Streamlining the UPSC CSE Mains: A Case for Simplification

 The UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) is one of the most rigorous competitive exams in the world, designed to select India’s top civil servants. While its comprehensive nature ensures a thorough evaluation, the Mains stage, with nine papers spread over five days, is often criticized for being overly exhaustive. The current structure—spanning English and Hindi language papers, an essay paper, four General Studies (GS) papers, and two optional subject papers—places immense physical and mental strain on aspirants. For working professionals, the scheduling on Fridays adds further challenges. This article argues for a streamlined UPSC Mains process, questioning the necessity of certain papers and proposing practical solutions to reduce the load on aspirants without compromising the exam’s integrity.

The Current UPSC Mains Structure: A Grueling Marathon

The UPSC Mains consists of nine papers conducted over five days, typically structured as follows:

• Friday: Qualifying language papers (English and Hindi, 3 hours each, 9 AM–12 PM and 2:30 PM–5:30 PM).
• Saturday: Essay paper (3 hours, 9 AM–12 PM).
• Sunday: No exams.
• Next Friday: GS Paper 1 (morning) and GS Paper 2 (afternoon, 3 hours each).
• Saturday: GS Paper 3 (morning) and GS Paper 4 (afternoon, 3 hours each).
• Sunday: Optional Subject Paper 1 (morning) and Optional Subject Paper 2 (afternoon, 3 hours each).

Each paper demands intense preparation, with aspirants juggling vast syllabi across history, geography, polity, ethics, and their chosen optional subject. The process tests not just knowledge but also stamina, time management, and mental resilience. For working professionals, taking leave for two consecutive Fridays is often impractical, adding to the strain. This raises a critical question: does this exhaustive structure truly measure the qualities needed to be an effective civil servant?

The Problem: Does More Mean Better?

The Mains process is designed to assess a candidate’s depth of knowledge, analytical skills, and ability to articulate ideas. However, the sheer volume of papers and their scheduling raises concerns:

1. Redundancy in Evaluation: The optional papers (worth 500 marks) test specialized knowledge in subjects like anthropology, sociology, or engineering. While these allow candidates to showcase expertise, their relevance to administrative roles is questionable. Civil servants need broad, practical knowledge rather than niche academic proficiency. Similarly, the essay paper (250 marks) evaluates writing skills, but these are already tested in GS papers, which require descriptive answers.
2. Physical and Mental Toll: Nine papers over five days, each lasting three hours, is a test of endurance as much as intellect. This format disadvantages candidates who may excel in knowledge but struggle with fatigue or time constraints.
3. Scheduling Challenges: Conducting exams on Fridays assumes aspirants have flexible schedules. For working professionals, this means taking leave or managing work alongside preparation, which is often infeasible.
4. Questionable Correlation with Job Performance: The ability to write multiple 3-hour papers may not directly correlate with the skills needed for civil service, such as decision-making, leadership, or practical problem-solving. The process prioritizes academic rigor over real-world applicability.

A Case for Simplification

To make the UPSC Mains more efficient and equitable, the following reforms could reduce the load on aspirants while maintaining the exam’s rigor:

1. Merge Language Papers: The English and Hindi papers are qualifying in nature (requiring a minimum 25% to pass) and do not contribute to the final score. These could be combined into a single 3-hour paper testing proficiency in both languages, saving an entire day. Alternatively, language proficiency could be assessed during the Preliminary stage, freeing up the Mains schedule.
2. Reevaluate the Essay Paper: The essay paper tests clarity of thought and expression, but these skills are already evaluated in the GS papers, which require structured, analytical answers. The essay paper could be integrated into GS Paper 4 (Ethics), where candidates already write descriptive answers on case studies and ethical dilemmas. This would reduce the number of papers without compromising the evaluation of writing skills.
3. Rethink Optional Papers: Optional papers allow candidates to leverage their academic strengths, but their relevance to administrative roles is debatable. One solution is to replace the two optional papers (500 marks) with a single interdisciplinary paper (250 marks) testing applied knowledge relevant to governance, such as public administration, policy analysis, or current affairs. This would reduce the syllabus burden and align the exam more closely with the demands of civil service.
4. Condense the Schedule: The current five-day schedule, spread over two weeks with a gap in between, is inefficient. By merging language papers and eliminating or integrating the essay paper, the Mains could be conducted over three consecutive days (e.g., Saturday to Monday), with two papers per day:
   • Day 1: Combined Language Paper (morning), GS Paper 1 (afternoon).
   • Day 2: GS Paper 2 (morning), GS Paper 3 (afternoon).
   • Day 3: GS Paper 4 (morning), Applied Governance Paper (afternoon, replacing optional papers).
   This schedule avoids Fridays, making it more accessible for working professionals, and reduces the overall duration of the exam.
5. Leverage Technology for Flexibility: For candidates unable to attend in-person exams due to work or other commitments, UPSC could explore computer-based testing with secure proctoring. This would allow greater flexibility in scheduling, enabling aspirants to take exams at designated centers over a wider time window.

Benefits of a Streamlined Process

These changes would offer several advantages:

• Reduced Strain: Fewer papers and a shorter schedule would alleviate physical and mental exhaustion, allowing candidates to perform at their best.
• Fairness for Working Professionals: A weekend-based schedule and fewer exam days would make the process more inclusive for those balancing jobs and preparation.
• Focus on Relevant Skills: Replacing optional papers with an applied governance paper would better assess the practical knowledge and decision-making skills needed for civil service.
• Maintained Rigor: Consolidating papers and integrating assessments (e.g., essay into GS4) ensures the exam remains comprehensive without unnecessary redundancy.

Addressing Counterarguments

Critics may argue that reducing the number of papers could compromise the exam’s ability to test a candidate’s depth and versatility. However, the proposed changes maintain a robust evaluation framework by focusing on core competencies—general knowledge, analytical skills, and governance aptitude—while eliminating redundant or less relevant components. Others might claim that optional papers allow candidates to showcase their strengths, but a single applied governance paper could achieve the same by allowing candidates to draw on their diverse educational backgrounds in a context relevant to civil service.

Conclusion

The UPSC CSE Mains is a formidable challenge, but its current structure is unnecessarily grueling and not fully aligned with the demands of modern civil service. By merging language papers, integrating the essay component into GS4, replacing optional papers with an applied governance paper, and condensing the schedule to three consecutive days, the UPSC can create a more efficient, equitable, and relevant examination process. These reforms would reduce the burden on aspirants, particularly working professionals, while ensuring that the selected candidates possess the skills needed to serve the nation effectively. It’s time for the UPSC to evolve, making the path to civil service rigorous but not overwhelming.

Why India Should Adopt Baseless (Chained) Indices for Better Economic Measurement

 

---

Why India Should Adopt Baseless (Chained) Indexes for Better Economic Measurement

India’s economy is complex, fast-evolving, and increasingly digitized. Yet, many of its core economic indicators — like GDP and inflation — are still calculated using fixed-base indexes. While these served well in the past, chained (baseless) indexes are now the global standard for measuring real economic growth and inflation with greater accuracy. The shift to chained indexes is not just a technical upgrade — it is a policy necessity.

---

What Are Chained (Baseless) Indexes?

Chained indexes use changing weights from one period to the next, capturing dynamic changes in the economy (like consumption patterns or sectoral growth). This contrasts with fixed-base indexes, which use a single base year, assuming the economy remains structurally static.

Why Chained Indexes Matter

What Do Advanced Economies Use?

These nations use chained indexes as default for their national accounts and inflation figures, improving policy targeting and economic forecasting.

---

How India Can Implement Chained Indexes

1. GDP — Chained Volume Measures

Methodology:

• Use annual or quarterly weighting instead of a fixed base year.
• Calculate real GDP as a chain index using:
• Laspeyres-type or Fisher-type formulas.
• Inter-year linking (e.g., 2022 based on 2021, 2023 based on 2022, etc.)
• Use SNA 2008 guidelines already recommended by the UN.

Implementation Steps:

• CSO/National Statistical Office (NSO) must:
• Develop a consistent time series of annual weights.
• Ensure sectoral disaggregation is compatible with chaining.
• Revise the National Accounts Manual to support chaining.

2. Inflation — Chained CPI

Methodology:

• Update consumer expenditure weights more frequently (yearly or biennially).
• Use Chained Laspeyres or Fisher indexes.
• Introduce real-time price substitution modeling (e.g., if oil rises, gas stove usage rises).

Implementation Steps:

• Conduct annual or rolling household consumption surveys.
• Update weights based on actual shifts in urban and rural consumption.
• Train inflation analysts in dynamic index modeling.

---

Benefits for India

✅ More Accurate Measurement

• Reflects actual economic structure, especially in services, digital and informal sectors.

✅ Better Policy Design

• RBI and Finance Ministry can target inflation and growth based on real behavior, not outdated assumptions.

✅ Credibility in Global Rankings

• Aligns India with IMF and OECD standards.
• Improves global investor confidence and data reliability.

✅ Handles Economic Shocks Better

• Captures shifts like demonetization, COVID-19, and tech adoption far more accurately.

---

Conclusion

Adopting chained indexes is a technical reform with massive strategic value. As India eyes a $5 trillion economy, our measurement tools must match our ambitions. The move to chained GDP and CPI indexes will ensure that our data reflects our true economic reality, guiding smarter policy and better governance.

The Fine Line Between Misinformation and Disinformation in India: A Deliberate Game of Deception

 According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024, India ranks as the country most at risk of misinformation, a crisis that threatens social cohesion, political stability, and trust in institutions. However, a closer examination reveals that much of what is labeled as misinformation in India is, in fact, disinformation—deliberately spread falsehoods where the propagators are fully aware of their falsity but choose to disseminate them for strategic gain. This distinction, rooted in intent, is critical to understanding the dynamics of India’s information ecosystem, where political propaganda often masquerades as innocent error.

Misinformation vs. Disinformation: The Intent Divide

Misinformation refers to false or misleading information shared without the intent to deceive—think of an individual unknowingly sharing a fabricated news story or a misleading health remedy. Disinformation, on the other hand, is the deliberate spread of falsehoods, where the sharer knows the information is false but propagates it to achieve a specific agenda, often political or ideological. In India’s hyper-polarized digital landscape, the line between these two is frequently blurred, with disinformation often cloaked in the guise of misinformation to evade accountability.

The WEF report highlights India’s vulnerability due to its massive digital population—over 800 million internet users—and widespread access to smartphones and social media platforms like WhatsApp, X, and Instagram. These platforms amplify information at unprecedented speeds, but they also provide fertile ground for bad actors to exploit. What sets India apart is not just the scale of false information but the orchestrated nature of its spread, often driven by political motives.

The Disinformation Playbook: Pretending Innocence

In India, disinformation is frequently dressed up as misinformation, with propagators feigning ignorance to dodge responsibility. Political operatives, influencers, and even ordinary citizens knowingly share fabricated narratives, doctored images, or out-of-context videos, all while maintaining a veneer of sincerity. This tactic—what one right-wing X user euphemistically called “positive auxiliary assistance”—is designed to manipulate public opinion while shielding the perpetrator from accusations of malice.

Take, for instance, the recurring phenomenon of viral WhatsApp forwards during election seasons. Messages claiming exaggerated economic achievements, demonizing opposition leaders, or stoking communal tensions often circulate with no verifiable source. These are not innocent mistakes; they are crafted to inflame sentiments and polarize voters. The sharers—whether party-affiliated IT cells or motivated individuals—know the information is dubious but bank on plausible deniability, claiming they “didn’t know” or were simply “sharing what they received.”

A notable example is the 2019 Indian general election, where doctored videos and false narratives about opposition leaders’ statements spread like wildfire. Fact-checking organizations like Alt News repeatedly exposed these as deliberate fabrications, yet the perpetrators rarely faced consequences, often hiding behind the excuse of being “unaware” of the falsehood. Similarly, during the 2020 Delhi riots, disinformation campaigns amplified communal tensions, with false claims about violence or migrant movements shared by accounts that later claimed ignorance when confronted.

The Motive: Political Propaganda Over Truth

The driving force behind India’s disinformation epidemic is political propaganda. In a country with deep ideological divides and a history of communal sensitivities, false narratives are weaponized to sway elections, vilify opponents, or consolidate power. Deep down, many propagators know their claims are baseless but are indifferent to the truth, prioritizing political loyalty over ethics. This is evident in the coordinated campaigns run by political IT cells, which churn out tailored disinformation to target specific demographics—rural voters, urban youth, or religious communities.

The X user’s term “positive auxiliary assistance” captures this mindset perfectly: disinformation is framed as a noble act, a means to bolster a cause or “protect” a narrative. This euphemism reflects a broader cultural acceptance among some groups that bending the truth is justified if it serves a higher ideological purpose. Such rationalizations are particularly prevalent in India’s polarized online spaces, where right-wing, left-wing, and regional factions all engage in selective storytelling to advance their agendas.

The Role of Social Media and Technology

India’s disinformation problem is exacerbated by the architecture of social media. WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption makes it a black box for tracking the origins of false messages, while X’s algorithmic amplification rewards sensationalism over accuracy. Bots and fake accounts further muddy the waters, creating the illusion of grassroots support for fabricated narratives. According to a 2023 study by the University of Oxford, India is among the top countries for coordinated inauthentic behavior on social media, with political actors leveraging troll armies to spread disinformation.

Deepfakes and AI-generated content are emerging threats, adding sophistication to disinformation campaigns. In 2024, a deepfake video of a prominent Indian politician making inflammatory remarks went viral, only to be debunked after significant damage. The creators, linked to a political fringe group, claimed it was a “prank,” but the intent to mislead was clear.

The Consequences and the Way Forward

The consequences of this disinformation epidemic are profound. It erodes trust in institutions, fuels communal violence, and undermines democratic processes. The 2024 WEF report warns that unchecked disinformation could destabilize India’s social fabric, especially in a year with national and state elections looming.

Addressing this crisis requires a multi-pronged approach. First, stricter regulation of social media platforms is needed, with mandates for transparency in content moderation and swift removal of verified disinformation. Second, public awareness campaigns must educate citizens on spotting false narratives and verifying sources. Fact-checking organizations like Boom and Alt News play a crucial role but need greater support to scale their efforts. Finally, legal accountability for deliberate disinformation—without stifling free speech—is essential to deter bad actors.

Conclusion

India’s status as the world’s most at-risk nation for misinformation is not just a product of scale but of intent. Much of the false information circulating is not innocent misinformation but deliberate disinformation, propagated by those who know the truth but choose to weaponize lies for political gain. By pretending to act in good faith, these actors evade accountability, framing their actions as “positive auxiliary assistance” rather than the corrosive propaganda they are. Unmasking this deception is the first step toward reclaiming India’s information ecosystem and safeguarding its democratic future