IMPACT OF WESTERN

CULTURE ON TEENAGERS
Civilization is what we have, culture is what we are Dr. Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan.
A girl of 16 wearing saree, going to temple with her granny in the morning. It sounds
really shocking for todays teenagers as they are highly influenced by the western
culture. Our country India is like a tree whose roots are culture, tradition, harmony
and brotherhood but today its replaced by the yellow ones of western culture. Its
good that we are adapting western culture by keeping our own culture on zenith. As
the sole reason for which today Indians are venerated on world stage is just because
of the vintage of this nation. But instead of this we are just forgetting our culture and
are totally influenced by the western one as we feel it to be more attractive, trendy
and modern which has given the top most priority in todays world. Led by wealthy
Western countries, the mass media, the fashion industry and the education
curriculum, the perception of beauty is increasingly being defined by Western
parameters due to reasons such as globalization, free trade and high technology.
The inundation of Western culture is undeniable as it has effects that are both
unconsciously beneficial and detrimental in our daily lives.
In this age of modernization everything has become modern even the humans with
stylish haircut, outlook, dresses and even our attitude. We like to talk in English and
love to make fun of our very own mother tongue. Our mentality is totally changed
which brings out the evil things out. This is because of our so called modernization
that the crime rates are touching the sky, corruption has gone to another level and we
just cannot imagine what will happen in the future if we continued to go on like this.
Even the basic moral values seem to be vanished away with our so called swag. We
feel ashamed touching the feet of our elders or going to the temple. Instead we will
love to visit bars and late night parties.

Earlier we wear clothes to cover our body but today we wear it for fashion so as to
look more trendy and modern. According to todays concept the more you expose,
the more modern you are which is followed by every teenager. We can just go on
doing anything just to get power, name and fame without even giving it a thought of
realization. Also there is no doubt in saying that by adapting the western culture our
teenagers are becoming more independent, confident and self-dependent which is
extremely good for our society.
But I feel that there is no harm in adapting the western culture but as someone
said too much of anything is never good, the enthusiasm to learn things
of other nations is not wrong, but they should not be done at the expense of our
traditions and culture. On one hand we call INDIA- Incredible India and on the
other side we are so influenced by the western culture that even are moral and
ethical values are degrading . Secondly due to huge negative aspects western
culture is treated worst by our elders, so to make it good in their eyes its negative as
well as positive aspects must be balanced correctly so that teenagers will not suffer
in future. As adaptation of anything and everything is good but when its in the limits
and leads to the development of our society.

Solved GDs
Introduction

A good discussion will try to arrive at a solution that shows balance. You need to
demonstrate your understanding of the issue from more than one perspective alone. The
conclusion at the end should indicate a filtration of the more relevant issues and
recommendations for policies / changes that can be made in the current system. Given
below are a few sample topics along with pointers towards what kind of conclusions can
be drawn from the discussion.
Should

we

allow

Should
What

incurably

Capital
is

Is

desirable
Science

Seniority,

Not

Are

diseased

persons

punishment
-

love

a
Merit,

Reservations

marriage
curse

Must

Be

The
In

to

live

be
or

Criterion

not?

abolished?

arranged

or

or

marriage?

boon?

For

Promotions

Jobs

Justified?

What form of Democracy is better parliamentary or presidential?

Should we allow incurably diseased persons to live or not?

Points In Favour:
o

If we feel sad to kill even an animal or a bird, how can our conscience allow
us to kill a fellow human being just because he is incurably ill? Moreover he has
done no harm to society and his illness is not because of his fault.Therefore, we
must provide him proper treatment and allow him to live as long as nature has
willed it

God has gifted us life. So, he alone has the right to take it back. No human
being has a right to interfere in His scheme of things.Once on this earth, every
man has a right to live as long as God does not want him to die.Therefore,the

reasoning that just because a man is suffering from an incurable disease, he

should be put to death is untenable and beyond reason

It is not always the case that incurably diseased persons spread contagious
diseases as some might argue. Even in those rare cases where it may be true,
these persons are not real health hazards because it is medically established now
that all incurable diseases are not contagious. However, as a precautionary
measure, we should open separate hospitals or isolation wards for persons
suffering from incurable contagious diseases and thus quarantine them.

Killing an incurably diseased person will put an end to research work in

medical science. Even otherwise, suffering people have been the subject of
research work quite less. Now new vistas of progress have been opened in
medical sciences and alternative medicine like Acupuncture, Acupressure, Reiki
Pranik healing, Touch therapy, Herbal therapy, Diet therapy, etc. hold a ray of
hope for the so called incurably diseased persons. So, why snatch life from them?

Points against:
o

This world is governed by Darwin's survival of the fittest principle. An

incurably diseased person is weak and has no value whatsoever to the society.
Moreover, he has no means to live. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things
to kill him even against his wish.

An incurably diseased person is the cause of constant worry to his family,

his demands are unending and notwithstanding the best possible attention, care
and treatment given to him, he always remains dissatisfied and disgruntled. This
adversely affects peace of mind and comfort of the family members. Therefore,
the best way out of such a situation is to put an end to his life.

These days we are saddled with the responsibility of reducing our

burgeoning population. The many diseased persons constitute a good part of it.
Even otherwise their contribution to society being nil and burden great, it would
be justified and reasonable not to allow them to drag on their agonizing life.

Conclusion:
Defining gray areas is something which any amount of legislation can never achieve.
Our policies need to ensure that the group of people taking a decision to terminate the
life is doing so in the best interest of the patient and society.

Should Capital punishment be abolished?

In Favour Of Abolition:
o

Man is supposed to be a rational animal. But can a rational being kill a man
for a man? No. Because it would be savage and barbarous. Besides, by killing a
murderer the dead cannot be brought back to life, nor would he or his family be
compensated. So, instead, we should reform the killer, make him realize his sin
and follow a virtuous life.

If we kill the murderer, his troubles are over. But his family is made to
suffer for no fault of theirs. We should instead give him some other punishment,
say, for example, life imprisonment so that he has to face his own conscience and
repent for what he has done. Alongside, he should be given psychological
treatment and an opportunity to lead a normal citizen's life.

Instances are many where instead of being given capital punishment to

even hardened criminals, they were just imprisoned or put in a reformatory with
the result that they realized and regretted their wrong doings, their terms of
sentences were reduced as a reward. Such acts enabled them to serve their
innocent families and they even turned towards social work. This shows their
capital punishment is not the only remedy to take care of criminals.

We observe today that in spite of capital punishment being very much

there on the statute, heinous crimes are not decreasing. It goes to show that
capital punishment is no deterrent for criminals. Therefore, we must think of
changing the method of punishment.Over 30 countries in the world have
abolished capital punishment but none has reported any increase in crime.
Therefore, death punishment is not justified from any angle.

The reason capital punishment should be abolished is based on the fact

that sometimes judgments go wrong,and,consequently, innocent people are
hanged. This is because of the legalistic juggling of clever lawyers. Even
otherwise instances are not rare when corrupt police officials are brought over
through money and political power to file patently cooked up charge sheets in the
court and magistrates in turn pass doubtful judgments. The only way to preclude
the possibility of error is to abolish capital punishment itself. Benefit of Doubt is
an important point of law and rightly so because law holds that 99 guilty can go
unpunished but even one innocent should not be punished. In the same spirit our
Supreme Court has held that death penalty should be awarded only in rarest of
the rare cases.

We have no right to destroy what we cannot create. It is for God to give or

take one's life. Mercy is higher in his eyes than punishment. It is barbarous to hold
the doctrine of tooth for tooth and limb for limb. Great soul like Jesus Christ
even say If a man slaps you on one cheek, show him the other cheek also. Our
own Mahatma Gandhi forgave the person who stabbed him and would surely have
pardoned Nathuram Godse who killed him.Nehru ignored the plea of several true
Gandhians for Godse's life by saying, The law will have its course. But isn't it
true, as Charles Dickens said, that the law is an idiot?

Against Abolition:
o

The time is not yet ripe to abolish capital punishment. There is no letup in
crimes. Capital punishment is an effective deterrent for would be offenders and
murderers. Those who argue that despite capital punishment being there on the
statute book crime in on the increase fail to understand that it is because of our
faulty justice delivery system where justice delayed is justice denied, and not the
other way round.

There are certain kinds of hardened criminals who are beyond reform. It is
futile to teach them sanity. Killing others has become their second nature and
they have dozens of murder cases pending against them. It would only be for the
good of society that they are sent to the gallows and thus their career in crime is
stopped.

If a murderer is not put to death but instead allowed to live on, he is

tempted to repeat the crime in future. It often happens that murderers set at
large through police connivance or legal trickery of lawyers indulge in more
heinous crimes for fun or contract killings until they are caught and killed.

In some Muslim countries like Pakistan, Iran, Dubai, etc. where laws are

rigid and even petty criminals are awarded harsh punishments, crime is rare.
Similarly in Fascist countries where death penalty is awarded for negligence of
duty or other offences, efficiency and honesty are found in abundance. Jawaharlal
Nehru once favored capital punishment for blackmarketeers as well. I do not
want to harm the meanest insect but it would give me the greatest pleasures of
all blackmarketeers are hung up by the neck till death.

Punishment must be proportional to the crime. One who takes a life, should

pay for it with his own life. That alone can have a deterrent effect on the
criminals. It is both ethically and practically wrong to show any leniency to
hardboiled criminals. We would be excusing or placating criminals only at our own
peril because then they would feel emboldened to commit further crime.
Therefore, though 'an eye for an eye' and 'a tooth for a tooth' appears brutal but
it is the demand of true justice.

A murdere not only kills a human being but also makes the life of his

victim's dependants miserable, because in most such cases their breadwinner is

snatched from them and in some extreme cases they might go after the blood of
the murderer and might kill them. Therefore, it is advisable that a murderer is put
to death by the arm of the law itself.

Crime is contagious. Hence quick dispensation of justice and award of

capital punishment to hardened criminals,as they do it in Pakistan, Bangladesh

and in some other countries, can surely nip this contagion in the bud and prove
helpful

in

improving

the

law

and

order

situation

in

our

country.

Conclusion:
What crimes are amongst the rarest of the rare? Definitions of crime are subjective.

Human life is invaluable both the victim's and the murderer's. Society needs
deterrents to crime. The best policy would be to deter crime with the lowest possible
harm to members of society.
What is desirable - love marriage or arranged marriage?

In Favour Of Love Marriage:

o

Young people should be allowed to choose their own partners because

nature has so made them that upon reaching the age of consent young boys and
girls feel naturally attracted towards the member of opposite sex whom they find
to be Mr. Right or Miss Right for themselves.

In arranged marriages, parents are not in a position to know the girl well
enough; that is, they may not be aware of her personality traits. In arranged
marriages, we generally get to know about the family background and outward
appearance of the girl or the boy, their educational attainments, career plans,
etc. and in the case of girls, their interest and proficiency in household affairs
cooking, knitting, tailoring, etc. But success or failure of married life depends on
the basic temperament, nature and compatibility or otherwise of the partner.
Therefore, to make marriage a success, young men and women should be
supported in selecting partners of their choice suiting each other's temperament.

The presumption that love is blind and hence a young girl or boy will just
pick up for a husband or wife, the first boy or girl they come across when they are
grown up is not justified. We cannot say with certainty that a young boy or girl will
not take all aspects into consideration before embarking on a love affair. They are
not Romeo and Juliet of our Bollywood variety who convert their first love affair
into a marriage. Now we have the concept of dating gaining currency in which a
young man gets engaged to his girl friend only when he has fully understood her
and the same is the case with young girls who now feel more confident to speak
their mind in matrimonial matters. During their courtship, they get enough
opportunity to study each other and can easily break off the relationship if either
side is not found to be as expected.

Love marriage may have its defects as well, but we must admit that it has
come to stay. Today educational facilities have spread and are easily and equally
available to girls, too. Besides, there are greater employment opportunities for
girls than in the past. These together ensure that there is more intermingling of
members of the opposite sex and the parental influence is diminishing. Therefore,
boys and girls are getting more free in the choice of their spouses. In these
circumstances, it would be better for the elders to take it easy and not to come in
the way of their children's happiness. Yes, of course, they can still play the role of
marriage counsellers than that of match-makers. Young people, on their part,
would do well generally to respect the wishes of their elders while deciding to go
steady with their boy or girl friend.

Love is the main factor that binds two individuals. Saints and poets alike
have praised it. Therefore love marriages have more chances of success because
there is pre-marital understanding between the would-be couples. More often,
unpleasant consequences arise only when love is obstructed or the period of
courtship is very short. If love is given way to and the latter is taken care of, love
marriages

succeed

and

nothing

else.

In Favour Of Arranged Marriages:

o

The much talked of understanding in love marriages is not so easy to have

when the two meet for the first time because love takes place at first sight and
not after due deliberation. Moreover, love marriages mainly result in divorce or
are the cause of quarrels with parents and thus unpleasantness in relationships.
As against them, arranged marriages are based on more solid foundations. Here,
experienced people have their way and they naturally choose a partner who is
sure to prove more faithful, devoted, mature and with predictable.

Parents are more rational, mature and experienced to deal with such
matters and they are always capable of selecting suitable life partners for their
children. Loves being blind, young people usually do not give a thought to the
suitability and compability of their love. They generally lack sound judgement and
are carried away by passion.

In arranged marriages, boys and girls are weighed in their totality. Their

family background, character, temperament, compability, all are taken into

consideration, for marriage is supposed to be a union of two families and not just
two individuals. Naturally, girls coming from families which cherish harmonious
relationships are more likely to make better wives than those coming from broken
homes. The latter may have their own psychological problems.

All this new-found love for love marriages is because of the influence of

Western films and culture on our life. Whether love or arranged one, marriage is a
gamble either way. Even much trumpeted love marriages have been seen to be
foundering on the rock of reality. Hadn't our fathers, grandfathers and their
forefathers all enjoyed arranged marriages? Is our culture or society any the
worse for it? If we compare both love and arranged marriages we find that
chances of success in the latter are much more for they are finalized after due
consideration of various aspects of a happy and successful married life.

Conclusion:
What is important in marriage is love, whether it develops before or after the
marriage.

Is Science a curse or a boon?

Science Is a Curse:
o

Scientific inventions in the field of military technology and hardware have

brought about mass destruction.Previously, only armies would fight on the front
and even unarmed or sleeping soldiers were not killed, not to speak of civilians.
But today, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as also missiles and
aircrafts, have extended the area of conflict right into the heart of the opposing
countries. The entire industrial civilization infrastructure can destroyed in a
fraction of a second. Remember the savagery of World War II when Hiroshima and
Nagasaki were completely wiped out, its citizens physically maimed and mentally
deformed? Also remember what happened in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Can we ever forget the avoidable destruction of human lives caused by

leakage in the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the former USSR and by methyl iso
cynate (MIC) gas leakage in Bhopal (India) a few years back? Aren't thousands of

people dying in road, rail and air accidents today, mostly because of human
failure in anticipating disasters or deliberate sabotage by terrorists?

Those who regard science as a boon would say the industrialization and
automation have made production on a mass scale possible and less strenuous,
but they fail to realize that it has created large-scale unemployment.Besides, the
immigration of rural workers towards industrial centers in the cities has adversely
affected our joint family system, not to speak of the psychological problems and
diseases it has spawned in the city based village workers who are uprooted from
their moorings.

Man in his quest for so-called science aided advancement and urbanization
has destroyed huge jungle tracts thus causing harm to ecological balance. Toxic
gases and biologically non degradable waste material from factories are causing
air and water pollution, blaring loudspeakers create noise pollution so much so
that even out Supreme Court have to step in to order closure / shifting of factories
in and around Delhi and to fix permissible decibel limit for fire crackers during
Dipawali celebrations.

Granted that science has enabled us to fight diseases more effectively and
lead a more healthy life but more and more deadly diseases, unknown to our
forefathers, are affecting us today. Moreover side-effects of several medicines are
more dangerous than the cure, and wrong medication / diagnosis may render us
permanently incapacitated. The recent report that Dolly, the artificially created
sheep is suffering from T.B., is an eye opener for the defenders of science.

Today cheap, easy and mechanical transport, scooters, cars, buses, trains
and aeroplanes, has reduced distances for us but the pollution it causes cannot
be overlooked. Besides, our dependence on them has made us lame. Not only
this, other luxuries and comforts of modern science have made us so soft that we
do not want to do physical work and thus suffer from several ailments and
posture diseases.

Science has taught us to conquer the moon and stars but failed to ennoble

man himself. While machines have been humanized, man has been mechanized
and dehumanized. Starford Wingfield has rightly said in his monumental book
'History of British Civilization', the trouble with science is that it has improved the
circumstances of man but not the man himself. So what is the fun of improving
the

outer

surroundings

of

man

if

he

himself

is

not

bettered?

Science Is a Boon:
o

Science is always a boon for mankind. Ever since man's appearance on the
planet Earth he has endeavoured to conquer the forces of nature to lead a happy
life. Science and civilization are one and the same. A civilized nation is one which
has achieved scientific progress. We call the African nations uncivilized; they are
not versed in the ways of science.

Fast means of transport like aeroplanes, and trains have made the world a
global village. Telephone, TV and satellite communications, as also, Internet, have
made it possible to get the latest information from anywhere in the world in no
time. This has helped in the spread of education through satellites and TV
networks. Satellite photography has enabled us to explore new areas of mineral
deposits and early warnings from satellite pictures of an impending cyclone make
it possible to take countermeasures.

Science has given us new medicines to fight diseases and increase the
span of life. Radiological progress, ECG, CT Scan, MRI, etc. help us in detecting
and diagnosing severe ailments. Transplant surgery and micro-surgery have
shown hope for the hopeless. Now the human genome project has succeeded in
mapping genes of the human body which holds the hope of identifying culprit
genes for man's diseases and replacing them.

From cradle to grave man have tasted the fruits of science: a Caesarian
operation brings him into the world, an electric crematorium disposes him off and
in between his electric lights and fans, washing machines, fridges and other
gadgets ensure that he lives a comfortable life.

While our forefathers had to live a life full of hardships, we, because of
science lead a luxurious and comfortable life. Even the poor can avail of fast
transport, bio-engineered food, a variety of modern entertainment and the like.
Test tube babies have long become a dream come true for the issueless couples.
Deadly diseases like cancer and AIDS are going to be completely controlled in the
future. Different vaccines have already been developed for eradication of
Hepatitis

B,

Small

pox,

Polio,

etc.

Agriculture and farming have been revolutionized by science. Big dams to

channelise water and distribute it to the desert have turned arid areas into
greenery. Isotopes have helped improve the quality of seeds, which not only
increased food production but also caused resistance to plant disease. Cross
breeding of animals and poultry too has increased yield. Biotechnology has made
us self sufficient, even surplus, in food production.

Our education system has been revolutionized with the help of science and
technology. Gone are the days of yore when man could rest contented with
learning of only humanities; teaching of science and technology has opened new
vistas before him. He has more job opportunities. Not only this, he is more and
more in command over the forces of nature and with the aid of science and
technology he is using his resources for mankind. With great strides in paper and
printing technology and the knowledge explosion in general, even an average
person is able to get the needed information and can exercise his right of choice
in our democratic polity.

Electronics and computers have changed our thinking and living radically,
computerized machinery turns out products much faster and of better quality.
Computers have replaced manual labour with better performance and electronics
has made it possible for the handicapped to lead a normal life.

It might sound ironic but it is a fact that because of thermonuclear

weapons with colossal destructive power in their armoury, the two superpowers,
the US and the erstwhile USSR, could not go to war fearing MAD (Mutual Assured
Destruction) and lived with entente during the cold war era. Even today, post
December 13 attack on our Parliament and not withstanding warning of using

nuclear power, both India and Pakistan are desisting from carrying out their threat
because

of

the

nuclear

pressure.

Conclusion:
Sustainable development will allow us to benefit from science, yet help pass the
planet to the next generation in the same shape that we inherited it in.

Seniority, Not Merit, Must Be The Criterion For Promotions

In Favour Of Seniority:
o

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.

In Favour Of Merit:
o

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.

Conclusion:
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.

Are Reservations In Jobs Justified?

No, They Aren't:

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

maintenance of efficiency of administration.

should

be

consistent

with

the

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.

Yes, They Are:

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).

Conclusion:

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.
What form of Democracy is better parliamentary or presidential?

Parliamentary:

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.
Presidential:

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 199698. 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, floorcrossing 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
o

politicians

can

be

easily

removed.

Conclusion:
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.