Chanakya IAS Academy Blog

IAS Blog | Civil Services Preparation | Chanakya IAS Academy Blog
18 June 2016 K2_CATEGORY IAS Blog

Chanakya

Note:

  • 1. This answer has been written for the purposes of explanation; Hence, it may not adhere to word limit. For examination purposes, phrases instead of full sentences could be used.
  • 2. There can be many approaches to answering a question in ethics and this may not be the only correct approach. The Readers are welcome to approach the question in other ways which are principally correct

 

ANSWER: The case involves the situation of a cloudburst with people having different extent of vulnerabilities trapped in the area. My role as a civil services officer is to prioritise the rescue operations and use the resources at my disposal in an efficient and effective manner.

    For this, I would use the following principles to determine the order in which I would rescue these people-
    1. The people trapped in the area have different levels of vulnerability and hence, different levels of priority. The more vulnerable need to be rescued first and the least vulnerable later.
    2. As an officer of the civil services, I need to ensure that rescuing the persons in the state machinery is given primacy. This is necessary in view of the contribution they are likely to make to the rescue and relief efforts once rescued themselves. Also, it is necessary to maintain the public perception that the administration is capable and trustworthy.
    Hence, order of priority in rescuing the people is as follows:
    1. The people from the state machinery i.e. the ruling party’s President and his family and the additional chief secretary of the neighbouring state need to be rescued. This is in view of the effective role that these functionaries will play in the disaster management efforts. Also, these people will have well defined locations which would make rescuing them easier too.
    2. A high level of priority must be accorded to persons who are unable to help themselves due to various reasons. Hence, the patients in hospitals and prisoners in jail who are incapable to helping themselves in any way must be rescued primarily.
    3. Further, the rescue of senior citizens, women and children must be given importance. They are quite vulnerable and their capacity to resist the harsh conditions is limited.
    4. Finally, the hikers and tourists need to be rescued. They had relatively lesser levels of vulnerability. Also, hikers would have the necessary equipment and means to survive in harsh conditions.
18 June 2016 K2_CATEGORY IAS Blog

In a historic decision, Juvenile Justice Board said that the juvenile in the Mercedes hit-and-run case in Delhi on April 4, 2016 will be tried as an adult and has transferred a case of a minor in conflict with law to a regular court. The decision capacitates Delhi police to forward the case to a regular court.

A business consultant in his thirties had lost his life in the accident on April 4, 2016. Mr.Srivatsava said that earlier also the juvenile was involved in four traffic violations for which he was challenged and later pleaded guilty before the court. When asked why the police did not check his age at that time, the prosecutor replied that the juvenile might have bluffed police as well as the court.

The juvenile has been charged under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 201 (destruction of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code. He is on bail.

On April 5, 2016, a day after the incident, the offender had been apprehended by the Delhi Police. However, he was set free on bail as at that time he was booked under the softer Section 304A of the IPC.

The victim’s father alleged that investigating agency was soft on him. After a public outrage over the minor walking free, police converted the case into culpable homicide not amounting to murder (304) and arrested him again. Such kinds of decisions are the need of the hour and a clear indication that travesty of law will no longer be tolerated. Juvenile Justice Board verdict is, in fact, a message that law cannot be bent in anybody’s favor and comes as a great relief to the grieving family.

18 June 2016 K2_CATEGORY IAS Blog

Introduction The article discuss talks about the India’s refusal to Google’s Street View service and experiences of other countries.

  • There is little that is surprising about India’s recent refusal to allow Google to launch its Street View service, which gives users a 360-degree view of public spaces.
  • The proposal was rejected following objections raised by the Defence Ministry.
  • The decision is said to have come in the backdrop of the terror attack on the Pathankot airbase in January, with investigators suspecting that terrorists used Google Maps to study the topography of the targeted area.
  • Street View goes a step further than the maps. It displays panoramic views of public spaces, thanks to images captured by Google’s moving vehicles, adding a layer of depth and reality to the maps.
  • India has hinted that its refusal is not final and that such issues could be resolved once the Geospatial Bill, which seeks to regulate map-creation and sharing, comes into force.

Objections by other countries:

  • India isn’t the first country to seem troubled by Street View. Since its launch in 2007 in the U.S., the service has faced roadblocks in many countries.
  • In the U.S., for instance, both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense had concerns over Google capturing images of sensitive locations.
  • In Europe, especially Germany, concerns over loss of privacy took centre stage.
  • The script wasn’t different in Japan.

Solutions found:

  • The service figured out a way to blur people’s faces and licence plates automatically before the pictures were made public.
  • In the U.S., Google was asked to remove sensitive information, and its image-capturing cars were ordered to keep off military bases.
  • In Germany, households were given the option of blurring their buildings.
  • In Japan, the height from which the cameras scanned the neighbourhoods was lowered and local governments were notified prior to Google’s photography.
  • Even Israel, which takes internal security very seriously, gave the green signal to Street View five years ago, reportedly making sure Google doesn’t show images in real-time and only photographs public spaces open to all.

Its benefits:

  • While there is an obvious tourism angle involved, Google representatives have spoken of Street View’s usefulness in disaster management.
  • All things considered, it might not be in India’s best interests to keep out this technology for long.

    Question:Technology is not only used for common good but it is also used by non state actors as was the case in recent terrorist attack on Pathankot Airbase. Where the location viewing technology is alleged to have been used. But that does not mean we don’t use it all altogether as is the case with Google’s Street view service in India. Examine.

    Suggested Approach:

    1. Security issues with Google’s Street View technology.
    2. Its benefits.
    3. How other countries have tackled such issues.
    4. Your view point whether we should use it or not.

    Link: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-on-indias-refusal-to-allow-google-to-launch-street-view/article8737705.ece

    English: Download

    Hindi: Download