The recent controversy over UPSC, civil services exam is a debatable issue which is politicized by political leaders and parties for their parochial interests in Hindi and regional speaking belts. What these leaders and astray students do not understand is that Civil services exam is not a “welfare scheme”, but the most difficult and respected exam of the country.

The accusation on UPSC of being biased toward English has a fundamental fallacy. These students do not understand (and probably do not want to) the fact that, Civil services is a world class exam. The IAS/IFS officers represent the country abroad. The use of English on internet has brought a revolution in the geographical dimensions and users of the language. All the departmental files of the central government/Supreme court are in English, because its the language that binds the country. 

There should not be a comparison between English and regional languages. Because they serve different purposes and both are imperative. Its the regional language that makes a civil servant eligible to deal with the local people and listen to their grievances. So the UPSC judges both the languages, as there is a compulsory qualifying paper of regional language as well in mains examination.

The students that are sabotaging buses and public property on the name of agitation, can they really be civil service aspirants and serve the country? And no wonder these guys are not able to solve the even 10/12 level English passages. A true aspirant can never waste his time on roads one month before the exam. It’s probably the media attention and the desire to get an experience of scrabble with local administration which is attracting them on roads.

People do not understand that it’s a competitive exam, which means no matter how prepared you are, how smart you are, there are only 1000 seats. And so, only top 1000 will be selected (including 50% reservation seats) depending on the relative performance, out of the 400,000 students writing the exam. Usually they confuse it with their graduation exams in which they got passed or failed depending on the own performance.

The legacy of fame and respect for IAS officers is well known around the country. The expectations from family members, friends and teachers are usually high, which puts a moral pressure on the students. But given the nature of exam, failure of 380,000 students is bound to occur and for which they are not ready to accept.

Instead of learning and preparing for English, which is not only the International language, but also the linking language within the country, they are demanding to change the pattern. There is no denying that all regional language speaking people are sympathizer to the students and it paves way for politicians to condemn and play with the examination pattern.

The students of humanity have problems with mathematics, banking, aptitude etc. The irony of the exam in which more than 80% syllabus is from humanities is that, from last one decade most of the toppers are from non science background. These students are either from IIT’s, IIM’s, AIIMs or other technical/medical colleges. If these students can learn humanities and top the exam, why can’t the students of humanities come out of their comfort zone and learn some basic mathematics?

It probably the negative aspect of a democracy, where decisions are taken keeping majority and vote banks in mind (not the national interest). The vibrant democracy like India is in the same conundrum. Instead of raising themselves up to the level of exam, demanding UPSC to bring it down, and inviting politicians to breach the autonomy of a constitutional body, these students are gnawing the foundations of the commission and putting questions on their credentials.

In this era of computerization and internet, we need to understand that the exam is no more monopoly of students preparing in Mukherjee Nagar (which is the heart of agitation as well) or Colleges like St. Stephens as it happens to be once. The time has changed and we know people are usually reluctant to the change, but the matter of fact is also that those who do not change with time cease to exist. The same is applicable here as well.

Until recently, things were black and white for me. I was able to differentiate between right and wrong, true and false, good and bad. But within the last couple of years there has been a paradigm shift, unprecedented, in my life. And what used to exist as “stark distinctions” are “blurred lines” now.

 The menace is one, but the dimensions are myriad. And they vary from the civil war in Iraq to NaMo's public endorsement, from the  contentious issue of Kashmir to socio-cultural status of women in contemporary society, from purely theoretical ideals to practical grave realities of the societies.

 My friends and family members have found their way (Elders as conservatives and Youngsters as liberals). But for me the pursuit is still on and what lie ahead are shades of grey. They can have heated debate on the future of Penguins with decreasing size of Antarctica because of “Positive growth rate”. Albeit everyone knows that you have to draw lines and have to compromise somewhere. Unless technology cannot reconcile more with fewer (or no) greenhouse emission, the crusade against climate change will continue to fail. But there is little public interest for this.

 What makes me look bluer is their intransigence on the issue without thorough knowledge. A knowledge that is indispensable and that will deter you from making hasty comments. A knowledge that will make you reckon before you speak and will convert you from an acolyte to a radical.

 Naveen usually says, “You cannot make a person understand, if he does not want to understand.” What he euphemistically intends to project is the unfortunate (but not surprising) human instinct to defy their every actions (legitimate or illegitimate) with adroit reasoning. Prolonged reasoning becomes a belief, a deep belief becomes religion and religion is often followed by profession and practice of its rituals.

 Let me make it clear: I am not against reasoning, but when a reasoning is perception based (often biased), and ignores the broad prospects of life in the shade of personal liberty and human dignity (Many call it ego), Then it’s wrong somewhere down the line.

 This whole discussion will be futile if I will not illustrate my disillusionment by an example. I can’t recall a more fitting anecdote than the changing discourse of Indian women in the era of globalisation to illustrate my point. It is generally said and widely accepted that our past defines our present and our present lays the foundation of our future and in a broad framework. Let us first have a glimpse of Indian women’s past.

 I will begin with a thought experiment with a little imagination of the future and a little understanding of the past.

 Imagine yourself in a society (say late 19th century) where women were adjuncts to men. They did not have an identity of their own as such. They were known by the names of their husbands, sons, fathers or brothers. They were often subjugated, and were considered subordinate to their male counterparts.

 The birth of a girl was considered inauspicious, their marriage as a burden and on the death of their spouse they were condemned to be burnt alive on the same pyre (Sati).

 Female infanticides were common; dowry was prevalent, purdah system further suppressed their voice and was a part and parcel of our culture. Girls often faced discriminations in education and were not given any part of the father’s property on partition of their ancestral wealth (In Hindu culture at least). Early child marriages, polygamy aggravated the situation. Divorce and marriage at will were not present even in the fantasies of females.

 In that century it was easy to make a distinction between right and wrong (actually everything was wrong). And for reformers the debate was not on what is correct but it was on how to make the wrong correct. Now one part of the experiment is over with clarion.

 Come back to 21th century, let us begin the second part of the experiment in our own century and our own society (India is too diverse to take all sections at one time. We will confine our self with the upper middle class of an urban society).

 Most of the social evils have been abolished (I have my doubts about female infanticide), women are getting equal opportunities. And they are doing extremely well (at least in my class). They are empowered and are present in almost all the key areas of society (except security forces and mining industries). The results of board exams reveal that they are making their parents feel more proud than sons and that their education is worth spending money on.

 For a girl belonging to this class, there are 2 priorities. First is to look beautiful, fit and second is to get a better education, career. The deeds are noble as the cause, but if we go into a little depth the picture may look quite dismal (The Picture is blurred and depends on the perception).

 The definition of beautiful has been deliberately replaced by cosmetic industry, fashion designers, beauty magazines, and above all the mass media by fair complexion. The more you look dark and dusky, the more you are ugly (perceived notion). It was not endemic notion, for example in the epic of the Mahabharata, Dropadi was dark, but considered beautiful. Same was the case with Lord Rama and Krishna.

The veterans of this new notion of beauty have their vested interest in it as a multi billion industry runs on the name of “fairness creams”, Modelling industry, fashion designers and the vast market for it. A certain aura is created in the society and people want to look fair (it is reflected in the matrimonial sites as well).

 I feel disgusted because 90% of the population in this country is dark in complexion (across the line). And if such a vast majority start feeling inferiority complex because of skin colour then it’s a matter of concern for the national intellectuals/intelligentsia.

 Let’s come to the second aspect of beautiful after colour. Its figure/overweight concerns. I have a 7 year old (cousin) niece. Once we were dining together and I noticed she was picking potatoes out of the sabji. When asked, the reason was “imperils of obesity”. At the first sight you may be baffled (and to some extent impressed) by the level of awareness. But it is not awareness because after further discussion/interaction you will come to know that she has no problem with fast food from Mac’D and Dominos. She is not conscious about proteins, vitamins and minerals.

 She is not taking a balanced diet, in fact she is taking an insufficient diet and undesired pressure because of lack of knowledge. At the age of growth, one should focus on outdoor games (with lot of physical exercises), and protein rich diets. Age of 7 is certainly not the age of dieting.

 Interestingly she is more into electronic gadgets, and is often busy on mobile. You can’t get her attention ( or a sincere answer) while she is chatting. Ironically you will get a better reply on whatsapp. When I was her age I was crazy for games like hide-and-seek.

 Time has changed now. It is really difficult to say who is more correct. I do not know where this new culture is taking us or where it will end. Neither do I know where to draw the fine lines between “modern technology based life” or “old society based life”.

When India came into being in 1947, a lot many obituaries were made and books/literature was written. They said this country is too diverse to remain united and bound to disintegrate. This country has a fragile demographic and will flounder and fall soon. This country will not be able to come out of negative growth cycle and people will remain poor and so on.

The basic reason behind these prophesies was the preconceived notion and prevailing wisdom of that time. It was said that “one culture, one nation”, and democracy was not considered to be compatible with diversity. Homogenity was perceptional pre requisite for any successfully working democracy. What happened in USSR, Yugoslavia and a brutal partition of India on the basis of religion were the frequent examples given for corollary and contemplation? But India proved all notions wrong and emerged as a single nation still continuing after 65 years of independence.

A nation remain integrated does not mean it is great or its democracy is working remarkably, because there can be harsh means by which country can remain as a single entity. Military deployment, Emergency, denial of fundamental rights etc can be some of the horrible ways. In fact when there was demand of Khalistan, states reorganization on the basis of language, demands for separate states, Babri Masid demolition and Uprising of Maoists, the same historians reiterated that its “end of all”. Now this country will turn out to be a new Europe with homogenous countries like Sweden and Germany.

Again India passes through those delicate phases and proved every obituary wrong. The most troublesome states are one of the most peaceful states today. This is because of Indian democracy model and its constitution. The makers of Indian constitution were having a fantastic foresight and an inherent understanding of indigenous culture, people. They knew that diversity of India is its power not its weakness and they used this concept in making the new India.

‘Diversity will be preserved’ was given unanimous consent by the leaders of IAC and constitutional provisions were made specifically for this purpose. Asymmetrical federalism was opted (though the word federalism was completely shunted if we see it more closely), Schedules 5 and 6 provides constitutional guarantees for SCs, STs and other minorities, Fundamental Rights given specifically for this purpose. So that each state has sufficient flexibility to exercise its own culture, preserve its language, ethics and tradition. At the same time rigid enough that they can’t secede even if they want to. And this model turns out to be fantastic experiment with the modern democracy and its perception.

Parliamentary democracy was chosen because to run such a diverse country power is considered as a sharable good and it cannot be shared in Presidential democracy. As the logic of democracy unfolded regional parties come into being with regional interests. There were fears that these parties with parochial interests will ask for secession but what happened was just contrary to predictions. Those parties went for colisitions, made alliances and half of them named them self “All India…”, “Bharat…” etc. It means that they do not consider themselves as regional parties but have national aspirations and soon went into the system of interlocking which resulted in the further integration of country.

Indian democracy deserves appreciations as it’s a country which is having a large proportion of people which are proud of being Indian (which countries like Germany and Sweden do not have). All the castes and classes have faith on the democratic institutions like Judiciary, Parliament, Election commission and executive (though is low for Police force for certain reasons). Even the minorities and most backward classes have deep trust on Indian democracy and they believe that their vote makes a difference.

It’s an altogether different discussion that how much these institutions actually yield as kingdoms thrives and flourishes, so ruled on perceptions not on objectives. That is what happening in India.

But it does not mean that India did not face failures. Success and failures in this new experiment (which was against the contemporary wisdom of democracy) are unprecedented. Secession revolutions in Kashmir and Nagaland are the primary failures of this model. It will be hasty to say that democracy has failed here, but it’s the lack of working democracy behind the insurgency.

Indian constitution makers were not able to provide the level of decentralization that was necessary for compatible working of states and unions in this case. And the present leadership can’t take that decision (due to short term losses to parties) which would have been taken by Nehru and others. Somewhere by not providing the sufficient space to states Union is suffocating them and results are in front of us. In Kashmir valley (with 98% Muslims), 80% pubic wants secession. And the reason behind it is the atrocities done by army personnel’s every day. AFSPA is actually reinforcing separatist sentiment there, provoked by neighboring notorious countries and hence resulting in rise of terrorism (revolution as they call them self).

The case of Naxalities is little different in terms of democracy functioning. The habitat of those tribal of Dandakarayana forest are in danger because of industrial/mining intrusion. Again there is need for constitutional guarantees, which belligerent union and states are not providing because of corporate lobbyists with vested interests.

The conclusion of the story is that Indian democracy has worked satisfactory (if not good). And there still there is a lot of potential if further decentralization is done according to genuine needs of the public. There is nothing wrong in coalition and should be considered as boom not as curse for the democracy as it, unites the country. This model has changed the preconceived notion and perceptions of political analyst as it constitution was made according to freedom and need of the indigenous people and we need to do it further so that the nation can sustain in a better way.

The recent attack on Yogendra  Yadav, may have attracted the public discern considerably but the real question is still eluding the fora of public discussion.  It is impertinent that was smearing justified or not? Neither it is important to know whether that person has some penitent/contrite or attrite after the incident. But the real questions are something else.

The big question is what are the basic causes behind such unscrupulous behavior? Where this will lead to us? Are not our moral values deteriorating steadily? and Who is responsible for it? How can we coerce it, in short run and plans for long runs? Who is going to take the initiative? What will be its impacts on present the India and the future yet to come? After all there is a trend noticed in it.

It’s not the first time happening in the recent annals of India, but it is quite often these days.  And the incidents of fragile egos in politics are increasing steadily. Some people say, “after all we are an angry young nation”. But such euphemistic replies to hostile behaviors should not deter us from reckoning the more gloomy future aspects of such intolerant dispositions.  Anger(youths are habitual of) does not yield anything in long run, patience (characteristic of experience and age) does.

India is the country with maximum number of demographic dividends. It’s a pool of human resource, with cheap labor, fantastic working spirits and an exemplary of competition. This is the reason behind the mass inflow of FDI, galloping of Indian GDP in the race of modernization, unprecedented reforms in education and medical facilities, hub centre of IT sector, and a lot more. That makes India the shining star of future and youth is the backbone of such aspirations.

But these are the only positive aspects of overpopulation, if we see both the faces of the coin then there is a dismal picture for sure. The uprising of Naxilities, communal fanatics, caste and class rifts, regional antagonists,  seditious speeches on the name of resource distribution, unconditional national chauvinism and so on.

On one side the success stories of NCR (voracious consumption house with insatiable hunger), Bangalore (rising silicon valley of India), Hyderabad (IT Hub), Mumbai (financial capital of India) and Ahemdabad (A motivating growth model and new destination for industrialization) are kindling the hope of bright future. But at the same time hostile acts by individuals, riots, insurgencies and fanatic inception leads to the fractured politics with grave consequences where the chasm among the political workers (votaries)are soaring day by day, but its decreasing among the leaders of those ideological groups. To put it more bluntly, in the era of coalition, almost all parties can join hands with any other party (no matter how much ideological differences are) to come into the power (that is their vested interest), but will keep uttering parochial speeches, to solicit the fidelity of divided public on the name of caste, class, region, religion, age, gender, culture, language or faith.

All the above aspects have two things in common. One that they are related to youths of the country (who are energetic and have a lot of potential, vulnerable and large in number) and other that it leads to clash among communities, government, pubic and common people. If we see it more closely than it’s either war of ideology or war of resources and opportunities. Both the issues are indispensable future challenges to tackle and opportunities to grab for the potential superpower of the world, “India”. Let's delineate them one by one.  

What makes youth an easy target? An old adage goes like this, “An empty mind is devil's home”. I think this byword is true in case of India. As we are not able to conduit the potential power of youth in constructive manner by providing them employment, platform of discussion for their grievances, moral and ethical education and mental satisfaction. So anything that sounds rational and appears to be yielding draws their attention easily. Somewhere we are also not able to preach them the art of understanding the pedantic details of ideologies and its subtle impacts on real chaotic life. But how it is going to end?

Some one has to take stand as their duty and this time it has to be society itself. All the success and failures of the oldest civilization depends on the way its leaders, its intelligentsia, middle class and lastly its lower class collective responsibility. If the energy of demographic dividend is given right direction then future of world will lie in south Asia. But if it is not done then a new 'middle east' can develop in the heart land of Indian subcontinent.

It’s the public who has to understand that united we stand and dived we fall. We have to have a common identity as “Indian”. We need a leader with placid disposition, who can appease the anger of the Indian youth. The sooner we realize it, the better we perform in future. 

The recent turmoil in the heart of India i.e. Delhi has left no person unbaffled. No one can deny that there is a churn in politics and power equations are changing faster than ever before. There is a paradigm shift in perception about politics in almost every stratum of the society. The fervor of new politics is hovering over India and rules of games are re-written. 

       History is testimony that when ever some maiden came into politics, anticipations about its course of actions were hard to rendezvous. The fledgling AAP is no exception in the legacy of Indian fragile  politics. An out of box thinking is imperative to envisage its future track. Even renowned political veterans found it difficult to present it in one nut shell. As rules of traditional politics are redrawn, shifting balance of power, totally new issues for an unprecedented demographic makes the already complicated situation more convoluting. 

      People credit Arvind Kejriwal for new style of politics but AK himself admits that he just provided a threshold energy to the wave of anti incumbency already percolating uniformly across all levels of the society. After all "ideas rule the world". Mutual feelings and thoughts bind the people on mass level, not the appearance and guise. Acumen AK know it better than his contemporary rivalries and hence getting wean voters as dividend.

     Some Indian intelligentsia/intellectuals (basically critics of AK) censure the new way of politics and their actions. Some of the most common accusations are like "obscured ideologies", "anarchistic outlook", "lack of experience", "no future vision", "greedy for power", "Urban phenomenon that will flounder and fall soon" "Immoral behavior" and blah blah blah...Well they never talk about the kinship, sycophancy and nepotism present in the roots of our major political parties. 

     It will be folly to ignore all claims because criticism acts as feed back mechanism and can improve whole organisation substantially. As per Darwinian theory only those system survives which keep on evolving with time. So innovation and creativity takes a person out of crowd. 

      Its impossible to discuss each and every accusation but a single case study can open door for all solutions, if they hold true.

      For me the recent "dharna" or "drama" (as a chunk of people called it) seems to be the best example. To begin with, we should know that there is a thin line which divides agitator and anarchistic. Usually people confuse which route nifty party is taking, and there is nothing abnormal in it. 

      Agitation (dharna) is the last tool for a non violent protest that happens in our vibrant and robust democratic system. But anarchy i.e "my way or no way" is not at all democratic. Democracy is the verdict of people and can't be compromised, as it is governed by laws and a basic framework preserved in our enshrined constitution. There is not doubt that dharna of AK was violation of law and hence constitution momentarily. 

     But if we see the situation more closely the picture seems all together different considering the basic definition of democracy and principles of constitution in mind. There is no doubt that people were supporting the cause and in democracy they should be supreme. Constitution can be amended by a relatively small group of people sitting in parliament but not the people's verdict. So the agitation was justified on the lines of dogmas and canons. 

     Some people say that AK did not follow the proper protocols of state assembly for getting police under state administration. Yes, its true, but the matter of fact remains that Shiela Dixit followed the proper conventions for 15 years an result is in front of us. So there is need to to go out of track and re define the maxims of legislation/governance. Why to go on a way when success will surely elude it?

    Its just human nature that takes time to connect the dots. But there can be a day of reckoning when you wish you had connected the dots more quickly. At that time we are left with nothing except regret and guilt. So lets the doctrines of past guide us for the beacons of future considering the challenges of present in this delicate time.