You are an honest and responsible civil servant. You often observe the following :
(a) There is a general perception that adhering to ethical conduct one may face difficulties to oneself and cause problems for the family, whereas unfair practices may help to reach the career goals.
(b) When the number of people adopting unfair means is large, a small minority having a penchant towards ethical means makes no difference.
(c) Sticking to ethical means is detrimental to the larger developmental goals.
(d) While one may not involve oneself in large unethical practices, but giving and accepting small gifts makes the system more efficient.
Examine the above statements with their merits and demerits.
Approach · directive: “examine”
What it asks · Weigh each of the four statements: what truth it holds, where it fails, and how an honest civil servant should answer it.
It asks 5 things — answer each
- Examine statement (a), that ethical conduct brings hardship to oneself and one's family while unfair means bring career success: its merits and demerits
- Examine statement (b), that an ethical minority makes no difference when most people use unfair means: its merits and demerits
- Examine statement (c), that ethical means are detrimental to larger developmental goals: its merits and demerits
- Examine statement (d), that small gifts, unlike large corruption, make the system efficient: its merits and demerits
- State how an honest and responsible civil servant should respond to these perceptions
Open with · All four statements set expedience against integrity; each starts from a true observation, that honesty has costs in an imperfect system, but draws a false conclusion.
Cover
- (a) Merit: honest officers may face transfers and family strain. Demerit: unfair gains risk exposure and lost self-respect; integrity earns lasting trust.
- (b) Merit: a lone honest officer can feel powerless. Demerit: Kant's universal-law test; reforms begin with a few, aided by RTI and vigilance.
- (c) Merit: due process slows projects. Demerit: shortcuts bring poor quality and litigation; Madhya Pradesh's Public Services Guarantee Act (2010) shows the cure.
- (d) Merit: a small gift may seem to speed a file. Demerit: petty bribery burdens the poor; the UK's Nolan principles say officials must avoid placing themselves under obligation to those who may influence them.
- Response: hold the line, record reasons and pressure, seek vigilance backing, and ask whether the decision could be defended in public.
- Long-term fix: time-bound services, online file tracking, citizen charters and recognition of honest officers remove the excuse for gifts.
Close with · Honesty may cost something in the short run, but only ethical means build lasting trust, development and a career worth having.
Add value (verified)
- Kant's Categorical Imperative, preliminary formulation (Groundwork 4:402): I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.Kant's Moral Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“This brings Kant to a preliminary formulation of the CI: “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (G 4:402).”
- Madhya Pradesh was the first state to enact a Public Services Guarantee Act (PSGA), in 2010, to eliminate corruption and provide time-bound public services.Public sector delivery mechanisms: Success story of Madhya Pradesh — Grant Thornton India report with MP State Agency for Public Services ↗“MP is the first state in India that enacted the revolutionary PSGA in 2010 to eliminate corruption and facilitate proficient and time-bound public services to common citizens.”
- Nolan principles (UK, 1995), Integrity: holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them.The Seven Principles of Public Life — Committee on Standards in Public Life, GOV.UK (published 31 May 1995) ↗“Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2017, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 375words · Minimalist IAS
All four statements set expedience against integrity. Each starts from a true observation, that honesty has costs in an imperfect system, but draws a false conclusion.
Stakeholders
- Who is affected: the officer and family (career, peace of mind); colleagues (office culture); citizens, who pay for corruption in money, delay and injustice; and the rule of law itself.
(a) Honesty hurts, unfair means pay
- Merit: honest officers do face inconvenient transfers, hostility and strain on the family.
- Demerit: unfair gains carry the risk of exposure, prosecution and lost self-respect; integrity earns a trust no transfer can remove, and the family shares the officer's name, good or bad.
(b) A few honest people make no difference
- Merit: one honest officer in a compromised office can feel isolated and powerless.
- Demerit: Kant's test asks whether my maxim could "become a universal law"; "everyone does it" fails that test. Every reform began with a few, and RTI, vigilance and e-governance multiply an honest officer's effect.
(c) Ethics slows development
- Merit: due process does slow projects, and impatience with delay is understandable.
- Demerit: shortcuts bring poor quality, litigation and cost overruns. The cure is simpler procedure: Madhya Pradesh enacted the Public Services Guarantee Act in 2010 to curb corruption through time-bound public services.
(d) Small gifts oil the machine
- Merit: a gift can look like harmless courtesy and seem to speed a file.
- Demerit: petty bribery is corruption in retail. It favours those who can pay, burdens the poor most and breeds the very delay it claims to cure; the UK's Nolan principles say officials must avoid placing themselves "under any obligation" to those who may try to influence them inappropriately.
How I would respond
- Hold the line
- Record reasons and pressure
- Seek vigilance backing
- Fix the delay that invites gifts
- Personal test: would I be at ease if the decision were public, and could I defend it to the citizen it affects?
Long-term fix: remove the excuse
- Systemic: time-bound services, online file tracking and citizen charters take away the discretion that gifts buy; recognising honest officers makes integrity a shared norm, not a lonely choice.
Honesty may cost something in the short run, but only ethical means build the trust on which development, and a career worth having, rest.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
