CSAT Comprehension Set on Welfare Delivery, Wetlands and Privacy

Passage 1

Welfare delivered in kind has a long record in India. Grain at a fixed price, fuel at a fixed price and fertiliser at a fixed price are easy to announce and easy to see, and they protect the recipient from sudden rises in the market. Yet they have well known weaknesses. Goods can be diverted before they reach the intended household, quality can fall, and the state must buy, store and move physical stock. Transfers of cash directly to bank accounts address several of these weaknesses, since the money cannot be diverted in transit and the recipient decides what to buy. But cash is not a complete answer. It assumes that the household has an account it can reach, that a market exists nearby where goods can be bought, and that prices stay stable enough for the sum to keep its value. Where any of these conditions fails, a household may receive its entitlement on paper and still go hungry. Experience in different states suggests that the better choice depends less on principle than on the condition of local banking, markets and administration. A method that works well in a district with dense markets may fail in a remote one.

Passage 2

A wetland looks like land that has not yet been put to use. In hydrological terms it works as a sponge. During heavy rain it holds water that would otherwise run quickly into rivers and streets, and it releases that water slowly in the dry months, which helps to recharge groundwater and keep nearby streams flowing. Its plants and soils also trap sediment and absorb some pollutants before the water moves on. When a wetland is filled for housing or roads, the land gains a use that is easy to price, but the services it provided do not disappear from the world. They are transferred, usually to neighbours downstream, who face higher flood peaks and poorer water quality. Because those costs fall on people who did not take the decision, they rarely appear in the accounts of the project that caused them. Cities that have lost lakes and marshes in this way often respond by building drains and pumps, which cost money every year and handle only the volume they were designed for.

Passage 3

In August 2017 a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court held in Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution. The Court did not treat privacy as a separate luxury. It treated it as a condition of other freedoms, since a person who knows that every movement, purchase and conversation is recorded may think twice before speaking, associating or dissenting. In the years since, the discussion has moved from whether privacy exists to how it is to be protected when data is collected by both the state and private firms. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 relies heavily on consent, requiring that a person's agreement be sought before personal data is processed, with certain exemptions for the state. Critics note that consent is a thin protection when the notice is long, the service cannot be used without agreeing, and the person has no real alternative. A right that can be given away with one tap may be less protective than it appears, but the opposite course, in which authorities decide what is good for each person, carries its own danger.