up lower -2013 mains exam from 21st december

up lower -2013 mains exam from 21st december
http://uppsc.up.nic.in/View_Notices.aspx?ID=news&N=221

The pros and cons of the CSAT controversy

The apprehensions among sections of aspirants should be allayed. With the relevance of the civil services to the present order itself being questioned, faith and hope in the system need to be sustained

The Civil Services preliminary examination 2014 has concluded. The new scheme involving the Aptitude Test CSAT, has been alternately criticised fiercely and defended equally.

From 2011, in the preliminary examination the optional subject was dispensed with and General Studies Paper I and II were introduced. Paper II, which is CSAT, comprises, inter alia, mental ability, English comprehension, logical reasoning and analytical ability, basic numeracy, data interpretation, and so on. Candidates with rural and humanities backgrounds saw this pattern as a blow to their hopes and they feared being eliminated in the preliminary stage itself. Critics also saw a bias in favour of students with a technical background. Having taken a tendentious tone, the debate ended up getting snagged on rhetoric and losing focus.

The pattern of the examination harks back to Lord Macaulay’s time. Over time, several committees have sought to fine-tune and refine it. Changes were effected from time to time in tune with what the policymakers of the time wanted.

The report of the Committee on Selection Process and Recruitment Methods, 1976, better known as the Kothari Committee report, recommended a sequential three-tier system — an objective-type preliminary examination, a descriptive type main examination and a personality test. It dovetailed the process by combining the first two stages and seeking homogeneity by carrying forward an optional subject from the preliminary to the main examination stage.

The Satish Chandra Committee Report of 1989 did not suggest any major changes, except the introduction of an essay paper and more marks for the personality test. Pointing to the inadequacy of the existing pattern in testing a candidate’s traits and comprehension skills, it wanted the essay paper to test linguistic skills, comprehension and critical analysis, integrated thinking, assimilation of ideas and clarity of expression. The essay, introduced from 1993, constituted a paradigm shift. For the first time, candidates were made to articulate their views on big-picture issues.

Some critics argue that the present CSAT is but a glorified bank recruitment examination. While the Kothari Committee espoused synergy between the preliminary and main examinations with the optional subjects being chosen in tandem for the first two stages, CSAT involves a disconnect between the first two stages of the examination.

Firstly, there appears to be a bias in favour of mathematics and English. Secondly, being an objective type paper, it does not test the candidates’ expertise in all the areas, required for the process of elimination. Thirdly, any candidate with expertise in objective type examination may succeed easily. Fourthly, weightage is skewed in favour of urban candidates. Lastly, it does not test the suitability of a candidate for the gruelling descriptive type optional paper for the main examination.

As every serious aspirant starts preparing for the main examination from the start, extra emphasis laid on mental ability and English comprehension at the preliminary stage would create a stumbling block for ideas, as the stages appear conceptually disconnected.

The government has addressed the issue by announcing that CSAT marks would not be counted in the 2014 examination. A consensual approach will involve restoring the optional paper to its rightful place in the preliminary stage as per the Kothari recommendations. The continuity between the two stages would also be restored.

However, the changes conceived for the main examination have far-reaching implications. The existing pattern of four papers from two optional subjects has been dispensed with and one optional subject of two papers remains. Having four optional papers will tilt the balance in favour of candidates who are good at summarising and reproducing material; it may not test intellectual competence as skills for critical analysis are not required.

The introduction of four general studies papers is a right step. The broad canvas of subjects in the four papers and their equal dispersion reflect the aim of judging a candidate’s ability to critically analyse and comprehend a gamut of issues of national and international significance. The introduction of general studies paper IV with emphasis on ethics and integrity to judge a candidate’s suitability for the services is also a welcome move, especially at a time when the civil services are being criticised for policy paralysis and indecision.

In a nutshell, the scheme envisaged for the main examination disengages the concept of abstract reasoning and summarising and seeks to elicit views on issues and suggest positive solutions to given situations. As equal weightage is given for all the papers, there should not be any grievance. Further, candidates can opt for the regional languages.

It is natural to introspect over any system, and the civil services examination is no exception. But the apprehensions among sections of aspirants should be allayed. With the relevance of the civil service to the present order itself being questioned, faith and hope in the system need to be sustained.

The aspirations of millions of underprivileged and the needy have to be addressed by means of an efficient delivery mechanism that is pragmatic, imaginative, purposive and acceptable to all. If this is not done, the exercise runs the risk of being rendered nugatory.

Making way for giants

India has a significant number of elephants in the wild, and their persistence into the 21st century represents a conservation feat for a country with a massive human population and rising demand for natural resources. Yet, room for the much-loved animal is shrinking as pressures on its habitat and movement corridors mount, and governments pay mere lip service to nature protection. Expansion of rail and road links through elephant territory, often ignoring scientific concerns for the needs of the species, has emerged as a major source of conflict. The Elephant Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests reported in 2010 that not less than 150 elephants had been killed in train hits since 1987, a distressingly high toll for a long-lived species. It is welcome, therefore, that the Supreme Court has delivered a rebuke to the Centre and stepped in to demand answers. The Environment Ministry, and elephant-range States such as Odisha, Assam, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, must tell the country what they have done to prevent the death of elephants in train accidents. A protocol for safety has already been demonstrated in the Rajaji National Park in Uttarakhand, involving remedial measures such as educating train drivers, putting up caution signs along railway tracks, night patrolling to alert drivers and persuading the public not to dispose of garbage in forest areas.

Research data show that steep embankments act as a barrier, while vegetation along sharp turnings of railway lines and hazardously located water bodies attract elephants, contributing to accidents. All these factors were successfully addressed in the Rajaji National Park and elephant deaths prevented. Sadly, conservation is not a sufficiently high priority for some States that have neither replicated this model nor attempted to improve on it. On the contrary, protection of natural habitat for elephants and other charismatic species is often posed as antithetical to development. This ill-informed view disregards the fact that a mere 4 per cent of the land is protected by law today, and elephant presence has shrunk to 3.5 per cent of its recorded historical range. Expansion of railways and roads may be inevitable, but it requires to be done carefully, and remedial measures need to be taken based on scientific insights. To make conservation meaningful, the movement corridors for the species should be excluded from any industrial or infrastructural plans, and mistakes already committed reversed without hesitation. The largest wild population of the Asian elephant is found in India — an estimated 28,000 — thanks to far-sighted forest protection laws. That creditable record must continue.

Nuclear waste-eating bacteria discovered

Tiny single-cell organisms discovered living underground could help dispose the hazardous nuclear waste, scientists say.

Although bacteria with waste-eating properties have been  discovered in relatively pristine soils before, this is the first time that microbes that can survive in the very harsh conditions expected in radioactive waste disposal sites have been found. The disposal of nuclear waste is very challenging, with very large volumes destined for burial deep underground.

The largest volume of radioactive waste, termed ‘intermediate level’, will be encased in concrete prior to disposal into underground vaults, researchers said.

When ground waters eventually reach these waste materials, they will react with the cement and become highly alkaline. This change drives a series of chemical reactions, triggering the breakdown of the various ‘cellulose’ based materials that are present in these complex wastes.

One such product linked to these activities, isosaccharinic acid (ISA), causes much concern as it can react with a wide range of radionuclides – unstable and toxic elements that are formed during the production of nuclear power and make up the radioactive component of nuclear waste.

If the ISA binds to radionuclides, such as uranium, then the radionuclides will become far more soluble and more likely to flow out of the underground vaults to surface environments, where they could enter drinking water or the food chain.

However, the researchers’ new findings indicate that microorganisms may prevent this becoming a problem. Working on soil samples from a highly alkaline industrial site in the Peak District in the UK, which is not radioactive but does suffer from severe contamination with highly alkaline lime kiln wastes, they discovered specialist “extremophile” bacteria that thrive under the alkaline conditions expected in cement-based radioactive waste.

The organisms are not only superbly adapted to live in the highly alkaline lime wastes, but they can use the ISA as a source of food and energy under conditions that mimic those expected in and around intermediate level radioactive waste disposal sites.

“Nuclear waste will remain buried deep underground for many thousands of years so there is plenty of time for the bacteria to become adapted,” said Professor Jonathan Lloyd, from the University of Manchester’s School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, said. The findings are published in the ISME journal.

-

Pranab Mukherjee in Vietnam: Modi’s Asian Power Play

President Pranab Mukherjee’s trip to Vietnam days before the Chinese strongman Xi Jinping’s visit to India might seem a carefully orchestrated diplomatic manoeuvre by India. Not really. Visits abroad by Presidents and Prime Ministers are worked out weeks in advance. In fact, Mukherjee’s visit to Hanoi was scheduled well before President Xi’s South Asia itinerary was firmed up.

But there is no denying that the coincidence in the schedules of the Indian and Chinese presidents does underline Delhi’s expanding geopolitical opportunities with both Beijing and Hanoi at a moment when Sino-Vietnamese relations have seen so much tension.

The trilateral dynamic between India, China and Vietnam is not new. India was one of the few countries in the world that supported Vietnam when it sent its army into Cambodia at the end of 1978 to end the genocide there by the Pol Pot regime. This brought great diplomatic costs to India, but Delhi was determined to stand by Hanoi and preserve measure of balance in Indo-China.

Beijing, which backed the maniacal Pol Pot clique, chose to teach Hanoi a lesson by attacking Vietnam in 1979. But poorly equipped Chinese forces, that were barely coming out of the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution, were routed by Vietnam.

India’s then foreign minister in the Janata Party government, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, was caught right in the middle of the conflict between Beijing and Hanoi. Vajpayee was in China on a bold mission to normalise ties with Beijing that had frozen after the 1962 war. As war broke out on the Sino-Vietnamese border, Vajpayee cut short his visit to China in protest against Beijing’s aggression and returned to Delhi.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a lot better placed than Janata government, whose diplomacy fell between two stools: normalising relations with China while standing by its friend Vietnam.

As in the late 1970s, so in the 2010s, Vietnam faces a mounting challenge from China amidst Beijing’s assertiveness in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. To cope with the rising China, Vietnam is looking to multiple partners in Asia and beyond.

Vietnam has reached out to the United States, with which it had fought a prolonged and heroic war from mid 1960s to the mid 1960s. Vietnam has agreed to more intensive defence exchanges with Washington and stepped up security cooperation with Japan, Australia and a number of its neighbours in South East Asia, including the Philippines and Indonesia. It has begun buying advanced weaponry from Russia.

India has been of very special strategic interest to Vietnam. Through the decade long tenure of the UPA government, Delhi has steadily expanded its defence cooperation with Vietnam and assisted Hanoi’s urgent effort at modernising its military forces.

Faced with an intensifying maritime territorial dispute with China, Vietnam has been specially interested in strengthening naval cooperation with Delhi. Indian Navy frequently visits Vietnamese ports and has been training Vietnamese submarine force.

While Vietnam wants to further deepen this defence engagement, the UPA government wondered how far should Delhi go in backing Hanoi against Beijing. The Manmohan Singh government wasconcerned about drawing Beijing’s ire and its impact on India’s relations with China. The Modi government has signaled a different approach. Much like China, which does not limit its strategic relationship with Pakistan because of Indian concerns, the Modi government apparently believes it can build a partnership with Vietnam on its own merits without worrying too much about what Beijing might think. President Mukherjee’s visit might show-case this new approach. India’s intensive high level engagement with China and Vietnam could mark a maturation of India’s Asian strategy under the Modi government. India is now ready to engage all major Asian countries with each on its own merit. This translates into a twin track Indian diplomacy in Asia; build on the new economic possibilities with China but don’t allow Beijing to define the limits of India’s partnership with Japan and Vietnam. In defining this new and long overdue approach, Modi is simply emulating the realism of Xi Jinping who wants to befriend Delhi while holding onto China’s special ties with Islamabad and build new partnerships with Maldives and Sri Lanka. - 

The benefits of a multipolar world

Being wooed by both Tokyo and Beijing has opened new vistas for both India’s domestic transformation and its role in Asia and the world

It is a timeless maxim in international triangular politics that when one state has better bilateral ties than what the other two states have with each other, it is in a geopolitically advantageous position. Narendra Modi’s Japan visit has buttressed India’s position in an important triangle in Asia.

For decades, India has been at the wrong end of triangular politics. Whether it was the U.S.-Pakistan-India triangle, the India-China-Pakistan triangle, or the U.S.-China-India triangle, New Delhi was always in the unenviable position of managing simultaneously unfriendly dyads. To now being wooed by both Tokyo and Beijing, even as Japan-China relations remain sour, has opened new vistas for both India’s domestic transformation, and, its role in Asia and the world.

While it would be tempting to interpret Mr. Modi’s rendezvous with Shinzo¯ Abe in mostly geopolitical terms, it is actually more about development. As Mr. Modi said in one of his speeches in Japan, “As a Gujarati, commerce is in my blood.” He brought that spirit to Japan with Mr. Abe reciprocating with an earmarked $35 billion in direct finance or investment over the next five years, a process that would be overseen by a dedicated team in the Prime Minister’s Office to overcome any red tape.

Look East policy

Japan has finally begun a small step in diversifying its production base, which has high trade and investment exposure to China. Based on Japan External Trade Organization data, Japan’s cumulative foreign direct investment (FDI) in China was nearly U.S. $100 billion by end of 2013, accounting for over 30 per cent of Japan’s outward FDI stock in Asia. More than 20,000 Japanese-owned or affiliated ventures operate in China. (Japan’s FDI stock in India was $15 billion by end 2012.) To emulate China’s strategy, India has to address three pillars of its manufacturing ecosystem. One, the quality of its labour-intensive workforce since this is a variable driving Japanese capital away from the maturing production centres near coastal China. Second, the quality of its infrastructure sectors — power, transportation, ports and access to natural resources. Third, a policy framework that encourages export-orientation. Nevertheless, in Japan, India has found the most enthused G-7 economy with a potential to transform India’s industrial and technological base.

 “If it plays its cards wisely, India can reap the benefits of a multipolar world” 

While on the economy the challenge is ultimately one of local implementation, on foreign policy it is one of navigating Asia’s geopolitics.

Three factors should inform Mr. Modi’s Look East policy.

First, do not become a spoke in the hub: that is do not get roped into a collective security bloc with shared political and military commitments. In fact, the Tokyo Declaration emphasises more bilateral than multilateral security cooperation, which is consistent with India’s traditional preference for open and inclusive security architecture rather than a closed hierarchical system dominated by one or more states.

Second, recognise that the Pacific is an immensely complex theatre where old histories continue to cast their shadow over contemporary power politics. Conflicting identities — China-Japan, South Korea-Japan, North Korea-Japan, Russia-Japan, China-Vietnam, China and the South China Sea littorals — continue to animate East Asia’s international relations.

Both China and Japan have a complicated equation with their neighbours. For China’s neighbours, it is the prospect of reviving a “Middle Kingdom” suffocating nation states on its periphery that fuels insecurity. For Japan, it is an undiminished colonial history affecting the national identities of the Korean peninsula, China, and much of the Western Pacific. Japan’s quest to acquire the sinews of a normal state has only heightened the shadows of its past role in Asia.

In sum, both China and Japan are struggling to define a role that can carry the rest of Asia along with them. Ironically, and in a strange way, India legitimises both China’s and Japan’s role in Asia. For Japan, India is the only state without the stain of colonial oppression, and one that is eager for a larger Japanese role in Asia’s future.

A relatively stable neighbour

For China, India is a relatively stable neighbour in contrast to rising antagonisms with a U.S.-led Pacific bloc. India’s independent role and a relatively clean slate in Asia, despite an unresolved dispute with China, provide India with leverage and space if used sensibly.

Third, Russia and China have forged a mutually beneficial global partnership primarily to counteract the lingering unilateralist impulses of Washington. Whether it was the Iran nuclear issue, the Syrian civil war, or the tussle between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s alignment, Moscow and Beijing have been on virtually the same page. As one participant at the recent Stockholm China Forum reportedly remarked, “When China is confronted by U.S., we think Russia is with U.S. – and vice versa. It boosts us psychologically.” While the Kremlin is by no means misty-eyed about its partnership with Beijing, Washington’s policy of containment has left Russian President Vladimir Putin with few options but to seek strategic and economic depth with Russia’s largest neighbour.

This also has implications for Asia Pacific’s geopolitics. For example, the Russian media recently revealed that its military had “detected and stopped” a Japanese submarine “near the Russian-Japanese maritime boundary.” In May, during Mr. Putin’s China visit, in a gesture to Beijing, Russia conducted sophisticated naval exercises with China in the East China Sea as a deliberate signal to Washington that it could complicate America’s forward presence in the Western Pacific.

Suffice it to say, New Delhi must recognise these dynamics and avoid postures and policies that could involve India in larger power struggles in which it has no direct interests. If it plays its cards wisely, India can reap the benefits of a multipolar world.

Out of my mind: Break away

In four days, we will know whether Scotland will vote for independence or to stay within the United Kingdom. It is a historic event. The entire debate has been conducted in a civilised manner. There has been little intimidation or violence except for trolls on Twitter and rotten eggs thrown occasionally.

The United Kingdom is not a federation, nor is it strictly a nation-state. It is a kingdom united under a single crown. Wales was conquered by the English in the 13th Century. When Elizabeth the First died, leaving no heirs, James, the King of the Scots, was invited to take over the throne of England.

In 1707, a union was negotiated between Scotland and England. By then, Ireland had also been conquered, so the United Kingdom of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland was born. It remained one of the most centralised polities until the late 20th Century. But Scotland had a special status. It had its own law and courts, its education system and its Church which did not owe allegiance to the Anglican Church. The Scots became a vital part of the Empire and integrated in the Union while keeping their identity distinct.

It was the advent of Margaret Thatcher which caused the first rupture. Her party failed to win a single of the 60-odd seats in Scotland in 1987. To this was added the piloting of the poll tax (a community charge) in Scotland before its introduction in England. The poll tax was Mrs Thatcher’s nemesis. It brought her down but it also gave an impetus to the Scots to ask why should they be governed by a party which they had rejected. A popular debate began which then became the Scottish Convention. All UK political parties except the Conservatives joined it along with many from the civil society.

Scotland won devolution when Labour came to power in 1997. It had freedom to decide policy in education and health. It had its own separate spending limits since the mid-Seventies. Now it had limited power to change the tax rate. Devolution was to counter the Scottish nationalist movement. Scotland was given its own Parliament. Soon, Wales followed and Northern Ireland as well. The UK became a model for devolution for the rest of Europe where there were regional nationalisms — the Basques and the Catalans in Spain, for example.

Yet, as in many colonies, conceding limited demands did not satisfy the Scots. The Scottish Nationalist Party defeated Labour Party and came to power on its own. Alex Salmond, its populist leader, has run a campaign for independence from its initial hopelessnessto its current position of smelling victory. The Referendum was conceded by David Cameron as his party is still absent from Scotland. On Thursday, the vote will be cast. Until a fortnight ago, the No Vote, which meant staying in the Union, was leading by seven to ten points. Now it is neck and neck. If the outcome is a narrow margin in favour of No, the battle will not end. If it is narrowly for Yes, the game is over. A thousand-year history will be rewritten. Even so, it has been a unique experiment. A peaceful rupture between two nations long united though never so much as to lose their separate identities. It is an example for the world to follow. During the last 25 years, two large federations have broken up. The Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations. Yugoslavia, which many considered the ideal Socialist country, dissolved in an ethnic war with inhuman cruelties. In our neighbourhood, Bangladesh is one reminder and the tragedy of Sri Lanka’s civil war another that if you neglect a region or marginalise a community, unpleasant consequences follow. A nation survives as long as it is a union of the willing. The past is no more a guarantee of solidarity than a rosy future. The past is most often an issue of disagreement when differences become unbearable. Despite proclaiming the virtue of unity in diversity, India has to be on its guard. The central fissure has not been along religious lines. It has been regional, on the borders of India, be it the Northeast, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab or even Tamil Nadu. Take nothing for granted.