What is Inherently wrong with #UPSCJihad Narrative.?

 

#DebunkUPSCJihad Narrative #ExposeUPSCJihad Gang...

After the vulgar campaigns to malign muslim candidates who were selected in UPSC by #UPSCJihad and #नौकरशाही_जिहाद gang, Here I have tried to debunk the propagandas which were running around in TV and Social Media. I have tried to prove how propagandists have made random unsubstantiated claims of #UPSCJihad based on distorted, manipulative half-truths.

After reading this analysis, you will realize that there is a pattern of a baseline fallacy being fed to general public subconsciously. The fallacy is that muslims are some homogeneous group of people, where no divisions of caste, class, geography, language etc exists. So if an inference can be somehow proved to benefit one particular section of muslims, then the inference can be extended to benefit all the muslims.

With this analysis, you will find that this perceived lack of understanding (or perhaps deliberate refusal of acknowledgement) of diversity among muslims is the primary source of such atrocious vicious claims..

Let's the go by all the propagandas being circulated in Social Media and Electronic Media one by one .

Propaganda#1: Muslims score higher marks in Interviews, even though they constantly score lower marks in written mains exam. This is a "systematic favor" which muslims receive, because they can easily be recognized by their names.

Debunking: UPSC takes overall 12 tests worth 2425 marks from pre-exam to final selection out of which only 1 of them is interview(of 275 marks). Out of 12 tests, 4 are of Qualifying type; though you still have to qualify them for final selection. Final rank gets decided from (mains+interview) exams, out of which weightage for interview is only ~14%, in which the "systematic favor" is being alleged.

Now tell me if they get higher marks in interviews, and then lower marks in mains, how come this is an advantage..? Doesn’t the higher marks in interviews get nullified by lower marks in mains..?? If you are wondering the advantage is due to magnitude of difference of marks in both (mains+interview), then consider this. In 2018, Muslims scored 13 marks LOWER than non-Muslims on average in written exams and scored 12 marks HIGHER in interview. The magnitude is almost same, so there should no significant resultant advantage for muslims right..??

The problem with such an analysis is, that they target one specific Dataset, design their algorithms to produce few favorable results, and then provide unsubstantiated claims. Such an analysis can be done on any random subset of data, and you can also prove “your own alleged favor/discrimination” towards that dataset, without any proper investigation from the office of UPSC.

I did the same analysis of "averaging algorithm" with 3 years’ worth of UPSC results (from 2016 to 2018) over some random community datasets, who can be identified by their names.. Here are some of my own unsubstantiated claims based on this "Data Science Miracle".

1.Gupta Community:

2018:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=819, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=806.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=167, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=170.

So on average, they scored 13 marks higher in mains, but 3 marks lower in interviews.

2017:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=857, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=838.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=169, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=168.

So on average, they scored 19 marks higher in mains, but only 1 marks higher in interviews.

2016:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=846, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=822.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Gupta Community"=166, Avg Marks from non-Gupta=167.

So on average, they scored 24 marks higher in mains, but 1 marks lower in interviews.

My Own Unsubstantiated Claim: Candidates from Gupta community constantly get significantly higher marks in mains exam, but they dont get proportionally higher marks in Interviews. Is there any "systematic design" to discriminate against "Gupta" candidates..??

2. Jain Community:

2018:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=845, Avg Marks from non-Jain=805.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=171, Avg Marks from non-Jain=170.

So on average, they scored 40 marks higher in mains, but only 1 marks higher in interviews.

2017:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=867, Avg Marks from non-Jain=838.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=166, Avg Marks from non-Jain=168.

So on average, they scored 29 marks higher in mains, but 2 marks lower in interviews.

2016:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=850, Avg Marks from non-Jain=822.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Jain Community"=171, Avg Marks from non-Jain=167.

So on average, they scored 28 marks higher in mains, but only 4 marks higher in interviews.

My Own Unsubstantiated Claim: Candidates from Jain community constantly get significantly higher marks in mains exam, but they dont get proportionally higher marks in Interviews. Is there any "systematic design" to discriminate against "Jain" candidates..??

3. Sharma Community:

2018:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=823, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=806.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=168, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=170.

So on average, they scored 17 marks higher in mains, but 2 marks lower in interviews.

2017:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=855, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=838.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=171, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=168.

So on average, they scored 17 marks higher in mains, but only 3 marks higher in interviews.

2016:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=831, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=822.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Sharma Community"=166, Avg Marks from non-Sharma=167.

So on average, they scored 9 marks higher in mains, but 1 marks lower in interviews.

My Own Unsubstantiated Claim: Candidates from Sharma community constantly get significantly higher marks in mains exam, but they dont get proportionally higher marks in Interviews. Is there any "systematic design" to discriminate against "Sharma" candidates..??

4. Agrawal Community:

Please note that I have taken candidates with surnames "Agrawal", "Agarwal", "Aggarwal", Aggrawal" into same "Agrawal" category.

2018:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=823, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=806.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=173, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=170.

So on average, they scored 17 marks higher in mains, but only 3 marks higher in interviews.

2017:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=844, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=838.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=166, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=168.

So on average, they scored 6 marks higher in mains, but 2 marks lower in interviews.

2016:

In mains, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=852, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=822.

In Interviews, Avg Marks of Candidates from "Agrawal Community"=163, Avg Marks from non-Agrawal=167.

So on average, they scored 30 marks higher in mains, but 4 marks lower in interviews.

My Own Unsubstantiated Claim: Candidates from Agrawal community constantly get significantly higher marks in mains exam, but they dont get proportionally higher marks in Interviews. Is there any "systematic design" to discriminate against "Agrawal" candidates..??

Now you too can do similar analysis with your own "Mishra Community", "Kaur Community", "Goyal Community",etc and produce similar results. I didnt do all that T-test and statistical regression analysis which few Sanghis have done. If you analyze some random 15-20 community data subsets over all the years and do T-test or Statistical regression analysis, you will find similar results to suit your own propaganda. That's how Data Science works, but that's not how claims should be made.

Sanghis also claimed muslims constantly score higher average marks than non-muslims in Interviews from 2013 to 2018. Well if you do similar analysis on "ST" candidates, you will find they constantly score lower average marks than non-ST candidates from 2013 to 2018. Is it also by "systematic design"..??

Just because you can produce some manipulating data, does it mean it makes your claim valid..???

Propaganda#2: Muslims Opt for "Urdu Literature" which gives them advantage over Hindi, Kannad, Malayalam, Tamil etc literatures. So "Urdu Literature" should be abolished from UPSC.

Debunking: If you have ever prepared for UPSC, you would understand that more the competition in a subject, lesser the success rate you will have. This is not any thumb-rule, but it is a general trend.

Languages having comparatively higher number of candidates, like Hindi, Kannad, Malayalam, Tamil have generally success rate of 5-7% with (+-)1-2% ups-downs.

Even in non-lingual subjects with comparatively higher number of candidates like History, Geography, Sociology, Political science etc, success rates are 5-7% with (+-)1-2% ups-downs.

Urdu has generally 20-40 candidates (as compared to hundreds for hindi, kannad etc) appearing into exams, where the benefit candidates used to gain has come down from almost 40% success rate in 2011 to 19% in 2017. The success rate even reached 4.9% in 2015, which was less than that for Sanskrit, Marathi, Malayalam etc that year..

So the benefit candidates are getting in a particular subject is going to be the criteria for abolishing it..??

Do you know Santhali literature had 100% success rate in 2015 & 2013; Sindhi Literature had 50% success rate in 2017; Assamese literatures had 40% success rate in 2016; Punjabi literature had 26% rate in 2016..!! See this & this.

Are you just going to abolish subjects from UPSC because success rate is higher for them..??

Propaganda#3: Candidates who write copies in Urdu script are mostly muslims. The examiners who check urdu copies are also muslims. So the "Rule of Bhaichara" works here and urdu examiners give more marks to muslims with urdu medium.

Debunking: On an average, Muslims have constantly scored lesser marks in mains exam than non-muslims throughout this decade. The whole claims & agenda of sanghi-gang works in that way, to somehow prove how come muslims score lesser marks in mains, but higher marks in interviews.

So I would pity on the urdu examiners here, who miraculously give higher marks to urdu medium candidates (as per Bhaichara Rule) but still muslims score less average marks in mains exam.

Propaganda#4: Muslims get benefit of upper Age Limits.

Debunking: Age benefit comes via caste category, which benefits every lower caste person irrespective of religion. So this claim is another logical fallacy.

Propaganda#5: Muslims get more number of attempts than others.

Debunking: Again, upper limit of number of attempts comes via caste category, which benefits every lower caste person irrespective of religion. So this claim is another logical fallacy.

Propaganda#6: Total Percentage of OBC/ST candidates getting selected is almost 60% for muslims, though for others the cap is 50%.

Debunking: Where does the law say 50% cap on reservation exists for a particular religion..?? Law says that among all caste categories, lower caste reservation would have 50% upper cap. So the common denominator here is caste, not religion. Upper cap of 50% reservation exists for all lower castes, irrespective of religions.

So taking only a particular dataset (of muslims) here is misleading.

Propaganda#7: Muslims receive major share in the government grants given to all the minorities. In a chart shown by a propaganda news channel, it was alleged that out of 5066 persons benefited from grants, 3723 were muslims.

Debunking: 3723 muslims out of 5066 comes out to be 73%.

Muslim population among all the minorities in India is close to 70%(as per 2011 census). If we consider recent years' data, muslim population would come out to be more than 70%.

So I dont see any discrepancy here. Share of muslims in overall minority population is close to the share which they got in government grants.

Propaganda#8: Government has set up coaching centers in Jamia Millia Islamia University (JMI), Jamia Hamdard University, Aligarh Muslim University, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, and Bhimrao Ambedkar University for muslim students. It benefits them indiscriminately.

Debunking: All the coaching centers in mentioned universities provide coaching to minorities, SC, ST, women candidates. So the claim that they benefit only muslims is misleading.

Let me know what you think of the analysis in comments. 

If you came across any other propaganda running around, let me know, I will try to debunk that as well.

Thanks for Reading,

Siraj Ansari