1

2
3
1. DESMOND TUTU, THE CONSCIENCE-KEEPER 6
2. LIVING WITH THE ENEMY: PEOPLE VS PANDEMIC 9
3. PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE 10
4. WE ARE NOT AT PEACE WITH NATURE 11
5. PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION 13
6. WHY BE REACTIVE WHEN YOU CAN BE PROACTIVE? 17
7. ETHICAL ASPECTS RELATING TO CYBERSPACE: UTILITARIANISM AND DEONTOLOGY 18
8. WHY A UNIVERSAL COVID-19 VACCINE MANDATE IS ETHICAL TODAY 21
9. LINKING VOTER ID AND AADHAAR A BAD IDEA 25
10. NO TOLERANCE FOR CRIME IN FAITH'S NAME 28
11. BE CURIOUS, NOT FURIOUS 29
12. THE REVOLUTIONARY ECONOMIST: M K GANDHI 29
13. GRATITUDE & HAPPINESS 33
14. TWO PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE 33
15. THE DEPTHS OF OUR HUMANITY 35
16. THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE 39
17. THE TROUBLING QUESTION 40
18. WHY POLICE BRUTALITY AND TORTURE ARE ENDEMIC IN INDIA 41
19. GANDHI’S MORALITY WASN’T DENIAL OF POLITICS. HIS IDEALISM WAS COMPLETED BY
REALISM 44
20. SCHOOL EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO DEVELOPING CHARACTER, BUILDING SOCIAL AND LIFE
SKILLS 46
21. THINKER’S COLUMN 50
22. AN ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL ISSUES 51

• TOLERANCE VS TOLERATION-VIEWS OF INDIANS ON RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AND

RELIGIOUS SEGREGATION 51
• HUMAN RIGHTS AND INDIAN VALUES 56
• COMPASSIONATE LEADERSHIP 58

4
5
He wanted the truth to be respected, reconciliation to be attempted, and justice to be
inaugurated
Five big names dominated the struggle against
apartheid in South Africa, each from a distinct part of
that diverse country — Albert John Luthuli, foremost
of Zulu leaders in the African National Congress (ANC)
from the Natal, Oliver Tambo of the Pondo people
from the country’s western flank, Nelson Mandela
from the Xhosa population of the Eastern Cape,
Walter Sisulu from a mixed Black and White African heritage, and Desmond Tutu of mixed
Xhosa and Motswana descent. Tutu, who died on December 26, 2021, was the youngest. This
is not to diminish the magnetic contribution of three other phenomenal figures — Joe Slovo
(1926-1995), the White communist leader; Chris Hani, born in 1942 and assassinated in 1993;
and Steve Biko, born in 1946 and brutally murdered in prison in 1977.
Making comparisons
Comparisons are odious, but they can make for an easier understanding of people and their
roles. And so, one could say that Luthuli — moderate, liberal and wholly opposed to violence
— was like South Africa’s Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Tambo, who worked for a major part of his
political life outside South Africa in exile with London being his base, can be seen as its
Dadabhai Naoroji. Mandela, the politico-legal mastermind with his international fame for
being free of all resentments despite 27 years in jail, is Gandhi-cum-Nehru. Sisulu, the ANC’s
party-consolidator and ethically powered wise elder statesman was patently South Africa’s
Patel-cum-Rajagopalachari. One can suggest that Slovo’s mediating role would have won the
admiration of ‘Dinabandhu’ C.F. Andrews, the Anglican cleric and friend of Tagore who
mediated the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement of 1914 in South Africa; that Hani’s socialism, military
strategising, and personal courage powerfully invokes Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose; while
Biko, self-sacrificingly bold, recalls most vividly our immortal Shaheed Bhagat Singh.
Where does that comparison chart place Desmond Tutu? There is no Indian equivalent for
him. Father Jerome D’Souza, the Jesuit priest from Mangalore, who was a member of the
Constituent Assembly of India and played a key role in ensuring protection for the minorities
in India and for the right to practise and propagate one’s faith as fundamental, comes closest.
But D’Souza is still, in relation to Tutu, a ‘distant near’.
The fact is that Tutu was a nonpareil. He was without an equivalent in South Africa, India or,
for that matter, anywhere, defying categorisation. Was he a politician in the cloth or a cleric
in politics? Did he advise politicians theologically from his pulpit or speak to his congregations
— he was Bishop of Johannesburg from 1985 to 1986 and Archbishop of Cape Town from

6
1986 to 1996 — in the language of politics? Those questions are unanswerable. But what is
known and celebrated is that in the transition from apartheid to democracy, Tutu spoke as an
African Christian who wanted the truth to be respected, reconciliation to be attempted and
justice to be inaugurated in the land of his birth without rancour mutilating the change and
with remorse — real, spontaneous remorse — acting as a catalyst for change.
This goal and this practice made Tutu a natural ally for men of the Tambo-Mandela-Sisulu
mould. It also made him, at the same time, co-extensively, a man who was thought too
moderate by the extreme Left and too radical by the far-Right. And altogether too ambivalent
for politicians and theologians, both of whom like their chocolates deadly dark.
Too radical for conservative upholders of apartheid, too moderate for black radicals and
properly disliked by Marxists the world over for his anti-communism, Tutu yet remained
staggeringly and consistently popular among the vast majority of the people of South Africa.
How and why?
For the plain reason, that plain honesty is instantly recognised and immediately respected. A
large and growing number across the world saw in this plain-speaking man of God, who was
also a man of loud reverberating laughter and equally of emotional meltdowns, a man of
unquestioned earnestness and manifest integrity. They saw in him a man who showed that
bondage is both external — political, social, economic — and within oneself in terms of racial
prejudice, ethnic hatred and personal animosities.
Was this a political position or a religious one? The vast majority in South Africa, the rest of
the African continent, and the world at large that heard him did not bother itself with that
question. It only saw in Tutu an African, deeply bonded into Mother Africa, declining to view
its heritage through western norms but ready to see and correct its own limitations and
errors. It saw in Tutu a Christian, deeply committed to the New Testament not as the West’s
gift to the rest of the world but that of humanity’s better instincts to itself. Rather like it sees
the Dalai Lama as a true Buddhist deeply committed to Tibetan Mahayana but equally to
humanity’s quest for redemption through dialogue, atonement and that old-fashioned word
taboo in ‘rational’ discourse — forgiveness.
No two humans could be more different, more similar than Tutu and the Dalai Lama, younger
by four years. Laughter has held tears in check for those two Nobel Laureates. “You are a
Christian,” the Tibetan tells the South African in a recorded conversation, “and will go to
Heaven. I am a Buddhist and will go to a different place…”. “You are a Buddhist”, Tutu
responds, “and will re-incarnate”. Both break into laughter. And then, turning very serious,
the Dalai Lama tells a sombre Tutu: “When I die, I will remember you…”
The need for human conscience
There has always been need and space in every society, in South Africa and in India, homes
to both the peace-makers, for something called the human conscience. Tutu raised his voice
for Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict, fiercely opposed the Myanmar crackdown on
the Rohingya, spoke up for gay rights, and against the death penalty, for legalised assisted
dying and against orthodox views on birth control. Joining his voice to that of

7
environmentalists, he called for an apartheid-style boycott of corporates that are “financing
the injustice of climate change”.
Countries need leaders in government, leaders in the opposition. But they also need social
philosophers, conscience-keepers who do not seek popularity and are not afraid of
unpopularity. Tutu was precisely that for South Africa — a physician for its conflicted soul.
A decade ago, when Tutu announced his retirement from public life, he said he wanted to
spend time with his family “thinking and to pray”. If, as he lay dying, news had reached him
that a Jesus Christ statue had been vandalised in the Indian city of Ambala and Christmas
celebrations disrupted elsewhere in our country, he would have thought of Gandhi and also
remembered the man who said he would remember Tutu when he died — the 14th Dalai
Lama. The human conscience laughs an increasingly lonely laugh.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS:
What does each of the following quotations mean to you?
a) “Inclusive, good-quality education is a foundation for dynamic and equitable
societies”. - Desmond Tutu
b) “It is our moral obligation to give every child the very best education possible”.-
Desmond Tutu

8
The pandemic period can be an opportunity for us to change our work template and ethics
A long-term issue India has to tackle head-on is work and productivity in the times of the
Coronavirus. The developed countries have had a head
start on this, most of their drawing board models
already being transformed into reality across shop
floors and boardrooms. Faced with the virus’
unpredictability and its mutations, India has reached a
stage where it is getting its priorities right in dealing
with the infection. There is no time to lose to jump to
the next stage to ensure that productivity, and thereby
the economy, is not affected when a new variant or
wave threatens us. The Government is aware of the Omicron variant's threat, and plans are
being implemented to face the expected surge. All precautions are being taken to prevent
crowding. Educational institutions are closed. However, what about work? Last year, the
lockdown was introduced by simply shutting down factories and offices. Sectors that could
do with work from home managed, but manufacturing and industry could not. We can least
afford another repeat. We have to find a way to live with the virus. As the country is ready to
go into a shell should the Omicron wave be upon us, we have to face this question and find
an answer. What we are looking for is a national work policy that tweaks the nature and
process of work to adapt productivity to live with the virus.
The new work template will be the basis for future adaptations as modern tools, like
digitisation and AI, restructure the concept of work and bring inevitable changes in human
resources practices. In that sense, we are not looking for a new work strategy merely for the
duration of the pandemic. We are looking at a new structure of work that, unlike anything in
the past, can maintain workflows even when challenged by unpredictable variables like
disasters or epidemics. The pandemic period is the interim stage that helps us experiment
with new work modes. Tata Sons chairman N Chandrasekharan has said his Group is already
adopting changes propelled by three themes — digital, new energy and supply chain
resilience — along with an additional one, health. It is about accounting for the virus and new
variant outbreaks while deciding the work structure. A public-private initiative should initiate
a debate on changing our approach to work. In the short run, work from home will be
extended. The hybrid work model will gain popularity. Digitisation and automation will pick
up the pace because of the nagging uncertainty about the virus. Workers will be called upon
to change as well. Big challenges face us, like imparting skill sets to all workers, retraining
skilled workers, supporting workers in the inevitable migration between occupations,
expanding and enhancing digital infrastructure, amending the education system by focusing
on skills rather than academic degrees, etc. Technology and physical proximity are factors

9
that will determine work, workplaces and work culture. Omicron can be an opportunity for
us to change.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. “The will to power exists, but it can be tamed and can be guided by rationality and
principles of moral duty’. Examine this statement in the light of the Covid Pandemic.

To overlook the orgy of communal hatred at a recent event in Haridwar that was labelled a
Hindu religious congregation as an
inconsequential derangement of a fringe group
may be a convenient pretext for the inaction by
the police and the silence of the ruling Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP), but the reality is scary. The
passivity of the BJP is a signifier and eloquent
admission of the pernicious mainstreaming of
bigotry. The Uttarakhand police have betrayed a
cavalier attitude in their investigation by not
naming any of the ringleaders initially and not showing the urgency the case requires
subsequently. Speakers at the event openly called for genocide and violence. Such bigotry is
not the monopoly of adherents of any particular religion, and law enforcement authorities
should be eternally vigilant. The murder of two people at Sikh places of worship in Punjab in
separate incidents in recent days showed how matters of religion could inflame irrational
passion. In one case in Punjab, a person has been arrested and charged with murder. The
shameful lynchings were followed by responses from organisations ranging from the Congress
to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, but none unequivocally condemned the violence. Most
reactions appeared to justify the violence, privileging abstract religious sentiments over the
fundamental right to life. The Congress chief in Punjab, Navjot Singh Sidhu, spoke for many
politicians seeking to exploit religion for electoral purposes when he said those who offended
the faith must be hanged publicly.
That mainstream parties are unable to take an unambiguous and universal position that
violence and the call for violence, in the name of faith, are unacceptable is unsettling and
bodes ill for Indian democracy. Despite sporadic bursts of communal violence, India, unlike
its neighbours in South Asia, has survived and thrived as a multicultural and multi-religious
nation till date. Keeping it that way requires vigilance and vision. Violence originates in
thought, transmits itself through speech and manifests itself in action. Targets in the recent

10
past have ranged from interfaith couples to carol singers to cattle traders to teachers setting
question papers. New laws appear to reinforce and institutionalise prejudice and intolerance.
The heavy hand of the state that falls too frequently on the critics of the Government has left
the mobs that threaten national unity untouched. Those who committed murder in Punjab,
those who called for mass murder from Haridwar and those who vandalised Christian
institutions in different places must all be brought to justice as per the law. Political parties
must rise above their narrow interests during the current election cycle and unite against
hate. Later may be too late.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. In case of a crisis of conscience, does emotional intelligence help to overcome the
same without compromising the ethical or moral stand that you are likely to follow?
Critically analyse

What can we wish for in the middle of a pandemic? It is not going to be a “new” year if we
continue with our foolish ways of managing the planet
In our highly uncertain world, there is only one
certainty now — nature is on a rampage, telling us
that enough is enough.
The past two years must have been the most
surreal time of our lives. One fine day in early 2020,
we woke up to realise that a mere virus brought our
world to a halt. We did unbelievable things. We
shuttered down everything, locked ourselves up,
stopped socialising, made masks a part of our attire,
and worked online. Our world collapsed. We lived through hell during the past two years,
seeing death and despair like never before. The experience was universal — for rich and poor
alike.
Then we thought the end was in sight — we hoped and prayed that the vaccine would work.
Exactly one year ago, this miracle of modern medicine made it into our world. We were clear
that the worst was behind us. The only question was if the vaccine would reach all in the
world. Much was also said (not meant) about the need to ensure that everyone was
vaccinated; otherwise, a new variant would emerge.
The war against the pandemic was a race between vaccination and the virus and its variants.
“No one is safe until everyone is safe.” This slogan came to us as a reassurance of a win. We
heard these niceties from the G7 world leaders.

11
As we prepared to enter the new year, hoping to return to the typical old ways, the new
variant — Omicron — hit the world. If 2020 was the year of the novel coronavirus and 2021
of its variant Delta, 2022 now threatens to be of Omicron. We do not know how bad it will
be; we only know that this variant is highly mutated and highly infectious — it breaks through
the immunity barriers, including what we have acquired from vaccines. So, now the only
option is to provide “booster” shots to the already vaccinated so that Omicron becomes less
dangerous.
The World Health Organization, which was till recently imploring the “rich” countries to not
opt for boosters saying that they should instead make vaccines available to the poorer nations
to stop the virus, is now screaming “booster, booster, booster”. We are fatigued. We are
dreading that 2022 will be a repeat of the last year, which we welcomed with the hope of
normalcy but then had to endure another deadly wave of the pandemic.
The pandemic is not over, not by a long shot. In its grip is our next generation. We are seeing
the worst impacts of this virus on children. This is a generation that will be scarred by this
virus, irrespective of its intrinsic resilience and social background.
We believe we are the most affected by this virus — something that we often do not discuss.
It is they who have lost valuable time of being in school, of being with friends, of learning, and
the sheer joy of living. It is not enough to say that education is online because we know what
it means for the poor. It is not enough to say that family time has increased because we know
what it means for their mental health and development to not be able to live life as “normal”.
This is not all. Let us be clear that the novel coronavirus is not the only one in the game today.
In this past year, there have been outbreaks of the avian influenza virus hitting birds and
poultry; of the African swine influenza hitting pig populations across the world; and of the
Nipah (from bats) and zika (from mosquitoes) viral infections.
Could any of these or other zoonotic viruses become as deadly or deadlier than the novel
coronavirus disease — COVID-19? We do not know. Despite all these uncertainties, we refuse
to recognise that we are not at peace with nature.
This is what we need to remember in the battle against COVID-19. We know that zoonotic
diseases are on the rise because of our dystopian relationship with nature, and we can only
fix this if we rework our food systems. But we are looking for quick fixes.
We know that unless all are vaccinated, we remain vulnerable. Yet we are not getting our act
together on this. We have also learnt in the past two years that countries’ success in
containing the virulence of the disease lies in their investment in society-wide public
healthcare systems and that these need to be at the primary level, accessible, available and
staffed to meet the needs of all. This then is where the focus needs to be, even as we ride
over to the next variant.

12
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. What is Medical Ethics? What is the principle of Medical Ethics? Justify your answer in
the light of today’s context.

The gap and the mistrust between the govt and the people have to go if conflicts are to be
resolved, and for this, the initiative lies with the govt. Good, honest governance cannot be
replaced by doles and handouts, which are the new opiates of the masses. The govt and the
people should talk without intermediaries at all levels and in a sustained manner.
The farmers’ agitation has been suspended for now. The three laws dealing with agriculture
reforms were promulgated through an ordinance (as is the custom these days) in the face of
opposition from farm unions and farmers. There was no interaction between the government
and the farmers, no discussion in Parliament,
and no reference to any parliamentary
committee. This one-sided action led to an
unprecedented agitation lasting over a year,
and lakhs of farmers from Punjab, Haryana,
UP, Rajasthan, etc.; participated in this
agitation on the borders of Delhi. The
agitation met with marked success, as the
Government of India conceded most of their
demands. All this could have been avoided had there been prior consultation or debate in
Parliament.
This one-sided exercise of executive power and the total sidelining of Parliament led to the
conflict. It is ironic for a government that has come to power through a democratic process
to behave in such a manner. Parliament and debate are the very hallmarks of democracy.
Unfortunately, today, the norm is to ignore these processes. The government refuses to
engage even on national security matters such as problems posed by China along the LAC, the
issues of migrant labour, Covid, etc. Mass non-violent movements were successfully carried
out by Mahatma Gandhi in pre-Independent India, by Martin Luther King with the civil rights
movement in a racially divided USA of the 1950s. Is the government today suggesting that the
only approach left is that of mass agitation, and it will only act when threatened at the ballot
box?
India is a sub-continent where 1/6th of the global population resides — one would expect
differences in various aspects of life to be the norm. However, letting these differences
become conflicts, and especially unresolved conflicts leading to armed insurgency, is a result
of the failure of various governments which have occupied the seats of power at the Centre
and in the states. How the current incumbents have accentuated these conflicts is a matter

13
for history to judge. Let us look at some of the major conflicts that have been raging within
the country, like the Maoists in Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and parts of Maharashtra for
many decades now hundreds of lives lost on both sides.
The corporates have wanted a ‘piece of the pie’. A country trying to become a modern
economy will need to explore and farm its natural resources. That is not the problem. The
problem lies in the inequitable distribution of wealth between the traditional owners and the
new parachutists. The World Inequality Report, released recently, showed that nearly 65 per
cent of the country’s household wealth is concentrated in 10 per cent of the population. That
is where the problem lies — crony capitalism is being encouraged with rogue outfits exploiting
resources and people, which is further accentuated in tribal areas. The resulting conflict is
allowed to simmer, with a ruling government enjoying a vested interest in the continued
armed enforcement of their interests. There is no sustained effort to engage the people in a
dialogue to redress grievances. In the absence of this dialogue, the state resorts to special
powers and laws and large-scale deployment of CAPF (Central armed police forces) and
unskilled state police forces. This leads to unending conflicts and the suppression of the local
population. Due to this failure of the state, some sections of the population have resorted to
violent confrontation. However, this approach has not succeeded and has led to major
collateral damage in the form of loss of life and livelihood. The only viable option left for the
people, it seems, is to launch peaceful agitations and sustain them through their own local
leadership. Ironically, this was the path that led to our Independence from the British. A mass
movement with its resulting fear of losing at the ballot box seems to be the only viable path
left.
Let us come to the North-East; an area disturbed for decades. In this case, it is the
Government of India which has been governing through remote control for most of the time,
with no better results. For a long, the bureaucrats sitting in Delhi handled things and that was
also mostly at the joint secretary level. For many years, even the Chief Ministers could only
meet the joint secretary and nobody higher. It was a humiliating experience for them and
their people. AFSPA has been promulgated in most of these areas with no positive result
except harassment of the average citizen. AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) has been
in place in many states for decades now. It only implies a failed state, not a special situation,
as we would be made to believe. The administration is corrupt and ineffective, and the
politician is complicit. The borders are porous and small arms, ammunition and drugs are
transported through the free movement of militants.
Special development funds and special departments have failed to redress the grievances of
these people because of large-scale corruption. Funds and recruitment to various
departments are distributed amongst the government functionaries and the underground; in
fact, in places like Nagaland and Manipur, the underground gets a large share of the funds in
a regular manner and also collects taxes from transporters, businessmen and shopkeepers.
They hold the state and the people captive by enforcing large-scale bandhs. In Nagaland, the
underground has virtually ruled the state after the ceasefire. Interlocutors have been there
for almost two decades, with no visible results. Solutions are always said to be round the
corner, but the corner keeps on shifting. There should be a dialogue directly between the

14
government and the people, minus the vested interests. The civil rights movements in
Nagaland and Manipur are strong and capable of carrying out dialogue. In its absence, they
are likely to resort to peaceful mass movements. The gap and the mistrust between the
government and the people have to go if conflicts are to be resolved, and for this, the initiative
lies with the government. Good, honest governance cannot be replaced by doles and
handouts, the new opiates of the masses.
The problem gets compounded by the continued failure of our criminal justice system, which
the politician continues to manipulate through compliant officers and members of the judicial
system. The upshot is that special emergency powers are drawn upon by these governments,
and large-scale deployment of PMFs and Army is called upon. The Army is a broad sword
designed to defend the country against foreign enemies, which is a critically important role
given the situation on both the LAC with China and LoC with Pakistan. Similarly, the PMFs, by
their very definition (para military forces), are meant to be used in extreme situations of
violence and trouble, not in everyday situations of law and order. By all means, use them
against terrorists, radicals and organisations bent upon destabilising the country, but certainly
not as a go-to daily solution.
On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh has successfully countered insurgency, and importantly,
it was done by the local police, meticulously trained policemen led by committed leaders who
put an end to the insurgency without involving the armed forces. In between, back-channel
talks were also held, and that also contributed to the resolution of the conflict. Governments
of different hues came and went, but the policy remained the same. Today, Andhra is free of
radical Maoist conflict, and its sons and daughters are holding leadership positions not only
within the state but abroad as well. The common people, wherever they are, want peace,
education, health and a good standard of living through adequate employment — not just
doles and handouts.
J & K is a different ballgame because of Pakistan’s interference in the form of infiltration of
foreign agents, arms and drugs. The terrain is such that this cannot be totally blocked, and it
has to be admitted that there is some form of limited support by locals. Here also, mainstream
parties and state administrators have not been of great help. There is massive leakage of
funds at various levels, and the administration is not proactive and empathetic. A
government-to-people dialogue is essential. Simultaneously, people should be actively
involved in developmental work. A running dialogue between people’s representatives and
local administrators at the ground level is also necessary. Stringent laws like AFSPA alone
cannot deliver results or resolve conflicts. The absence of dialogue is today showing in the
increased participation of local boys in militancy, especially in Srinagar city.
Briefly, the government and the people should talk without intermediaries at all levels from
the village to the top and in a sustained manner. There should be greater involvement of the
state police and less resorting to the intervention of the armed forces. In the face of the
developing situation at the LAC, the armed forces should be left free to do the primary duty
of guarding borders. If an emergent situation arises within the country, they can always be
called in. Our Army is a highly trained, disciplined and motivated force and should be brought

15
in as a weapon of last resort. It should not be deployed for long periods in civil areas and to
sort out civil strife.
One last word for the friends in the media — TV, print and social. For a change, most of you
should come out of your ivory towers and visit places and meet people whom you write about
and about whom you pontificate on your channels. If you do your duty in an honest, dignified
manner, problems will be resolved in a much shorter time and more amicably. Try to look at
things from the point of view of the common people involved and help in mitigating problems
and not exacerbating them.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. Distinguish between laws and rules. Discuss the role of ethics in formulating them.

16
What is anger? When do you get angry?
Stop for two minutes, take a piece of paper and answer these questions.
Some of the answers that I often get to these questions are:
‘I get angry when children do not obey me.
I get angry when scolded in public.
I get angry when my colleague's blunder.
I get angry when spoken of behind my back.’
The list is endless.
When we deem ourselves to be inferior, there is a reaction, and it shows up as anger.
When a person calls us ‘donkey’, we retaliate by calling him ‘monkey’. This is a reaction. When
we react, external situations control us. In the management lexicon, the word used more
often is ‘proactive’, not reactive.
What is the difference between these two words?
The following Zen story throws more light on this.
There was a samurai. After winning the war, he returned home with his army. On the way, he
passed through a forest. In the forest, a monk was deep in meditation. The samurai bowed
and asked him humbly, “O Monk! Which is the way to heaven, and which way is hell?”
The monk did not respond. The samurai
repeated his question a little more loudly.
The monk still did not respond. The third
time, the samurai shouted the question so
loudly that it shook the very tree under
which the monk was meditating. The
monk opened his eyes and said sternly,
“You stupid fellow! Why did you disturb
my meditation?”
Now the samurai was really furious. He immediately pulled out his sword and raised it to kill
the monk. The monk said with a smile, “This is the way to hell.”
The samurai immediately realised his folly, and his anger abated. ‘The monk called me stupid
not to chide me but to teach me the truth…’ He gently placed his sword in the sheath. And
the monk said, “This is the way to heaven.”

17
When the monk had rebuked the samurai in front of his soldiers, he was angry. ‘How could
this monk scold me in front of my soldiers? It’s so demeaning; the respect for me is gone. How
will these fellows show me any regard in the future?’ ran his thoughts, lowering his self-
esteem, filling him with regret and sorrow. So, he failed to think and, hence, drew out his
sword – this is ‘reaction’. To react – is the gate to hell.
The reason to call the samurai stupid was not to belittle him but to answer his question in an
indirect way. The samurai was quick to grasp the teaching of the monk. Soon the sword found
its place in the sheath – this is ‘pro-action’. To respond thus – is the gate to heaven.
Hell and heaven are states of mind. When we get angry with others, we lose our balance, our
blood pressure rises, and our limbs tremble. By being angry, irrespective of the surrounding
situation, punishment is meted out to us in the form of anger. We are responsible for our
state.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. For good quality of human resource, which personality trait is more important: aptitude
or attitude? Explain with reasons.

Obviously, web ethics must primarily be behavioural in nature. Its task is to serve as a tool for
making decisions in morally difficult situations. However, as long as web ethics is seen only as
one of the mechanisms of the Internet
normative self-regulation, based on the
spontaneously formed ethos of
cyberspace, it will lack the critical scale to
evaluate this behaviour, and hence change
it on the basis of a real assessment.
Therefore, web ethics needs a
philosophical and theoretical justification
using the traditional ethical methodology,
which should help it avoid subjectivity. At the same time, the two most common principles in
the construction of ethical argumentation – i.e. the utilitarian and deontological ones – come
up against great difficulties when applied to the analysis of Internet communication.
Therefore, as we know, utilitarian ethical theories focus on the practical feasibility of
behaviour in terms of achieving the social good, considering the actions that bring the
greatest benefit to the greatest number of people to be morally justified. Nevertheless, as a

18
rule, any action has both positive and negative consequences, many of which are impossible
to predict (and even more impossible to assess) in advance. It is even more difficult to remain
impartial in determining which interests should be compromised.
If this is so, the implementation of the “principle of maximum benefit”, which is the basis of
utilitarianism, as a criterion of moral evaluation only gives very approximate and far from
reliable results, which means that it cannot claim to be objective.
In cyberspace, the subjectivity of the utilitarian approach is particularly acute. The complexity
of the ever-changing information environment often makes it impossible to predict the extent
of the immediate and distant consequences of individual action, and the virtual nature of this
action changes – at least subjectively – its moral status. This is due to the fact that individuals
interacting in a virtual environment tend to perceive as potentially immoral only those actions
that affect physical, tangible objects and lead to an easily observable result. The immaterial
nature of information, however, creates a misleading feeling that everything happening in the
infosphere happens as if for "fun", without exerting any influence on reality. In this way,
action in cyberspace is subjectively perceived differently from the same action in the "real"
world, and hence a person is very often unable to adequately assess the consequences of his
or her actions.
Moreover, many of the actions carried out in cyberspace do not in fact produce any visible
effect, which allows them to remain not only unpunished but often not even noticed, i.e. they
seem to be non-existent from the viewpoint of consequences, while they instead affect and
influence millions of unprepared users, ranging from the naive and innocent child to the
"adult" who has very specific aims. Therefore, the use of a consequential approach to
evaluate them – which focuses on the results of an action, and not on its motives – loses its
meaning and in fact produces no visible effect, which allows malicious surfers to go not only
unpunished but often not even is remembered from the viewpoint of consequences, as if they
did not exist.
Unlike utilitarian theories, deontological ethical theories attach particular importance to
universal formal rules of interaction, irrespective of the outcome of their compliance in a
particular situation. These rules, defined in the form of universal moral laws (the best known
of which are the “golden rule of ethics” and the “categorical imperative”), serve as a
prerequisite for the emergence of specific prescriptions underlying normative ethics. The
absolute nature of moral requirements proposed by deontological theories, which insist on
the inadmissibility of deviation from moral imperatives, sometimes borders on rigorism and
comes into conflict with the actual practice of intersubjective interaction, which is normally a
rational and – on the Internet – a technological objective.
The deontological approach, on the other hand, must be able to give moral standards a
universal and binding nature.
Four points of information ethics are considered the fundamental deontological steps that
govern the sphere of virtual communication, i.e. the principle of privacy; the principle of

19
accessibility; the principle of inviolability of private property, and the principle of information
accuracy.
As can be inferred, these are the preferred principles of liberalism (at least the first three),
and they are quite consistent with the spirit of web ideology. Moreover, an approach has
become widespread in web ethics that regards respect for human rights as the main
deontological principle of virtual communication. These inalienable moral rights are based on
our status as intelligent beings, worthy of respect, representing an intrinsic value, and result
from the second formulation of the categorical imperative, which emphasises that human
beings are a goal in themselves. Human rights record the most significant behavioural
patterns that should be applied in relation to human beings. The fundamental moral rights
relating to the information sphere include the right to receive information, the right to
express one’s opinion and the right to privacy.
At the same time, in the process of virtual communication, situations in which various moral
rights and obligations come into conflict are not uncommon. Suffice it to mention the
contradiction between freedom of speech and the desire to protect minors’ morality;
between the inviolability of private life and society’s right to security; between the right to
private property and the principle of accessibility, information, etc.
Here the most delicate moral dilemmas arise, thus showing that web ethics cannot be
reduced to a set of few universal rules applicable to any situation. It rather involves conflicting
rules that need to be reconciled and balanced. This undermines the feasibility of a strictly
deontological approach that does not communicate anything about the conflict of moral
obligations.
The German school-style concept of "discourse ethics" is called upon to overcome the
shortcomings of the two previous approaches. Discourse ethics, on the one hand, establishes
formally universal rules, thanks to which moral rules can be substantiated. This requires it to
take account of the possible consequences of the introduction of such rules so that it can
bridge the gap between deontological ethics and consequential ethics, thus combining the
principle of duty with the principle of responsibility. At the same time, the guiding principle
of discourse ethics – rational consent – implicitly assumes that anyone who enters into
communication in order to achieve mutual understanding cannot fail to grant other
communicators the same rights that he or she claims, thus recognising all people as equal
partners. Thanks to this, disagreements must be overcome exclusively in an argumentative
manner. In this sense, discourse ethics makes it possible not only to describe the procedure
for reaching an agreement on moral issues, but also to derive universal justice and equality
metarules, and not as mere empirical behavioural rules.
The fundamentally dialogical nature of discourse ethics makes it more suitable for the moral
and philosophical analysis of modern communication processes (including those mediated by
computers), since its fundamental principle can, on the one hand, be used to describe the
"ideal communication situation", thus establishing a moral benchmark to which any practical
discourse should tend. On the other hand, it serves as a criterion for the moral evaluation of
this discourse. Thanks to this, discourse ethics can be regarded as a universal tool of

20
communication, which can (and should) apply to all persons interacting in a situation of
conflict of interest, regardless of the environment in which their interaction takes place.
Therefore, discourse ethics serves not only as a tool for clarifying and corroborating moral
rules but also as a tool for justifying and legitimizing them in the information society.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. The relevance of Utilitarian philosophy cannot be rejected simply because it promotes
pleasure seeking behaviour and encouraging crony capitalism. Comment

Many organizations and individuals are calling for the mandatory vaccination of all Americans
against COVID-19. But others have objected to vaccine mandates, calling them unethical. As
members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors (an organization representing
more than 90 bioethics centres in the US and
Canada), we've had vigorous debates on these
issues. We have concluded that broad vaccine
mandates for COVID-19 are ethically justified at
this time.
Of course, any mandate should exempt people
who cannot receive the vaccine for medical
reasons, but this is remarkably rare. And there are
legitimate practical arguments about the impact of mandating vaccination for individuals with
documented prior infection or who can prove some level of prior immunity, which we will not
take up here. More commonly, those opposed to vaccination mandates have argued that they
are unethical because they might infringe on personal liberties or because they violate
religious freedom. We argue that avoiding mandates to uphold the ideals of personal and
religious freedom is not worth the risk to others that would ensue in the current environment;
imposing risk on others can justify enforcing limits to personal decision making.

Counterpoints To Common Arguments Against Vaccine Mandates

Personal Liberty Objections
What makes any public health mandate ethical, whether it’s for mask-wearing, social
distancing, or vaccination? Answering this question, especially in the US context, requires us
to start with our foundational commitment to the value of individual liberty. Liberty is
grounded in the ethical concept of autonomy—or self-rule—and it is the primary value that
guides medical practice in normal times.
Even in normal times, of course, choices have consequences. In particular, some personal
choices have the potential to harm others. When one person's choice might harm others, it

21
can be ethical for that choice to be limited. That's why we have speed limits and stop signs;
both limit your right to drive as you might wish, but they are necessary for public safety. If
you choose to drive recklessly and put others at risk, you should expect to pay a fine, possibly
lose your license to drive, or maybe even go to jail. Other examples include laws about
smoking in aeroplanes, firing a gun in an urban area, or shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre
and causing a panic.
It is the risk of harm to others—impinging on their liberty to be safe while driving, breathe
clean air, or not be shot or trampled—that makes it ethical to place limits on personal choices.
Limiting personal freedom when it is necessary to prevent harm to others is widely agreed to
be ethical under a wide variety of secular and religious worldviews and traditions.
In terms of limiting people's choices about vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, we
must consider whether one person going unvaccinated today is likely to cause harm to other
people. Nearly all people interact and come into physical contact with others on a daily basis,
and a person with COVID-19 can infect several others even before showing symptoms. The
risk of one person harming many others, even inadvertently, provides an ethical justification
for limiting the choice to go unvaccinated during a pandemic.
While mitigation strategies—masking, social distancing, hand washing—are effective in
slowing the spread of COVID-19, such measures carry their own harms and are much less
appealing as long-term strategies. Only vaccines are capable of halting viral transmission to
the degree of stopping COVID-19 from continuing as a pandemic-level threat. Herd immunity
for COVID-19 will only occur through vaccination.
The choice of too many individuals to go unvaccinated has already resulted in the worsening
of the pandemic and the COVID-19 virus itself. The best current estimates are that 80–90 per
cent of people need to be immune to reach herd immunity—that is, the point at which the
COVID-19 virus will stop circulating widely and be prevented from mutating into more
infectious and deadlier forms. The failure to quickly achieve herd immunity after COVID-19
vaccines became available allowed it to mutate into the Delta variant, which has now spread
across the United States, killing many thousands of people and harming untold numbers
more. The Delta variant has even infected some vaccinated people. Many states have been
forced to go back to requiring mask-wearing and social distancing in public, practices that
inhibit personal freedom and have socioeconomic repercussions.
While the COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective for the vast majority
of people who have gotten them, there are still some people who cannot get vaccinated or
who have responded poorly to vaccination, including those who are immunocompromised
and children for whom COVID-19 vaccines are yet approved. There is nothing tyrannical about
mandating vaccination for everyone who can safely take the vaccine to allow those who
cannot get vaccinated to live without fear of catching COVID. Allowing some people the choice
to remain unvaccinated severely limits mobility and threatens the safety of other people,
which makes the availability of that choice both unfair and dangerous for those who are
especially vulnerable and who may not have other options to protect themselves.

22
Because autonomy is a very important value, authorities should use the least restrictive
means possible to achieve the goal of minimizing the harms of COVID-19. While voluntary
vaccination is preferable because of this, education and incentives have not worked to
increase COVID-19 vaccination rates. Mandatory vaccination, therefore, is now the least
restrictive way to minimize the virus’s damage.
For some, being mandated to take a vaccine might seem to be more of a restriction on
personal liberty than other existing measures, including mandates to wear a face mask in
public, stay at home, or stand six feet away from others. Yet, the harmful effects that these
other measures have had on the economy, effective education, and mental health all indicate
that mandatory vaccination is a less harmful way of minimizing death and destruction from
COVID-19 than other strategies for limiting its spread. Vaccination carries a very small risk of
serious negative reactions, and it frequently produces minor short-term side effects. Is it
ethical to require people to take on this risk, however small, if it is mainly to protect others?
Major secular and religious worldviews and traditions—including Islam, Judaism, and
Christianity—support individuals being required to accept some risk or sacrifice of personal
comfort or well-being to help others. Indeed, the responsibility to help others who are more
vulnerable is a central tenet in many religious traditions. One secular tradition speaks directly
to the need for individuals to accept restrictions on some of their freedoms to protect the
safety and well-being of their community: democracy. In a democracy, the people or their
elected representatives are specifically authorized to pass laws and enact regulations that
limit individual freedoms. People who disagree can pursue legitimate ways to protest and get
laws changed. Many Americans presumably agree that democracy, even if it's not perfect, is
still the best system for making decisions about the collective good. Even those who are
disillusioned, frustrated, or disengaged from the principles of democracy still have an
obligation to live by the norms and laws of their society.
Religious Objections
Most mandates from employers are legally required to allow exemptions for people with
"sincerely held" religious objections to vaccination, as long as accommodating these
employees doesn't cause "undue hardship" on the employer. The US Supreme Court has ruled
that a sincerely held religious belief can seem illogical or unreasonable to others, it can even
be entirely false and does not have to be tied to a major religion, but it cannot solely be a
cover for political or social beliefs. More importantly, from an ethical standpoint, even if a
religious belief against vaccination is sincerely held, it does not create the right to place other
people in harm's way. Religious freedom is a very important value in the US, but it is not the
only value at stake in making public policy decisions.
All major religions, including those that emphasize faith-healing, permit vaccination under at
least some circumstances. During the pandemic, religious leaders of the major faiths,
including Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and Mormon, have openly encouraged members to get
vaccinated against COVID-19. Pope Francis has gone so far as to say that it would be “suicidal”
not to be vaccinated in the current environment, and that being vaccinated is an “act of love”
and a moral obligation.

23
Some oppose COVID-19 vaccines out of the mistaken belief that they were created using
recently aborted fetal tissue. Factually, this is not the case. No abortions have been performed
to create vaccines, and no fetal cells are in any COVID-19 vaccines.
It is true that some COVID-19 vaccines were developed or tested using “immortal” cell lines,
and some of these cell lines are connected to miscarriages or abortions that happened
decades ago. Some people claim to have a sincerely held religious objection to using anything
developed using cell lines connected to abortions; however, at least one major religious
tradition opposed to abortion has definitively stated that any of the COVID-19 vaccines may
be taken in good conscience.
These cell lines are also regularly used in the development of many processed food additives
and over-the-counter medications. According to the Conway Regional Health System,
examples of products developed using these cell lines include Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin,
Tums, ibuprofen, Maalox, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, Claritin, Zoloft,
Prilosec OTC, azithromycin, and many others. It is unlikely that most people who say they
object to COVID-19 vaccines for this reason also avoid using all of these other common
products, and it is ethically justified for employers to question whether one’s belief is sincere
if it is inconsistently applied.
We conclude that many of those seeking religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are likely
exploiting these exemptions as cover for personal, political, or social beliefs or fears about
the safety of the vaccine. But even for those for whom their religious beliefs against
vaccination are sincere, the harms to others associated with having unvaccinated individuals
in close contact creates an undue burden on the organizations and communities in which
these individuals live, work, worship, and play. For example, the sincerity of a religious belief
that promoted public intoxication would not make that belief ethically or legally allowed
because of the potential harms that would be caused if people acted on that belief.
Why vaccine mandates are Ethical at this moment
Mandates should only be used if they are needed. Individuals should first be educated about
vaccination and its effectiveness—along with any potential risks—and then be encouraged to
get voluntarily vaccinated. Incentives to encourage voluntary vaccination should also be tried.
A public health mandate should also only be instituted after robust public debate, in which
there has been an opportunity for all people to voice their opinions. This has already
happened. Indeed, social media have enabled all voices to be amplified and heard, sometimes
over and over again. Those who prefer to remain unvaccinated will be disappointed to feel
the pressure of a mandate. Not getting your way when you live in a democracy, however,
does not mean you were excluded from the deliberative process.
Unfortunately, public debate and voluntary means have not been enough. When education,
encouragement, prodding, and even incentivization have failed, and when harms from
outbreaks are ongoing, then coercion in the form of mandates is ethically justifiable.

24
By “coercion,” we do not mean that anyone is going to be strapped down and jabbed with a
needle against their will, or that this should happen. There is still a choice not to be
vaccinated, but because that choice imposes substantial burdens, risks, and possible harm to
others, it is reasonable for it to carry significant costs. For some, choosing not to be vaccinated
will mean not holding a certain job, not enrolling in a school, or not being allowed to attend
a public event. These implications are admittedly coercive, but coercion is justified when we
are facing a terrible public health threat that involves many people getting infected and dying
every day.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. There are four building blocks of values: individual, family, community and society. Explain.

Bogus voters must be eliminated but for that, the Pandora's box of cyber fraud must not be
opened
The Government needs to review its decision on
electronic linking of documents. It is not a matter
of mere individual privacy that is threatened but
the leakage of critical data can threaten national
security as well. The linking of Aadhaar with
different other digital documents like Voter ID and
PAN cards is fraught with risks and can result in
cyber fraud. Rushing through The Election Laws
(Amendment) Bill, 2021, was possibly not needed.
The Lok Sabha should have considered the aspects
pertaining to national and voter security. The Government, the
opposition and the civil society need to discuss the provisions
of this significant bill in light of possibilities of wide and
clandestine misuse of, for instance, data on how one vote.
Nefarious forces know how to abuse a system for their benefit.
The push to link Aadhaar with voter IDs is not new. Neither is
the criticism. The Election Commission had started linking the
two in 2015. It had already completed the process for around
30 crore IDs when the initiative was stayed by the Supreme
Court as part of a case about the constitutionality of Aadhaar.

25
Aadhaar may have emerged virtually as a citizen's identity document but allowing it to be
linked to all electronic functions is not good. In an age of increasing cyber fraud, such bills
should be scrutinized by parliamentary committees before their passage. Citizens and political
parties alike are concerned about the duplication of voters. That does not require an Aadhaar
link to rectify.

The EC has its procedures, it has been implemented regularly. Linking to Aadhaar may appear
to make the job of officials easy, but in reality, it makes them lethargic and dull their interest
to probe deep into questionable cases. The bill says the Aadhaar linkage is voluntary but that
is a euphemism for pressurizing voters and a coercive method. Even Aadhaar enrolment was
originally voluntary, but today cyber fraud cases exploit the Aadhaar and PAN details with
impunity. Many individuals in the Delhi NCR region are reported to have lost a crore each or
more to such frauds. Having Aadhaar as an independent instrument is fine but when linked
digitally, it becomes a weapon for fraudsters. The other issue about the bill is the breach of
privacy which the Supreme Court has ruled is a basic right. If a voter's Aadhaar is linked to
voter ID, it can record how a person votes. Though the EC can say it is a secret document,
there is nothing secret in a digitized world. The leakage of secret data can have a more
deleterious effect than bogus voting. It can provide the nation's detractors with a potential
weapon to target people who may not vote as per their desire. Such voters and even leaders
can be intimidated. Hypothetically, even a political party can be targeted. The innocuous
aspects of the present law must be purged before it can be part of the Statute book. The
lawmakers have to seriously discuss all aspects to avoid any possibility of misuse or abuse. As
of now, it seems that the potential of intimidation of voters is quite high. It would be also
useful to study the new bill in the light of Ashwani Upadhyay's PIL in the Delhi High Court
seeking to put in place an Aadhaar-based e-voting system. He wants to simplify the system.
But in a vast country like India, one does not yet know how beneficial it is likely to be. Let us
take all necessary precautions so that a good lawyer does not become their own victim. Bogus
voters must be eliminated, but for that Pandora's box of cyber fraud must not be opened.

THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS:

1. Law and Ethics are considered to be the two tools for controlling human conduct so
as to make it conducive to civilized social existence.

a) Discuss how they achieve this objective.

b) Giving examples, show how the two differ in their approaches.

26
27
Leaders of the government, political parties, civil society organisations and religious groups
must condemn violence in the name of religion, in
particular, murder. Two people have been killed in
rapid succession in Punjab, as punishment for
committing sacrilege. This is on par with lynching
people in the name of protecting the cow or cutting
off a college professor's hand because he allegedly
profaned the Prophet in a question paper for his
students. It is on par with the lynching of people in the name of protecting the cow or cutting
off a college professor's hand because he allegedly profaned the Prophet in a question paper
for his students. It is on par with the lynching of people in Pakistan, in which mobs accuse the
victims of blasphemy.

All religions seek to enable people to live in productive harmony with other people. Achieving
the desired equilibrium between the individual and larger society, between the self and the
universe - different religions find different ways to achieve these goals. It is when people
forget religion's principles and obsess over its particular forms that they develop intolerance
of deemed propriety and allow their outrage to outrun sense and commit crimes that violate
what their religion upholds. Homicide cannot be reckoned with, however, from within a
religion's precincts. That is a secular crime. Democracy works only because it rests not on
variable whims of powerful people but on rights, laws to enforce them, and laws to punish
lawbreakers. A lawless society cannot support democracy.

Democracy seeks justice, not vengeance. It is vital to drive this point home to zealots of all
religions, bar none. Political expedience cannot be allowed to come in the way. Failure to
observe this principle can lead to mindless violence and counter-violence, a telling example
of which, in the context of politics, is reported from Kerala. Murderers should not be
vindicated because they acted in the name of faith.

THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

1. What do you understand by ‘shared humanity’? Why is modern civilization required to

have shared humanity? Explain.

28
Anger is a powerful energy that sears through the boundaries of wisdom and makes us puny
in the hands of destiny. How can we harness this supremely powerful force to derive benefit,
betterment and good, for all of us? It is like taking a magnifying glass and harnessing sunlight
to make it afire. Spiritual teacher Ram Chandra of Shahjahanpur, also called Babuji, said,
'Anger and passion are the creation of the Divine.'
When something goes wrong, we often blame another person or a situation and direct a rush
of angry energy towards them. Anger should only be projected on oneself. That is the right
utilisation of anger — projected towards oneself, to change. Such anger occupies a wonderful
place in human evolution if we learn how to channel it. The art of introspection and self-
discovery, right understanding, correct thinking, and attention to our hearts and minds are
birthed by this beautiful emotion. When we wait patiently and reflect on a situation, anger
can transform into clear understanding, presenting a way forward.
Once we achieve this seemingly small step, we find our lives becoming smoother, and we
realise that human transformation comes from the heart. The best first step to use anger as
an opportunity instead of as a problem is: to approach it with a curious attitude instead of a
furious one.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. How the understanding of values impacts intellectual, social and emotional well-being of
human? Explain with appropriate examples.

Gandhian economics is difficult to explain as a coherent system of

thought, but its ethical principles can never be ignored. Many of his
economic thoughts stemmed from what he considered ethically right
or wrong. In his words: That economics is untrue which ignores or
disregards moral values.
Mahatma Gandhi was a more radical revolutionary than Mao Zedong.
His indictment of modern civilization represents a moral and spiritual
standpoint that is seen even more clearly in his attitude to politics. His
view of politics was a consequence of, and not independent of, his
view of morality.
In his essay, ‘On the Discordance Between Moral and Politics’ Immanuel Kant wrote: “We can
easily enough think of a moral politician as one who holds the principles of political

29
expediency in such a way that they can coexist with morals: but we cannot conceive of a
political moralist who fashions a system of morality for himself so as to make it subordinate
and subservient to the interest of the statesman.”
In this Kantian sense, Gandhi could be seen as a 'political moralist’; he was certainly not a
'moral politician.' His moral standpoint was absolutist in all spheres. Turning to modern
economics, and its suitability as a path to morality Gandhi felt the need for conceptual
modification. He sought to combine Lincoln's love of liberty with Lenin's urge for equality
without resorting to a barrel of a gun.
He was also influenced by the Marxian doctrine of neutrality, and its emphasis on the
‘exploitation of labour’ and much infatuated by John Ruskin’s heterodox doctrine that the
wealth of a nation consisted not in its production and consumption of goods but in its people.
Gandhi remarked, “We don’t draw a sharp or any distinction between economics and ethics.
Economics that hurts the moral well-being of an individual or a nation is immoral and
therefore sinful.”
Basically, Gandhi was not an economist in the conventional sense of the terms. But economic
ideas are part of his philosophy of life; they are reflected in his writings and speeches. With
Gandhi economics was a part of a way of life. Only two life principles seem to govern all his
economic, social, political and other considerations, viz. truth and non-violence.
Anything that cannot be satisfactorily tested on these touchstones, as it were, cannot be
regarded as Gandhian. However, his economic thought was based on a strong background.
He studied The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule by Romesh Chunder Dutt,
wherein unbearable sufferings of the Indian people were caused mainly by a heavy land tax
upon the peasants, the destruction of handicrafts, the recurrence of famines, and the annual
drain of revenues to Britain was vividly described.
Gandhi was so moved that he wept when he read the book. After returning from South Africa,
when he witnessed the intolerable poverty of the country, he modelled his lifestyle exactly
after that of his countrymen and started wearing just a loincloth. It was for the same reason
he travelled in the third class of trains all over India and interacted with common people to
ascertain their sufferings. He also read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Marx's Das
capital.
Moreover, he had been in constant touch with the world’s different trends of thought, and
he was engaged in a struggle against the world’s mightiest empire. Gandhian economics is
difficult to explain as a coherent system of thought, but its ethical principles can never be
ignored. Many of his economic thoughts stemmed from what he considered ethically right or
wrong.
In his words: “That economics is untrue which ignores or disregards moral values.”
Interestingly, it is not unrealistic if we seek parallels between the agnostic Adam Smith and
the religious or spiritual Gandhi. For this, we need to go back to Smith's Theory of Moral
Sentiments, published some seventeen years before The Wealth of Nations. This outstanding

30
work on moral philosophy can be seen as a precursor and as the foundation without which
his treatise on the political economy would not have a proper context.
Smith, the father of economics, pointed out that social morality flows from balancing self-
interest and natural human sympathy for human beings who live in the same society. But
Smith used the core idea to conclude that "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the
brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
The theory suggests that each of us derives a personal moral compass by referring to 'an
impartial spectator who exists as a 'man within the breast.’ The ‘impartial spectator’
presumably stands close to but outside a human being and watches the actions and
behaviours of that person.
The analogous nature of Gandhi’s “still small voice within” of his conscience is not to be
missed. Gandhi did not seek to directly bring in God or religion. He adopted completely a
humanist vision and said: “Man has two windows to his mind: through one he can see his own
self as it is; through the other, he can see what ought to be.”
Gandhi was the philosopher of a new age and the first man who provided a practical
alternative economic system, integrated with morality and non-violence, against the
prevailing economic system. He did not give any model regarding the development of
economics but gave some canons based on which we can decide what kind of economic
composition is preferable for the Indian economy.
Reconstruction in rural areas is the main source of development. He talked and dreamt of the
revival of small and village industries, abolition of untouchability, a ban on liquor, Gram
Swaraj and independent villages which would fulfil their needs. When the question of utilising
non-renewable natural resources comes, the Gandhian economy sponsors the rule of control
over wants and advises taking care of one's need and not greed.
So, instead of fulfilling unlimited wants, attention should be given to the welfare of the poor
and the weakest. This is indeed the essential part of the moral view of Gandhian economic
thought. Rousseau was the first modern writer who asserted that democracy would be
impossible to attain unless people were allowed to exercise their sovereign power by
decentralisation of power. The special characteristics of the Gandhian conception of
decentralisation are two:
In the first place, Gandhi regarded decentralisation of power as an essential corollary to non-
violence; secondly, such decentralisation would be possible in a nonindustrial society with the
self-sufficient village as the primary unit. It is the only way out of the problem of
unemployment. His theory of decentralisation was the result of his keen and almost prophetic
insight into the numerous political, social and cultural ills which the age of large-scale
industrialisation had brought in its wake.
Decentralisation is not to be confined merely to industries. It applies to the authority of the
State. Gandhi conceived of decentralised political authority as being necessary at every stage

31
and period, and for all time. According to Gandhi, if we want Swaraj, villages should be made
self-reliant through the decentralisation of power and production.
There is little in the concepts that may indicate that the Gandhian world is an old world. On
the contrary, it could be argued that Gandhi is the first major philosopher of a post-industrial
age and that his philosophy constitutes a major challenge for modern science.
He pointed out time and again that machines should never be a substitute for man. Of course,
he was not totally against the use of machinery. What he opposed was 'the craze for
machinery'. He explained: "Mechanisation is good when the hands are too few for the work
intended to be accomplished. It is an evil when there are more hands than required for the
work, as is the case in India.”
Gandhi adopted the traditional concept of varna-vyavastya (socio-economic order), but put
entirely new meaning and spirit in it. Those who object to the words varna and varna-
vyavastya need not be startled at Gandhi's use of them. We should not be concerned with
words but with their content: (a) equal wages for all work; (b) absence of competition; (c) a
system of education which takes the fullest advantage of the hereditary capacities of people
make up the essence of varnavyavastya. Gandhi's economic thought would not be complete
without dealing with his doctrine of 'Trusteeship’. It is a social and economic philosophy
aiming to bring justice to society. It provides a means by which the wealthy would be the
trustees who ensured the welfare of the people. Gandhi believed that even the rich people ~
the so-called capitalists ~ are after all human beings.
As such, they also have an element of goodness that every man necessarily possesses. The
rich people should be made to realise that the capital in their hands is the fruit of the labour
of the poor. Indeed, it is nothing but the sincere practice of the doctrine of non-possession.
Thomas Aquinas viewed that bringing justice is not only the responsibility of the state but also
of individuals by being emphatic. The concept is manifest in our cooperative policies, the
community development policy and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Gandhi's
visualisation of societal relations in his famous oceanic circles is perpetually sustainable
compared to the concentric circle visualisation of stoic society which gives primacy to
individual egos. Gandhi conceived a system of supported sustenance of the centrally situated
centre and the spatially distant world and yet with both willing to sacrifice for each other.
What we need today is to devise a new model of economic development based on Gandhian
ideology. It is imperative that we should adopt a new matrix of economic development in
which progress is measured in terms of development of human capacity, dignified
employment for everyone, equitable distribution of income and wealth, ecological
sustainability and social wellbeing of the community.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others”.-Mahatma
Gandhi

32
We often tend to take things for granted in our lives, which becomes a reason for our misery.
Gratitude bestows immense happiness, both to the
giver and the receiver when offered with the purity of
heart. A simple 'Thank You' can transform a situation or
relationship diametrically. The service of mankind,
when done with selflessness, is a natural outcome of
gratitude.
Gratitude should also not be with an expectation of the
greeting or gesture to be returned. Even if we offer a
glass of water to someone with gratitude and selflessness, seeing the essence of Nirankar in
them, it becomes a reason for bliss and joy. Gifting, sharing and caring are extremely sublime
and delightful acts. This kind of offering becomes Sewa, selfless service.
The sun, rivers, trees, earth and air, all have been continuously providing us with their
resources, without any expectation. But we humans become selfish and enforce conditions
while giving away even a little bit of what we have and expect much more in return. This is
the reason for our sorrow. This does not necessarily mean that we should not desire to grow
in life.
It only means that after having performed a specific action, we should leave its outcome to
the divine verdict, stay content and be thankful for what we are receiving. It means that
growth is mutual and universal. We can't expect to save our home if our neighbour's house is
on fire.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. How knowledge, wisdom and happiness are interrelated? Explain with example.

An analysis of John Rawls’ famous doctrine

The concept, so-called, "two principles of justice", is
synonymous with the name of John Rawls, a highly
influential American liberal political philosopher of
the last century. It forms the singular-most operative
facet of Rawls’ doctrine of justice, which he termed
justice as fairness. He expounded this position in his
1971 classic, A Theory of Justice, which has radically
redefined the philosophical debates on achieving

33
greater economic redistribution. The other concepts elaborated in the book – those of the
basic structure of a well-ordered society, the original position, the veil of ignorance and
primary goods – are building blocks of the overall edifice of justice. The concept of two
principles forms a succinct encapsulation of the core principles of freedom and equality
embodied in the constitutions of any contemporary liberal democratic society. As such, they
have acquired pre-eminence in a wide range of academic disciplines and in the arena of public
policymaking.
The first of Rawls’ two principles says that every citizen has the same claim to a scheme of
equal basic liberties, which must also be compatible with those of every other citizen. Rawls
enumerates an extensive list of basic civil and political rights, including a person’s freedom of
conscience, expression and association; the right to a basic income; and the right to exercise
the franchise. Their resonance with the practical world of politics needs no emphasis; consider
the chapter on fundamental rights in any constitution.

The second of Rawls' two principles grapple with the underlying inequalities of social and
economic institutions. How can these be reasonably justified to free and equal citizens? Rawls
posits that in order to be morally defensible, these institutions must satisfy two conditions.
First, they must guarantee fair equality of opportunities for competition to positions of public
office and employment. Second, social and economic inequalities must be arranged in a
manner that they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
This latter postulate is Rawls' famous "difference principle".
The political significance of Rawls’ two principles of justice obtains equally in the relative
weight and primacy he assigns to their different components. Between them, the first
principle is accorded absolute priority over the second. That is to say, the primacy of the equal
basic liberties of citizens is non-negotiable in a democratic society. The entitlement of each
to the various liberties is as critical as they are universal and non-discriminatory. Within the
second principle, the first part takes precedence over the second. In other words, public

34
institutions could not appear legitimate in the eyes of citizens unless everybody could
reasonably expect to enjoy the fruits of fair equality of opportunities.
Rawls reasoned that the two principles of justice would be fair because these are precisely
those that would be chosen impartially by rational, free and equal citizens, had they no
knowledge of their own individual or social circumstances in life.
He described the conditions under which his principles of justice would be chosen as the
original position, an artificial mental construct that has been compared with the classical
social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Members in that
original position would not only be free, equal and rational beings. They would also be under
a veil of ignorance about their race, gender, social class and every other cleavage. That
condition of general ignorance would ensure that the principles they chose were impartial
and those that would advance their prospects.
There is another merit in choosing principles of justice from within an original position, Rawls
argues. They would garner greater support than a conception of justice that prioritised the
maximisation of overall well-being or happiness but overlooked differences in how benefits
are distributed and burdens imposed on particular individuals.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. Discuss the relevance of compassion and forgiveness as human values in present society.
Why is forgiveness considered superior to punishment?

A garden cemetery in Africa sensitizes us to the perils endured by migrants the world over.
More than 1,400 migrants died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in 2021, according to
estimates from researchers.
No one knows the precise number of Africans currently
dying in anonymity while attempting to cross the
Mediterranean Sea. Those who don’t make it aren’t
generally represented in the statistics, but estimates,
based on the tallies of people rescued by the coast guards
of southern Europe and northern Africa, suggest that
African migrants in the thousands — women, men and
children — drown in that sea each year. And at the tail end
of this chain of human despair are the people who bury these migrants, or their shredded
remains, after the Mediterranean’s cruel currents expel them onto their shores.
One such site is Zarzis in southeastern Tunisia, where last June Rachid Koraichi, an Algerian
artist, decided to build a cemetery, scented by jasmine blossoms and flowering orange trees,

35
that he calls the Jardin d'Afrique, or Garden of Africa. I have not been to see this garden-
cemetery, but I was struck by a beautiful description in the newspaper Le Monde, in which a
reporter noted the presence of "yellow and green cups, meant to attract rainwater and birds,"
set into the white graves. Mr Koraichi offers this paradisiacal beauty too — in his words —
those "damned by the sea," as compensation for the suffering they endure on the way to
their deaths. The Garden is already nearly full to capacity, bearing witness to the scale of this
horrific modern hecatomb.
The Algerian artist Rachid Koraichi at the cemetery for migrants he calls the Jardin d’Afrique,
or Garden of Africa, in southeastern Tunisia.
The Algerian artist Rachid Koraichi at the cemetery for migrants he calls the Jardin d’Afrique,
or Garden of Africa, in southeastern Tunisia.Credit...Fathi Nasri/Agence France-Presse —
Getty Images
The global landscape is full of dangerous natural borders; the Rio Grande, which separates
Mexico from the United States, takes several lives each year, for instance. But the central
Mediterranean is the most deadly. According to the International Organization for Migration,
approximately 20,000 Africans have died or disappeared in this sea since 2014, and that
number does not take into account migrants from the Middle East and eastern Africa who
disappear into the eastern Mediterranean off the coasts of Greece and Turkey.
Everyone believes they know why people from the Global South are drawn toward the Global
North. We imagine these migrants choose to leave their homes because the south is
uninhabitable, the south is intractable, the south is without pity for the impoverished. The
north is no less so, but we imagine the migrants don’t believe this. These men and women
from Black Africa and the Maghreb, many of them young, risk their lives to undertake the
passage to Europe, to sail across the central Mediterranean by way of Libya in order to stop
merely enduring and begin living, and to provide a future for their families. The full journey
can take many years.

We’ve always been struck by the familiar, recurring scenario in American disaster films that
denotes an apocalypse: no more electricity, no more running water, no food security, no
hospitals — the disappearance of all the things people like you and me enjoy without giving
them a second thought. Yet this fictive evocation of the End of the World is lived out by half
of humanity every day. For billions of disadvantaged people, life is indeed a waking nightmare.
To be able to eat, drink, bathe and clothe themselves is a daily battle.

The migrants who decide to flee the violence of this immiseration know there exists a world
in which to live does not mean merely to survive. These are people who are both clear-eyed
and blinded by hope, who see the north as the inverse of their own world: an attainable haven
of peace and tranquillity, where the good life is within reach for anyone willing to work. While
those swallowed by the Mediterranean may die without even having the chance to lose their

36
illusions about the north, are the illusions of the survivors, who are being held in detention
centres in southern Europe or North Africa, likely to remain intact?

Is it useful to ask who is to blame for this catastrophe? The political responsibilities can be
shared between the north and the south and are intertwined in such a way that each side can
present a solid argument relieving itself of blame: Hasn’t the south long been a victim while
its riches were exploited by the north? And hasn’t the north, whether we like to say it or not,
been responsible for pulling untold migrants from the sea, saving them from a watery death?

Migrants awaited the Italian Guardia Costiera near the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa
in August 2021.

There is a universal ethical rule — a "categorical imperative" — that an 18th-century

philosopher placed at the centre of his foundational system of moral philosophy: "Act in such
a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any
other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end."

We owe this imperative to Immanuel Kant's pioneering "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of

Morals." All of those taking action to save the lives of migrants — not only in the
Mediterranean but the world over — act in accordance with Kant's injunction, both in body
and in spirit. They deserve not only our praise and our respect but also substantial
international support. Regarding the case at hand, it is thanks to these individuals of goodwill,
whether supported by nongovernmental organizations or the offices of the United Nations,
that the Mediterranean might continue to pass as the cradle of European civilization, and not
it's grave.

Artists and thinkers like Rachid Koraichi are here to keep us awake. His cemetery is not only a
consolation for the souls lost to the Mediterranean and the people close to them, it is also a
work that expresses — better than a hundred speeches could — grief that must be shared
between north and south. Holding our hearts with its beauty, the Jardin d'Afrique sensitizes
us to the conditions endured by migrants the world over, renewing our sense of shared
humanity. Generosity and solidarity are not illusions: They exist within the societies of the
north, as well as of the south.

The Jardin d’Afrique reminds us of the only thing preventing humanity itself from a collective
shipwreck: the refusal to remain indifferent to the suffering of others.

THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

1.What do you understand by ‘shared humanity’? Why is modern civilization required to

have shared humanity? Explain.

37
38
Understanding a key tenet of the Kantian philosophy
Few moral precepts parallel Immanuel Kant’s concept of the Categorical Imperative (CI), in
terms of their influence on the modern notion of the person as an autonomous individual;
worthy of dignity, respect and treatment as an equal.
It underpins our legal and commonplace ideas of
regarding all persons as bearers of fundamental and
inalienable rights, which constitute the locus of
contemporary democratic politics and citizenship.
CI forms the fulcrum of Kant's moral doctrine set in
the context of the 18th-century German idealist
tradition. It is premised on the essential capacity of
all human beings, as rational persons with the
autonomous exercise of free will. To Kant, the singular appeal of the motivation to duty is its
sole preoccupation with respect for the moral law. The conception of CI is elaborated in three
distinct propositions in three separate works; the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals,
the Critique of Practical Reason and The Metaphysics of Morals. All of them must necessarily
be read in conjunction. The first posits that: “act only on that maxim through which you can
at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” That is to say, if a person believes
that he ought to act in a particular way, he must believe that another person would act in the
same manner in a similar circumstance. Maxims are rules of conduct that free, rational and
self-governing agents give themselves; their force derives from free will, rather than from any
external authority.
The second postulate of CI runs thus: “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own
person or in that of another, in any case as an end withal, never as a means only.” There is a
strong resonance of these formulations of CI in several ancient religious precepts. Kant
recognised the similarities in his own conception and in the Golden Rule formulated by Jesus:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
The final strand in CI is the stipulation: “Act as a member of a Kingdom of Ends," implying a
union of individuals forged by common laws. Kant draws on several examples to illustrate why
rational persons would not countenance certain types of behaviour as universal laws. For
instance, breaking promises could hardly win universal backing because that would inevitably
lead human beings to lose faith in making promises. Similarly, the act of suicide would amount
to a contradiction of the basic impulse of self-preservation to its very opposite. Again, the
wrongfulness of not helping someone in need is its incompatibility with one's own
requirement for assistance and support. Critics have held that Kant took a narrow and
instrumental view of human nature in the above examples, to the neglect of finer sensibilities.
On a more sympathetic reading though, these instances merely drive home the irrationality
of consenting to break promises from the standpoint of rational persons.

39
The moral duties that issue from a categorical imperative are distinct from conduct that
persons normally pursue to satisfy their human desires and inclinations. Kant describes these
under the rubric of what he calls hypothetical imperatives. Kant stresses that the latter are
governed no less by imperatives or commands and man's capacity for the exercise of his
rational will. But these are purely conditional and necessarily linked to goals and objectives
persons antecedent set for themselves. Kant differentiates two types of hypothetical
imperatives: the problematic and the assertoric. The former refers to an end state that is
possible but not necessarily one that persons strive towards. In the latter case, actions are
pursued to fulfil natural desires such as happiness. Finally, the wants and desires that persons
ordinarily seek in the course of their lives may not even qualify as hypothetical imperatives,
insofar as they remain indeterminate. At the risk of over-simplification, the hierarchy of moral
motivations in the Kantian system may be dubbed as unconditional duties and instrumental
and negotiable responsibilities.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.- Immanuel
Kant. Elaborate

Instead of casting off stereotypes, school authorities are reiterating old wrongs
The road to gender equity is long and hard, and despite the fact that each generation has
paved a better way for the next, the struggle to
overcome disparities is far from over. Through
this difficult journey, the school’s role in
sensitising young minds towards building a non-
discriminatory world cannot be overstated. In
this context, a comprehension passage in the
Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
English examination conducted for Class 10
students must be condemned for its regressive
and sexist stance. The passage, which created a
furore across all sections of society and in Parliament where Congress president Sonia Gandhi
called out the misogyny, contained outrageous sentences, including one which said “women
gaining independence is the main reason for a wide variety of social and family problems”.
Young impressionable teenagers, girls and boys, already stressed because of the pandemic,
did not know how to tackle the question. Another sentence shockingly read “that the
emancipation of the wife destroyed the parent’s authority over the children... In bringing the
man down from his pedestal the wife and mother deprived herself, in fact, of the means of
discipline”. The multiple answers to one question that followed the passage asking children
to comment on the tone had this choice: “Writer takes a light-hearted approach to life”. The

40
initial response from the CBSE was tone-deaf, although the Board later said it was dropping
the question.
It was eventually forced to express "regret" and it vowed to review its paper setting processes.
Already because of COVID-19, the 2020-21 syllabi for Classes 9-12 were truncated by 30%
with glaring omissions of core concepts in subjects such as Mathematics. From the social
sciences and other humanities subjects, topics such as federalism, citizenship, nationalism,
secularism, democracy, and diversity, were slashed. In the real world, it will be tougher for
children if they are not taught the basics in school, and if they grow up with anxieties related
to gender, for instance. In India, misogyny has long roots. Inequalities of class, caste, gender
already exist in the school system, worse in the villages and among the urban poor. Many girls
are pushed to drop out for myriad reasons, from the lack of toilet facilities in school to forced
labour or marriage. If men, as Claudia Goldin says in her book, Career & Family, must start
doing what women have always done, provide personal support, lend an ear, and help,
education has to begin when they are young. Instead of teaching them to cast off stereotypes,
school authorities are reiterating old wrongs. At a time when it is imperative for the Board to
lighten children's burden, the CBSE has sent out the worst possible message.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. What are the main factors responsible for gender inequality in India? Discuss the
contribution of Savitribai Phule in this regard?

A ‘macho’ culture in the police forces that valorises those who indulge in violence ensures
that no one ever challenges the system.
Most Indians are familiar with the highhanded behaviour of the police in the form of the cops
slapping people or, if they are pretending to manage law and order, beating them mercilessly
with their sticks (lathis). However, the real face of police brutality often remains an arcane
subject, their notions about police torture derived largely from what they have seen in films
– only the victims knowing the truth.
Baptism in a dingy torture room
The first exposure to ‘real’ police torture came as a trainee officer on an attachment with
Punjab police during militancy. That small, bare room in one of the police stations in Tarn
Taran was dimly lit and was reeking of human excrement, urine and vomit. On the floor was
seated a screaming, half-naked man as two men were stretching his legs apart, while one man
twisted his arms backwards and immobilised his back with his knees. We, the beginners, were
gleefully ‘enlightened’ that this technique of unnatural joint movement would not leave any
visible injury marks on his body even if he managed a medical examination later.

41
Beating on the soles with sticks and suspending a
man from a bar like an animal carcass being spit-
roasted were derided as crude methods leaving
tell-tale marks that could lead to trouble with the
courts. Cops loved the ‘roller treatment’ in which a
smooth wooden roller was placed on the thighs of
a prostrate victim. Then two cops stood on the
roller as it was rolled forward and backwards was
excruciatingly painful but left no marks.
A popular, filth-free technique involved giving low-voltage (approximately 80 volts DC,
produced by a hand-cranked generator) shocks to the testicles of a man. Kashmiri author
Basharat Peer has narrated horrifying stories of this form of torture in his book Curfewed
Night. Many victims suffered permanent damage; most of them could not muster the courage
to approach doctors out of shame and spent their lives in mental agony.
One old-timer proudly told me he had invented a technique of masking powder marks on the
dead body if they had to kill someone in a fake encounter. A wet towel placed on the body of
the victim blocked the muzzle flame as well as trapped the un-burnt powder particles!

Peer pressure of being a macho cop

Many people find it paradoxical that police brutality continues to be an integral part of
policing in India, in spite of the fact that the Indian police has, in 41 years of the IP and 73
years of the IPS, been officered by highly educated people, selected through one of the
toughest exams in the world.
The reason is that torture has been accepted as a ‘macho’ or the expedient way of dealing
with things, which cannot be dealt with by the legal and ‘effeminate’ way of policing. This sub-
culture consumes everybody, from constables to IPS officers. Torture is treated as a necessary
rite of passage to initiate new officers into ‘real and practical’ policing. This is a very clever
stratagem of imposing immense peer pressure. Privately, a race begins to prove who is the
‘toughest’ guy around. As Bhajan Singh Bhinder et al note in their work, Demons Within: The
Systematic Practice of Torture by Indian Police, this sub-culture incentivises the most brutal
to rise to the top.
Police baton charges on an African nation during a protest over the death of Joan Joel Malu,
a native of Congo, who was detained by police for allegedly possessing MDMA drug, in
Bengaluru.
Peer pressure ensures that they try hard not to get disgusted by what they do in the course
of their duty or even feel 'brutalised' by it – no one wants to be labelled a 'sissy'. Senior and
junior officers both had laughed at my batchmate who could not withstand the screams and
stink of that torture room in Tarn Taran. Yet another officer who was taken to the site of an
encounter and had puked promptly at the sight of a dead body with its brains blown out by
bullets, found the constables giving him sneering looks.

42
Mechanics of desensitisation
It is difficult to find a cop who is ashamed of what he does in his job or feels conflicted. Those
who survive in the job manage to get effectively desensitised or de-humanised unless, in rare
instances, they choose to chart their own path, at their own peril.
It is not that they become totally bereft and incapable of any feelings. Quite often they are
'troubled' – it is a different thing that they are too proud to admit. What do they do then?
One of the ways out is to drown themselves in alcohol in an attempt to banish from their
minds all that troubles them. That is how hard drinking has come to be recognised as macho
in their fraternity. Another is partying all too often, which is actually an attempt to avoid
remaining alone when the conscience troubles more.
A former editor of the Washington Post, Steve Coll, in his work On the Grand Trunk Road: A
Journey into South Asia'(pp. 167-72), narrates how he had a revealing conversation with K.P.S.
Gill sometime before 1993. He was taken aback that Gill downed at least seven tall glasses of
whiskey within an hour.
The combined effect of the desires of belonging to the brotherhood and to be respected
therein, and the incentive of rising to the top with the badge of a ‘go getter’, ensures that the
restraining effects of good education, decency and values nurtured by upbringing are
effectively neutralised as far as the workspace is concerned. For their families and loved ones,
they continue to be the ideal men as expected in their position.
Even if they are not split personalities, the fact remains that they acquire the ability of morally
disengage from the sins they commit in their job. A phone-tapping operation by the Croatian
Secret Service had revealed Slobodan Milošević, accused of crimes that affected hundreds of
thousands of victims throughout the former Yugoslavia, was a loving father and husband. So
are many of our illustrious police officers.
The other way of banishing guilt comes by invoking a 'loftier' cause. With the advent of
terrorism in India, they bought a narrative that a large number of Indian Sikhs, Muslims,
people of the north-east and left-extremists were part of an international conspiracy to
destabilise India and since our complicated legal system did not permit the 'anti-nationals' to
be convicted easily, the simplest way to rid society of them was to extract information from
them through torture and as their 'utility' ended after that, kill them extra-judicially. Thus
torture and fake encounters came to be regarded as acts in 'national interest', rewarded with
medals.
The Indian state plays an important role in perpetuating police image and behaviour that
threatens, oppresses and brutalises people. First, hardly anyone is ever punished. Second,
atrocities committed by abusing the AFSPA apart, even in day-to-day policing, the State makes
it very clear that its coercive arm, that is the police, can kill you anytime anywhere. That is the
reason that, in spite of all the pretence of modernisation, Indian street cops still habitually
carry lathis (ranging from three feet to six feet long bamboo poles) and military rifles, even if
there is no threat of a terrorist attack.

43
The British, who gave us the Indian police in form and feature, do not allow their own street
cops to carry firearms in public. Jon Kelly had reported for the BBC that 82% of the Bobbies
said in a survey that they did not want to carry weapons because the very principle of the
British police was 'policing by consent and they need not be seen perpetually in a threatening
posture.
In complete contrast, the mantra of policing in India has become "Know thy master, protect
thy master's interests, harass or kill his enemies, and prey on the poor and the powerless with
brutality to keep them perpetually suppressed". There is nothing intrinsic to the job of policing
that makes them brutal or highhanded. It is their identification with the rulers and their
obsessive desire to hang on to the power, money and the lure of all the sleaze that flows from
this intimate association, which brings out the perversity lurking in their subconscious to the
fore. As long as these factors continue, torture and brutality will continue to be an intrinsic
part of police practices.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1. A society cannot adhere to ethical standards if it doesn’t have a culture of adherence to
moral standards. Do you agree with the statement? Give justification.

The Gandhian appeal to ethics in politics was not only a way to seek Truth but also of coming
to know oneself in ever-greater depth. The Gandhian effort for non-violent politics was the
cultivation of one's capacity for ethical citizenship.
For Gandhi, violence was a sign of the failure of
legitimate political power. At the core of Gandhi's
political theory is the view of politics as shaped by
internal moral power, rather than from the
standpoint of rational violence. Consequently, for
Gandhi, the modern state contained forces that
threatened, rather than enhanced, liberty.
Therefore, he did not consider democracy as a
political regime but as a value, which needed to be created and cherished. His defence of
institutions of the liberal constitutional state did not mean that he justified them in terms of
his political philosophy. On the contrary, politics for Gandhi was an act of consciousness, not
a mode of living taken for granted.

44
Gandhi did not see the goal of political action as the immediate capture of office. According
to him, the basic condition of political action was the elimination of violence. His principal aim
was to civilise modern politics from within, by shorting the circuit of resentment, hatred and
coercion. His politics of non-violence was a method to mobilise collective power in a manner
that attends to its own moral education in an exemplary and innovative way. Excellence is the
end that we have to set before ourselves as political beings. Gandhi showed that a life of
excellence is an agency and a transformative force, an experience of conscience underpinning
the harmony between ethics and politics.
An “ethic of responsibility” underlined Gandhi’s non-violent politics. He argued for a
dedicated and committed political ethos, which did not accept the necessity of “dirty hands”
in politics. As he affirmed on July 3, 1940, “I have always derived my politics from ethics or
religion and my strength is also derived by my deriving my politics from ethics. It is also
because I swear by ethics and religion that I find myself in politics. A person who is a lover of
his country is bound to take a lively interest in politics.”
Gandhi was thinking in terms of long-term social stability among nations. So, he wanted to
put his hands on the wheel of history through non-violent politics. Ultimately, what was
important for him was to move from violence to politics. This transition could not take place
without the intervention of the ethical in the political. In a speech at All-India National
Education Conference on January 13, 1930, he observed: "There are some who think that
morality has nothing to do with politics. We do not concern ourselves with the character of
our leaders… If swaraj was not meant to civilise us and to purify and stabilise our civilisation,
it would be worth nothing. The very essence of our civilisation is that we give a paramount
place to morality in all our affairs, public or private."
The Gandhian appeal to ethics in politics was not only a way to seek Truth but also of coming
to know oneself in ever-greater depth. The Gandhian effort for non-violent politics was the
cultivation of one's capacity for ethical citizenship. That is to say, Gandhi considered politics
as a work of the heart and not merely of reason. This recalls French philosopher Blaise Pascal,
who said: "The heart has its reasons which reason itself does not know." In the same manner,
Gandhi believed that the heart, and not reason, is the seat of morality. He wrote in Harijan
(June 8, 1940): "Morality which depends upon the helplessness of a man or woman has not
much to recommend it. Morality is rooted in the purity of our hearts." Gandhi believed that
next to constructive work, society needs also to be inwardly empowered since human beings
are capable of love, friendship, solidarity and empathy.
On January 5, 1907, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "It is the moral nature of man by which
he rises to good and noble thoughts. The different sciences show us the world as it is. Ethics
tells us what it ought to be. It enables man to know how he should act. Man has two windows
to his mind: Through one he can see his own self as it is; through the other, he can see what
it ought to be." Consequently, Gandhi insisted on the autonomous nature of the moral act.
His view of morality was not a denial of politics. On the contrary, Gandhi's moral idealism was
completed by political realism, which sought the construction of a democratic society. He
wrote: "I feel that political work must be looked upon in terms of social and moral progress."

45
From Gandhi’s perspective, non-violence was an ontological truth that followed from the
unity and interdependence of humanity and life. Therefore, he advocated an awareness of
the essential unity of humanity. That awareness called for critical self-examination and a
move from egocentricity towards a “shared humanity.” This “shared humanity” cannot exist
if it is not aware of its shortcomings. It needs to strive to remove its ethical imperfections in
order to be able to live with global challenges. In an age of increasing “globalisation of
selfishness”, there is an urgent need to understand and practise the moral leadership of
Mahatma Gandhi and re-evaluate the concept of politics.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTIONS:
1. 1.“Always aim at complete harmony of thought, word and deed. Always aim at
purifying your thoughts and everything will be well.” -Mahatma Gandhi. Elaborate.
2. “A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion
a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true”.
Socrates

It is school education that shapes a child and develops their character. Good school education
is a key to building social and life skills.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world," rightly said
Nelson Mandela, the great anti-apartheid
revolutionary. Not just soaring grades,
prestigious degrees and a job with hefty salary
packages later on in life, education means a lot
more than these.
School education is something that builds up
the edifice of an individual’s life, shapes one's
life, defines one’s character, morality, ideology,
principles, life skills and everything that is required to lead a life besides decorating one's
career.
Several studies have found basic education in schools to be the primary tool for building one’s
character and have shown how character building happens to be the real goal of education in
every individual’s life.

46
How does school education build character?
Character building is based on six pillars -- trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness,
caring and citizenship and all of these can be filled in a child only through adequate education.
Producing students with good grades is not enough for helping them lead a fruitful life. This
is why more focus needs to be given to preparing students with morals, ethics, soft skills.
These values automatically make them self-sufficient from all respect to face the challenges
of life and contribute to society in some positive way.
From cracking a job interview with maximum self-confidence to rational decision making in
various phases of life to being able to differentiate between whites, blacks and greys, basic
school education becomes a must in creating a noble human being.
When a child walks into the classroom for the first time and sits on a chair behind the desk,
the child gets introduced to the window of knowledge to make his or her life brighter. It is
beyond good and bad handwriting or doing home work on time or getting all spellings correct.
It is perhaps in school that a child gets the first taste of success and failure, good manners and
bad habits, friendship and competition, compassion and care, jealousy and arrogance.
The child gradually develops a mental manual on what to do and what not to, what to accept
and imbibe and what to reject and refuse, how and when to react and these come life long
lessons for him or her.
This is exactly why primary or elementary education in school disciplines a child and forms
the most critical component of an education system.
School education and its goals
If we assess our education system, the basic or primary level in school happens to be the most
important one due to its vital goals that become the fundamentals of life for an individual.
The major aim of basic school education is to provide assistance to a child on multiple levels.
Starting from learning the art to think critically to striving to achieve higher standards to
meeting challenges and developing citizenship and basic values to socializing, school
education provides it with all.
A child's engagement always remains the prime focus of elementary education as that opens
doors to new avenues and chances for every child to shine.
Why is school education important?
School education is a necessity for all children as it ensures the development of their
cognitive, social, emotional, cultural and physical skills preparing them for further academic
careers, carving their character, developing their personality and setting them up for facing
the challenges in life.
Sound knowledge of language and arithmetic, values and ethics help a child grow from all
facets and become successful in every sphere of professional and personal life.
Ways to improve school education in India
India has made considerable progress in the field of school education. Thanks to several
schemes introduced by the government in the last few years that have helped in reducing
drop-out rates in schools and boosted up primary school enrolments to a good extent.

47
However, there are several areas where India can still make considerable progress to establish
its school education system adequately.
This can be done by leveraging technology and using its potential to provide cost-effective
and high-quality learning to the marginalized students, upgrading teachers' education and
training according to the changes in student curriculum as required in the present time,
building good assessment systems to efficiently measure a student’s ability to learn, gain new
skills and social engagement.
It is also important to impart vocational training to children at an early age as it exposes them
to the real world of work and schools must be prepared with trained teachers for the same.
Each skill is important and has its own value in turning knowledge into performance and
enhancing productivity. Hence skill development should also be cultivated among the
students as in the present context of globalisation, it is a pertinent need.
Other ways of making school education stronger and complete are introducing gender studies
education in the school curriculum to make children aware of gender parity from the
grassroots level of learning.
THE MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
1.‘Moral education includes norms that define socially responsible and considerate behaviour
towards everyone including nature.’ With reference to this statement, explain the role of
schools in building courteous and mindful societies.

48
49
 DESMOND TUTU
❖ “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen
the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the
tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse
will not appreciate your neutrality”.
❖ “Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the
darkness”.
❖ “Universal education is not only a moral imperative but an
economic necessity, to pave the way toward making many
more nations self-sufficient and self-sustaining”.
❖ “We inhabit a universe that is characterized by diversity”.
❖ “Forgiveness says you are given another chance to make a
new beginning”.
❖ “Exclusion is never the way forward on our shared paths to freedom and justice”.
❖ “Inclusive, good-quality education is a foundation for dynamic and equitable societies”.
❖ "As human beings, we have the most extraordinary capacity for evil. We can perpetrate
some of the most horrendous atrocities".
❖ “It is our moral obligation to give every child the very best education possible”.
❖ “We are each made for goodness, love and compassion. Our lives are transformed as
much as the world is when we live with these truths”.

50
THE CONTEXT: Pew Research Centre Report, Religion and India: Tolerance and Segregation,
based on serious survey data with almost 30,000 respondents, was recently released. It is a
one-of-a-kind glimpse into the complex interplay of religion, identity and politics in India.
Following article analyses the findings of the report from an ethical perspective.

UNDERSTANDING THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING DATA
NEAR-UNIVERSAL BELIEF IN • Nearly all Indians say they believe in God (97%), and roughly 80%
GOD, BUT WIDE of people in most religious groups say they are absolutely certain
VARIATIONS IN HOW GOD that God exists. The main exception is Buddhists, one-third of
IS PERCEIVED. whom say they do not believe in God.
• The prevailing view is that there is one God “with many
manifestations” (54%). But about one-third of the public says
simply: “There is only one God” (35%). Far fewer say there are
many gods (6%).
THOUGH THEIR SPECIFIC • The vast majority of Indians, across all major faiths, say that
PRACTICES AND BELIEFS religion is very important in their lives.
MAY VARY, ALL OF INDIA’S • At least three-quarters of each major religion’s followers say they
MAJOR RELIGIOUS know a great deal about their own religion and its practices.
COMMUNITIES ARE
HIGHLY OBSERVANT BY
STANDARD MEASURES.
THE IDEOLOGY OF RESPECT • 80 per cent of Hindus and 79 per cent of Muslims say that
FOR RELIGION IS VERY respecting other religions is a very important part of their
HIGH, NEARLY IDENTICAL religious identity.
ACROSS ALL RELIGIOUS
GROUPS.
DESPITE A STRONG DESIRE • Indians of different religious backgrounds hold elders in high
FOR RELIGIOUS respect. For instance, nine in ten or more Hindus, Muslims,
SEGREGATION, INDIA’S Buddhists and Jains say that respecting elders is very important.
RELIGIOUS GROUPS SHARE • Within all six religious groups, eight-in-ten or more also say that
PATRIOTIC FEELINGS, helping the poor and needy is crucial for their religious identity.
CULTURAL VALUES AND
SOME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

51
 RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES • Muslims in India are just as likely as Hindus to believe in karma
ARE SIMILAR AMONG (77% each), and 54% of Indian Christians share this view.
HINDUS AND MUSLIMS.
INDIA’S MUSLIMS EXPRESS • India's Muslims almost unanimously say they are very proud to be
PRIDE IN BEING INDIANS. Indian (95%). They express great enthusiasm for Indian culture:
85% agree with the statement that "Indian people are not perfect,
but Indian culture is superior to others."
• Relatively few Muslims say their community faces “a lot” of
discrimination in India (24%).

ALL COMMUNITIES WANT • Both Hindus and Muslims prefer to live religiously segregated
TO LIVE IN SEGREGATION. lives – not just when it comes to marriage and friendships but also
in some elements of public life. In particular, three-quarters of
Muslims in India (74%) support having access to the existing
system of Islamic Courts, which handle family disputes (such as
inheritance or divorce cases), in addition to the secular court
system.
• Hindus’ views on beef and Hindu identity are linked with a
preference for religious segregation and elements of Hindu
nationalism. For example, Hindus who take a strong position
against eating beef are more likely than others to say they would
not accept followers of other religions as their neighbours (49%
vs. 30%) and to say it is very important to be Hindu to be truly
Indian (68% vs. 51%).
MOST INDIANS DO NOT • Just one in five Indians say there is a lot of discrimination against
PERCEIVE WIDESPREAD members of SCs, while 19% say there is a lot of discrimination
CASTE-BASED against STs and somewhat fewer (16%) see high levels of
DISCRIMINATION. discrimination against OBCs.
RELIGIOUS SWITCHING OR • According to the survey, 82% of Indians say they were raised
CONVERSION HAS A Hindu, and a nearly identical share say they are currently Hindu,
MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE showing no net losses for the group through conversion to other
OVERALL SIZE OF INDIA’S religions. Other groups display similar levels of stability.
RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

THE ANALYSIS
• The above finding has resulted in a BBC Asia report stating that India is neither a
melting pot (diverse cultures blending into one common national identity) nor a salad
bowl (different cultures retaining their specific characteristics while assimilating into
one national identity) but a thali (an Indian meal comprising separate dishes on a
platter where they are combined in specific ways).
• High degree of religiosity: In his last book, Religion’s Sudden Decline, Ronald Inglehart
had argued based on survey data that between 2007 and 2019, the world had
generally become less religious; 43 out of the 49 countries studied showed a marked
decline in religion. The big exception to this story was India, where religiosity

52
 increased. This survey confirms the staggeringly high degree of religiosity that seems
not to decline with education or class.
• Presence of religious tolerance: The ideology of respect for religion is very high, nearly
identical across all religious groups. For instance, 80 per cent of Hindus and 79 per cent
of Muslims say that respecting other religions is a very important part of their religious
identity.
• Segregated toleration: India is committed to an ideology of toleration, but practices
fall under segmented toleration. Each community has its place so long as each stays in
its place. People from all communities do not want inter-marriages, friends or
neighbours of other communities.

THE VIEW OF SOCIOLOGIST ASHIS NANDY ON SEGREGATED TOLERATION

• Ashis Nandy, through his empirical studies, had reached similar conclusions about this
form of living (segregated toleration) in Indian society. He calls this phenomenon as a
distinct type of Asian cosmopolitanism. It had developed in regions that have to
accommodate not just diversities but "radical diversities" that may prove dangerous if
they are brought together in the same space.

• To accommodate these differences and peculiarities in the practices of different

communities, everyday mechanisms of coping have evolved. This has resulted in a
unique form of cosmopolitanism where differences can be accommodated without
pressuring members of one community to be like the other based on a notion of
universal brotherhood.

• On the contrary, members of one community can go to extraordinary lengths to help

members of the other community maintain their own customary practices, including
their separate dining and dietary habits.

• Mr Nandy called it a type of tolerance that is built into people's everyday rhythms, is not
backed by any ideological justification and involves no sense of obligation to each other.

• He called this an "unheroic form of tolerance" that allows interaction for various
purposes without forcing one to declare brotherly love or adopt the other community's
practices.

• Radical Otherness: This model of cosmopolitanism, where people accept "the otherness
of the others" is very different from the Enlightenment version which teaches us to
divest ourselves of all prejudices so that we can emerge as the unbiased citizens of the
nation-state. The latter, a tougher version of tolerance, forces us to hide our prejudices
and preferences. As a result, everyday living becomes a struggle.
• Caste discrimination as an accepted norm: Discrimination is not a category in
segmented societies since exclusion is an acceptable norm. The possibility of
discrimination requires inhabiting the same spaces, competing for the same things,

53
 sharing social worlds. An exclusionary society can think it is not discriminating. Indian
society has not even progressed from exclusion to discrimination.
THE CONCLUSION: The overall picture of India in the survey is of a religious country,
ideologically committed to religious diversity, but exclusionary and segmented in its
toleration, with less support for individual freedom, increasingly committed to Hindutva
benchmarks of national identity, and tempted by authoritarianism.
CASE STUDY OF KOCHI
• It has close to 15 diverse communities, and the city has not witnessed any major
religious strife in its 600 years of recorded history. The obvious reason that comes to our
mind is Keralites are educated or progressive.
• But a different story emerges when probed them about own life histories of these
people. Kochi’s tolerance was based on mutual dislike.
• Every community had an account from its own past to show that it was better than the
others. This included two Jewish communities, each of which generally prevented its
children from marrying those from the other community.
• Hence, Kochi’s pluralism and communal amity included hostilities and distances, as they
operate within a widely shared psychological universe but have certain in-built checks
against mass violence.

ADD TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHICS AND RELIGION.
ETHICS
• It is based on critical thinking,
reasoning, questioning.
• Non-essential part of religion can be
questioned, e.g. Supreme Court's
verdicts related to the management
of temples, temple entry.
• Ethics is also a normative science that
scrutinizes human conduct, and its
evolution has the basis of critical
thinking, which was led by Socrates.
RELIGION
• It is based on faith which cannot be
questioned.
• The Supreme Court has divided it in two parts:
1) Essential part- Faith which cannot be
questioned.
2) Non-essential part- can be questioned.
• Religion is based on person-specific having
prophetic qualities such as Buddhism, Jainism,
although Hinduism is not one person specific
& people are known as followers.

Examples of a trade-off between them:

1. Religious festivals like Kumbh Mela during COVID-19 Pandemic
2. Triple talaq
3. Sabarimala
4. Temple and Dargah entry to women
5. Paryushan Parva (Jain) and a ban on beef-eating
6. Animal sacrifice
• Even if they have differences, first, religion was born in society & then ethics. But religion has
influenced ethics as the emergence of religion precedes the evolution of ethics.

54
They have many similarities:
1. Both aim to improve human conduct based on discipline in life.
2. All religions talk of selflessness, charity, Fairness, humanity, truth etc.
RELIGION COMMON VALUES TO BOTH ETHICS & RELIGION
• Hinduism Peace-loving, Atithi Devo Bhava, Plurality, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
• Buddhism Love, Compassion, Non-greediness
• Christianity Charity, Forgiveness
• Islam Equality
• Jainism Non-voidance, Peace

• Although ethics is not religion, ethics is profoundly influenced by religion. Many philosophers
are equally known in their religion as their religious guru or reformer, such as Vivekananda. His
contributions are equally relevant in both ethics & religion.

55
THE CONTEXT: There are many incidences of human rights violations in India in recent times such as the
Dadri lynching and the Rajsamand case. Such an incident where a fellow citizen has been brutally
murdered by another Indian brings nothing but shame on the country and is against Indian values.
“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity” - Nelson Mandela

HATE CRIMES:
The incidents are largely related to the killing of people from the religious minority and involve nothing
but communal hatred. Every human being is born free and equal. No other human being has the right of
taking the life of any person. However, as Thomas Hobbes said human being is selfish and brutish in
nature. These incidents are nothing but a reflection of such human behaviour.
The Indian values such as peace and harmony, universal brotherhood and religious tolerance have
transcended through generations. However, when one comes across the incidences of hate crimes, it
becomes hard to believe whether Indians possess and practice such values in present times.
According to Aristotle, a Human being is a social animals. Human being tends to live in a society. But
human behaviour is equally unpredictable and erratic. This results in conflicts and social disorder. Social
inequality leads to discrimination and severs form of such discriminations results in violence and hate
crimes.

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS:

The incidents of violence are clear instances of human rights violations. Whether the acts are done by
people or the State itself, these violations suggest that there are prejudices, discriminations and
stereotyping in the society. The State which is the protector of human rights also violates human rights.
E.g. Chhattisgarh incident of rape of tribal women by police personnel, human rights violations by military
persons under AFSPA.
In terms of human development, 21st century India is radically different from what it was in the 20th
century. That economic inequality has steadily risen and ecological stress is written all over the country
cannot take away from the fact that there has been the progress of a form that has collapsed social
distance.
However, as India has managed to shed some of the centuries-old practices that maintained social
distance due to caste and economic differentiation, newer axes of power have emerged. We have begun
to see an unimaginable rise in violence against women and Muslims. Hardening patriarchy and Hindu
chauvinism are India's unanticipated demons. These have taken us by surprise, and as a society, we
appear to be incapable of handling them.

WHAT ARE THE REASONS FOR SUCH A SITUATION?

• The changing values and general declining morality in the society.
• Faulty socialisation process in Indian society where the asterism and communal hatred is taught in
the families from childhood itself.
• The government institutions reinforce such attitudes in society.

56
• Lack of rational thinking and critical questioning by the people in the society. E.g. murder of
rationalists like Dabholkar and Gauri Lankesh.
• The wise people keep silent when it is most needed to talk about the issue and guide society in the
right direction.
CONFLICT OF CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY AND SOCIETAL MORALITY:
The Indian society and administration at present are facing such conflict. Constitutional morality the term
used by Dr Ambedkar is useful for Judiciary to solve the conflicts in society on various socio-cultural issues.
However, sometimes, the government is blindfolded by inappropriate societal morality and takes wrong
decisions.
The efficacy of constitutional provisions is entirely dependent on the government machinery entrusted
to our elected representatives. Effective protection of individuals, in this case, women and minorities,
from acts of violence require the power of the state to weigh in on their side. In too many cases of violence
against women, Muslims and Dalits, the Indian state is distinguished by its absence.

ROLE OF STATE:
The Social Contract Theory gives powers to the State so that it can maintain the Rule of Law and order in
the society. The State should act in a neutral manner especially in a diverse country like India. The
government is the protector of the human rights of every citizen.
There is social churning in India, with some of it having come through affirmative action and some of it
through an economic transformation in which the more recent liberalisation of the economy has had
some role. Such a social transition stage requires more careful attention so as to protect the human rights
of people.
The Theory of Justice suggests that government can take affirmative action's but some basic rights of
people cannot be taken away in the name of such actions. E.g. recent Right to Privacy and Aadhar
controversy.
Though secularism in India is different from the western concept, it is very difficult for Indian State to deal
with such religious diversity and maintain the principle of equality. However, our traditional Indian values
of tolerance plurality and inclusiveness should guide everyone including government to maintain peace
and harmony in the society.
CONCLUSION:
“Where there is righteousness in the heart, there is beauty in the character.
When there is beauty in the character, there is harmony in the home.
When there is harmony in the home, there is order in the nation.
When there is order in the nation, there is peace in the world.” - APJ ABDUL KALAM
We want to ensure the flourishing of all the peoples of India not out of self-preservation but because we
want to be civilised.

57
THE CONTEXT: There is a growing lack of compassion with people especially leaders, be it politics or
the corporate field. The following article discusses the meaning and need of compassionate leadership
and how it can be built.
WHAT IS COMPASSION?

• Compassion can be defined as the willingness and desire to be kind to others.

• It means being thoughtful and aware of what others’ lives and experiences are like.
• It is the opposite of indifference, and it is one of the essential qualities that determine whether
one is a decent human being. It’s related to the qualities of sympathy and empathy, and at its
root, it describes a deeper sense of understanding.
• Compassion means more than seeing others as separate entities; it means seeing them as a part
of yourself and relating to what they are experiencing at a much deeper level.

WHO IS A COMPASSIONATE LEADER?

• Compassionate leadership recognizes that every team member is not only a significant individual
but also an essential thread in the fabric of an entire organization.
• They strive to enhance the happiness and wellbeing of their people by supporting them and
giving them what they need to excel.
• Compassionate leadership is not focused on the short-term or instant gratification; rather, it is
focused on what's best for the individual, the team, the organization, and it considers other
factors that may influence or impact the situation at hand.

WHY DO WE NEED COMPASSIONATE LEADERS?

Emotional crisis • Today, the world seems to be facing an emotional crisis. Rates of stress,
anxiety, and depression are higher than ever.
• The gap between rich and poor and between CEOs and employees is at a
historic high.
• The focus on turning a profit often overrules a commitment to people,
the environment, or society.
Ignorance of • Our tendency to see each other in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’ as stemming
interdependence from ignorance of our interdependence.
• As participants in the same global economy, we depend on each other,
while changes in the climate and the global environment affect us all.
What’s more, as human beings, we are physically, mentally, and
emotionally the same.
Example of Bees:
• They have no constitution, police, or moral training, but they work
together in order to survive. Though they may occasionally squabble, the
colony survives on the basis of cooperation.
• Human beings, on the other hand, have constitutions, complex legal
systems, and police forces; we have remarkable intelligence and a great

58
 capacity for love and affection. Yet, despite our many extraordinary
qualities, we seem less able to cooperate.
Lack of kindness and • In organizations, people work closely together every day. But despite
care working together, many feel lonely and stressed. Even though we are
social animals, there is a lack of responsibility toward each other.
• Our strong focus on material development and accumulating wealth has
led us to neglect our basic human need for kindness and care.
Lack of values • Troublemakers in many parts of the world are often quite well educated,
so it is not just education that we need. What we need is to pay attention
to inner values.

WAY FORWARD

• Reinstating a commitment to the oneness of humanity and altruism toward our brothers and
sisters is fundamental for societies and organizations and their individuals to thrive in the long
run. Every one of us has a responsibility to make this happen.
• Cultivate peace of mind. As human beings, we have a remarkable intelligence that allows us to
analyze and plan for the future. We have language that enables us to communicate what we
have understood, to others. Since destructive emotions like anger and attachment cloud our
ability to use our intelligence clearly, we need to tackle them.
• Compassion and warm-heartedness: Fear and anxiety easily give way to anger and violence. The
opposite of fear is trust, which, related to warm-heartedness, boosts our self-confidence.
Compassion also reduces fear, reflecting as it does a concern for others’ well being. When we’re
under the sway of anger or attachment, we’re limited in our ability to take a full and realistic
view of the situation. When the mind is compassionate, it is calm and we’re able to use our sense
of reason practically, realistically, and with determination.
• We are naturally driven by self-interest; it’s necessary to survive. But we need wise self-interest
that is generous and cooperative, taking others’ interests into account. Cooperation comes from
friendship, friendship comes from trust, and trust comes from kind-heartedness. Once you have
a genuine sense of concern for others, there’s no room for cheating, bullying, or exploitation;
instead, you can be honest, truthful, and transparent in your conduct.
• The ultimate source of a happy life is warm-heartedness. Even animals display some sense of
compassion. When it comes to human beings, compassion can be combined with intelligence.
Through the application of reason, compassion can be extended to all seven billion human
beings. Destructive emotions are related to ignorance, while compassion is a constructive
emotion related to intelligence. Consequently, it can be taught and learned.
• Taking steps to become compassionate: The distinction between violence and nonviolence lies
less in the nature of a particular action and more in the motivation behind the action. Actions
motivated by anger and greed tend to be violent, whereas those motivated by compassion and
concern for others are generally peaceful. We won’t bring about peace in the world merely by
praying for it; we have to take steps to tackle the violence and corruption that disrupt peace. We
can’t expect change if we don’t take action.
CONCLUSION: Buddhist tradition describes three styles of compassionate leadership: the trailblazer,
who leads from the front, takes risks, and sets an example; the ferryman, who accompanies those in
his care and shapes the ups and downs of the crossing; and the shepherd, who sees every one of his
flock into safety before himself. Three styles, three approaches, but what they have in common is an
all-encompassing concern for the welfare of those they lead.

59
60