Revision summary
Lincoln teaches that policy is mixed; judge by whether evil outweighs good, without waiting for purity and without washing harm as trivial. Gandhi teaches that anger and intolerance block correct understanding, which a riot, a troll-storm or a frightened office all prove. The Tirukkural line seems to allow falsehood for unblemished common good. That bar is almost never met in ordinary files; cooked data stains the good it claims. Truth is the default; only a narrow, time-bound rescue lie, later accountable, can even be argued.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
Lincoln, Gandhi and the Kural still sit on an officer's table. One asks for a sober balance of mixed policies. One warns that rage blinds. One tests whether a noble lie may ever stand in for truth.
Body
(a) Lincoln: few things wholly evil or wholly good
- Lincoln is describing public judgement, not private cynicism. Almost every statute mixes help and harm.
- The rule is not "ignore evil". It is: refuse a thing when evil outweighs good, and do not wait for a perfect purity that government never has.
- Present context: a farm law, a dam, a data Bill, or a lockdown is a compound. Ethics is the work of measuring the preponderance, especially for those who did not lobby.
- A civil servant who will act only when a file is wholly good will freeze. One who treats any harm as trivial will crush the poor as "collateral".
- The quote demands evidence, not slogan. If a policy's good is a press release and its evil is a starved migrant, the preponderance is already known.
- It also demands revision: when the balance tips, repeal or repair, as Lincoln's own politics had to do with the costs of war.
- For GS-IV, this is consequential weighing inside a constitutional floor. You may choose a lesser-evil option; you may not choose an unconstitutional one because it "has some good".
(b) Gandhi: anger and intolerance versus understanding
- Gandhi is stating a cognitive ethic: anger and intolerance do not only hurt the other; they destroy the holder's capacity to see.
- Correct understanding needs listening, doubt and time. Rage shortens all three.
- Present context: communal forwards, television shouting, and office humiliation of a junior or a minority applicant are factories of error.
- A District Magistrate who walks into a riot already angry at one community will misread the first stone and the first fire.
- Intolerance of dissent inside a department produces files that only flatter. That is not loyalty; it is blindness on stamp paper.
- The quote does not forbid firmness. Gandhi could be stern. It forbids the heat that makes a false rumour feel like a fact.
- Practical rule: pause, verify, hear the disliked person, then decide. Understanding is a duty of office, not a soft hobby.
(c) Tirukkural: falsehood in the place of truth
- The line, as the paper gives it, seems to licence a lie when the common good is complete and unstained.
- Read strictly, "unblemished common good" is a bar almost no lie can clear. A lie that helps one group usually stains another.
- Present context: cooked air-quality numbers, a hidden epidemic count, or a "white lie" to a House committee all claim public good and all stain it.
- Truth-telling is the default of trusteeship. The Second ARC and RTI culture treat false records as a species of corruption.
- Narrow exceptions exist in ethics of rescue: misleading a riot mob about a hiding place, or operational secrecy in a hostage hour. Those are time-bound, not a governance style.
- Gandhi would resist a standing permission to lie. Kant would too. A limited utilitarian exception still needs later accountability and a clean archive for the court.
- My reading: the Kural is not a daily permit for official falsehood. It is a warning that only an unblemished common good — almost never proved in advance — could even begin to argue with truth. In ordinary administration, falsehood does not take the place of truth; it takes the place of trust.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD LIN[Lincoln] --> BAL[Weigh mixed good and evil] GAN[Gandhi] --> COOL[Anger off, then understand] KUR[Kural] --> TRUTH[Truth default] KUR --> NARR[Narrow rescue exception] BAL --> DEC[Public decision] COOL[COOL] --> DEC[DEC] TRUTH[TRUTH] --> DEC[DEC]
Conclusion
Lincoln asks for a honest tally of mixed good and harm. Gandhi asks for a mind cool enough to see. The Kural, read with care, does not gift the State a noble lie; it sets a test so high that truth remains the working rule.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss Mahatma Gandhi's concept of seven sins.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q2(b)). View answer →
-
Does Lincoln mean an officer may pick any harmful policy if GDP rises?
No. He asks for a real preponderance, counting the people who pay the harm. A GDP claim that hides starvation fails his own test.
-
May a spokesman lie to prevent a market panic?
A delay in disclosure with a stated legal basis is not the same as a false number. False numbers usually worsen the later panic and kill trust.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q6(b) · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 10 marks · Solution
Some moral philosophers argue that spending some of your resources—without significantly affecting your financial stability—to help other people who badly suffer is our moral duty and not merely a matter of charity. Justify this claim by explaining the distinction between duty and charity.
Moral Thinkers and Philosophers
• Duty is a strict moral obligation; charity is optional kindness that goes beyond requirements. • Helping the suffering corresponds to their fundamental right, making it a matter of justice, not grace. • Preventing severe suffering without sacrificing anything of comparable importance is a moral imperative. • Extreme global affluence alongside absolute poverty turns surplus-sharing into a binding duty. • Reclassifying aid shifts philanthropy from a social courtesy to an essential ethical obligation. • This perspective strengthens human dignity and aligns with the constitutional ideal of fraternity.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 10 marks · Solution
(a) Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had cautioned that employing civil disobedience within a constitutional democracy equates to endorsing 'anarchy'. How should modern democracies navigate the ethical dilemmas posed by civil disobedience movements that aim to promote social justice against policies that may raise genuine concerns? (b) In what ways can an Indian Administrative Officer apply Gandhi's notion of 'trusteeship' to ensure fairness in governance? (c) Shakespeare in Henry IV says, "The arms are fair when the intent of bearing them is just". What ethical implications does this have in governance?
Moral Thinkers and Philosophers
• **Civil Disobedience:** Respect constitutional channels and avoid anarchy, but address root grievances through dialogue rather than coercion. • **Trusteeship Principle:** View public resources as a sacred trust, prioritizing the vulnerable and practicing *Antyodaya*. • **Intent in Power:** Ensure coercive administrative actions serve true public welfare rather than arbitrary convenience. • **Balancing Rule of Law:** Combine legal compliance with moral imperatives and substantive justice. • **Proportionality & Rights:** Respond to public dissent while fully respecting fundamental rights and transparency. • **Fiduciary Duty:** Resist elite capture of policy to guarantee equitable resource allocation. • **Integrity of Purpose:** Align every administrative decision with the true spirit of the Constitution.
Q3(a) · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS IV · 10 marks · Solution
Given below are three quotations of great thinkers. What do each of these quotations convey to you in the present context? a) "Learn everything that is good from others, but bring it in, and in your own way absorb it, do not become others." - Swami Vivekananda
Moral Thinkers and Philosophers
Vivekananda asked India to learn the good from others and digest it, not to become a copy that scorns its own poor. Patel held that faith without strength cannot complete a great public work, and strength without faith is only force. Kant drew a line: law waits for the rights-violating act; ethics already condemns the will to do it. Together they train identity, delivery and inner integrity. A dashboard, a riot plan and an unsent communal file are the present-tense tests.