[ad_1]
NOTE: Please remember that following ‘answers’ are NOT ‘model answers’. They are NOT synopsis too if we go by definition of the term. What we are providing is content that both meets demand of the question and at the same time gives you extra points in the form of background information.
Modern India
Q1. Illustrate how every protest of Mahatma Gandhi can be seen as an evolution of various forms of dissent. (10M)
Introduction
In the history of the Indian struggle for independence, Mahatma Gandhi is often identified as one of the main architects of the nation, whose ideas, beliefs and way of struggle had widespread ramifications on the Indian national movement and even today it continues to inspire people to take non-violent as a means of dissent and protest, be it Chipko movement of the 1970s or Black rights movement.
Body:
Protest of Gandhi was an evolution of various forms of dissent.
- Outside India: –
- Natal protest; – In 1894, Natal stripped all Indians of their ability to vote. Gandhi organized Indian resistance, fought anti-Indian legislation in the courts and led large protests against the colonial government.
- Satyagraha Against registration certificates; – In 1906 the Transvaal government published a particularly humiliating ordinance for the registration of its Indian population. The Indians held a mass protest meeting at Johannesburg in September 1906.
- Both the protests help Gandhi forge the distinctive techniques of non-violent protest known as Satyagraha.
- In India; –
- Champaran Satyagraha (1917); – In 1917, at the request of Rajkumar Shukl, Gandhi visited Champaran and saw the deplorable condition of peasants and thus experimented First civil disobedience movement in India.
- Ahmedabad mill strike (1918);- Gandhi for the first time used Satyagraha and hunger strike in India during this movement when there was an industrial dispute between the cotton mill owner and the worker over a hike in wages.
- The movement was successful as the workers were granted a pay hike eventually.
- Kheda Satyagarha (1918);– this movement was guided by Mahatma Gandhi but led by Sardar Patel in which peasants in Kheda were asking for the remission of taxes following the failure of their harvest.
- It was the first non-cooperation movement and was successful as people showed remarkable courage even in adversities like confiscation of personnel property and arrest.
- Rowlatt Satyagraha;– In February 1919, the Government issued an ordinance which allowed certain political cases to be tried without juries and permitted detention without trial which led to nationwide protest and resulted in the Jaliawala Bagh massacre in April 1919.
- The satyagraha against the Rowlatt act was the first mass strike launched by Gandhi in India and saw greater support from the masses.
- Khilafat and Non-cooperation movement; – In 1920, in protest against the Punjab wrong, Gandhiji and Congress launched a Non-cooperation movement against the British government, which included boycotts of not only British manufacturers but of institutions operated or aided by the British in India: legislatures, courts, offices, schools.
- The campaign electrified the country, as Gandhi brought Hindus and Muslims on the same platform.
- Civil disobedience movement; – In March 1930 Gandhi launched the Salt March, the state monopoly over salt was deeply unpopular; by making it his target,
- Gandhiji mobilised a wider discontent against British rule by breaking the colonial laws and including diverse sections e.g. women, marginalized, trade unions, communists, etc.
- Protest against Macdonald award; – In September 1932, while still a prisoner, Gandhi embarked on a fast to protest against the British government’s decision to segregate the so-called “untouchables”.
- The fast produced an emotional upheaval in the country, and an alternative electoral arrangement was jointly and speedily devised by the leaders of the Hindu community and the Dalits (Poona Pact, 1932) and endorsed by the British government.
- Quit India Movement; – After the failure of the Cripps Mission, Mahatma Gandhi decided to launch his third major movement against British rule. This was the “Quit India “campaign, which began in August 1942.
- It was genuinely a mass movement, bringing into its ambit hundreds of thousands of ordinary Indians. It especially energised the young who, in very large numbers, left their colleges to go to jail.
Conclusion
Ascetic and unflinching, Gandhi changed the face of civil disobedience around the world. Martin Luther King, Jr. drew on his tactics during the Civil Rights Movement, and the Dalai Lama was inspired by his teachings, which are still heralded by those who seek to inspire change without inciting violence.
Q2. Do you think colonial indifference in governance gave a boost to the rise of Indian nationalism? Critically evaluate the role of British policies in fanning Indian nationalism. (15M)
Introduction
In India, the growth of modern nationalism is intimately connected to the anti-colonial movement. People began discovering their unity in process of their struggle with colonialism. The sense of being oppressed under colonialism provided a shared bond that tied many different groups together.
Various factors have been responsible for the rise of nationalism in India, indifference to governance by the British being one among many.
Body:
Yes, colonial indifference did rise to Indian nationalism.
- Understanding of contradiction in Indian and colonial interest: –
- People came to realise that colonial rule was the major cause of India’s economic backwardness and that the interests of the Indians involved the interests of all sections and classes— peasants, artisans, handicraftsmen, workers, intellectuals, the educated and the capitalists.
- The nationalist movement arose to take up the challenge of these contradictions inherent in the character and policies of colonial rule.
- Policy of segregation and discrimination; –
-
- Lytton’s reactionary policies; – Lytton’s reactionary policies such as reduction of the maximum age limit for the I.C.S. examination from 21 years to 19 years (1876), the grand Delhi Durbar of 1877 when the country was in the severe grip of famine, the Vernacular Press Act (1878) and the Arms Act (1878) provoked a storm of opposition in the country.
- Illbert bill controversy; The Bill tried to remove racial inequality between Indian and European judges in courts. This bill was opposed by the British residents in India. Ultimately the Bill was modified.
- Racial Antagonism: The Englishmen considered themselves superior in all respects to the Indians. They never wanted to offer the Indians higher jobs even though they were qualified and intelligent.
- The age limit for the Indian Civil Service Examination was kept at twenty-one and the examination was held in England.
- Political and administrative divide: Partition of Bengal in 1905, carried out by the British viceroy, Lord Curzon has huge effects on the minds of the people.
Role of British policies in fanning Indian Nationalism; –
-
- Unification of country; – Introduction of railways, posts and telegraphs was done by the British to ensure faster movement of the army, to easily fetch raw materials from distant parts of India and also to undersell Indian goods in the market. But, this brought about more unification in India and brought political leaders and masses together.
- A professional civil service, a unified judiciary and codified civil and criminal laws throughout the length and breadth of the country imparted a new dimension of political unity to the hitherto cultural unity that had existed in India for centuries.
- Western thought and education; – The introduction of a modern system of education afforded opportunities for assimilation of modern Western ideas.
- It gave a new direction to Indian political thinking and the knowledge of the English language helped nationalist leaders from different linguistic regions communicate with each other and create a sense of national identity.
- Rise of middle-class intelligentsia; – British administrative and economic innovations gave rise to a new urban middle class in towns which was a well-integrated all-India class with a varied background but a common foreground of knowledge, ideas and values.
- The leadership of the Indian National Congress in all its stages of growth was provided by this class.
- Unification of country; – Introduction of railways, posts and telegraphs was done by the British to ensure faster movement of the army, to easily fetch raw materials from distant parts of India and also to undersell Indian goods in the market. But, this brought about more unification in India and brought political leaders and masses together.
Other factors
-
- Influence of contemporary movements; – The rise of a number of nations on the ruins of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in South America, the national liberation movements of Greece and Italy in general and of Ireland in particular deeply influenced the nationalist ranks.
- Role of the press;– The second half of the nineteenth century saw an unprecedented growth of Indian-owned English and vernacular newspapers which while criticising official policies, on the one hand, urged the people to unite, on the other.
- The newspapers, journals, pamphlets and nationalist literature helped in the exchange of political ideas among nationalist leaders from different regions.
- Rediscovery of India’s past;- The historical research by European scholars, such as Max Mueller, and Monier Williams, and by Indian scholars such as R.G. Bhandarkar, R.L. Mitra and later Swami Vivekananda, created an entirely new picture of India’s past.
- It provided self-respect and confidence and helped the nationalists to demolish colonial myths that India had a long history of servility to foreign rulers.
- Socio-religious reform movement; – The leaders of various organisations like the Brahmo Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, and Theosophical Society generated a feeling of regard for and pride in the motherland.
Conclusion
Hence, it would be wrong to presume that only colonial indifference in governance was responsible for the rise of nationalism in India rather Indian nationalism arose partly as a result of colonial policies and partly as a reaction to them.
Ethics
Q3. Do you agree with the view that “there is no business for the government to be in business”? Critically analyze. (10M)
Introduction
In modern socialistic economies such as India, the government’s job of delivering social services involves running major businesses. This raises major questions about government monopoly, ownership concentration, regulatory capture and redistribution.
Body
Why shouldn’t government-run businesses?
Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises is a major challenge in many economies.
- Unclear ownership objective: The goals of the government in running a business seem to be conflicting. E.g., price controls vs employment goals, output targets vs requirements to provide social services. This creates dilemmas for the government about its real objectives.
- Interference: Due to high political interference, meddling in the company’s affairs for political gain. Eg: an Indian coal allocation scam.
- Weak Owners and lack of conviction: In public enterprises, the state exercises its ownership role through weak institution sets inconsistent goals and does not properly monitor company performance. Eg: BSNL unable to compete with private players leading to a loss of 50,631 crores in past 5 years.
- Low levels of Transparency and Accountability: Opacity undermines performance monitoring, limits accountability at all levels, conceals debt that can damage the financial system and creates conditions under which corruption can flourish. Eg: In 2020, the Bank of India Refused to Share under RTI Information over Rs57,000 Crore of Bad Loans Written Off.
- Unprofessional Board of Directors– It has been observed that boards of public enterprises are weak and decision-making is influenced by the government. E.g.: Failure of Air India
Therefore, I agree with the view that “there is no business for the government to be in business”. But there are minor exceptions,
- Essential services- Equality and equity: For-profit modelled private sector fails to reach everybody.
- For eg: Cross subsidization in Indian railways, helps the poor to access train services, which wouldn’t be possible under private control.
- Failure of private corporations: Aftermath of the 2007-09 financial crisis, the US government gave equity support to most banks.
The government’s job is to care for the people. Thus it cannot completely stay out of business. For example, it has seen how the produce of small farmers reaches markets but it cannot be a buyer directly unless in extraordinary situations.
Conclusion:
Government policies should give get people the maximum opportunity. In this regard, it has to take necessary decisions with conviction and integrity avoiding greed and corruption to blind its objectives.
Q4. Case study (20M)
You are working for a multi-national biopharma company, which is on the verge of a major breakthrough. The announcement of the breakthrough will lead to a rise in the value of the company stock thereby bringing the much-required growth. The company unlike other companies has been at the forefront in finding solutions for those diseases that have been neglected by most others; furthermore, the company is planning to market their product in a price range, which would make it affordable to everyone in the world, irrespective of their economic status.
On the day when final clearance was to be awarded, you come across a serious mistake which was unintentionally committed by one of the members of your team, any declaration of this mistake would delay the clearance to be awarded by at least a year. Your senior management appeal to you that you do not take any action on this mistake and keep it a secret until the clearance is awarded. They appeal to you on humanitarian grounds since the medicine would be of use to many millions around the world and furthermore it would help the company and the colleagues for whom the clearance is not a matter of profit but rather a matter of profitability.
In this situation, answer the following questions:
- Can ethics be compromised if it achieves a noble outcome like in this case study? Justify your opinion.
- What are the options available to you in this situation? Debate their pros and cons and choose any one of these options with due justification for choosing it.
Introduction:
Do the means justify the ends, or do the ends justify the means? Everyone faced this moral conflict. The given situation is one such conflict that raises a question about our moral compass.
(A) Ethics is a system of moral principles which affects our decision-making. In this situation, I face a dilemma of means vs ends, public health vs procedural correctness, integrity vs bounded ethicality, and larger good vs conformity bias.
Morality is relative; evaluation of honesty varies across cultures. For example, the Railway department in Japan apologizes for arriving late, delays are unacceptable in Japan. In India such delays are common.
When questioned about his support for the British cause in World War 2, Gandhi emphasized that the truth was on the British side. Thus within truth and nonviolence, Gandhi placed a higher emphasis on truth.
Hence, during moral ambiguity and when there’s only one choice to make, ethicality can be compromised if the moral reasoning of the person is based on logic and not emotions.
In this situation, I know that there is a serious mistake which would delay the clearance of our product. But that product benefits many people.
In 2021, millions of Indians were vaccinated with vaccines having “restricted use in emergency situations” status. It may be debated whether it was ethical when full authorization was pending, but it was the need of the hour. Emergencies like a pandemic necessitate the use of drugs which are not fully approved.
But it is completely unacceptable and unethical if the large mistake is related to the efficacy and efficiency of the drug. If millions of people have potential side effects from the drug, then it’s unethical to compromise on accountability even for the larger good.
Everything that is legal is not ethical. For instance, if we forget to wear a seatbelt in the car, it’s illegal but not unethical. The death penalty is legal but can be unethical. In this situation, procedural correctness can be sorted out without compromising our ethics.
(B). The options available to me are:
Agree with the senior management and not to report the mistake until the clearance is obtained. This will ensure the trust and support of the senior management. People usually have a tendency and willingness to follow instructions this obedience to authority leads to moral blindness and a loss of independent thinking and integrity.
The other option would be to report the issue, but it may lead to a delay in the availability of the product to the general public. I would report to the senior management stating the reasons for reporting the mistake.
- Our company is working on affordable pharma products which benefit millions. Given such a situation, it would be wise to build an honest reputation for our company.
- It would be counterproductive to wait till clearance; our aim should be on reaching maximum people not just getting the product out. If after getting clearance, the mistake is known it would create a negative impression on our product. People would buy less of it.
- For eg: the Volkswagen emission scandal cost the company millions of dollars and a bad reputation.
- The question is about profitability. A company is profitable when the quality and reach of the product are good. Any reports of mistakes after launch would lead to huge loss and lack of enthusiasm for our future pharma products. Leading to a fall in the value of our stocks.
- As the drug is on a neglected disease. It is also the responsibility of the government and drug control authorities to have such products available. Thus, an honest discussion with their representatives would clear the restrictions.
- Being a multinational pharma company, it’s productive to have a good relation with the authorities. Not reporting would be bad precedence.
Humans are known to be basing their morality on emotions than the reason, for instance, public support for the encounter of the rape accused as seen in the Disha case. Thus, in situations like these, appealing to reason helps clear moral ambiguity and I strongly believe our senior management would decide rightly as there are enough reasons to report the issue.
[ad_2]