Rishabh Jain

Tough paper in PSIR this year. Very difficult to deliver any prepared content in the answers. Require a lot of thinking and analysis which is challenging to deliver in the time frame given in exam hall.

“ Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows “ - 10 marker in PSIR PAPER 1 Very interesting question, need of application of knowledge from Isaiah Berlin’s two conception of freedom. A libertarianism synonymous with injustice - https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-libertarianism-synonymous-with-injustice/article2735677.ece

Cryosphere linked disasters - Nepal Flash Floods - Early Warning System - GLOF

“There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more.” - Alexandre Dumas

Singapore moving towards “super-aged” society. What is it? Interesting read.

A straightforward but lengthy paper for GS-3. All those who prepared hard for prelims, that information will come handy to make your answers rich. A complete change in style of question formation in GS-4 for the 13x10 markers. This paper is always lengthy and it’s the 5th paper on 3rd day - 2nd half. The capacity to think has drained by that time. Difficult to write unique answers in such kind of questions. All in all, there’s only one truth. UPSC CSE will keep evolving. All what matters is how you perform under pressure and your relative performance to your peers. These 3 days of 5 papers will stay with you for life. Celebrate the fight that you’ve put up. Don’t judge yourself on how you performed. And plunge back to the optional revisions. Best wishes and congratulations on fighting bravely for last 5 days. ❤️

Overall a tough and lengthy paper for GS-2. Mostly predictable paper for GS-1 except two questions Q-4 and Q-14 which were very factual in nature. Big cheers and hurray to all those who fought bravery in those 6 hours. Best wishes for GS-3 and GS-4. Whole focus should be on completing the paper and expect lengthy papers looking at the trend so far. God speed. ❤️🏆

Just writing examples from different aspects of life to substantiate the topic of the essay will only take you to the range of 100-110. Rigorous analysis of the topic is what UPSC expects from you and that will truly bring new picture to your answer copies for essay paper. All in all, brilliant topics asked by UPSC for the today’s essay papers. Best wishes for GS-1 and GS-2 tomorrow. Go with a free mind. :)

My bestest wishes to all those going to write UPSC CSE MAINS 2026. I’ve written four mains and got selected two times. All the four times, just one night before mains started, I always felt I’m not full prepared. I’ve not covered all my plans as I expected after prelims. But this is a trap. Plans are never made to be completed 100%. Even if you stick with them roughly and consistently across the syllabus, you stand a fight. Fight bravely for next two weeks because this is a war. And if you’ve won this war in mind, you’ll surely make it to the PT stage. No one knows all the 20 questions in the paper. In every question, just intend to do better than your peers. Thats what a competitive exam expects from you. Best of luck. May the force be with you. Godspeed. ❤️

agencies recruiting youngsters of “enemy nations” for small acts of sabotage, using social media https://indianexpress.com/article/india/pakistans-new-recruits-dont-cross-the-border-theyre-indian-teens-10835141/?ref=hometop_hp

Social media as a recruiting ground by enemy nation. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/bihar-bharat-bhushan-tiwari-encounter-case-samrat-choudhary-10832121/?ref=infinite

80th Independence Day. Remembering all the heroes who fought for this nation. 🇮🇳❤️

Mecca Pact and its implications

Important article for “workplace ethics” in policing. Can easily be used as a case study in Ethics GS-4 paper.

"Talent is built in calm; character is built in the storm.” - Goethe

This is true for only two exams. 1. Exam called life. 2 UPSC CSE Exam. (On a lighter note)

The courage to walk alone.

But cheating doesn’t capture the real scope of the A.I. threat, which isn’t merely to academic integrity or personal betterment but also to democratic self-governance. The link between broad-based literacy and the rise of democracy is well known: People who can read and write for themselves have, historically, also been good at choosing and advocating for themselves. What happens when the process goes into reverse? When people lack the patience to absorb arguments more than a few pages or sentences long? When they lack the ability to contradict those arguments because they’ve never honed, through daily practice, the most essential skill for clear thinking? We’re already getting a taste of what this world looks like in President Trump’s social media posts and the sway they clearly exert over tens of millions of Americans. But that’s a reflection of where the country was a decade ago, in the pre-A.I. age. How much farther down the road are we now, with our even more diminished capacity to read, write and think? The next time you’re tempted to just adopt an automated response for a text message or an email, don’t. Type out a response that’s your own. Think of it as an act of free will. Or a vote against Trump. What takes you a few additional seconds is an act of resistance against an ever-dumber world.”

Read an op-ed in NYT on use of AI. A very interesting take. Do read and observe how author has argued his perspective. Enjoy the reading. :) “ This column isn’t so much an argument as it is a plea: Don’t use artificial intelligence to help you write. Never let A.I. do your writing for you. Don’t use it for school papers, work briefs, letters to your in-laws, speeches at your company gathering or emails (however perfunctory) to your colleagues or friends. Don’t let it organize your notes. Don’t let it suggest an opening sentence, a segue or a closing paragraph. Don’t ask it to write a first draft and pretend that editing that draft somehow makes it your own. It doesn’t. Do none of these things not because they are unethical. Writing with A.I. is unethical when it’s a deception: when you pass off words, ideas and information as your own when they aren’t. An acknowledgment can largely address the problem. Do none of these things, either, because you might be able to learn to write better than an A.I. can. Pretty soon, if not already, you won’t, just as you can’t outrun a car or outplay a chess app. The problem with writing with A.I. is that it’s mentally enfeebling — an escalator toward a result when you really need to make a daily habit of taking the stairs. As it becomes ubiquitous, it undermines not only our individual ability to write but also a society’s collective ability to reason, a culture’s inner capacity to create and everyone’s reason to care. We’re already reckoning with the well-documented decline of reading; A.I. is accelerating the decline of writing, ushering us further into what The Atlantic’s Rose Horowitch calls our “postliterate age.” What, uniquely, does writing do? It compels thought. It compels thinking in ways that silent contemplation or spoken language rarely can. It compels us to subject our thinking to the effort of articulation, the rigor of grammar, the tests of intelligibility and coherence, the inspection of others. In doing so, it also enjoins us to be clear, logical, accurate — and accountable. People may easily forgive a word said in anger but not so easily one written in anger, precisely because the fact that it was written tells us that it was considered. The considered word matters. It has staying power and moral weight. We use the expression “I want that in writing” not only so there’s no mistaking the exact words that have been agreed upon but also as proof that the words are meaningful in the first place. But what happens when the words aren’t considered because they were written by (or with the help of) a machine? Words become hollow. Imagine the father of the bride turning to A.I. to help him write his daughter’s wedding toast: What the A.I. can supply in eloquence it subtracts in effort and authenticity. Now imagine that the daughter learns that the speech was written by A.I.: Wouldn’t she be right to be disappointed, if not insulted? Many would argue there’s a big difference between using A.I. for something as significant and personal as a wedding speech and the boring and frequently exhausting tasks of writing, say, routine office memos. But the intellectual muscle that’s exercised in everyday writing is the same one used for the writing that matters. We become better writers by the constant effort that mundane writing demands. We become better thinkers by investing into that writing a degree of attention we’d never give it if we relinquished the task to A.I. We become more creative when we learn how to put a personal stamp even on routine things, making them unmistakably our own. These skills are now evaporating. A recently examination using A.I.-detection technology of 100 doctoral dissertations found that 56 percent of them contained “more than negligible” A.I.-generated writing and 19 percent had “more than 50 percent A.I.-generated text.” Anecdotal stories from college professors have a finger-in-the-dike feeling with regard to their efforts to hold back the flood of A.I.-generated student papers. It’s easy to treat the problem as one of mere cheating.