GS4 (Case Study)
You are the president of Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). The WFI is planning to convene a selection panel shortly under your chairmanship for selection of the best athlete/wrestler to represent India in the upcoming Rio 2016 Olympics in 74kg freestyle wrestling championship. A few days before the final selection, you get a call from the Personal Secretary (PS) of a senior government minister seeking your intervention in favour of the selection of a close relative of the minister for this particular category. There are only two contenders for this category.
The first contender is the only Indian to win two individual Olympic medals. He has been also awarded with Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna – India’s highest honour for sportspersons. Whereas the second contender (relative of the minister) belongs to the constituency of the minister and has only won championships at State levels. The PS also informs you that he is aware of the long pending and urgent proposals of your federation for grant of funds for modernization, which are awaiting the minister’s approval. He assures you that he would get these proposals cleared.
(a) What are the options available to you?
(b) Evaluate each of these options and choose the option which you would adopt, giving reasons.
GS4 question powered by mitrasias.com
Best answer
Aman Chauhan wrote the best answer for this question and got a score of 4.5/10 (if the best answer is an image, it cannot be uploaded here, hence scroll down to see those). The answer is being reproduced below for everyone’s convenience. Of course these answers can always be improved. (Best answer of a particular only involves those given on that day, later answers may not have been checked)
The given case highlights the dilemma of a selector to secure funds needed for modernisation and future of sports in the country and at same time select the best possible representative for olympics to bring our country a good name and repute.
I have following choices –
Option 1-Heed to ministers demand (select his relative )
Pros
-brownie points in front of the minister
-funds will be easily cleared for
Cons
-shows non accountability and erosion of integrity on my part
-promotes nepotism
-takes away a brighter prospect or medal contender
Option 2-deny the minister of a biased selection
Pros
-strengthens the value of courage in me and sets a precedent
-fosters trust of athletes in the selection process
Cons
-might hamper disbursal of much needed funds
-may even lead to interference from other politicians thereby increasing pressure
-might even affect my position in the federation in future
Option 3-Give a fair trial to both to select best talent possible (unbiased selection)
Pros
-will give a fair trial to only 2 contenders for the category (justice to both)
-selection of best talent which is good for the nation
-a clear justification to the minister and others about ability and credibility as criteria of selection process irrespective of loss or win for his relative
-won’t hamper the fund disbursal as the relative of minister was given an equal chance (securing much needed funds for future of sports )
I will choose the option 3 and go with a fair trial because only 2 contenders are there and best talent should represent the nation . Yes,one is Arjuna award winner and other a state champion .But ,sometimes medals don’t tell the real story and may lead us to overlook vast talent pool in our society .
A fair trial to both will garner legitimacy in eyes of all athletes and the media and will fulfil my duty to let the best go through to represent the nation.
