Question Description
Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? for Banking Exams 2024 is part of Banking Exams preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Banking Exams exam syllabus. Information about Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for Banking Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Banking Exams. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Banking Exams Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions : Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.The former Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Chairman Pradip Baijal’s interesting account of his years in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) raises, among other things, several crucial issues in public administration. Of course his book, The Complete Story of Indian Reforms: 2G, Power & Private Enterprise — A Practitioner’s Diary, is better known in the media for some of its “startling revelations” about the 2G scam. In the book, he gives eloquent expression tohis pent-up anguish over his maltreatment,especially the alleged unleashing of enforcement agencies against him by those who were annoyed with him for his stubborn stand on a variety of issues. I must say that he sounds credible if one goes by what has been widely reported across the media and on the debate on the state of governance in the last decade. This takes me on a brief journey into the country’s administrative history.Notwithstanding tribulations and moments ofdespairand disappointment, an average Indian civil servant, in the first few years after Independence, enjoyed working in a professional ambience that would become the envy of those who followed him. For about three decades — till 1975 to be precise — things were quite hunky dory. Barring a few aberrations, an honest government official could hold his head high and stick to his principles while discharging his duties, even if it meant being argumentative and difficult in the eyes of his political superiors. The Emergency (1975-77) changed all that. From about this point of time, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyedwieldingtheir enormous authority in day-to-day administration. The earlier equilibrium in the polity gradually yielded place to strife and confrontation, and a fear psychosis started developing even among top civil servants. The healthy relationship that had existed earlier between minister and civil servant became a thing of the past. In many States honest dissent even at the highest levels such as the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police wasresented, and unquestioned obeisance alone rewarded. There has been no visible change since then in respect of ministerial authoritarianism and hubris. I do not buy the argument that this power shift is inevitable in a dynamic democracy like ours. The sharp and honest public servant should be allowed to have his say although he can be overruled by the political executive in asdecorousmanner as possible, instead of being targeted for imaginary charges with the aid andabetmentof enforcement agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or State Vigilance Bureaus. The perception now is that the back of the bureaucracy has been broken and its political neutrality totally wiped out. It is heartening that a small process of recovery has begun at the Centre, but it may take a long time before its impact becomes measurable. It is against this backdrop that the memoirs of a few senior civil servants, published in the recent past, including the recent one by Mr. Baijal will have to be viewed. Not all the writing may seem distinguished or profound. In fact, Mr. Baijal’s book is disjointed and gives the impression of having been “assembled from different sources” — all his own — in a hurry. Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.One principal charge levelled against all such writers, post-retirement, is that they speak too late. This is unfair and uninformed criticism. If ever you have worked in government, you would understand how scary it is to take on a Minister, especially a person who is a political heavyweight and one on whom the very survival of a government depends. The fear of reprisal lasts much longer even after one has hung up one’s boots, given the mystic power of rehabilitation that many politicians seem to possess. To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous. In public discourse, it is the larger picture painted by them that should count. Mr. Baijal has had more than his share of highs and lows in a long innings, first as a Secretary to the Government of India, and later at TRAI. He no doubt had a few good bosses from the political firmament who valued propriety and decorum. A bright spark like Mr. Arun Shourie believed in his ability and motivated him to be innovative and daring. As against this, there was an equal number who did not swear by principles and who did not fancy the likes of Mr. Baijal.Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?A) Some allowance may also have to be given for bias and factual inaccuracy that inevitably creeps into such accounts.B) From 1977 onwards, civil servants were perforce required to kow tow to people who belonged to a strikingly different genre and who enjoyed wielding their enormous authority in day-to-day administration.C) To criticise a senior official for taking his own time to recapitulate all that he experienced while in service is preposterous.a)Only A and Bb)Only B and Cc)Only C and Ad)All A, B and Ce)None of theseCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice Banking Exams tests.