English Languag...

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

Hardly a day goes by without some further revelation about the disturbing state of childhood obesity and the diseases of old age that teenagers are beginning to suffer from. One recent study, published in the Financial Times, found that the number of American children taking medication for the type of diabetes normally found in ageing obese people had more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. A worrying percentage of them were also taking drugs for such chronic conditions as hypertension and high cholesterol as well as Type 2 diabetes.

The latest figures suggest that a third of American children are either overweight or at risk of becoming so. If the trend continues, today’s children will be the first generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan (by two to five years) than their parents. The life expectancy of Americans today is 77.6 years, one of the lowest in the developed world.

While most people concerned about their weight fixate on fats and carbohydrates, nutritionists say the real problem is sugar. And not just any old sugar, but the high–fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has replaced cane and beet sugar in processed foods and soft drinks over the past 25 years. Nowadays, everything from bread, pastries and breakfast cereals to yoghurts, ketchup, candy and coke contain large dollops of HFCS. The food industry uses blends of 90% fructose and 10% glucose for baked goods and 55% fructose and 45% glucose for soft drinks.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

Hardly a day goes by without some further revelation about the disturbing state of childhood obesity and the diseases of old age that teenagers are beginning to suffer from. One recent study, published in the Financial Times, found that the number of American children taking medication for the type of diabetes normally found in ageing obese people had more than doubled between 2001 and 2005. A worrying percentage of them were also taking drugs for such chronic conditions as hypertension and high cholesterol as well as Type 2 diabetes.

The latest figures suggest that a third of American children are either overweight or at risk of becoming so. If the trend continues, today’s children will be the first generation of Americans to have a shorter lifespan (by two to five years) than their parents. The life expectancy of Americans today is 77.6 years, one of the lowest in the developed world.

While most people concerned about their weight fixate on fats and carbohydrates, nutritionists say the real problem is sugar. And not just any old sugar, but the high–fructose corn syrup (HFCS) that has replaced cane and beet sugar in processed foods and soft drinks over the past 25 years. Nowadays, everything from bread, pastries and breakfast cereals to yoghurts, ketchup, candy and coke contain large dollops of HFCS. The food industry uses blends of 90% fructose and 10% glucose for baked goods and 55% fructose and 45% glucose for soft drinks.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

In just a few weeks, NASA will launch its celebrated Cassini spacecraft for a deep-space exploration of Saturn's rings and moons. The $3.3 billion mission has sparked an intense battle over the 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 – the largest amount ever carried into space – that will drive Cassini's scientific instruments. As the launch date nears, Cassini's radioactive cargo is attracting increased scrutiny from the mainstream press. It has all the elements of a sensational story: a nerve-racking flyby of Earth two years after launch will bring it 500 scant miles from the planet's surface; scientists disagree wildly over the consequences of a potential accident; and activists claim that NASA could, but refuses to, use solar energy instead.

NASA defends the mission. The Cassini Mission only needs 600 to 700 watts of electricity to power its scientific instruments. But it needs that power for the length of the mission: 11 years. The Energizer Bunny aside, there is one realistic power source, says NASA: plutonium-238. By its calculations, the chances of an accident that could release plutonium are incredibly slim – less than 1 in 1,400 at launch (this is when the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986), 1 in 476 just after launch, and less than 1 in a million during Cassini's flyby of Earth. With a half-life of 88 years, plutonium-238 is 280 times more radioactive than its weapon grade cousin, plutonium-239. And although the alpha radiation emitted by plutonium-238 travels only a fraction of an inch in the body, its potential for damage is great if inhaled. Even though it will go two or three cells deep at the most, it causes lung and bone cancers. Because plutonium-238's radiation travels such a short distance, humans would face the biggest risk if the probe accidentally re-enters the atmosphere during the flyby and the plutonium is vaporized. NASA says that scenario is extremely unlikely because Cassini's plutonium is well shielded from intense heat, pressure, or shrapnel, as from an explosion. Produced by the Department of Energy exclusively for space application, the material is processed into insoluble ceramic pellets. Seventy-two marshmallow-sized pellets are encased in iridium and graphite containers designed to withstand re-entry into Earth's atmosphere or an explosion at launch. In addition, the ceramic pellets themselves are designed to resist vaporization, and to break into chunks – not inhalable powder – on impact. Only particles small enough to inhale pose any danger to humans. If a worst-case scenario accident occurs – NASA's 1995 environmental impact statement estimates that up to 5 billion people could be "exposed". But the individual doses of radiation would be so small – 1 millirem per year – that, at most, 120 humans could die from Cassini-caused cancer over 50 years. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish those fatalities from the umpteen thousand deaths caused by other sources of radiation.

But critics disagree with NASA's calculations. "Give me a break. They're making these numbers up. This is a science experiment and we are the guinea pigs,” says Michio Kaku, a professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York, adding that, by his calculations of NASA's own accident scenario, some 200,000 people could die if Cassini crashed in an urban area. Richard Spehalski, programme manager for Cassini at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), says it's the opponents of the project who aren't paying attention to the facts. Spehalski is confident that years of engineering design, safety tests, and independent reviews confirm the safety and accuracy of the mission. The Galileo spacecraft, he notes, came within 1 kilometre of its projected flyby altitude when it swung past Earth five years ago on its way to Jupiter, carrying more than 49 pounds of plutonium-238.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

In just a few weeks, NASA will launch its celebrated Cassini spacecraft for a deep-space exploration of Saturn's rings and moons. The $3.3 billion mission has sparked an intense battle over the 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 – the largest amount ever carried into space – that will drive Cassini's scientific instruments. As the launch date nears, Cassini's radioactive cargo is attracting increased scrutiny from the mainstream press. It has all the elements of a sensational story: a nerve-racking flyby of Earth two years after launch will bring it 500 scant miles from the planet's surface; scientists disagree wildly over the consequences of a potential accident; and activists claim that NASA could, but refuses to, use solar energy instead.

NASA defends the mission. The Cassini Mission only needs 600 to 700 watts of electricity to power its scientific instruments. But it needs that power for the length of the mission: 11 years. The Energizer Bunny aside, there is one realistic power source, says NASA: plutonium-238. By its calculations, the chances of an accident that could release plutonium are incredibly slim – less than 1 in 1,400 at launch (this is when the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986), 1 in 476 just after launch, and less than 1 in a million during Cassini's flyby of Earth. With a half-life of 88 years, plutonium-238 is 280 times more radioactive than its weapon grade cousin, plutonium-239. And although the alpha radiation emitted by plutonium-238 travels only a fraction of an inch in the body, its potential for damage is great if inhaled. Even though it will go two or three cells deep at the most, it causes lung and bone cancers. Because plutonium-238's radiation travels such a short distance, humans would face the biggest risk if the probe accidentally re-enters the atmosphere during the flyby and the plutonium is vaporized. NASA says that scenario is extremely unlikely because Cassini's plutonium is well shielded from intense heat, pressure, or shrapnel, as from an explosion. Produced by the Department of Energy exclusively for space application, the material is processed into insoluble ceramic pellets. Seventy-two marshmallow-sized pellets are encased in iridium and graphite containers designed to withstand re-entry into Earth's atmosphere or an explosion at launch. In addition, the ceramic pellets themselves are designed to resist vaporization, and to break into chunks – not inhalable powder – on impact. Only particles small enough to inhale pose any danger to humans. If a worst-case scenario accident occurs – NASA's 1995 environmental impact statement estimates that up to 5 billion people could be "exposed". But the individual doses of radiation would be so small – 1 millirem per year – that, at most, 120 humans could die from Cassini-caused cancer over 50 years. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish those fatalities from the umpteen thousand deaths caused by other sources of radiation.

But critics disagree with NASA's calculations. "Give me a break. They're making these numbers up. This is a science experiment and we are the guinea pigs,” says Michio Kaku, a professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York, adding that, by his calculations of NASA's own accident scenario, some 200,000 people could die if Cassini crashed in an urban area. Richard Spehalski, programme manager for Cassini at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), says it's the opponents of the project who aren't paying attention to the facts. Spehalski is confident that years of engineering design, safety tests, and independent reviews confirm the safety and accuracy of the mission. The Galileo spacecraft, he notes, came within 1 kilometre of its projected flyby altitude when it swung past Earth five years ago on its way to Jupiter, carrying more than 49 pounds of plutonium-238.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

In just a few weeks, NASA will launch its celebrated Cassini spacecraft for a deep-space exploration of Saturn's rings and moons. The $3.3 billion mission has sparked an intense battle over the 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 – the largest amount ever carried into space – that will drive Cassini's scientific instruments. As the launch date nears, Cassini's radioactive cargo is attracting increased scrutiny from the mainstream press. It has all the elements of a sensational story: a nerve-racking flyby of Earth two years after launch will bring it 500 scant miles from the planet's surface; scientists disagree wildly over the consequences of a potential accident; and activists claim that NASA could, but refuses to, use solar energy instead.

NASA defends the mission. The Cassini Mission only needs 600 to 700 watts of electricity to power its scientific instruments. But it needs that power for the length of the mission: 11 years. The Energizer Bunny aside, there is one realistic power source, says NASA: plutonium-238. By its calculations, the chances of an accident that could release plutonium are incredibly slim – less than 1 in 1,400 at launch (this is when the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986), 1 in 476 just after launch, and less than 1 in a million during Cassini's flyby of Earth. With a half-life of 88 years, plutonium-238 is 280 times more radioactive than its weapon grade cousin, plutonium-239. And although the alpha radiation emitted by plutonium-238 travels only a fraction of an inch in the body, its potential for damage is great if inhaled. Even though it will go two or three cells deep at the most, it causes lung and bone cancers. Because plutonium-238's radiation travels such a short distance, humans would face the biggest risk if the probe accidentally re-enters the atmosphere during the flyby and the plutonium is vaporized. NASA says that scenario is extremely unlikely because Cassini's plutonium is well shielded from intense heat, pressure, or shrapnel, as from an explosion. Produced by the Department of Energy exclusively for space application, the material is processed into insoluble ceramic pellets. Seventy-two marshmallow-sized pellets are encased in iridium and graphite containers designed to withstand re-entry into Earth's atmosphere or an explosion at launch. In addition, the ceramic pellets themselves are designed to resist vaporization, and to break into chunks – not inhalable powder – on impact. Only particles small enough to inhale pose any danger to humans. If a worst-case scenario accident occurs – NASA's 1995 environmental impact statement estimates that up to 5 billion people could be "exposed". But the individual doses of radiation would be so small – 1 millirem per year – that, at most, 120 humans could die from Cassini-caused cancer over 50 years. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish those fatalities from the umpteen thousand deaths caused by other sources of radiation.

But critics disagree with NASA's calculations. "Give me a break. They're making these numbers up. This is a science experiment and we are the guinea pigs,” says Michio Kaku, a professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York, adding that, by his calculations of NASA's own accident scenario, some 200,000 people could die if Cassini crashed in an urban area. Richard Spehalski, programme manager for Cassini at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), says it's the opponents of the project who aren't paying attention to the facts. Spehalski is confident that years of engineering design, safety tests, and independent reviews confirm the safety and accuracy of the mission. The Galileo spacecraft, he notes, came within 1 kilometre of its projected flyby altitude when it swung past Earth five years ago on its way to Jupiter, carrying more than 49 pounds of plutonium-238.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

In just a few weeks, NASA will launch its celebrated Cassini spacecraft for a deep-space exploration of Saturn's rings and moons. The $3.3 billion mission has sparked an intense battle over the 72.3 pounds of plutonium-238 – the largest amount ever carried into space – that will drive Cassini's scientific instruments. As the launch date nears, Cassini's radioactive cargo is attracting increased scrutiny from the mainstream press. It has all the elements of a sensational story: a nerve-racking flyby of Earth two years after launch will bring it 500 scant miles from the planet's surface; scientists disagree wildly over the consequences of a potential accident; and activists claim that NASA could, but refuses to, use solar energy instead.

NASA defends the mission. The Cassini Mission only needs 600 to 700 watts of electricity to power its scientific instruments. But it needs that power for the length of the mission: 11 years. The Energizer Bunny aside, there is one realistic power source, says NASA: plutonium-238. By its calculations, the chances of an accident that could release plutonium are incredibly slim – less than 1 in 1,400 at launch (this is when the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986), 1 in 476 just after launch, and less than 1 in a million during Cassini's flyby of Earth. With a half-life of 88 years, plutonium-238 is 280 times more radioactive than its weapon grade cousin, plutonium-239. And although the alpha radiation emitted by plutonium-238 travels only a fraction of an inch in the body, its potential for damage is great if inhaled. Even though it will go two or three cells deep at the most, it causes lung and bone cancers. Because plutonium-238's radiation travels such a short distance, humans would face the biggest risk if the probe accidentally re-enters the atmosphere during the flyby and the plutonium is vaporized. NASA says that scenario is extremely unlikely because Cassini's plutonium is well shielded from intense heat, pressure, or shrapnel, as from an explosion. Produced by the Department of Energy exclusively for space application, the material is processed into insoluble ceramic pellets. Seventy-two marshmallow-sized pellets are encased in iridium and graphite containers designed to withstand re-entry into Earth's atmosphere or an explosion at launch. In addition, the ceramic pellets themselves are designed to resist vaporization, and to break into chunks – not inhalable powder – on impact. Only particles small enough to inhale pose any danger to humans. If a worst-case scenario accident occurs – NASA's 1995 environmental impact statement estimates that up to 5 billion people could be "exposed". But the individual doses of radiation would be so small – 1 millirem per year – that, at most, 120 humans could die from Cassini-caused cancer over 50 years. It wouldn't be possible to distinguish those fatalities from the umpteen thousand deaths caused by other sources of radiation.

But critics disagree with NASA's calculations. "Give me a break. They're making these numbers up. This is a science experiment and we are the guinea pigs,” says Michio Kaku, a professor of nuclear physics at the City University of New York, adding that, by his calculations of NASA's own accident scenario, some 200,000 people could die if Cassini crashed in an urban area. Richard Spehalski, programme manager for Cassini at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), says it's the opponents of the project who aren't paying attention to the facts. Spehalski is confident that years of engineering design, safety tests, and independent reviews confirm the safety and accuracy of the mission. The Galileo spacecraft, he notes, came within 1 kilometre of its projected flyby altitude when it swung past Earth five years ago on its way to Jupiter, carrying more than 49 pounds of plutonium-238.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

We live in a world of slogans, where socialism has taken the place of the mantras and the shastras, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Mean. But, just as a coin gets defaced, and its engraving gets erased after it has been in circulation for a long time, words like ‘socialism’ get denuded of their true content after they have been in constant circulation. Socialism means different things to different people, and to some people it means no more and no less than cabinet rank.

There is the type of socialism that has built up the lucky countries of Europe and the Third World. And there is also the other type of socialism, which has brought down the less lucky countries like Indonesia under Sukarno and Ghana under Nkrumah.

The Preamble to our Constitution does not use the empty label ‘Socialist’ at all, but uses the meaningful words, “Justice – social, economic and political” and “Equality of status and of opportunity”.

The wrong brand of socialism is extremely popular; in fact, it is the fastest-selling brand of socialism today in India. The reason for its popularity is that it is so much easier in practice. This cheap and easy style of socialism mistakes Amiri hatao (liquidation of wealth) for Garibi hatao (removal of poverty); it aims at levelling down and not levelling up; it is content to satisfy the pangs of envy when it cannot satisfy the pangs of hunger; and, since it cannot create income or wealth, it plans for poverty and equal distribution of misery.

True socialism provides four significant measures of a country’s development – an increase in the Gross National Product, availability of work, fair distribution of income and the quality of life. You must have all four if you want economic growth with social justice. There would be no availability of work, no income to distribute, and the quality of life cannot be made less shoddy, unless and until we have a fast and sustained rise in the Gross National Product. Without it, there can be no increase in gross national happiness.

If we followed the school of Old Economics, we would be content with mere increases in the Gross National Product. If we adopted the New Economics, we would insist on growth with social equality. But we have chosen “non-economics”, where ideology reigns supreme, scarcities multiply and savings evaporate in inflation.

The vital point, which is normally missed in political histrionics is that, while it is possible, in a poor country like India, to have economic growth without social justice, it is impossible to have social justice without economic growth. ‘Economic Growth for Social Justice’ would be a more rewarding slogan than Garibi hatao.

The concept of socialism gets distorted when one stubbornly adheres to state ownership as the only means of achieving the goal. You may adopt state ownership in areas where such ownership affords the only sure and safe launching pad; or you may tap the boundless reserves of the people’s response and initiative, energy and endeavour, prosaically called ‘the private sector’. The vital point to remember is that the public sector does not necessarily spell public good, and the private sector does not merely spell private gain.

Our scarce financial resources should not be wasted on ideological preferences, which envisage a dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. The government and the people should think of only one sector – the national sector. The line of demarcation should be between honest and efficient business on the one hand and dishonest and inefficient business on the other. Every effort must be made to encourage and expand the first and to condemn and constrict the second, irrespective of the question of whether the enterprise is in the public, private, or joint sector. If the same standards of economy, efficiency and managerial competence; and the same criterion of dedicated public service are applied to the public sector as well as to the private sector, we shall achieve the greatest economic transformation of our time.

State ownership is to social justice what ritual is to religion and dogma to truth. State ownership and state control are the shells of socialism, which were really intended to protect and promote the growth of the kernel; but rigid shells merely stunt its growth.

The fanatical devotion to nationalization as an end in itself, and the confluence of all controls in the hands of the government, made Galbraith observe that, in the old days, the principal enemies of public enterprises were those who disapproved of socialism; while now it is the socialists themselves.

Contrasting India with other underdeveloped countries, Galbraith further remarked that there is a richness in the poverty of Indians. Unfortunately, while there is richness in our poverty, there is poverty in our socialism.

Two great men, whose birth centenary has been celebrated this year all over the world, have expressed strong views against the monolithic state. Bertrand Russell said, in a letter in 1964: “The danger to liberty involved in almost any form of socialism comes from the power of officials. If socialism is to permit freedom, powerful officials must somehow be curbed, for, if not, they will inherit all the powers of capitalists.”

And Sri Aurobindo said: “We are now tending towards such an increase of organized state power as will either eliminate free independent effort altogether or leave it dwarfed and cowed into helplessness.”

The elimination of poverty as a social problem is a formidable objective, but it is not an insurmountable one. We have abundant natural resources and all the man-power we need. Perhaps there is no other nation that has, in such ample measure, all the enterprise and skills needed to create national wealth, and which takes such deliberate and endless pains to restrict and hamper its creation.

Social justice is different from mere equality. Social justice demands that there should be adequate differentials for ability and other laudable qualities. Elimination of such differentials is the very negation of social justice – it is unfair to those who are denied the fruits of their industry, integrity and intellect; and it is equally unfair to the tens of millions whose hope will die within their hungry hutments since, in a democracy, there can be no economic growth without such reasonable differentials.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

We live in a world of slogans, where socialism has taken the place of the mantras and the shastras, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Mean. But, just as a coin gets defaced, and its engraving gets erased after it has been in circulation for a long time, words like ‘socialism’ get denuded of their true content after they have been in constant circulation. Socialism means different things to different people, and to some people it means no more and no less than cabinet rank.

There is the type of socialism that has built up the lucky countries of Europe and the Third World. And there is also the other type of socialism, which has brought down the less lucky countries like Indonesia under Sukarno and Ghana under Nkrumah.

The Preamble to our Constitution does not use the empty label ‘Socialist’ at all, but uses the meaningful words, “Justice – social, economic and political” and “Equality of status and of opportunity”.

The wrong brand of socialism is extremely popular; in fact, it is the fastest-selling brand of socialism today in India. The reason for its popularity is that it is so much easier in practice. This cheap and easy style of socialism mistakes Amiri hatao (liquidation of wealth) for Garibi hatao (removal of poverty); it aims at levelling down and not levelling up; it is content to satisfy the pangs of envy when it cannot satisfy the pangs of hunger; and, since it cannot create income or wealth, it plans for poverty and equal distribution of misery.

True socialism provides four significant measures of a country’s development – an increase in the Gross National Product, availability of work, fair distribution of income and the quality of life. You must have all four if you want economic growth with social justice. There would be no availability of work, no income to distribute, and the quality of life cannot be made less shoddy, unless and until we have a fast and sustained rise in the Gross National Product. Without it, there can be no increase in gross national happiness.

If we followed the school of Old Economics, we would be content with mere increases in the Gross National Product. If we adopted the New Economics, we would insist on growth with social equality. But we have chosen “non-economics”, where ideology reigns supreme, scarcities multiply and savings evaporate in inflation.

The vital point, which is normally missed in political histrionics is that, while it is possible, in a poor country like India, to have economic growth without social justice, it is impossible to have social justice without economic growth. ‘Economic Growth for Social Justice’ would be a more rewarding slogan than Garibi hatao.

The concept of socialism gets distorted when one stubbornly adheres to state ownership as the only means of achieving the goal. You may adopt state ownership in areas where such ownership affords the only sure and safe launching pad; or you may tap the boundless reserves of the people’s response and initiative, energy and endeavour, prosaically called ‘the private sector’. The vital point to remember is that the public sector does not necessarily spell public good, and the private sector does not merely spell private gain.

Our scarce financial resources should not be wasted on ideological preferences, which envisage a dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. The government and the people should think of only one sector – the national sector. The line of demarcation should be between honest and efficient business on the one hand and dishonest and inefficient business on the other. Every effort must be made to encourage and expand the first and to condemn and constrict the second, irrespective of the question of whether the enterprise is in the public, private, or joint sector. If the same standards of economy, efficiency and managerial competence; and the same criterion of dedicated public service are applied to the public sector as well as to the private sector, we shall achieve the greatest economic transformation of our time.

State ownership is to social justice what ritual is to religion and dogma to truth. State ownership and state control are the shells of socialism, which were really intended to protect and promote the growth of the kernel; but rigid shells merely stunt its growth.

The fanatical devotion to nationalization as an end in itself, and the confluence of all controls in the hands of the government, made Galbraith observe that, in the old days, the principal enemies of public enterprises were those who disapproved of socialism; while now it is the socialists themselves.

Contrasting India with other underdeveloped countries, Galbraith further remarked that there is a richness in the poverty of Indians. Unfortunately, while there is richness in our poverty, there is poverty in our socialism.

Two great men, whose birth centenary has been celebrated this year all over the world, have expressed strong views against the monolithic state. Bertrand Russell said, in a letter in 1964: “The danger to liberty involved in almost any form of socialism comes from the power of officials. If socialism is to permit freedom, powerful officials must somehow be curbed, for, if not, they will inherit all the powers of capitalists.”

And Sri Aurobindo said: “We are now tending towards such an increase of organized state power as will either eliminate free independent effort altogether or leave it dwarfed and cowed into helplessness.”

The elimination of poverty as a social problem is a formidable objective, but it is not an insurmountable one. We have abundant natural resources and all the man-power we need. Perhaps there is no other nation that has, in such ample measure, all the enterprise and skills needed to create national wealth, and which takes such deliberate and endless pains to restrict and hamper its creation.

Social justice is different from mere equality. Social justice demands that there should be adequate differentials for ability and other laudable qualities. Elimination of such differentials is the very negation of social justice – it is unfair to those who are denied the fruits of their industry, integrity and intellect; and it is equally unfair to the tens of millions whose hope will die within their hungry hutments since, in a democracy, there can be no economic growth without such reasonable differentials.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

We live in a world of slogans, where socialism has taken the place of the mantras and the shastras, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Mean. But, just as a coin gets defaced, and its engraving gets erased after it has been in circulation for a long time, words like ‘socialism’ get denuded of their true content after they have been in constant circulation. Socialism means different things to different people, and to some people it means no more and no less than cabinet rank.

There is the type of socialism that has built up the lucky countries of Europe and the Third World. And there is also the other type of socialism, which has brought down the less lucky countries like Indonesia under Sukarno and Ghana under Nkrumah.

The Preamble to our Constitution does not use the empty label ‘Socialist’ at all, but uses the meaningful words, “Justice – social, economic and political” and “Equality of status and of opportunity”.

The wrong brand of socialism is extremely popular; in fact, it is the fastest-selling brand of socialism today in India. The reason for its popularity is that it is so much easier in practice. This cheap and easy style of socialism mistakes Amiri hatao (liquidation of wealth) for Garibi hatao (removal of poverty); it aims at levelling down and not levelling up; it is content to satisfy the pangs of envy when it cannot satisfy the pangs of hunger; and, since it cannot create income or wealth, it plans for poverty and equal distribution of misery.

True socialism provides four significant measures of a country’s development – an increase in the Gross National Product, availability of work, fair distribution of income and the quality of life. You must have all four if you want economic growth with social justice. There would be no availability of work, no income to distribute, and the quality of life cannot be made less shoddy, unless and until we have a fast and sustained rise in the Gross National Product. Without it, there can be no increase in gross national happiness.

If we followed the school of Old Economics, we would be content with mere increases in the Gross National Product. If we adopted the New Economics, we would insist on growth with social equality. But we have chosen “non-economics”, where ideology reigns supreme, scarcities multiply and savings evaporate in inflation.

The vital point, which is normally missed in political histrionics is that, while it is possible, in a poor country like India, to have economic growth without social justice, it is impossible to have social justice without economic growth. ‘Economic Growth for Social Justice’ would be a more rewarding slogan than Garibi hatao.

The concept of socialism gets distorted when one stubbornly adheres to state ownership as the only means of achieving the goal. You may adopt state ownership in areas where such ownership affords the only sure and safe launching pad; or you may tap the boundless reserves of the people’s response and initiative, energy and endeavour, prosaically called ‘the private sector’. The vital point to remember is that the public sector does not necessarily spell public good, and the private sector does not merely spell private gain.

Our scarce financial resources should not be wasted on ideological preferences, which envisage a dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. The government and the people should think of only one sector – the national sector. The line of demarcation should be between honest and efficient business on the one hand and dishonest and inefficient business on the other. Every effort must be made to encourage and expand the first and to condemn and constrict the second, irrespective of the question of whether the enterprise is in the public, private, or joint sector. If the same standards of economy, efficiency and managerial competence; and the same criterion of dedicated public service are applied to the public sector as well as to the private sector, we shall achieve the greatest economic transformation of our time.

State ownership is to social justice what ritual is to religion and dogma to truth. State ownership and state control are the shells of socialism, which were really intended to protect and promote the growth of the kernel; but rigid shells merely stunt its growth.

The fanatical devotion to nationalization as an end in itself, and the confluence of all controls in the hands of the government, made Galbraith observe that, in the old days, the principal enemies of public enterprises were those who disapproved of socialism; while now it is the socialists themselves.

Contrasting India with other underdeveloped countries, Galbraith further remarked that there is a richness in the poverty of Indians. Unfortunately, while there is richness in our poverty, there is poverty in our socialism.

Two great men, whose birth centenary has been celebrated this year all over the world, have expressed strong views against the monolithic state. Bertrand Russell said, in a letter in 1964: “The danger to liberty involved in almost any form of socialism comes from the power of officials. If socialism is to permit freedom, powerful officials must somehow be curbed, for, if not, they will inherit all the powers of capitalists.”

And Sri Aurobindo said: “We are now tending towards such an increase of organized state power as will either eliminate free independent effort altogether or leave it dwarfed and cowed into helplessness.”

The elimination of poverty as a social problem is a formidable objective, but it is not an insurmountable one. We have abundant natural resources and all the man-power we need. Perhaps there is no other nation that has, in such ample measure, all the enterprise and skills needed to create national wealth, and which takes such deliberate and endless pains to restrict and hamper its creation.

Social justice is different from mere equality. Social justice demands that there should be adequate differentials for ability and other laudable qualities. Elimination of such differentials is the very negation of social justice – it is unfair to those who are denied the fruits of their industry, integrity and intellect; and it is equally unfair to the tens of millions whose hope will die within their hungry hutments since, in a democracy, there can be no economic growth without such reasonable differentials.

Direction: These questions are based on the information given below:

We live in a world of slogans, where socialism has taken the place of the mantras and the shastras, the Ten Commandments and the Golden Mean. But, just as a coin gets defaced, and its engraving gets erased after it has been in circulation for a long time, words like ‘socialism’ get denuded of their true content after they have been in constant circulation. Socialism means different things to different people, and to some people it means no more and no less than cabinet rank.

There is the type of socialism that has built up the lucky countries of Europe and the Third World. And there is also the other type of socialism, which has brought down the less lucky countries like Indonesia under Sukarno and Ghana under Nkrumah.

The Preamble to our Constitution does not use the empty label ‘Socialist’ at all, but uses the meaningful words, “Justice – social, economic and political” and “Equality of status and of opportunity”.

The wrong brand of socialism is extremely popular; in fact, it is the fastest-selling brand of socialism today in India. The reason for its popularity is that it is so much easier in practice. This cheap and easy style of socialism mistakes Amiri hatao (liquidation of wealth) for Garibi hatao (removal of poverty); it aims at levelling down and not levelling up; it is content to satisfy the pangs of envy when it cannot satisfy the pangs of hunger; and, since it cannot create income or wealth, it plans for poverty and equal distribution of misery.

True socialism provides four significant measures of a country’s development – an increase in the Gross National Product, availability of work, fair distribution of income and the quality of life. You must have all four if you want economic growth with social justice. There would be no availability of work, no income to distribute, and the quality of life cannot be made less shoddy, unless and until we have a fast and sustained rise in the Gross National Product. Without it, there can be no increase in gross national happiness.

If we followed the school of Old Economics, we would be content with mere increases in the Gross National Product. If we adopted the New Economics, we would insist on growth with social equality. But we have chosen “non-economics”, where ideology reigns supreme, scarcities multiply and savings evaporate in inflation.

The vital point, which is normally missed in political histrionics is that, while it is possible, in a poor country like India, to have economic growth without social justice, it is impossible to have social justice without economic growth. ‘Economic Growth for Social Justice’ would be a more rewarding slogan than Garibi hatao.

The concept of socialism gets distorted when one stubbornly adheres to state ownership as the only means of achieving the goal. You may adopt state ownership in areas where such ownership affords the only sure and safe launching pad; or you may tap the boundless reserves of the people’s response and initiative, energy and endeavour, prosaically called ‘the private sector’. The vital point to remember is that the public sector does not necessarily spell public good, and the private sector does not merely spell private gain.

Our scarce financial resources should not be wasted on ideological preferences, which envisage a dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. The government and the people should think of only one sector – the national sector. The line of demarcation should be between honest and efficient business on the one hand and dishonest and inefficient business on the other. Every effort must be made to encourage and expand the first and to condemn and constrict the second, irrespective of the question of whether the enterprise is in the public, private, or joint sector. If the same standards of economy, efficiency and managerial competence; and the same criterion of dedicated public service are applied to the public sector as well as to the private sector, we shall achieve the greatest economic transformation of our time.

State ownership is to social justice what ritual is to religion and dogma to truth. State ownership and state control are the shells of socialism, which were really intended to protect and promote the growth of the kernel; but rigid shells merely stunt its growth.

The fanatical devotion to nationalization as an end in itself, and the confluence of all controls in the hands of the government, made Galbraith observe that, in the old days, the principal enemies of public enterprises were those who disapproved of socialism; while now it is the socialists themselves.

Contrasting India with other underdeveloped countries, Galbraith further remarked that there is a richness in the poverty of Indians. Unfortunately, while there is richness in our poverty, there is poverty in our socialism.

Two great men, whose birth centenary has been celebrated this year all over the world, have expressed strong views against the monolithic state. Bertrand Russell said, in a letter in 1964: “The danger to liberty involved in almost any form of socialism comes from the power of officials. If socialism is to permit freedom, powerful officials must somehow be curbed, for, if not, they will inherit all the powers of capitalists.”

And Sri Aurobindo said: “We are now tending towards such an increase of organized state power as will either eliminate free independent effort altogether or leave it dwarfed and cowed into helplessness.”

The elimination of poverty as a social problem is a formidable objective, but it is not an insurmountable one. We have abundant natural resources and all the man-power we need. Perhaps there is no other nation that has, in such ample measure, all the enterprise and skills needed to create national wealth, and which takes such deliberate and endless pains to restrict and hamper its creation.

Social justice is different from mere equality. Social justice demands that there should be adequate differentials for ability and other laudable qualities. Elimination of such differentials is the very negation of social justice – it is unfair to those who are denied the fruits of their industry, integrity and intellect; and it is equally unfair to the tens of millions whose hope will die within their hungry hutments since, in a democracy, there can be no economic growth without such reasonable differentials.