Sceptical India

Thursday, July 10, 2025

Can India Fund a Universal Basic Income by Taxing AI and Data Monopolies?

By 2030, AI may replace more jobs in India than it creates. But what if India could turn this disruption into a dividend for its people? The idea of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) — giving every citizen a fixed income — once sounded utopian. Now, with the explosive growth of AI and data capitalism, it’s not just feasible; it might be essential.

📉 The AI Disruption Is Already Here

AI is no longer science fiction. In India alone:

AI-based automation is replacing customer service agents, junior analysts, and even coders.
Predictive AI tools are cutting human decision-making in banking, agriculture, and governance.
Platforms trained on Indian data are generating billions in revenue — mostly for companies based abroad.

While AI boosts productivity, it decimates routine jobs, especially in India’s vast services sector. White-collar unemployment may soon rival blue-collar displacement from the earlier wave of automation.

🤖 AI and Data Are the New Oil — But Who Owns the Well?

India’s 1.4 billion people generate more training data for AI models than nearly any other country. From regional languages and accents to online behavior and cultural content, Indian data powers the very AI models that threaten to replace Indian workers.

Yet, Indian citizens see none of that wealth. It’s extracted, refined, and monetized by a handful of Big Tech firms, largely headquartered elsewhere.

💡 A Radical Proposal: Use AI and Data Wealth to Fund UBI

Imagine if India taxed AI productivity gains and data monetization, then redistributed that wealth back to the people in the form of a Universal Basic Income.

Not charity — dividends for those whose data and labor built the system.

Here’s how it could work:

🔹 1. Tax AI-Driven Productivity Gains

As AI boosts profits in IT, banking, pharma, and logistics, India could introduce:

Windfall taxes on AI-fueled superprofits.
A “robot tax”: Firms that replace humans with AI would pay the equivalent payroll tax.
AI automation surcharge in industries seeing large-scale labor replacement.

If 1 million jobs are replaced, but firm profits grow by ₹10,000 crore, even a 10% tax brings ₹1,000 crore annually.

🔹 2. Monetize India’s Data Sovereignty

India is the world’s largest untapped AI data market. The government could:

Introduce a Data Royalty Framework: Companies training models on Indian datasets must pay per capita license or access fees.
Implement Data Sovereignty Laws: Like Europe’s GDPR, ensuring consent and value-sharing.
Use Digital Public Infrastructure (Aadhaar, UPI, ONDC) as a negotiation tool — giving private players access only if they contribute back.

With smart enforcement, even a ₹50/year per user data royalty could generate ₹7,000+ crore annually.

🔹 3. Use AI to Eliminate Welfare Leakages

India spends billions on PDS, pensions, and subsidies. AI can help:

Eliminate ghost beneficiaries.
Identify overlapping schemes.
Target funds efficiently through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).

If even 10% leakage is plugged, savings could fund a starter UBI for the poorest 30%.

🔹 4. Begin with a Modest, Tiered UBI

Start small:

₹1,000/month for adults below the poverty line (BPL).
Phase-wise expansion to universal coverage over 5–7 years.
Merge existing cash schemes into one efficient UBI pipeline.

Cost estimate: ₹1,000 × 900M people/year = ₹10.8 lakh crore (3.5% of GDP).
Fundable with:

AI/data taxes (1.5% GDP)
Welfare savings (1–1.5%)
Other progressive taxes (carbon, digital fees)

📊 What Would It Achieve?

Protect against AI-induced mass unemployment
Boost consumer demand in rural & urban poor sectors
Reduce extreme poverty without massive bureaucracy
Ensure India benefits from the AI boom, not just enables it

🛑 Challenges

Tracking AI productivity gains is hard.
Tax enforcement on global Big Tech is tougher.
Political resistance from industry and fiscal conservatives.

But the cost of inaction is greater: widening inequality, social unrest, and being a digital colony in the AI age.

✅ The Way Forward

India can lead the Global South in showing how to humanize the AI transition. By taxing AI superprofits and reclaiming control over our data, we can build a tech-powered welfare state — not just for survival, but dignity and inclusion.

“We missed the first industrial revolution. Let’s not miss the AI revolution — or leave our people behind.”

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Is Chanakya a Historical Figure or a Fictional Legend?

Chanakya — celebrated as the brilliant strategist who guided Chandragupta Maurya to power and the supposed author of the Arthashastra — is a towering figure in Indian history and lore. He’s often depicted as the mastermind behind the Mauryan Empire’s rise, a cunning advisor who toppled the Nanda dynasty and shaped one of ancient India’s greatest dynasties. But when you dig into the evidence, something doesn’t add up. The sources that mention him are suspiciously late, the Arthashastra’s origins are murky, and there’s a glaring absence of contemporary records. It all points to a troubling possibility: Chanakya might be more fiction than fact.

Chandragupta Maurya’s Reign

To set the stage, let’s establish when Chandragupta Maurya ruled. Historical records place his reign from 321 BCE to 297 BCE. He founded the Mauryan Empire after overthrowing the Nanda dynasty and expanded it across much of northern India, from the Hindu Kush to the Bay of Bengal. His rule is well-documented, thanks to sources like the Greek ambassador Megasthenes, who visited Chandragupta’s court and wrote about it in his work Indica. Chandragupta’s existence isn’t in doubt — but Chanakya’s is another story.

Sources Mentioning Chanakya: Too Late to Trust?

If Chanakya was so pivotal to Chandragupta’s success, you’d expect solid evidence from his time. Instead, the earliest mentions of him come from texts written centuries later — Buddhist, Jain, and Kashmiri sources that feel more like legend than history.

Buddhist Sources: The Mahavamsa, a Buddhist chronicle from Sri Lanka, talks about Chanakya as the scheming genius behind Chandragupta’s rise. But here’s the catch: it was written in the 5th century CE, over 700 years after Chandragupta’s reign ended. That’s a huge gap — plenty of time for stories to grow and twist into something more myth than reality.
Jain Sources: The Jain text Parishishtaparvan, written by Hemachandra in the 12th century CE, also describes Chanakya’s role. That’s nearly 1,400 years after Chandragupta’s time. It’s hard to take it as historical fact when it’s so far removed from the events it claims to recount.
Kashmiri Sources: Kalhana’s Rajatarangini, a chronicle of Kashmir’s history, mentions Chanakya too. But it dates to the 12th century CE, again over a millennium after Chandragupta. Even though it’s more historically minded than some texts, it’s still relying on much older tales, not firsthand accounts.

These sources — spanning the 5th to 12th centuries CE — are the first to name Chanakya. Why the silence for hundreds of years? For someone supposedly so influential, that just doesn’t sit right.

The Arthashastra: Chanakya’s Work or a Later Creation?

The Arthashastra, a masterpiece of political strategy and governance, is often tied to Chanakya. It’s said to be his blueprint for Chandragupta’s empire. But when you look closer, the connection starts to crumble.

Who Wrote It?: The Arthashastra doesn’t mention Chanakya by name. The link comes from later traditions, not the text itself. That’s a red flag — why would his own work leave him out?
When Was It Written?: The dating is a mess. Some scholars argue it’s from the 4th century BCE, matching Chandragupta’s era. But others say it’s much later — maybe the 2nd century CE, or even as late as the Gupta period (4th–6th centuries CE). The text’s style and content hint at multiple authors tinkering with it over centuries. If it’s not from Chanakya’s time, how could he have written it?

The Arthashastra might be a brilliant work, but pinning it to Chanakya feels like a stretch when the timeline’s so shaky.

Where’s the Evidence From His Time?

Here’s where it really falls apart: there’s no contemporary evidence of Chanakya. None. Chandragupta’s reign overlapped with Alexander the Great’s invasion of India, and Greek writers like Megasthenes left detailed records of the period. Yet Chanakya’s nowhere to be found.

Greek Accounts: Megasthenes’ Indica describes Chandragupta’s court, his army, and Indian society in depth. But there’s no hint of Chanakya — no advisor, no mastermind. For someone supposedly running the show, that’s a glaring omission.
Indian Records: You’d think India’s own sources — inscriptions, coins, or early texts — might mention him. Nothing. Even Ashoka’s edicts, from a few decades later, are silent about Chanakya. Compare that to Chandragupta, who’s well-attested, and it’s hard to ignore the contrast.

It’s not just a gap — it’s a void. For a figure this big, you’d expect something from his era.

What’s Going On Here?

Something’s wrong, right? How could a man this important leave no trace? Let’s consider a couple of possibilities:

Lost Records: Maybe there were contemporary accounts that got lost. Ancient India leaned on oral traditions, and written records from 300 BCE are scarce. It’s possible — but for a figure of Chanakya’s stature, you’d hope for more.
Low Profile: Could he have been a quiet, behind-the-scenes player, not flashy enough for the Greeks or official records? Maybe. But if he was the architect of an empire, that’s a tough sell.

These excuses feel thin. The pattern — late sources, no early mentions, a questionable Arthashastra — points to a different answer.

The Verdict: Likely Fiction

Put it all together, and Chanakya starts looking like a legend dressed up as history. The first stories about him pop up hundreds of years too late, in religious and historical texts that love a good tale. The Arthashastra’s link to him is shaky at best. And the silence from his own time — Indian and Greek alike — is deafening. It doesn’t add up.Maybe Chanakya was invented later — a symbol of cunning and wisdom to inspire rulers and thinkers. Like King Arthur in Europe, he could be a mix of faint history and a lot of imagination, crafted to give the Mauryan story extra shine.That said, we can’t be 100% sure. History from 2,300 years ago is messy, and absence of evidence isn’t proof he didn’t exist. But based on what we’ve got — or haven’t got — it’s hard to see him as real.

Why It Still Matters

Even if Chanakya’s fictional, his legacy isn’t. The Arthashastra, whoever wrote it, is a groundbreaking work that’s shaped political thought for centuries. His story, true or not, captures the imagination and reflects timeless ideas about power and strategy. So maybe it’s less about whether he lived and more about what he represents. Fiction or not, Chanakya’s still a force — just don’t bet on finding him in the history books anytime soon.

Monday, June 16, 2025

Inside the BJP-RSS Digital Machinery: How India’s Most Powerful Political Network Shapes Online Narratives

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), have built one of the most sophisticated political “digital armies” in the world. What began in the mid‑2000s as a handful of social media volunteers has grown into a massive, multi‑layered ecosystem encompassing in‑house teams, marquee ad agencies, boutique specialists and grassroots “shakha” networks — all coordinated to shape narratives, amplify messaging and mobilize voters across India’s 1.4 billion population.

BJP IT Cell: The In‑House Engine
Founded in 2007, the BJP IT Cell was the first Indian party unit to treat social media as a core campaigning arm. By 2014, it had formalized operations under then‑convenor Arvind Gupta and head Amit Malviya, building a manpower pipeline that today claims over 5,000 core workers at state and district levels, supported by some 150,000 social‑media operatives spreading targeted posts across WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook. Wikipedia, Wired .In routine election cycles, these teams deploy data analytics and micro‑targeted messaging — often via proprietary apps like SARAL — to reach up to 100,000 voters per day with campaign updates, policy pitches and get‑out‑the‑vote reminders Source.

While the IT Cell handles grassroots mobilization, the BJP also contracts top industry players for broad‑reach campaigns:

Madison Media: Retained since 2014 for nationwide media planning and buying across print, TV and radio Source1, Source2
McCann Worldgroup–TAG & Scarecrow M&C Saatchi: Awarded creative and digital mandates ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, overseeing everything from influencer tie‑ups to outdoor hoardings Source1, Source2.
SEO Corporation, Ogilvy & Mather, Soho Square: Handled early digital advertising, social‑media blogging and localized outreach in 2014, with senior BJP leaders personally acknowledging their contributions Source1, Source2.

Boutique Specialists & Grassroots Tools
Beyond the big names, the BJP’s digital playbook employs:

Meme‑Marketing Agencies (e.g., Acquaint Consultants): Tasked with crafting viral memes around trending topics — spending on Google ads alone topped ₹5.37 crore in a recent 30‑day window, with Meta ad spends of ₹1.31 crore Source
VivaConnect’s “LiveTalk”: A voice‑broadcast service used in 2014 to stream Narendra Modi’s speeches into “media‑dark” rural households via regular phone calls; it reached over a million callers for the Prime Minister’s oath‑taking ceremony en.wikipedia.org.
Secret “War Rooms”: Data teams like those set up by Sapiens Research to mobilize 12.5 million female voters in 2024 — leveraging call centers, WhatsApp and village‑level self‑help groups to track and engage constituents door‑to‑door wired.com.

RSS Digital Infrastructure & Volunteer Mobilization
Parallel to the BJP’s IT Cell, the RSS is revamping its own digital training and outreach:

Digital “Shakhas”: In late 2023, RSS organised “digital shakha” workshops for 150 influencers, equipping them with IT Cell‑style messaging playbooks to amplify pro‑Modi content across social platforms thetimes.co.uk.
Shakha App: Since 2020, roughly 1.5 lakh volunteers in the Kashi Prant have adopted a nine‑module “Shakha” mobile app — covering everything from daily drills to offline event coordination — to stay connected and “take up organisational activities” online timesofindia.indiatimes.com timesofindia.indiatimes.com.
Volunteer Scale: The RSS reports over 37 lakh regular shakha attendances nationwide, with an additional 7.25 lakh join‑requests via its “Join RSS” portal between 2017–2022 — underscoring the Sangh’s digital embrace to bolster traditional ground‑game methods Source .

By integrating high‑tech campaign analytics, marquee agency firepower and deep volunteer networks — both BJP’s IT Cell and the RSS have effectively rewritten India’s playbook for voter outreach. As digital platforms evolve, these structures are likely to become even more granular, personalized and automated — raising both strategic possibilities and urgent questions about transparency, data privacy and the shaping of democratic discourse.

Sunday, June 8, 2025

India and Pakistan as Proving Grounds for NATO and China’s Weapons: A Worrying Trend

The recent flare-up between India and Pakistan, marked by intense aerial clashes, has raised a chilling concern: are these two South Asian neighbors becoming proxy battlegrounds for global powers like NATO and China to test their advanced weapons and fighter jets without direct confrontation? The reported downing of Indian Air Force (IAF) Dassault Rafale jets — built by France, a NATO member — by Pakistan’s Chinese-made Chengdu J-10C fighters equipped with PL-15 missiles highlights a troubling dynamic. While these reports remain unconfirmed, the implications are clear: global powers may be using regional conflicts to refine their military technology, exacerbating tensions in an already volatile region.

The India-Pakistan Conflict as a Testing Ground

In May 2025, the skies over Kashmir became a battleground for one of the most significant air engagements in decades, with India’s Operation Sindoor targeting alleged militant sites in Pakistan. Pakistan’s Air Force (PAF) claimed to have shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including up to three Rafales, using J-10C jets armed with PL-15E missiles. Though India has not officially confirmed these losses, photographic evidence of Rafale wreckage and statements from Western sources, including U.S. officials and a French intelligence report cited by CNN, lend credence to Pakistan’s claims.

This clash was not just a regional skirmish but a rare real-world test of advanced NATO and Chinese military hardware. The Rafale, a 4.5-generation multirole fighter, is equipped with cutting-edge systems like the SPECTRA electronic warfare suite, designed to counter sophisticated threats. The J-10C, also a 4.5-generation jet, features advanced AESA radar and long-range PL-15 missiles, positioning it as a formidable adversary. The reported success of the J-10C, particularly its alleged ability to jam Rafale systems or outrange its Meteor missiles, has sparked global interest.

NATO and China’s Strategic Interests

For NATO members like France, the Rafale’s performance — or lack thereof — against Chinese technology is a wake-up call. Dassault Aviation, the Rafale’s manufacturer, reportedly plans to make adjustments to the jet following the conflict, though it has not officially confirmed these changes. The company’s stock plummeted nearly 10% in the days after the reported losses, reflecting market sensitivity to the jet’s battlefield performance. France’s refusal to share Rafale source code with India, coupled with its push to audit IAF maintenance and pilot training, suggests an effort to deflect blame while quietly analyzing combat data to improve the platform.

China, meanwhile, has emerged as a major beneficiary. The J-10C’s reported success has boosted the credibility of Chinese defense exports, with Chengdu Aircraft Corporation’s shares rising over 30% post-conflict. Chinese strategists, like former PLA Air Force Colonel Wang Xiangsui, argue that Pakistan’s edge came not just from hardware but from superior data-link integration, a lesson China is likely to apply to its own forces. Pakistan’s standardized fleet of Chinese-built jets and early warning systems allowed seamless coordination, unlike India’s mix of Russian, French, and indigenous platforms. China is almost certainly requesting flight records, system logs, and combat data from Pakistan to refine its jets and missiles, particularly for potential future conflicts in the Indo-Pacific, such as over Taiwan.

Both NATO and China gain valuable insights without firing a shot themselves. For NATO, the clash exposes vulnerabilities in Western systems against Chinese technology, prompting upgrades to counter PL-15 missiles and electronic warfare tactics. For China, it validates its investments in affordable, high-performance platforms, enhancing its appeal as a defense supplier.

The Cost to India and Pakistan

While global powers refine their arsenals, India and Pakistan bear the human and economic costs. The 2025 clashes, sparked by a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir, escalated rapidly, with both sides exchanging artillery, drone strikes, and missile attacks. Pakistan claimed to have downed 25 Indian drones, while India deployed 120 Israeli Harop-2 kamikaze drones against Pakistani air defenses. The conflict disrupted civilian life, postponed national exams in India, and deepened mistrust between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

This dynamic incentivizes further militarization. India, already operating 36 Rafales, is pursuing a $15 billion deal for 114 more jets, with the Rafale as a frontrunner. Pakistan, bolstered by China’s subsidized arms, is reportedly set to receive J-35A stealth fighters, potentially shifting the regional balance. Each escalation draws both nations deeper into the orbit of their respective suppliers, who profit from arms sales while gathering combat data.

Worse, the use of India and Pakistan as testing grounds could increase the frequency and intensity of conflicts. Social media posts on X suggest growing awareness of this trend, with users noting that China is “testing its military hardware” through Pakistan, while NATO observes the results. The prospect of India and Pakistan becoming perennial battlegrounds for proxy weapons testing risks destabilizing South Asia, where miscalculations could lead to catastrophic consequences given both nations’ nuclear capabilities.

A Call for Restraint

The India-Pakistan conflict is more than a regional rivalry; it’s a stage for global powers to pit their technologies against each other. NATO and China’s indirect competition, while strategically convenient, comes at the expense of South Asian stability. To break this cycle, India and Pakistan must prioritize diplomacy over escalation, resisting the pressure to serve as proxies for foreign arms races. International actors, including the U.S. and UN, should mediate to prevent further clashes and curb the flow of advanced weapons into the region.

For now, the skies over Kashmir remain a cautionary tale: a local conflict with global stakes, where the real winners are those analyzing the wreckage from afar. As one X user put it, “India/Pakistan was a test of Chinese air weapons vs Western air weapons,” and the outcome may embolden further tests — unless the world acts to stop it.

Thursday, June 5, 2025

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:

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.
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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.