UPSC Mains Exam 2024: Preparation tips by Rimita Saha (AIR 566) in UPSC CSE 2023

 With the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) declaring the results of UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination on July 1, candidates who have qualified the exam have started their final leg of preparation for the UPSC Civil Services (Mains) examination. A total of 14,625 candidates have qualified the preliminary examination. The candidates will be appearing in the UPSC Civil Services Mains examination scheduled to commence on September 20.

To help candidates with their final preparation, The Telegraph Online Edugraph spoke with Rimita Saha (AIR 566) in UPSC Civil Services Examination 2023, who shared her valuable insights on cracking the Civil Services Mains Examination.

Speaking on the main areas that should be in focus, Rimita advised candidates to focus more on revision and rigorous answer writing as most of the portion from General Studies have been covered during the Preliminary examination.

"The next two-three months should be primarily used for revision and rigorous answer writing. Few topics like world history, security etc which are solely in the Mains syllabus also need to be covered. Among all the subjects, optional, essay and ethics have lately proven to be the deal-makers. Importance should be given to Optional revision and answer-writing in these few weeks," said Rimita.

"Furthermore, practising the previous year questions is also of utmost significance. Limited resources with multiple revisions is the key. Practising answer-writing with a timer and writing two full-length mock tests in a single day is very important. This prepares the candidates for the D-day, where speed and accuracy prove to be the game-changers," she added.

Commenting on the language papers, which are qualifying in nature, she asked candidates to practice and revise the basic grammar books of Class 10 or Class 12.

"Any grammar book of 10th or 12th standard can be taken up for the papers, and thereafter, referring the previous year question papers, the type of questions can be identified which can then be revised from the book. Since the papers are qualifying in nature, very limited time should be dedicated for them," advised Rimita.

"For the GS papers, thorough revision and answer-writing is the key. One can take up any GS test series, where evaluation is done properly with detailed feedback. This will help the candidate to understand the mistakes or shortcomings in the answers and the places where improvement can be done. Referring to different past successful candidates can also help understand their approaches. Each question needs to be understood properly, broken down into sub-parts and each sub-part should be addressed separately. Proper sub-headings, relevant introduction and conclusion are important parameters of a good answer," she said. She added that including relevant diagrams, quotations, data and graphical representations can also help increase the marks.

The essay paper holds a lot of significance in the UPSC Mains Exam. Commenting on the approach students should have towards the paper, she said, "For the essay paper, there has been a shift of focus towards philosophical topics more lately. This sometimes becomes tricky to handle in the exam hall. First, reading a few essays of past successful candidates with good essay scores can be done. This provides an idea of how to frame an essay. Second, understanding the essence of the topic is very important."

"Brainstorming for the first few minutes before starting the essay is important. This helps to organise the thoughts in one’s mind and arrange them in order of priority. This also gives a proper structure to the essay. Lastly, including quotations and anecdotes can be done wherever relevant. The thought that the use of difficult words and jargon fetches more marks is a myth. Accurate expression of thoughts in a lucid manner is always appreciated," she added.

Optional subject is one of major deciding factors in UPSC Civil Services Mains Examination. Here's what Rimita had to say on preparation strategies to be followed for the optional subject.

"Before Prelims, at least one reading of the optional paper must be completed. After prelims, answer writing and revision are the primary strategies. Similar to GS, one can take up a test series from any institute and solve them in a time-bound manner. Furthermore, previous year's questions also need to be practised. At least 3-4 revisions of the optional paper need to be done before the Mains exam," she said.

Lastly, she advised candidates to focus on time management while preparing for the UPSC Civil Services Mains Examination.

"While attempting the questions, one can allocate time for questions based on their marks. For example, 6-7 minutes for the 10-mark questions and 8-10 minutes for the 15-mark questions. This helps in keeping track of time during the exam. For the Ethics paper, it is suggested to attempt Section A first, followed by the case studies. One should try to attempt all questions without fail. This helps in maximising the marks in Mains, where even 1 mark can make a lot of difference," she said.

Avijit Das

Source: The Telegraph, 8/07/24

Feudal heart

 

Another layer of feudal hierarchy — and excess — may have been inaugurated in the state — politically more empowered and economically prosperous Dalits oppressing ‘lesser’ Dalits.

One of the better ways of responding to ill-behaved adversaries is to refuse to be like them, firmly and obdurately, and if possible in undemonstrative fashion.

Bihar insists on furnishing illustration of the opposite; Biharis are, given the chance, intent on mimicking their adversaries, they would sooner become exactly like the ones who have given them cause for grief and grievance.

Last fortnight, armed gangsters looted and torched to cinders an entire settlement of Dalits near Nawada in central Bihar; nobody was killed, fortuitously, but the assailants would probably not have hesitated to take lives. They came armed, they fired several rounds in the air as they arrived. The victims, as often in Bihar, were Dalits, from the Musahar and Ravidas communities. Their tormentors, as rarely in Bihar, were also Dalits, from the Paswan community. Another layer of feudal hierarchy — and excess — may have been inaugurated in the state — politically more empowered and economically prosperous Dalits oppressing ‘lesser’ Dalits. To begin with, there were the unreserved caste categories — the so-called ‘upper castes’ — lording over the rest. Then you had the socially and politically influential Yadavs putting their heel to other backward caste groups. Now, there are seemingly empowered Dalits rampaging over the weaker among their own. The chronic victims of feudalism have turned feudal themselves, or aspire to feudal ways. Instead of eschewing feudal manners, they embrace them.

This is irony wrapped in irony wrapped in irony. That last of those ironies is that Biharis, having suffered unrelenting feudal and hierarchical excess and gone purple and puce in the face complaining about it, refuse to see it. The middle irony is that Bihar has come to consider itself a laboratory of social change. The first, and probably most insistent, irony is that for close to three and a half decades, Bihar has been ruled by leaders whose signature politics is the overthrow of the politics of pyramidal caste hierarchies. Lalu Prasad and Nitish Kumar are both, on paper and by avowal, Mandalites of the Ram Manohar Lohia brand of socialism. Their extended and unbroken run in power — as foes, and often as friends — should have achieved demonstrable movement in the direction of dismantling feudal and caste hierarchies in society. What we have instead is the fitful and famously fickle Nitish Kumar back sharing power with the sanghi orthodoxy and Lalu and Jitan Ram Manjhi (handpicked by Nitish to warm the chief minister’s seat temporarily after being drubbed in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls) tossing casteist invective at each other; Manjhi has called Lalu a gareri (shepherd) pretending to be a Yadav; Lalu has shot back calling Manjhi a rat-eater.

One of the better ways of responding to ill-behaved adversaries is to refuse to be like them, firmly and obdurately, and if possible in undemonstrative fashion.

Bihar insists on furnishing illustration of the opposite; Biharis are, given the chance, intent on mimicking their adversaries, they would sooner become exactly like the ones who have given them cause for grief and grievance.

ADVERTISEMENT

Last fortnight, armed gangsters looted and torched to cinders an entire settlement of Dalits near Nawada in central Bihar; nobody was killed, fortuitously, but the assailants would probably not have hesitated to take lives. They came armed, they fired several rounds in the air as they arrived. The victims, as often in Bihar, were Dalits, from the Musahar and Ravidas communities. Their tormentors, as rarely in Bihar, were also Dalits, from the Paswan community. Another layer of feudal hierarchy — and excess — may have been inaugurated in the state — politically more empowered and economically prosperous Dalits oppressing ‘lesser’ Dalits. To begin with, there were the unreserved caste categories — the so-called ‘upper castes’ — lording over the rest. Then you had the socially and politically influential Yadavs putting their heel to other backward caste groups. Now, there are seemingly empowered Dalits rampaging over the weaker among their own. The chronic victims of feudalism have turned feudal themselves, or aspire to feudal ways. Instead of eschewing feudal manners, they embrace them.

This is irony wrapped in irony wrapped in irony. That last of those ironies is that Biharis, having suffered unrelenting feudal and hierarchical excess and gone purple and puce in the face complaining about it, refuse to see it. The middle irony is that Bihar has come to consider itself a laboratory of social change. The first, and probably most insistent, irony is that for close to three and a half decades, Bihar has been ruled by leaders whose signature politics is the overthrow of the politics of pyramidal caste hierarchies. Lalu Prasad and Nitish Kumar are both, on paper and by avowal, Mandalites of the Ram Manohar Lohia brand of socialism. Their extended and unbroken run in power — as foes, and often as friends — should have achieved demonstrable movement in the direction of dismantling feudal and caste hierarchies in society. What we have instead is the fitful and famously fickle Nitish Kumar back sharing power with the sanghi orthodoxy and Lalu and Jitan Ram Manjhi (handpicked by Nitish to warm the chief minister’s seat temporarily after being drubbed in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls) tossing casteist invective at each other; Manjhi has called Lalu a gareri (shepherd) pretending to be a Yadav; Lalu has shot back calling Manjhi a rat-eater.

ADVERTISEMENT

Ads by

I have often found myself collared for being harsh on Bihar and its people, for using the advantage of exile to probe and expose warts I was privileged enough to leave behind. But it was also a wrench, as all departure from home is. There may well be merit to some of the carping that has come my way. But there is no merit, in my book, to romancing misdemeanour. I have often been tempted to quote to my critics passages from a speech the Nigerian Nobel laureate, Chinua Achebe, made to a Western audience in Paris. It was a discourse titled “Africa is People” and it should rank as compulsory reading for anyone trying to understand the complexities of our world. I merely quote this: “I am not an apologist for Africa’s many failings. And I am hard-headed enough to realize that we must not be soft on them, must never go out to justify them. But I am also rational enough to realize that we should strive to understand our failings objectively and not simply swallow the mystifications and mythologies cooked up by those whose goodwill we have every reason to suspect… I understand and accept the logic that if a country mismanages its resources it should be prepared to face the music of hard times.” Bihar has much to learn, a long way to go. Its leaders alone cannot carry the burden of that journey, its people will have to.

Perhaps a good place to start would be to stop imagining the world to be shaped like a spittoon. The mouthfuls of masticated paan Biharis are wont to spit any and everywhere must rank high on the catalogue of uncivil liberties they feel entitled to. To have a dual-carriageway in Bihar is to find ways of violating the one-way regime, to wade your vehicle — four-wheel, two-wheel, bike or bullock-cart — in the face of oncoming traffic, the road’s toll-free. To find a padded seat on the bus is an invitation to stab it and rip the foam. Correction: the delight of deflowering virgin foam is reserved for those who bother squeezing into the bus; the best seats are still on the top deck, whether or not the inside is entirely taken. The New Bihar Story awaits the courtesies of its people.

Bihar was never at a loss for those who set out to build it. In the narrow firmament of Bihari consciousness, they make a clotted constellation of visionaries and builders, reformists and revolutionaries, Samaritans and messiahs. Srikrishna Sinha and Anugrah Narayan Sinha, JP and Karpoori Thakur, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav and Jagannath Mishra. They have either been forgotten, some mercifully, or live on in dust-ridden memorial halls and annual, rent-a-crowd commemorations. Or in disregarded town squares as busts bejewelled in bird dropping. For all the retrospective reputation they have come to acquire, the gifts of Bihar’s league of legends don’t add up to much. Quite often in recent years, and especially since Nitish Kumar took power in 2005, the arrival of Naya Bihar has been bragged about. A schoolgirl on a cycle, a new coat of paint on a block development office, syringes in a primary health centre, a stretch of unbroken road do not a Naya Bihar make. On the evidence of the horror visited upon the Dalit bustee near Nawada by other Dalits, Bihar may only have regressed deeper into the quagmire Biharis and their chosen leaders say they want to pluck the state out of. It’s also what comes from not knowing better than to aspire to ape poorly behaved adversaries.

Sankarshan Thakur

Source: The Telegraph, 30/09/24

The trap of global rankings

 

Instead of focussing excessively on rankings with well-recognised shortcomings, recognising achievements and refining goals consistent with national priorities will be a more fruitful approach

Developing global indices and rankings has turned into a minor industry. The Global Competitiveness Index, Global Happiness Index, Global Hunger Index, Ease of Doing Business Index, Corruption Perception Index, Global Go-To Think Tanks rankings, you name it. Think tanks specialise in creating these indices; they are good for increased funding and publicity. Some governments boast of improved rankings, while others rant about the methodology. Life goes on until the following year when the cycle begins again.

Every time these indices appear, I wonder why some countries are where they are. Apparently, young people in Lithuania and Israel are the happiest in the world. Why are they happier than the youth in Australia, New Zealand, or Sweden? Is Gallup just counting the Jewish population of Israel, or do Arabs count? Unfortunately, these questions rarely get asked and answered.

Sometimes, we get to see strange anomalies. Take, for example, the Global Gender Gap Index. India ranked 26th on educational attainment in 2023 but mysteriously dropped to 112th rank in 2024. As far as I know, no Taliban-style attacks on Indian girls’ education have taken place. This rapid descent remains inexplicable. Could there be some anomalies in the data?

All global rankings are not equivalent. Some, like the Human Development Index, are well thought out and carefully constructed, although they also face challenges in getting accurate country-level data. Others seem to be hastily put together, often excluding perspectives from the Global South. For example, the now-abandoned World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index focused on limited liability companies, covering only 14 per cent of Indian businesses and excluding sole proprietorships, the mainstay of Indian businesses. The Global Gender Gap Index focusses on the gender gap in earnings but not in poverty — an indicator on which the United States might do poorly due to a large number of mother-only families, but where South Asian countries might fare better.

Nonetheless, given how much international organisations and foundations that fund them love ranking countries and are convinced these are effective tools in holding countries accountable, it is unlikely that any criticism will vanquish this industry. However, it is possible to hold it accountable through simple steps.

First, we must expect that any index will contain a methodological appendix that justifies why specific indicators were chosen to be a part of the index and the rationale underlying the differential weights given to these indicators. The publications must include links to source data. The lazy approach of citing the World Bank indicators or the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s indicators is insufficient. Index authors must cite the original sources for each indicator for each country. As it stands, data errors in index construction are impossible to decipher, even when we see absurd results like India’s descent from rank 26 to 112 in educational attainment in the Gender Gap Index in a year. This does involve a considerable amount of work, but hard work is what research is all about, what the public and policymakers deserve. Where primary data is presented, sample sizes, sampling methodology and confidence intervals must be presented.

Second, those who cover the release of various indices must find a way of fact-checking the results. An editorial moratorium of coverage for 48 hours after the release of the index will give time to critically examine the results and consult experts. The rush to be the first to report that India is below war-torn Sudan on the Global Hunger Index without a critical examination does not serve the public. In particular, the rankings that do not provide citations to source data and methodology should not be covered.

Third, governments must stop taking these results seriously. Countries are well aware of their priorities and hopefully try to ensure that appropriate data are available to monitor their progress. However, these efforts have little to do with how a country is ranked globally. Take, for example, the Global Hunger Index (GHI). India’s child mortality fell from 9.1 at the turn of the century to 3.1 in two decades, and stunting, defined as low height-for-age, fell from 51 per cent to 36 per cent. Where India is lagging is in caloric intake and low weight-for-height resulting in it being ranked at 117 on GHI. Data challenges for these two indicators are well recognised.

Caloric intake is estimated from consumption expenditure data, which is a poor approximation at best. Moreover, the underlying figures for undernourishment, calculated by FAO combine the 2011-12 NSS consumption data and a recent Gallup poll of 3,000 people to estimate undernourishment. These models deserve greater scrutiny for external validity. Similarly, the wasting data for India is affected by most of the fifth National Family Health Survey interviews being conducted during the monsoon due to the pandemic-related delays. Greater intestinal infections during the monsoons are associated with weight loss, which biases wasting estimates. Instead of focussing excessively on rankings with well-recognised shortcomings, recognising achievements and refining goals consistent with national priorities will be a more fruitful approach.

Amartya Sen, one of the originators of the Human Development Index, has suggested it may be time to move beyond rankings. If we can’t get away from these rankings, at a minimum, we should set up parameters under which they are accurate and sensibly used.

Written by Sonalde Desai

Source: Indian Express, 30/09/24