India's failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. The reading of the passage reveals that

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

Why does the author give a detailed review of all articles of UN Convention against corruption?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

In the opening paragraph of the passage the author says “it suits our politicians to keep it unresolved.” By 'it' he means

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

The author has drawn our attention to a fear expressed by Robert I. Rotberg. As per the passage, what inference do you draw about Rotbert?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

Which of the following is true with regards to the author's approach in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

The author says that government after government has dithered on an important institution. He is referring to

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

The author says that “India harbours the ambitions of becoming a permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it”. This implies that:

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

As per the passage, according to Kofi Annan, corruption hurts poor the most because

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

Is there any common thread in the passage that runs through both the proposed Lokpal bill and Frankenstein?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

The central theme of the passage can best be summarised as:

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question that follows.

There is a growing impression that India is not keen even to acknowledge the existence of corruption, leave alone tackling it. But it is not corruption alone that India seems shy of tackling. Some of the other issues it would not like to tackle, one fears, are reservation (it was intended for 10 years by the constitution builders—a massive constitution that we have can only be built, not made) and electoral reform. It suits our politicians to keep it unresolved. As for corruption, it appears to have become the lifeline of today’s politics. Else, one really finds it difficult why India should not have ratified the UN convention on corruption fully! UN General Assembly Resolution 58/4 adopted on 31.10.2003 urged all states to ‘sign and ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as soon as possible in order to ensure its rapid entry into force’. The convention was signed by 116 states and ratified by 15 at the High-Level Political Signing Conference held in Mexico from 9 to 11 December 2003 in accordance with the resolution No. 57/169. Countries such as Uganda, El Salvador and Sri Lanka among others showed enough commitment to ratify it, not India. India harbours the ambitions of becoming permanent member of the Security Council, but refuses to take the responsibility that goes with it.
In his foreword to the UN Convention against Corruption, Kofi A. Annan, the then Secretary General, had this to say to highlight the need for having this Convention adopted:
“Corruption is an insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies. It undermines democracy and the rule of law, leads to violations of human rights, distorts markets, erodes the quality of life and allows organized crime, terrorism and other threats to human security to flourish.
This evil phenomenon is found in all countries—big and small, rich and poor—but it is in the developing world that its effects are most destructive. Corruption hurts the poor disproportionately by diverting funds intended for development, undermining a government’s ability to provide basic services, feeding inequality and injustice and discouraging foreign aid and investment. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development.”
Every word, every concern expressed would aptly apply to India which means India should be more than willing to adopt and implement the measures suggested in the Convention against corruption, and with greater degree of urgency too. Similar fears are expressed by Robert I. Rotberg in his When States Fail—Causes and Consequences. But India showed no urgency as it, belatedly, ratified just 2 of 71 articles of the Convention: articles 45 and 46.
Article 45 relates to the question of ‘transfer of sentenced persons’. It provides for states entering into “bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements on the transfer to their territory of persons sentenced to imprisonment…”, and 46 provides for ‘mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to offences covered by this convention.’ Given below is the brief summary of the remaining articles India chose to ignore:
Articles 1 to 4 mainly deal with definitions, purpose and scope of the convention.
Art. 5 seeks ‘to develop and implement policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability’-a clear role for civil society.
Art. 6 envisages creation of ‘preventive anti-corruption body or bodies’. Civil society’s demand for creation of Janlokpal and Lokayukta perfectly fits the bill here.
Art. 7 deals with public sector, while 8 deals with codes of conduct for public sector officials. Art. 9 prescribes ‘threshold values’ while 10 refers to public reporting; 11 talks of measures relating to judiciary and prosecution services, while 12 brings in private sector; 13 speaks about the participation of society, while 14 deals with the measures to prevent money laundering; 15 deals with bribery of national public officials, while 16 deals bribery of international public officials; 17 deals with embezzlement, misappropriation or diversion of property by a public official, 18 with trading in influence; 19 with abuse of functions, 20 with illicit enrichment; 21 with bribery in private sector, while 22 deals with embezzlement of property in public sector; 23 deals with laundering of proceeds of crime, while 24 with concealment; 25 with obstruction of justice, while 26 deals with liability of legal persons; while 27 deals with participation & attempt, 28 deals with knowledge, intent and purpose as elements of the offence. Likewise, while Art. 29 deals with statute of limitations, 30 with prosecution, adjudication and sanctions; 31 with freezing, seizure and confiscation, 32 with protection of witnesses, experts and victims; 33 provides protection to the reporting persons (whistle blowers in our case), 34 deals with the consequences of acts of corruption, 35 seeks to provide compensation for damage; 36 with specialized authorities, 37 with co-operation with law enforcement authorities, 38 with co-operation between national authorities; 39 seeks co-operation between national authorities and private sector, 40 seeks to overcome Bank Secrecy laws that come in the way of disclosure of black money; 41 deals with criminal records, 42 deals with jurisdictional aspects; 43 seeks to foster international co-operation, 44 deals with extradition; 45, as already stated, deals with transfer of sentenced persons (India has ratified it without ratifying the enabling articles), 46 with mutual legal assistance (India has ratified it without taking care of other important aspects without which this is rendered redundant and irrelevant); 47 with transfer of criminal proceedings, 48 with law enforcement co-operation; 49 with joint investigation (Pakistan had offered to jointly investigate 26/11), 50 deals with special investigative techniques; 51 deals with general provisions with regard to return of assets (black money stashed away is our national asset). Return of assets incidentally is the fundamental principle of this UN convention against corruption.
Art. 52 deals with prevention and detection of transfers of proceeds of crime, 53 with measures for direct recovery of property; 54 with mechanisms for recovery of property, 55 deals with international co-operation for confiscation; 56 makes provision for special co-operation, 57 deals with return and disposal of assets; 58 talks of creation of a financial intelligence unit to be responsible for receiving, analysing and disseminating to the competent authorities reports of suspicious transactions. Art. 59 envisages bilateral/multilateral agreements/arrangements seeking to enhance the effectiveness of international co-operation, while Art. 60 seeks to foster a culture of technical assistance and information exchange. Art. 61 deals with collection, exchange and analysis of information on corruption, while 62 seeks to implement the convention through economic development and technical assistance. Art. 63 seeks to evolve mechanism for implementation, 64 is restricted to the Secretariat of the Convention. Art. 65 also seeks the implementation of the convention, 66 deals with the settlement of disputes. While article 67 lays down the methodology of signature, ratification, acceptance, approval and accession which was open to all states for signature from 9 to 11 December at Merida, Mexico and thereafter at UN HQ in New York until Dec 2005), 68 lays down the principle of entry into force—on the 90th day after the date of deposit of the 30th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval and accession). While article 69 deals with amendment (after 5 years from entry into force), 70 makes provision for denunciation and the last article of the convention refers to depository and languages.
The question that is uppermost in everybody’s mind is—why India did not ratify the entire convention instead of just two articles of it if it was or is serious about tackling corruption? Why the government of the day is hell bent on stalling the creation of a Lokpal that could play a pivotal role in combating the evil that everybody in the government claims to aim at achieving? Why has government after government dithered on this important institution? And why is the government advancing absurd arguments for not having the Lokpal as proposed by the civil society? While on the one hand, the votaries of the government want PM out of its purview claiming PM to be an institution and not an individual; on the other hand, they express morbid fear of the proposed Lokpal who in their eyes would become a Frankenstein. If PM can be regarded as an institution, why not Lokpal? If PM cannot become a Frankenstein, how can Lokpal, given the in-built safeguards? This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. No government whether at the state or at the centre is interested in tackling this menace of corruption. The apex court of our country has, while delivering orders on black money and on appointment of SPOs in Chhattisgarh, expressed the fear that India might well slip into the category of failed state. India’s failure to tackle corruption has created a massive gap between the haves and the have-nots. Advent of Janlokpal or adoption of UN Convention against Corruption could, to a large extent, bridge this gap. Ostensibly, our governments are not keen to tackle corruption, and that explains why India chose not to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption as it stood in its entirety.

Why is the author so sceptic about calling it ‘advent of cynicism’?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

The anxiety of the writer is to paint a realistic picture of contemporary life because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

‘In today’s context, the number is legion. And the reason….is too obvious to be stated.’ What is the unstated reason for the ever increasing number of cynics?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

People have grown cynical because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

“The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period.” It suggests

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

Why does the writer say “Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here.”

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

A cursory glance through the passage leads you to think that the author

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

The author says the cynic of our own time is a different person. The chief difference that the author alludes to is because

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

“Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism.” This statement of the author shows

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.

What impression do you get about the writer of this passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

What do we mean when we call someone a cynic? The reference is to a morose person, a snarler, or to the one who takes a pessimistic view of human motives and actions. In today’s context, its number is legion. And the reason for its ever increasing number is too obvious to be stated. But cynicism is not a new concept. A cynic was one of a sect of philosophers founded by Antithenes of Athens born in 444 B.C. It was characterized by an ostentatious contempt for riches, arts, science and amusements—so called from their morose manners. Although not much is known about the cynicism practised then, it was nevertheless a social movement. But the cynic of our own times is a different person. Riches, arts, science and amusements do not bother him, but he has no contempt for these either. Cynicism today is the direct result of continual failings of the governments on practically all fronts and it is further reinforced because of what many call the nauseating political atmosphere prevailing in the country. The avowed aim of this essay is to examine the growth of cynicism in India in the post-independence period. “Half a century of self-rule brought many governments to fore, but no actual governance”. But before growth, I must allude to advent. Advent, consciously or sub-consciously refers to something having definite contours: a thing or things that can be easily identified or even quantified, like we say, ‘advent of spring’ or ‘advent of an era’. Sometimes, we even refer to a person’s arrival as advent. This is because the arrival of such a person happens to be a momentous event. Advent of Gandhi on the Indian political scene, for instance was a momentous event. We call it advent because his arrival is actually a harbinger of something more momentous to follow.
But advent of cynicism! It will be difficult, nay some might even say impossible, to give it any contour or even an indisputable definition. In the face of such a formidable stumbling block, to talk of advent of cynicism is bound to raise many an eye-brow. Nonetheless, the intent of this essay is indeed to talk about the advent of cynicism. I must, however, hasten to inform the reader that he should not expect emergence of any gigantic entity from the Spiritus Mundi. There is no second coming here, even though the environment is no less ripe than it was to Yeats. Only, he had a myth to fall back on, we have no such pretensions here. Instead, we have the stark realities to draw upon for our dissertations and to draw conclusions therefrom. Thus far if we have traversed on the same wavelength for the sake of understanding, if not for anything else, we can now embark upon the journey proper into the world of cynicism and its advent.