Back in 2011 when the UPSC brought in this new pattern, many of us had welcomed it as a sound and progressive step. Prior to this, the UPSC had an optional paper where candidates could select one among a large number of subjects. Performance varied widely across different optional subjects, which were not really comparable, and the system often conferred an unfair advantage to those offering certain subjects. Replacing this optional subject with a uniform and common test of skills and aptitude relevant to administration appeared eminently reasonable and hence there was little opposition when it was introduced.
However what we failed to see then was that there was a hidden agenda behind the change. To understand this we have to go back a bit further. Way back in 1979, the UPSC had introduced a new system for civil services recruitment based on supposed equality of treatment for Indian languages and English. While there were many shortcomings in the working of the system, it did bring about a greater degree of language equality with increasing number of students whose medium of instruction had been in Indian languages being able to enter the civil services. As a result, in the 1990s and 2000s, the nature and character of the civil services began to change with small town candidates from all over the country with a non-priviliged background becoming civil servants. The subsequent adoption of OBC reservations also contributed to this change.
It is undeniable that many, including senior civil servants, were unhappy with this trend because of what they saw as increasing number of rustics entering the hallowed portals of the civic services hitherto occupied largely by graduates of elite institutions like St Stephen's and Lady Sri Ram College, if not Oxford and Cambridge. Most of these luminaries were also very critical of caste based reservations but that battle was of course lost to the democratic system. The new front that was opened aimed to preserve at least the class character of the bureaucracy, defined as ‘people like us’ (PLU), based among other qualities on their primary language being English.
This is why the manner in which the UPSC formulated and implemented the new CSAT pattern in 2011 totally destroyed the fig leaf of language neutrality that it had been supposedly maintaining since 1979 and the idea of ensuring a level playing field between candidates from different educational backgrounds (in language terms) went overboard. Thus it was the UPSC itself which destroyed the credibility of the CSAT and undermined the cause of aptitude testing as part of Civil Services recruitment. Initially it appeared to us that this was an unforeseen consequence of a well-intentioned reform attempt, but gradually the realization sunk in that it was being done wittingly and deliberately.
To appreciate this development we need to take a closer look at the CSAT paper and how it came to have this effect. Consider the 2013 version of the CSAT paper which included 80 questions. 17 of these involved some type of logical reasoning, 14 were based on diagrammatic reasoning and interpretation of tables and charts, 11 tested quantitative skills, and 6 were designed to test so called decision making and problem solving. Despite the poor framing of questions as well as the appalling translation skills of the UPSC, these questions were relatively language neutral. The performance in these questions was also relatively uniform for good students across different language backgrounds.
The critical part of the paper where severe discrimination arises involves 8 questions on English comprehension and 24 bilingual comprehension questions. Theoretically testing comprehension skills is a good idea. But the way in which these questions are formulated, confers a decisive advantage on those who are fluent in English. Even in the case of the questions for which Hindi translation is provided, the language used in the Hindi version is so convoluted that often it is almost impossible to make any sense of the passages in a reasonable time.
The Arvind Varma committee in its report was apparently gracious enough to accept this but felt that it was a relatively minor issue. So apparently does the government. Not only is it the key issue but the problem is not merely one of poor translation. The reality is that for those who are good in English, which has been their primary medium of education, and who have some smattering of quantitative skills etc., the CSAT is a cakewalk while for those whose basic education has been in Indian languages it is an insurmountable barrier.
Let us be clear that the struggle, unlike what is being disingenuously painted in the English media, is not over knowledge of basic English. Those protesting against CSAT can understand English, can even write it reasonably competently and in fact have to pass the English paper in the main examination in order to qualify for the interview.
The problem for them is that English is not their primary language of thought and expression, and that is what this exam seeks to use to eliminate them. The extra time that they need to understand these so called comprehension questions and the lower marks they score in these questions is enough to erode any advantage they may have in General Studies and other areas and knocks them out of contention for the main examination. It should be noted that each mark can make a difference of thousands of ranks in this examination.
What matters in this performance is not the presence or absence of so called aptitude, but aptitude defined as familiarity with English. The groundswell of protest erupted not because the protesters do not have the aptitude but as a result of frustration at the knowledge that though they often possess those logical skills, quantitative knowledge, ability to interpret charts etc. as well as a good understanding of Indian and global political, economic and technological processes that are touted as being important for civil servants, they will still be eliminated from the competition because of their lack of higher level English awareness.
There is another misconception that since there are two papers carrying equal weightage, this disadvantage in the CSAT paper may be compensated by the performance in the General Studies paper. Here also the data are interesting. The General Studies paper is designed to be low scoring while the CSAT is high scoring. An analysis of the marks of those qualifying shows that on an average they score about two thirds of their marks from the CSAT paper, and only about one third from the General Studies paper.
The consequences of this lopsided pattern are clear. In 2010, the year before CSAT, 4,156 candidates appearing in the main examinations had chosen Hindi or another Indian language as their medium. The following year, after the introduction of CSAT, the number of non-English medium candidates plummeted to 1,682. In fact the data shows that such decline has occurred in the case of other Indian languages as well.
But there is yet another twist in the story which has been ignored. How do these so called high aptitude students fare in the main examination? There has been a precipitous decline in the cut-offs for the main stage. Students (from the general category) scoring as low as 564 out of 1750 (32%) qualified for the interview in 2014. Even the topper of the 2014 exam scored only 33.8% in the General Studies papers. The qualifying marks are declining because many of those appearing in the main examination have got to that stage primarily due to superficial English comprehension skills and have little substantive knowledge and understanding of the key areas of General Studies.
Some time ago the UPSC chairman D.P. Agrawal was quoted as expressing concern that the bulk of the candidates appearing in civil services examination were not equipped with an understanding of the country’s issues. His professed naivety is astonishing because a key factor in this decline is his promotion of the current CSAT pattern which emphasises superficial language skills in English, at the cost of such understanding. Is this the improvement in the quality in civil servants that the UPSC and their apologists are peddling?
Another interesting development is that because of the poor performance in the main written part of the examination, the interview stage which carries much lower weightage, has become decisive in the selection of civil servants, where of course the subjective view of the UPSC members is most important.
Our surprise is about how easily the PM and his ministers have been hoodwinked into believing that the token change of removing 8 questions on English comprehension is adequate to address all concerns and that the agitation is part of a political conspiracy to destabilise the NDA government. This does not speak very highly about the analytical skills and aptitude of the PM and his ministers.
Ashok Singh is an alumnus of IIT, Kanpur and has been involved in guiding civil services aspirants for over three decades.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
> "This does not speak very highly about the analytical skills and aptitude of the PM and his ministers."
Many of us have long suspected that!
>> Many of us have long suspected that!
I'm sure you've long suspected Pappu to be smart too.
Why not think for a total overhauling of the Civil Services examinations? Why do we still need the colonial style generalist bureaucrats? Let each ministry select its own specialist officers at the entry level. Let there be a middle level examination for selection of the generalists of the administrative cadres from among the vast pool of specialists including the armed forces, PSUs and academics and the like.
It is time that we do away with this class altogether the way it exists now. But for this change to happen, the existing civil service lobby should themselves be ready for the change, which unfortunately is not the case.
This article is pretty one sided and written by a party to this conflict. It is wrong on many instances:
1. Regarding crashing of Mains cut-off: Mains cut-off are decreasing every year because mains paper is becoming more complicated and lengthier with each passing year.3-4 years ago, someone who attempt whole of paper use to write 3000 words in 3 hours;In 2012 it was 3800 words;In 2013 one has to write 5000 words in 3 hours.
Paper is also becoming more complicated with majority of questions being asked from obscure areas like importance of Rasvarna, contributions of Laurie Baker to Indian Architecture and Origin of Tandav nrittya in Indian Literature compared to pedestrain class question like those on Khilafat movement asked some 3-4 years ago.
Thus it is natural that cut-off of mains would decrease.
Since The writer himself is running a coaching institute, it is astonishing that he overlooked such a simple fact.
2. English comprehension part of CSAT is easiest of all CSAT questions; to the extent that people rarely get any of them wrong.100% of these questions are direct and their answer could be found in Passage itself without any application of mind.
This along with Decision making questions which does not carry any negative marks are the reason that most of selected candidates have higher marks in CSAT.If English comprehension is removed , cutoffs would fall by 25 marks across the board. There would be no change in composition of candidates selected.
3. The whole argument of Aptitude providing advantage to Engineering students is ludicruous.
Basic math and reasoning is requirement of any proper academic discipline. Even any respectable social science is based on statistical methods like ANOVA to find out wheter a correlation is due to causation or not.Someone who does not know 10 std maths is practically useless for any research work or Higher studies, not only Civil services.
And whole of civil services pattern except that of CSAT is ranged against those who graduated from science.You do not see them burning buses to force a change to their advantage.
4. The assertion that a person could get selected even with bad performance in General studies is Baloney.
Last year cutoff was 247 ( if i recall correctly ); even if someone gets 150 marks in CSAT, he would still have to get 100 marks in GS to clear prelims.
Even after a good performance in CSAT, one has to perform at least decently in GS to qualify prelims.
5. CSAT is a typical Intelligence test, modeled on the pattern of SBIT and Weschler intelligence test.
A typical intelligence test measures all intellectual attributes except creativity. People who want it scrapped are protesting because there is no way one could get better in it.
Coaching has a minimal effect on aptitude.Your Aptitude is decided by your genes and intitial 5 year of your upbringing and no amount of coaching could make you grow a brain.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT