Mains Essay-2015: Analysis and Solutions UPSC continued with its pattern of 2014 in 2015 CS essay exam as well. Students were required to write on two essays in about 1000-1200 words each while selecting one from each section A and B. The trend of asking Argumentative/Persuasive Essays that started in 2012 still continued and even took a significant turn. Rather than testing on knowledge based topics (core GS topics), the focus was more on opinion based general topics. The topics looked straightforward prima facie but could easily prove to be a perfect recipe for disaster if not handled well. The definition of an essay as a reflection of the candidate s personality becomes even more relevant in such cases. It ll even be difficult to classify topics in specific categories (like education, economy etc.) since they were more of opinions that required students to either substantiate them or repudiate them through proper logical coherent expression of ideas well supported by sound judgment and analysis. Out of 8 given topics, 5 were general opinion based topics. Generating content is no doubt important and is a challenge in such essays but what is even more important is its organization, logical flow of thoughts, diversity of opinion, captivating introduction and a conclusion that ensures a sense of closure. Rest 3 were question type topics which focused more on specific alternatives and seemingly required the students to answer them in that confined perspective. But even here diversity of arguments and logical flow of thoughts would be valued. CS 2015 Essay Paper Analysis along with Solved Essays & Discussion Class by Hemant Kumar, IRS/Essay Topper (160/250) (24 th Dec, 2015 @11am) Essay 1: Lending Hands to Someone Is Better Than Giving a Dole From ancient kings to modern welfare states, Doles have been given by governments for various reasons and motivations. But, the practice which was once used to be highly praised has now been criticised from many perspectives. The populist measures by governments in form of illogical subsidies to disaster relief packages have led to a debate between a good and a bad dole. The process itself has been questioned for its usefulness in context of people s welfare in long term. A logical and reasoned analysis of facts and observations shows that a more participative and humane approach which can help subjects to become self-sufficient and independent is anytime better than doles which make them habitual and dependent on others. Dole in form of unemployment benefits, social security payments, financial grants, subsidies and relief packages has always been used by governments for the welfare of their subjects. Such governments are more likely to have a greater shelf life (irrespective of quality) than those who don t care for deprived sections of society. Vedas talk about giving grants to priests and those who are unable to help themselves due to conditions like physical handicap or old age. Even Arthashastra by Kautilya talks about such welfare measures for the good of king s subjects. However, any illogical grant which is given just to appease can harm both, the one who s giving it and the other who is taking it. Hefty grants by kings to the priest in vedic age made the priests addicted, which eventually led to their downfall (rise of Buddhism and Jainism) as well as decline of empire due to dissonance in the mind of taxpayers. Present governments don t seem to learn from history and continue to make the same mistake, though in different manner. The give and take relation no longer exists in democracies like India and now people demand resources in the name of redistributive justice and their rights. It is true that stimulus in form of subsidies and grants were required in India during initial years after independence, as people were distressed of years of exploitation and sufferings. They needed a trigger to get out from the trap of poverty and helplessness. Initial grants helped the people but the absence of gradual change in policy has led the measure ineffective and in some cases it has also backfired. For example, reservation in government jobs has now become a problem as almost every section of society is demanding it. The approach should have been changed into lending hands in form of leadership, motivation, skills and environment in which self growth could take place. Continuous use of grants has made the process institutionalized, just like begging on streets which has a now become a profession and a lucrative field for many. The attitude towards doles has become so positive that it has led to the process of de- Sanskritization i.e. reclaiming backward status to enjoy the benefits of dole.
Stagnant policies have made India a welfare dole state before its time. Nearly 3% of India s GDP has gone towards bad subsidies i.e. dole that merely transfers income and reduces poverty only on a maintenance basis. In contrast only around 1% has gone towards subsidies that enhance individual productivity (through roads, education, and health). The dole comprises four broad categories of expenditure fuel, fertiliser, food and employment. Even the governments themselves do not argue that the first two do much to help the poor. Less than 15 percent of dole regarding food and employment actually reaches the targeted poor. Yet the government wants to continue to persist with inefficient and corrupt dole policies for food (PDS) and employment (NREGA). In fact, they want to expand such leaky schemes. Another scenario in which doles become popular is during the times of disasters. It seems to be quite ironical that states prefer giving grants to flood hit states like J & K in 2014 rather than giving support during the time when disaster can be prevented through smart capacity building. The early governments in India always knew the shortcomings of their approach of dole-nomics but the reforms have been slow and tardy. This is largely due to the simplicity of giving doles and the popularity that government attains through such measures. But in long term, doles crippled people and de-motivated them to do even that work which they could have done for themselves. However, some initiatives have been taken in this regard in last 20 years. One such initiative is Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (SGSY), which was introduced in 1999 after merging schemes like IRDP, TRYSEM etc. The Government realized that the piecemeal efforts in the sphere of rural development had not achieved the targeted objectives. SGSY organize rural poor into Self Help Groups (SHGs) through the process of social mobilization and work on their training and capacity building with provision for income generating assets and technology transfer. Some recent initiatives like skill India initiative has the objective of creating training facilities and market availability for unskilled youth which presently constitutes 90% of all adults (as per NSSO survey, only 1 out of 10 youth have received any kind of training, both formal and informal ). Digital India programme also aim to harness the potential of youth through lending hands and not just transfer of funds. In times when governance also include private sector offering public services, Company act 2013 calls for corporate social responsibility which calls for companies to take responsibility of lifting the poor rather than giving it away in form of enhanced taxes. Such participative and associative approach no doubt has always been better than just transferring credit to the needy. It helps the poor to build their self-confidence through community action. Such approach provides human touch and leadership to the people who have the potential to grow by themselves. It provides vigilance in long term through both external accountability and internal responsibility. Above all, such approach maintains human dignity as it abolishes the distinction between givers and takers and lead to more inclusive growth. States particularly from third world not only give doles but also receive doles in form of soft loans and credit lines from the developed states and world institutions. Even such doles have huge impact over a nation s sovereignty and self respect. Financial grants made by agencies like World Bank and IMF do come up with implicit conditions which are aimed to maintain western hegemony over the East. Nobody can forget the kind of humiliation India had to face when it imported wheat from US under PL-480 programme. On other side, Green Revolution which was a huge success was largely due to multi-pronged strategy in terms of technology, supplies and infrastructure rather than just cash transfers. Climate change is another area which can t be handled just by providing funds to the developing countries. Developed world in this case has the responsibility of not only reducing their emissions but also assist developing world in collective and participative manner. The Nordic model followed by Scandinavian countries calls for social democracy and provides doles even to those who can work but are not willing to. However, most citizens don t take it as it is considered highly embarrassing and unethical. India has not reached this level of high values but this is what it should aim for. Working together to develop together shall be the talisman of people and government. Doles must be used as an exception rather than the principle. ESSAY 8: CAN CAPITALISM BRING INCLUSIVE GROWTH?? There are some stories which have legends; likewise, the story of economic development has also three important legends: Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Since historic years, there have been continuous clashes between these legends and the supporters of them with each of it have been remembered by many in particular times. But ultimately after the decline of Soviet Union and increasing globalization, capitalism has proved its superiority and can be appropriately declared as the winner. Now the questioning over the success of capitalism has taken a turn from rapid economic growth to inclusive growth. There are continuous allegations on capitalism that its growth is not trickled down to everyone. Thus, it s important to argue that whether the capitalism would result into Inclusive Growth?
Capitalism is an economic system which is based on private ownership of the means of production and the production of goods and services for profit motive. Inclusive Growth on other hand is the concept that advances equitable opportunities for economic participants during economic growth with benefits incurred by every section of society. It is supposed to be inherently sustainable as distinct from income distribution schemes. ADAM SMITH S IDEA OF INVISIBLE HAND: In his book on the Wealth of the Nations, Adam Smith propounded an idea of Invisible Hand. It is used as a metaphor to describe unintended social benefits resulting from individual actions. He argued for the individuals to work for their self-interest as every individual is a rational being and this would ultimately result into the overall societal development. Thus, he prescribes the idea of free market without any regulations i.e. the idea of Laissez Faire state. But there are certain pre-conditions for the capitalist model to achieve the desired objectives: Man has to be rational in every decision which is not practical. There can be many instances of market failure such as: o Asymmetry of information among the economic agents o Presence of public goods o Externalities in production and consumption o Uncertainity In this simplified analysis, it would seem that capitalist model instead of inclusive growth would result in the deeper inequalities between the rich and poor. But let s argue this much in detail below. CAPITALISM AND GROWTH: IS IT INCLUSIVE OR NOT?? One point that needs to mention here is: For Inclusive Growth, there has to be growth atleast. Thus, any model that promotes inclusive growth should have mainly 2 pre-requisites: One that promotes fast growth for the country Generates equitable opportunities for every section of society to be benefitted There is no doubt based on the experience across the countries of the world that capitalism has achieved a fast pace of economic growth. This has consequently resulted into unprecedented increases in income (although unequally distributed) which led to healthy standards of living and increased prosperity of an individual that also raises the life expectancy of an individual. Thus, there is overall remarkable progress of mankind through the increased acceptance of the free market policies in both rich and poor countries. Before the industrial revolution, 80% of the world s population lived in abject poverty. By 1980, that number has fallen to 34.8% and by 2000, less than 20% of the population lives on less than $1 a day. Although it has resulted into wide income disparities, it was assumed that this is for a short while and the benefits of economic growth would trickle down to the bottom i.e. marginalized sections of society. This came to be known as Trickle Down theory. But now it has been widely recognized that the benefits of the economic growth do no trickle down automatically. While we have seen how capitalism has guided the world economy to unprecedented prosperity, it has led to increased inequalities between the rich and the poor that extends far beyond income. It would affect the access to employment, good health and educational opportunities. Growth would be a meaningless objective if it has not been accompanied by the improvement in income and other social indicators of the majority. Marx has always argued that income inequalities are integral to capitalist development. Illustrating some facts of disparities: The 1.2 billion poorest people on the planet account for just 1% of global consumption, while the billion richest are responsible for 72%. 85 richest people in the world have accumulated the same wealth as the bottom 3.5 billion. For the first time, the wealth of the richest 1% of the world s population will overtake that of the remaining 99% in few years as per study. One in eight people goes to bed hungry every night, while 1.4 billion adults are overweight.
Even Jagdish Bhagwati, an eminent Indian economist who emphasized to focus only on growth highlights the importance of the state in achieving Inclusive Growth. He argues that growth may raise inequality initially but sustained growth will eventually raise enough resources for the state to redistribute and mitigate the effects of initial inequality. On the other hand, Amartya Sen argues for the investment in social infrastructure (such as health, education, sanitation etc.) which would improve the human capabilities of people, consequently their productivity and ultimately raising growth. And such growth will be much more inclusive as it now provides equitable opportunities with having around same human capabilities to reap the benefits of economic growth. But such approach demands a proactive role of the state. From the discussion of the above two economists, one thing that has been emphasized is the active role of the state in achieving Inclusive Growth. It has now been widely recognized that capitalism unchecked would only result into the exploitation of the marginalized and the increasing income inequality. Thus, today nowhere is the country where there is fully capitalist model. There has been a shift from State vs Market to State with Market for the economic development of any country. Let s take all the above arguments with respect to a single country and based on my knowledge and experience, I ve chosen India. INDIAN PERSPECTIVE: Indian economy since Independence has four major objectives i.e. Economic Growth, Self-Reliance, Modernization and Equity. To achieve all these objectives, India has adopted a Mixed Economy Model which combines the features of both capitalist market economies and socialist command economies. But the role of public and private sector has been continuously changing and the private sector started gaining prominence after the LPG reforms of 1991. Thus the Indian economy, whose growth rate was criticized as Hindu Rate of Growth and that never peaked to 5% before the reforms, started moving on a path of high growth. Today, India has been recognized as the fastest growing economy of the world. Despite the high growth over the past two decades, concerns have been raised over the growth not being equally distributed. Thus, the policy makers have argued for Inclusive Growth in 11 th and 12 th Five Year Plans (FYP). To achieve Inclusive Growth, many of the flagship schemes such as MGNREGA, National Health Mission, Right to Education, Janani Suraksha Yojana etc. have been launched. In India, state is playing an active role along with the civil society organizations to ensure that the fruits of economic growth are reaped by all section of society. At the same time, businesses also started acting in responsible manner and contributing to the society through Corporate Social Responsibility obligations. WAY FORWARD: Capitalism is a necessary evil but such evil has to be removed by the state and other actors in governance process and have to evolve new models of capitalism such as Conscious Capitalism, Moral Capitalism and Inclusive Capitalism. What matters in not the growth but the nature of growth and, more importantly, the beneficiaries of the growth!!! (For better understanding of candidates, this essay has not been written strictly according to the rules of writing an essay) All the Best Folks!! Team Orient IAS We ll be discussing the CS Essay 2015 question paper on 24 th December, 2015 viz-a-viz the following points Workshop cum detailed discussion on CS Essay 2015 paper and trends in UPSC Tips and techniques about writing a good and rewarding essay Note: all essays along with solutions will be discussed in the workshop on 24 th December. GS Paper 1, 2, 3 and 4 model answers will be available after 25 th December on orientias.com (in parts). Detailed class for GS Papers will be held on 2 nd January 2016. Contact us on 9643772112 and 9810949873. Discussion on the Types and various parts of essays Outline of the format and objectives of Essay Workshop cum Test Series, Question-answer session Note: Prior registration is Must