Solved GDs

Entry in a job can be on merit, for that is an objective criterion for a start, but once a person joins an office, his actual experience alone must count in allowing his promotions. This experience enables him to gain true knowledge of the practical working of his office. We cannot deny the fact that seniority makes a man proportionately experienced while mere merit takes into consideration only bookish knowledge.

By merit we generally mean securing high marks in written examinations and intelligently convincing the examiner or the interviewer. But the fact is that even duffers can secure high marks by cramming a few important answers and get through the interview by chance or recommendation. On the contrary, only practical experience can give us the true knowledge of theory and practice of a particular line.

From our own experience in India we find that our old system of hereditary practice of a particular trade or profession enables young boys to gain much more experience than today's newly recruited young men who are given higher position, salary and status. An ordinary mistry working under an engineer knows more about the intricacies of a machine than the meritorious engineer. It would be in the fitness of things, for us, therefore, to give higher ranks and salaries to the humble mistries and make new recruits work under them as apprentices, so as to bring about quick industrial development.

There being no absolute and infallible test for computing one's merit on the basis of an objective criterion, the system of promotion by merit allows for subjective assessment by superiors and thus leads to favoritism and corruption. On the contrary, seniority being quite obvious, promotions based on it leaves no scope for corruption or favoritism.

We must see to it that even a peon after a number of years is made a junior officer, then a senior and eventually head of the department, provided, of course, he has gained sufficient knowledge through experience. This system operates in some advanced western countries quite successfully for it offers incentive to old hands.

Promotions in offices and factories should be based on merit alone, for, it seniority were to be given weightage in promoting one to higher posts , every Tom, Dick and Harry who has put in a specified years of service would start claiming promotions just because of his duration in service. Can we grant promotions to a peon who dusts books and carries files in a library without even caring to read their contents? Can his seniority make him more able or capable? The fact is that only time applied in useful purposes has educative value. In this respect, we have the shining example of Gangadhar Yadav, a gardener in his early 20's at IIM, Lucknow. He so involved himself in doing some extra work in the office there, that in the year 2000 a visiting Vice President of a reputed multinational got impressed with him and offered him the job of Sales Executive!

The greatest progress in nations of the world has been achieved where promotions and honours have gone to the meritorious alone. Here we have the most spectacular case of China and the former Soviet Union. In China, they followed Confucian teachings since ancient times and recruited their government officers accordingly on the basis of a competition. Today we know where China stands! In the case of the Soviet Union too, their greatest progress in science and technology was made possible by encouragement given to merit. That is why they could put first Sputnik in the orbit and build a huge military industrial complex. An ordinary factory worker could hope to become a manager one day.

Granted that people with seniority are sometimes more knowledgeable than new recruits who come on the basis of examinations and competitions but they are exceptions. Majority of them do not make any serious attempt to know or learn more and do better. However, the few who improve themselves do get an opportunity for promotions,on the basis of both merit and seniority.

The requirements of the present day make old people outdated, because of rapid technological advancement in factories and new work culture. Therefore, if merit alone is taken into consideration while promoting, the knowledge of the latest devices and design can be meaningfully tested in a candidate who keeps himself abreast of them.

We now witness worldwide skill upgrading, computerization, government downsizing, more mechanization and automation. What does it indicate? Only that we are moving towards meritocracy- a kind of government where all jobs is available on the basis of merit and academic qualifications alone. In such a situation, seniority is bound to be left irrelevant and only merit as proved through technical and practical knowledge will count.

Loyalty and Genius both need to be rewarded. Policy needs to ensure that there are exceptions for the career paths of exceptional people, without making so many exceptions that it gets converted into a “rule”.

The very idea of providing reservations to any segment of the population is based on negatives. It allows for preferential treatment without a thought being given to the caliber or eligibility aspect. Just about any individual from the reserved castes scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward castes can get a Government job or admission in an educational institution on a much lower eligibility criterion for percentage of marks and a higher age. This lowering of standard breeds inefficiency, discourages the really meritorious and negates the very concept of quality of opportunity. 49.5 percent reservation means that half the administrative machinery has inbuilt inefficiency, while Article 335 of our Constitution lays down that reservation should be consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.

By rejecting people of higher competence from general category and accepting the reserved category with lower competence, the reservation policy acts as a disincentive to the meritorious and more capable. Thus inhibits healthy growth or development of an individual. Such brilliant students, victims of unfair favouritism of our reservation policy, get frustrated and leave for foreign countries which favour merit alone. This brain-drain adversely affects the intellectual capability of our country. Not only this, the system of reservation, says Justice Chinnappa Reddy, has in many cases paradoxically generated “a spirit of self-denigration” - each community of caste competing to be more backward than others.

Private enterprises, being interested in efficiency alone, do not follow the retrograde policy of reservation. Their sole criterion of selecting people is merit and ability to deliver the goods. This is why they are doing extremely well.But, of late, demands for introducing reservations in private sector has been raised in some influential quarters.Should this come about, God save whatever efficiency we still have in at least a few segments of our administration and economy.

It is a shame that in this computer and space age we, by institutionalizing our reservation policy, admit that we are a decadent society based on caste. What image does it convey in the international field? Can casteism be done away with by having caste based reservations? Should we not follow economic criterion instead so that only a few families do not benefit perpetually by this unfair policy? The criterion of creamy layer is patently humbug, for it is so applied that even those with sufficient means and standing in society succeed in getting the benefit of reservation. All this breeds discontent and occasions social unrest. Therefore, the sooner we do away with reservations the better for the nation.

Reservations were supposed to be an interim arrangement for 10 years as per our constitution so that the low caste people could come up socially. But encouraged by our shortsighted politicians with their sights fixed on this sizeable vote-bank, its beneficiaries have formed it into a habit to claim reservation as a matter of right. Instead of striving hard to excel, they seek the shortcut of reservations and the vested political interests perpetuate it. This vicious circle can be broken by the Government by having a firm cutoff year for reservations and spreading education among the depressed classes on a priority basis. But can we do so by assigning low priority to education with a mere 4 percent budget allocation for it?

Instead of facilitating spatial growth of education and development among the depressed classes, reservations have spawned a new elitist group a mere 5 percent among them, which has cornered all the benefits meant for 22.5 per cent. The same is going to be the fate of the most backwards among backward classes.

A further reservation of 27 percent to the other backward classes has aggravated the employment problem and has formed caste animosities and hatred. This retrograde step is not going to do any good to the nation. In the name of social justice, an injustice of the worst type is being perpetrated because of the accident of birth in a higher caste. Moreover, the argument that since the new reserved categories have suffered injustice through centuries at the hands of upper caste people, the latter should atone for that, is beyond comprehension. How could a young boy or girl be held responsible and guilty for an alleged crime supposed to have been committed by his or her forefathers? Two wrongs do not make one right?

The only hope of the children of ordinary families for a better future is through education and open-to-all competitive examination. This has been shattered by the additional 27 per cent job quota for other Backward Class (BC) candidates following acceptance of the Mandal Commission Report. That is why they resorted to agitation and even self-immolation, but to no avail. It has further fractured our caste-ridden society. The author of the Mandal Commission Report himself admits that the system followed by the Commission in compiling the list is unscientific.

It is really damaging to the nation as a whole that instead of tackling our population problem largely due to the illiterate, backward and superstitious people of backward classes, we give them the lollipop of reservations! In spite of their wretchedness and poverty they produce more children and make the life of these innocents more miserable than theirs. Therefore, if at all reservations are to be given they must be linked with adoption of family-planning methods. This will prove to be an effective deterrent against population explosion and will also benefit these classes themselves.

The obnoxious caste system might have served some purpose when it originated centuries ago but now it is a hindrance to our social progress. The claim of the apologists of caste system that caste was changeable according to merit and competence of the individual and was not strictly hereditary is disapproved by the story of Karna in the Mahabharat who inspite of being equal to or even more in valour, skill, warfare and charity than the Kshatriyas was made to suffer humiliation for being a Sut Putra (Son of a Shudra) till his death. Again we have the story of Eklavya, a low-born. Dronacharya, the teacher of Arjun, the great archer of the epic Mahabharat, demanded his thumb as Gurudakshina (Fee), even though he had refused to teach him archery fearing that he might surpass. Thus centuries of oppression and untouchability cannot be undone in just a few years of honest and sincere efforts. Therefore, the makers of our Constitution stipulated reservation for scheduled castes and tribes for a period of ten years but it had to be extended again and again because they could not come up in such a short time. It is only fair and just to reserve some seats for these deprived and oppressed people, who could not enter even temples and educational institutions. The question of any inefficiency creeping in or harm or injustice being done to others does not arise because one, these classes too must fulfill certain basic minimum educational or technical qualification, and, too, some states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have over 50 percent reservations yet their efficiency is second to none. Again, no hue and cry of lowering efficiency or standards is raised when a son of a rich father gets admission in a technical or professional course in spite of lower marks. Then why these double standards?

Our constitution lays down equality among equals and not among un equals. Through the policy of reservation, our depressed and backward class people are sought to be brought to the status of equality with others. It is really shameful for a modern civilized society like ours that even after 55 years of independence, a scheduled caste barat party is not allowed to go through a Rajput dominated village near Agra, young lovers belonging to higher lower caste are hanged in village panchayats in broad daylight without a whimper of protest! Hence, reservation is an affirmative action to bring about socio-economic betterment of these classes and must, therefore, continue.

Being a Welfare State, we owe it to the weaker sections to ensure their well-being through governmental action.Their economic backwardness, poor state of education and social deprivation are all due to our society which even at this late hour should not prevent their upliftment. It is because of this oppressive, humiliating and torturous caste system and resultant deprivation that has led thousands of scheduled castes people (From Dr. Ambedkar to Ramraj now Uditraj) to get converted en masse into other religions. Resort to such conversions as a means of escape from caste-based oppression is a shame on the entire society.

If the Brahmins can work as pujaris and act as agents of God for all auspicious occasions like births, marriages,deaths, etc. as a birthright, why should the Hindu society not view some reservation for backward class people with charity and generosity.

Even now the total reservation is only 49.5 percent for about 76.5 per cent of the population while over 50 per cent seats are available for about 23.5 per cent candidates of higher castes. Besides, true social justice can come with a price and reservations are the prices that are privileged classes should be willing to pay so that the accident of birth is no more used against their lowborn brethren.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “Swaraj for me means freedom for the meanest for our countrymen. I am not interested in freeing India merely from the English yoke. I am bent upon freeing India from any yoke whatsoever.” It goes to prove that Father of the Nation would ensure individual freedom for one and all. But can such freedom be possible for the exploited and oppressed weaker sections?

The depressed and backward class people cannot fare well in an open competition because of centuries of suppression and deprivation, and, hence, they cannot develop themselves. In this modern age of knowledge explosion through mass media, they may get alienated from the main stream of our society. This can generate dangerous consequences for the nation as a whole. Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, we should accept our downtrodden brethren with an open arm and give them a helping hand in realizing their potential. This way only we can achieve our common destiny, for didn't our ancient seers proclaimed “Sarve Bhawantu Sukhinah ma Kashchid duhkh bhag bhavet”. (Let all be happy, let no one be miserable).

Inequalities will always exist. Society will always try to set right these inequalities in some ways. Policy checks here should be to see if the solution is working in the long term or not.

India adopted the Parliamentary form of democracy after getting Independence in 1947 because India had been familiar with its working during the days of the British rule. Since then 13 general elections have been held to the Lok Sabha on the basis of universal adult franchise, and barring a few violent incidents during the polls, there has been peaceful transition of authority from one political party to the other. Moreover, while in a parliamentary democracy, the Executive is responsible to the legislature and therefore, the opposition always keeps it alert. For it “always lives in the shadow of a coming defeat.” As Laski points out, in a Presidential democracy the President does not have to fear any opposition because he is not responsible to the legislature. It can make him autocratic. Hence Esmein calls the system “autocratic, irresponsible and dangerous.” So, would it be advisable for us to hand over the destiny of our vast country with abundant resources and population to the whims and caprices of a dictatorial President?

Since the majority party or a majority coalition of several parties comes to power in a Parliamentary democracy, there is bound to be co-operation and harmony between the Executive and the Legislature. It ensures easy implementation of plans and policies of the ruling party for it can have its own way, no matter what the opposition parties in the Lok Sabha say.In the Presidential form, on the contrary, the system of separation of powers between the Executive and Legislature often leads to conflict: more so, if these two wings of the government are controlled by different parties. This leads to delay, confusion and procrastination. Therefore, it is advisable for us to continue with the present system which has unity of responsibility, direction and power.

It is always possible to remove a failed Prime Minister and replace him with a new competent and acceptable individual as per the wishes of the people. This happened in the United Kingdom during World War II when Chamberlain proved to be a timid Prime Minister and Churchill replaced him without any commutation taking place. But a President cannot be thus removed before the expiry of his tenure except by an extremely difficult process of Impeachment. Thus this system being rigid does not mould itself easily to abusing circumstances. Therefore, there is no point in having a Presidential democracy where even a persona non grata has to be tolerated for the remaining tenure of his office.

Bryce maintains that the Parliamentary form of Government secures swiftness in decision and vigor in action because cabinet can easily get the measures it deems essential passed through the Legislature. In the Presidential form, inordinate delay is caused in arriving at decisions, for the Legislature is to be convinced of major policy decisions.

“Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely” says Lord Acton. This applies to the position of a President vested with the entire administration and absolute power who might on his own take drastic action at home and in foreign policy and bring about great suffering to the people. We should therefore, maintain the status quo of Parliamentary Government, notwithstanding its shortcomings and faults, which has several heads to solve national problems in the form of the cabinet.

Parliamentary democracy suits us because here persons fit to be members of the Executive make known their sagacity, political acumen, grasp and common sense, and the Prime minister will always be one who has undergone a long and strenuous period of political apprenticeship. This state of affairs does not obtain in a Presidential democracy in the United States any person without adequate political experience can hope to become the President. He very often comes from obscurity and goes into obscurity again after his term of office is over and he is 'a leap in the dark.'

If the ruling party fails to deliver and carry the majority with it in a Parliamentary democracy, the opposition more than merely exposing its drawbacks, loopholes and blunders, tries to step into his shoes without necessarily having to force the ritual of a fresh election. A fixed tenure of office for a President does not make this possible in a Presidential democracy.

India has been the most stable nation of Afro Asia. The main factor contributing to our stability has been the holding of periodic general elections. Government seeks to correspond to the desires of the electorate. Members of the Legislature who represent prevailing tendencies and opinion of the nation apprise the cabinet of them.Cabinet or the ruling party can ignore or brush aside them only at its own peril. Presidential democracy, on the other hand, has nothing much to care for a shift in public opinion because the fixed term of office of the President makes him secure in office for the stipulated number of years. This may make him unresponsive to the wishes of the people and rule as a dictator.

The time has come for us to switch over to the government of experts, as the Presidential government is called instead of the government of amateurs or the Parliamentary democracy. The President is authorized to appoint the members of his cabinet irrespective of party affiliation. He can even obtain the services of nonparty experts. A Prime Minister, on the other hand, is bound to appoint only members of his party or of parties supporting him. And he has to take into consideration their caste, region, religion and their following, notwithstanding their otherwise unsuitability for the post. In India, we have had, in the past and have even today, several persons as ministers not because of their intrinsic quality but due to parochial considerations.

Presidential system ensures that the President has a national image. He does not belong to this or that group or faction in the Legislature. Since he is elected for a fixed term of office, stability is inbuilt in this form of government because he is not dependant on the vagaries of the Legislature. In Parliamentary Government, on the other hand, the Prime Minister has to please both his party men and the opposition to continue in office. The instability of this form of government becomes more obvious when a single party does not hold a majority in the Legislature and a coalition government is formed, as was the case in France prior to the inauguration of the 5th republic, and in India during the Janata Party rule (1977- 80), National Front Governments in 1989-91 and in 1996-98. The BJP led coalition government had to resign in just 13 days and 13 months respectively and the NDA Government had to put up with the tantrums of this or that coalition partner.

In a Presidential democracy, the Legislature is less likely to be dominated by party spirit and the individual members can vote independently on the issues presented to them, as the fate of the government does not depend on them. This phenomenon is so much in evidence in the classic case of United States that the two main parties the Republican and the Democratic are called 'same wine in different bottles'. Contrary to this the Parliamentary system “intensifies the spirit of party and keeps it always on the boil” says Lord Bryce. Even if there are no important issues of policy before the nation, there are always the offices to be fought, for one party holds them, the other desires them and the conflict is unending for immediately after defeat, the beaten party begins its campaign to dislodge the victors. While the opposition criticizes Government policy regardless of its merits, the ruling party avoids putting unpopular measure, however important they may be, and resorts to populism ignoring the need of the nation. Don't we witness this happening here in India? Should, then, we still continue with this irresponsible state of affairs?

The fusion of executive and legislative functions in a parliamentary democracy like ours has made the cabinet usurp the functions of parliament, for the Union Legislature is now in session for about 3 months in one year while during Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru's time it used to be in session for more than 4 months. Moreover, rule by ordinance tends to bypass the authority of Parliament. In the Presidential system, on the other hand, there is separation of the Executive and the Legislature. Hence, no wing can usurp the powers of the other. This ensures that no legislation is enacted in haste or without, in-depth deliberation.

In a presidential democracy, a continuous and consistent home and foreign policy can be followed because the chief executive enjoys security of tenure and cannot be easily removed. This fact is established by the Rooseveltian era in USA. Contrary to this, in a parliamentary democracy, there is no continuity or consistency of policies because of instability of Government. A new cabinet may even reverse the policy followed by its predecessor.

In a presidential system, bureaucratic appointments are made by the president, and in some cases, with the approval of the legislature. They are responsible for their acts of omission and commission. In the Parliamentary Government, on the other hand, there is a fixed tenure for bureaucrats who thrive under the cloak of ministerial responsibility. In India, we witness an over bureaucratization of the entire administration, which causes red-tape and avoidable delay. Bureaucracy even hijacks the well meant policies of the government.

With a multiplicity of political parties spawned due to personality clash of egoistic leaders and helplessness of even anti defection law, floor-crossing and horse-trading have become the norm in our parliamentary practices. The politician-bureaucrat-businessman-criminal nexus has debased the parliamentary institution, interfered with the judiciary, created law and order problems and encouraged terrorism and separation on a wider scale. Even violence inside the legislature has bought them into disrepute. Instead of being a government by discussion, parliamentary democracy has descended to the low level of pandemonium and bedlam in the houses of the legislature.

Low calibre, casteist and communal elements, able to exploit the illiterate and poor masses a considerable vote bank, get elected to the legislatures. Thus with their immense bargaining power they are able to get ministerial berths? The result? Jumbo cabinets unmanageable in States like U.P and Bihar where ministers have practically no work to do in some cases but are a burden on the Exchequer. Thus we are caught in a vicious circle of all-round deterioration. It is, therefore, high time that we abandon the Parliamentary system and adopt the Presidential democracy where ministerial posts need not be given to elected representatives, the candidate is more important than the party and, hence, corruption, inefficiency, vested interests and paralyzing interference from politicians can be easily removed.

The form of government is specific to a cultural and social context. Aspects that aid efficient government need to be reinforced, irrespective of the form of government.