all the parties have come to consensus on two issues.

      The first issue is regarding the Chief Information Commissioner’s (CIC) Order stating that the political parties should come under the ambit of RTI Act 2005.

      The second instance is about the Supreme Court’s verdict which results in immediate disqualification of law makers who are convicted of criminal cases and also makes a person who is in police custody ineligible to contest elections.

       {1} The CIC ordered that the national political parties should be regarded as public offices under the RTI Act and they should make their funding sources public. The CIC gave this order stating that the national parties are funded substantially by the central govt and hence they should be considered as public offices. The CIC’s Order was an effective step towards decriminalization of politics and making the political parties transparent. But the political parties are against this Order and they are saying that it is their internal matter. And they have decided to amend the RTI Act to keep the political parties out of the ambit of RTI Act.

        According to me the decision or consensus reached by all the parties is not in the common good for the country. I think it is against the ‘principle of natural justice’- according to which ‘no person can be a judge in his own case’. In this situation the political parties themselves are deciding whether they come under RTI or not. But in India’s Parliamentary System this is the way. But also there is one way to overcome this- The Judiciary. The Judiciary can make this void by the applying ‘due process of law’ in which the legality of the law is checked.

       This shows that the political parties are not in favour of decriminalizing the politics of the country. If something has to be done then it should be done by the judiciary. In this way the political parties are themselves making the way for Judicial Activism.

           

        {2} As mentioned above the Judiciary took certain steps in decriminalizing the politics.

Recently the Supreme Court gave a verdict which resulted in immediate disqualification of law makers (legislators/politicians) if convicted in criminal cases and also the verdict made the persons who are in police custody at the time of elections ineligible to contest the elections.

      But all the political parties have once again come together and they have reached a consensus to nullify the apex court’s order and they have decided to amend the Representation of People Act 1951 (RPA 1951).

      According to RPA, a person in police custody is ineligible to vote and any person to contest in an election should be a valid voter. Hence the Supreme Court gave the verdict that any person in police custody during the elections is ineligible to contest elections.

     But all the parties are against this verdict and they say that it will be misused by the ruling party to frame wrong cases against the other party candidates.

   But I will not agree with the view of the parties, because there are provisions to overcome the misuse of this judgement. Firstly, the preventive detention can not be the ground for ineligibility  or disqualification. Secondly, the criminal cases which are filed atleast six months before the elections are only regarded as ground for ineligibility. And regarding framing of wrong cases, the candidate can get a bail from the independent judiciary and then contest in the elections. But the political parties are verdict and have come together to amend the RPA and nullify the Supreme Court order.

     By the above two cases it can be understood that the political parties are not in favour of decriminalization of politics, instead they are even nullifying the steps taken by other institutions in this direction. The political parties/politicians should take some steps on making the administration transparent and accountable to the people of India. This should be done not on the basis of personal gain or loss, but for the betterment of the country. The Judiciary to an extent can change the system by its Judicial Activism, but the ultimate power lies with the legislators/politicians. So if something really needs to be changed, then it should be done by the politicians.

       We shall hope that in future the politicians/political parties/legislators work for the betterment of the country and the people.