Apropos the article ‘UPSC got its English wrong’, the author Kankipati Rajesh, IAS;the article is filled with non-sequiturs and betrays his warped thinking, though he uses great terms like Right to Equality and Right
to Expression.
Where was the Equality when Mains allowed 2 optionals, written in multiple languages, not to mention about 18 language literatures as optionals? Where was the yardstick to evaluate Expression when candidates like doctors, engineers etc. who until then, never had any interest in Literatures , suddenly opt for them and learn (read mug-up) the syllabus in 2-3 months with guidance (read coaching classes) and fetch insanely high marks and get through the exam. Literatures optional were turned into a fraud on the system; where the
evaluators of literature papers tend to award high marks as the candidates would belong to their State. This could be the reason why, as the author himself says, ‘90 per cent of the candidates clearing the exam qualify with a language as an optional subject, and write the exam in regional language and that this is true for many other States of India’
Coming to the point of not allowing candidates to write Mains in regional languages, the author mentions that many students shift to English medium for their college education, but are not very proficient in English. Now why would students shift to English medium? It’s because they believe that English is inevitable in their future
careers and without English, their prospects would be grim. Why should the same thinking not be applied when applying for government jobs? Is public service a fair game to be filled with those who are not good at
English? For god’s sake, these are the people who would make policies, become bureaucrats, represent India’s interests. Though English is not the indicator for a good administrator, this nation deserves people
who are comfortable with English and not shy away from it. Sixty years of visceral bias against English in government service has produced umpteen number of highly placed officials who struggle to clearly
articulate in English what then intend to convey, as we see on television these days.
The author mentions that ‘During the training of IAS officers at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 40 per cent of the time spent in Phase-I of the programme is for the language of the State where the officer will serve’. When 40% of training can be spent of learning the regional language, and the trainee officers are fine with it; is it excessive to ask the candidates to write the exam in the medium in which they did their graduation? The reason they do not crib about spending 40% of time learning local language is that they are already selected and they don’t really care what they are asked to learn. The fight is all about getting through the exam, when, all of a sudden, they fall in love with Literatures and their mother tongues. Strange, isn’t it?
When there are loud calls for UPSC to make the exam more common and make it an equalizer for all the aspirants, these reforms were a step in the right direction. There is some merit in asking ‘when Hindi is
allowed as a language medium for the UPSC mains examination unconditionally, why not other languages like Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati? UPSC should think about only this one point and make some changes to address the concern here. All other changes are in the right spirit and should not be reversed.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/upsc-is-taking-a-step-in-the-right-direction/article4533258.ece
to Expression.
Where was the Equality when Mains allowed 2 optionals, written in multiple languages, not to mention about 18 language literatures as optionals? Where was the yardstick to evaluate Expression when candidates like doctors, engineers etc. who until then, never had any interest in Literatures , suddenly opt for them and learn (read mug-up) the syllabus in 2-3 months with guidance (read coaching classes) and fetch insanely high marks and get through the exam. Literatures optional were turned into a fraud on the system; where the
evaluators of literature papers tend to award high marks as the candidates would belong to their State. This could be the reason why, as the author himself says, ‘90 per cent of the candidates clearing the exam qualify with a language as an optional subject, and write the exam in regional language and that this is true for many other States of India’
Coming to the point of not allowing candidates to write Mains in regional languages, the author mentions that many students shift to English medium for their college education, but are not very proficient in English. Now why would students shift to English medium? It’s because they believe that English is inevitable in their future
careers and without English, their prospects would be grim. Why should the same thinking not be applied when applying for government jobs? Is public service a fair game to be filled with those who are not good at
English? For god’s sake, these are the people who would make policies, become bureaucrats, represent India’s interests. Though English is not the indicator for a good administrator, this nation deserves people
who are comfortable with English and not shy away from it. Sixty years of visceral bias against English in government service has produced umpteen number of highly placed officials who struggle to clearly
articulate in English what then intend to convey, as we see on television these days.
The author mentions that ‘During the training of IAS officers at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie, 40 per cent of the time spent in Phase-I of the programme is for the language of the State where the officer will serve’. When 40% of training can be spent of learning the regional language, and the trainee officers are fine with it; is it excessive to ask the candidates to write the exam in the medium in which they did their graduation? The reason they do not crib about spending 40% of time learning local language is that they are already selected and they don’t really care what they are asked to learn. The fight is all about getting through the exam, when, all of a sudden, they fall in love with Literatures and their mother tongues. Strange, isn’t it?
When there are loud calls for UPSC to make the exam more common and make it an equalizer for all the aspirants, these reforms were a step in the right direction. There is some merit in asking ‘when Hindi is
allowed as a language medium for the UPSC mains examination unconditionally, why not other languages like Tamil, Telugu, Gujarati? UPSC should think about only this one point and make some changes to address the concern here. All other changes are in the right spirit and should not be reversed.
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/upsc-is-taking-a-step-in-the-right-direction/article4533258.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment