Instructions: –
1. Attempt all the questions.
2. Once you have completed all the questions of a particular section click on the submit button for scores and explanations then move to the next sections.
3. For each correct answer, you receive 1 mark. For this mock, there is no negative marking.
English Language
Each set of questions in this section is based on a single passage. Please answer each question based on what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.
When my father, the ideas man, had first proposed the idea of manufacturing to his siblings back in the early 1950s, they had expressed their reservations. In those days, bicycle parts and components were by and large imported. The supplies were tightly controlled by a cartel, comprising of the old British agency houses, which had been passed on to Indian associates post-Independence. These entities doled out supplies on a quota basis. My uncle Om Prakash remembered having to wait for two whole days at the offices of Dunlop (suppliers of tyres and tubes), just to meet the manager.
My father was persuasive. He was confident that they had the knowhow to manufacture bicycles, but that dream would be stillborn if India’s dependence on imported parts and components continued. He proposed that the brothers manufacture their own. Technology and capital were both scarce, they protested. Even before the karigars (artisans) could get down to making components, tools and dyes would have to be created. Everything would have to be done from scratch, on a shoestring budget.
While my uncles Dayanand and Om Prakash were packing up to move to Ludhiana, one of their suppliers, a Muslim by the name of Kareem Deen, was preparing to shift to Pakistan. He manufactured bicycle saddles under a brand name he had created himself. Before he left, Karam Deen went to see his friend Om Prakash Munjal.
What happened next would be a life-changing moment for our family. Uncle Om Prakash asked Kareem Deen whether the Munjals could use that brand name for their business. He agreed. The gesture was typical of the way businesses were run at the time – on reputation, relationships and goodwill. The worth and value of brands and patents were not appreciated or understood. And so, with nothing more than a casual nod, his brand passed to the Munjals. Yes, dear reader, you guessed correctly. It was “Hero”.
Once my uncles came around to the idea of manufacturing, a confident, “Yeh bhi kar lenge” (We can do this too), resounded around the Munjal residence and workplace. It was, of course, easier said than done. After several hits and misses, they finally came up with a product that satisfied all the siblings.
But disaster lurked ahead, one that almost cost the Munjals their business. The welding in some of the bicycle forks cracked and the pipes broke off, with the result that the incensed dealers returned all orders and consignments. The siblings pooled their resources and paid back the affected parties, no questions asked. Their reputation survived, but their pockets were almost empty. The Munjal brothers girded their loins, went back to the design table and perfected the forks.
Quantitative Techniques
40,000 people took part in a marathon on the 21st and 22nd of May from three cities viz. Ludhiana, Chandigarh and Patiala. A total of 8400 people were from Chandigarh and Patiala on 21st. The number of people from Ludhiana on 21st was 300 more than 50% of the people from Chandigarh on the next day. The difference between the number of people from Ludhiana on 22nd and the number of people from Chandigarh on 21st was 6000. 23% of the people were from Patiala. A total of 17,200 people were from Ludhiana and Patiala on 22nd.
Logical Reasoning
Indians are puzzling. Is it their love for denying realities, or ignorance, or innocence or a combination of these that underlies their support for public surveillance? A survey conducted by Common Cause with the Lokniti programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies found that a majority of respondents supported government surveillance through the use of CCTV cameras in the belief that it prevented crime. It has been seen that even if CCTV cameras help solve crimes, they may not be able to prevent them. But the support for surveillance is a symptom of a deeper attitude. Government surveillance to contain protests, even with the use of drones, is largely acceptable, just as a similar survey last year revealed large-scale support for internet shutdowns when the government claimed a law and order problem. The support therefore points to acceptance of unilateral moves by the government in the name of security, safety and protection. Inevitably, there is a class aspect to this. Dalits, minorities, adivasis and the poor are against surveillance: they are too often at the receiving end. While there are more people-owned CCTV cameras in rich and middle-class neighbourhoods, it is the government that places them in poor localities. The dominant assumptions are obvious.
The respondents favouring surveillance showed little awareness of the Pegasus spyware. Do Indians not make the connection between surveillance and privacy? Educated Indians seem either ignorant or uncaring of their rights. Personal data can be used by political parties and the government, whether gathered by spying on phones, using face recognition, or tracking movement. Data can be analysed and sold by technological companies. That upper- and middle-class Indians surrender their rights to the government to identify with its interests while creating a distance with the less privileged is dangerous for them too. Are they unaware that without strict regulations regarding data collection and use, their own unflagging vigilance and belief in the equal rights of all, the government and corporate organisations would be given unlimited control of private data?
Legal Reasoning
Right to Equality is the first fundamental right assured to the people of India. Each citizen of India is guaranteed the Right to Equality by Articles 14 to 18 of the Constitution. Article 14 encapsulates the general standards of equality under the watchful eyes of the law and restricts nonsensical and baseless separation between people. The succeeding articles layout explicit utilisation of the general standards set down in Article 14. This article goes over the Right to Equality in India, covering every one of the articles that this right exemplifies. According to Article 14, it is an obligation of the state to not deny to any person equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Equality is one of the magnificent corner-stones of the Indian democracy.
Equality before the law or equal protection of the laws does not mean a similar treatment to everybody. As no two individuals are equal in all regards, a similar treatment to them in each regard would bring about unequal treatment.
What Article 14 precludes is class-legislation; however, it doesn’t prohibit reasonable classification. The classification, under all circumstances, must not be discretionary or fake or shifty but should be founded on some genuine and significant qualification bearing a fair and reasonable connection to the objective looked to be accomplished by the legislation. Article 14 applies where people who are equal are dealt with contrastingly on no reasonable grounds. In a situation where equals and unequals are treated differently, Article 14 does not come into the picture. As such, this right was considered to be a negative right of an individual not to be discriminated in access to public offices or places or in public matters generally. It did not take account of the existing inequalities arising even from public policies and exercise of public powers. The makers of the Indian Constitution were not satisfied with such type of undertaking. They knew of the widespread social and economic inequalities in the country sanctioned for thousands of years by public policies and exercise of public power supported by religion and other social norms and practices. They were of the opinion that only Article 14 would not be sufficient enough to deal with these inequalities, so they introduced Articles 15-18 which states that nothing shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
Classification to be sensible must satisfy two conditions, one being that the classification must be established on clear differentia which recognises people or things that are assembled from others which are not part of the group and that the differentiation must have a balanced connection to the article looked to be accomplished by the Act.
Current Affairs & General Knowledge
Legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical concerns notwithstanding, extradition of Indian criminals from Nepal is highly problematic. India and Nepal signed an extradition treaty in 1953 and the mutually legal assistance agreement in criminal matters was added in 2005. The said frameworks are directed to facilitate extradition of criminals who flee over the porous Indo-Nepal border. However, this treaty lacks harmonization and effectiveness in its implementation in practice, thus many Indian criminals find sanctuary in Nepal with impunity. Geographical and cultural proximity is the prime reason why criminals find their way into Nepal from India. The border of 1,750 kilometers is unguarded, thus easy for people to cross unfettered, giving room for free movement that makes it relatively easy for criminals to cross without notice. The peoples on both sides of the borders share a common culture and linguistic similarity that makes it rather easy for criminals to hide easily without immediate detection by local law enforcement on the other side.
Structural and procedural complexities well mark another significant challenge that faces the extradition process. In fact, the 1953 treaty made in good faith is less explicit and updated to genuinely address the contemporary transnational crimes in question. As such, the treaty does not provide for offenses such as cybercrime or terrorism, both of which are very popular these past couple of decades. Furthermore, there are no mechanisms to expedite procedures, thus tedious bureaucratic procedures take a long time, which is an obstacle and, at times impossible to ensure to extradite criminals. Legal and diplomatic challenges frequently accompany extradition application; for instance, exhaustive documentation and evidence are sometimes difficult to source or authenticate, particularly when crimes involve very mobile or clandestine criminal activity.
The political factor in Nepal complicates the process of extradition. Judicial independence and sovereignty in Nepal means that extradition decisions are not based on legal criteria alone, but political ones too. Political instability, tension in diplomatic channels, or broader foreign policy concerns often delay or deny Indian extradition demands. Some criminals even avail of political divisions prevailing in Nepal to get asylum or protection from arrest, taking advantage of slow judicial machinery moving very slowly. Also, there is the tradition in Nepal of the granting of political asylum to refugees and other persons running away from persecution in its neighbouring states. This therefore raises a fragile balance between honour accorded to human rights obligations against sending them back to India, which requests their extradition. Some rights that citizens enjoy because of Nepal’s constitutional and law provisions sometimes make it difficult to extradite criminals suspected of grave crimes in India.