Temple funds for Hindu schools: Yes or No?


(Only an overview provided here – not the full details of the mess 🙂 )

Temples and Charitable Institutions in Karnataka are governed by the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997. This Act was challenged in the Karnataka High Court in Sri Sahasra Lingeshwara Temple, … vs State Of Karnataka.

In the year 2006, the Karnataka High Court passed a judgement in the above case and termed the entire Act of 1997 as illegal. This decision of the Karnataka High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court of India vide Civil Appeal 5924 of 2008. The Supreme Court has stayed the judgement of the Karnataka High Court until final judgement, which is yet to happen.

Meanwhile in the years 2011 and 2012, the Karnataka Government, assuming that the Supreme Court stay meant that the 1997 Act was valid, made some amendments to the Act. I will not go into the details of the amendments made since they are not directly related to the subject matter of this post. However, it is interesting to note that the 2012 amendment reversed some changes introduced in the 2011 amendment.

In the year 2015, based on a petition by 64 temples, the Karnataka High Court passed a judgement declaring the 2011 and 2012 Amendment Acts also to be illegal. This judgement was again taken to the Supreme Court vide SLP (Civil) 6834-6959/2016 and is currently being heard. However, the Supreme Court, in this issue too, stayed the judgement of the Karnataka High Court.

In summary, the Karnataka High Court has quashed the 1997, 2011 and 2012 HR & CE Acts of the Government of Karnataka and the matter is pending in the Supreme Court currently with all judgements of the High Court being stayed.

Let us assume therefore that the HR & CE Act, along with the amendments, is actually valid at this point in time.

The Janardhana and Mahakali Temple Case

In the year 2004, the management of the Janardhana and Mahakali Temple in Ambalpadi, Udupi went to the Karnataka High Court challenging an order of the Muzrai Deparment. The facts of the case and the judgement are briefly as follows

  • The Ambalpadi temple, following the HR & CE Act procedure, used to donate funds to other needy temples and charitable organisations after obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of the Karnataka HR & CE deparment.
  • The DC also used to regularly allow the temple to make such contributions via written permission.
  • On 11-02-2004, the DC sent a communication to the temple asking it to stop all such contributions claiming it is not allowed as per the “new” Act.
  • The single judge bench, after hearing the petitioners, and going through the previous written permissions of the DC, passed a judgement allowing the continuation of such contributions.

The Janardhana and Mahakali Temple Case – Appeal

The Government of Karnataka, via the HR & CE department, chose to appeal this single-judge-bench decision via a Writ Appeal in the Karnataka High Court (WA 5012/2004). This matter was heard by a two-judge bench which upheld the decision of the single-judge-bench and passed a judgement to this effect in 2005.

In upholding the impugned judgement, the bench made some specific observations which are extremely relevant in the context of the recent controversy in Karnataka where 2 schools run by Sri Kalladka Prabhakara Bhat in Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka have been denied funds from the Sri Kollur Mookambika Temple by the Government of Karnataka.

I reproduce relevant extracts of the judgement below

It cannot be disputed that the respondent-temple is a religious institution and the money received by the respondent-temple is from the devotees who are religious. Therefore, when the funds are collected by the temple from the members of public, it is just and proper to permit the temple to utilise the same for the good of the public, namely, for charitable purposes like financing for maintenance or development or establishment of a hospital or establishment of educational institutions of charitable nature and which are not in commercial nature; or financing for mid-day meal provided to children in educational institutions

If the object of disbursement of funds is for charitable or religious purposes and if such fund is disbursed within reasonable limits, keeping in mind the total funds available in the respondent-temple, normally the authorities cannot refuse to accord permission for the request made by the respondent-temple

One can see that the honourable High Court has upheld the contributions of the temple without even going into the technical details of what the HR & CE Act states on such transfers. Further, the judgement imposes no condition with regard to the charitable institutions and purpose being in any way connected to the temple that wants to contribute.

The HR & CE Act provisions

The Karnataka HR & CE Act provides for the creation of a “Common Pool Fund” by the DC which will be sourced from

“Section 17 contributions made by the Notified Institutions at five percentum of their gross annual income arrived at after deducting the following…..

Now, Section 19 of the same Act deals with the Administration of the Common Pool Fund, created as above, and it says the following in one of the clauses

Section 19(1) The Commissioner shall administer the Common Pool Fund subject to the conditions herein stated and for the following purposes, namely…


Section 19(1) (f) the establishment and maintenance of educational institutions where instructions in the Hindu religion is also provided


Section 19(1) (l) any other charitable or Hindu Religious purpose

From the above, it is quite clear that the HR & CE, *in principal* is perfectly ok with excess funds from temples being used for maintenance of schools, and any other general Hindu charitable organisational purposes.


This intent of the Act, combined with the explicit directions from the Karnataka High Court, makes it obvious that usage of temple funds for funding mid-day meals, books and uniforms of kids in schools is perfectly legal and MUST BE ALLOWED.



Benefits of Minority Tag in India

Some leaders of the Lingayat community in Karnataka have renewed their demand for their group to be considered as separate from Hindus. They want to ‘move out’ of the Hindu fold. This demand has been in existence from many decades and seems to have a co-relation to the recognition of non-Hindus as ‘minorities’ and consequent benefits being granted to them. In the past too, other groups, such as the Ramakrishna Mission, have demanded to be ousted from the Hindu fold.

It is a no-brainer that the demand to be considered as a non-Hindu has its basis in the institutional, legal and economic benefits associated with the tag of a minority, rather than cultural or religious reasons. Else, there is really nothing that a Hindu needs to do to move away from being one. Hindu religion does not really codify what it takes to be a ‘Hindu’ nor does it define anywhere what would be considered blasphemy for a group to be thrown out of the Hindu fold. So Lingayats could just declare themselves non-Hindus from tomorrow and continue their practices as it exists today.

However, what they are really looking forward to is an inclusion, by the Government of India through the National Commission for Minorities (NCM), into the official list of minorities. Currently Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists are the six religious minorities recognised.

When any Government implements policies aimed at affirmative action, it is natural that there is a redistribution of resources between ‘preferred’ groups and ‘non-preferred’ groups. Typically the resources are economic in nature. The reasons for classifying certain groups under the preferred category are mostly social and/or economic. In countries like India, due to centuries of denial of opportunity and equality, many communities have suffered socially and economically. In order to address this problem, policies such as reservation have been introduced since Independence (some form of reservations existed in British India too). In addition to reservation in education and jobs, financial benefits such as scholarships, easy access to finance and targeted infrastructure delivery are also usually provided.

With these benefits in sight, it is only natural that those communities which are in the non-preferred list would be keen to make it to the preferred groups’ list. In India, there exists two main categories of preferred groups. Category 1 is based on caste and the main groups under this denomination are the SCs, STs and OBCs. Category 2 is based on religion. It’s members are known as minorities and the six religions noted above belong to this category.

Let us look at some factors which make this transition from the non-preferred to the preferred list easy or difficult. The focus of this post is on Category 2 where the grouping is based on religion.

Benefits of getting redesignated as a minority

If one community enters the preferred group based on caste, the benefits primarily are economic and, to an extent, social. However, if one enters the preferred group based on religion, in addition to economic benefits, institutional and legal benefits are also granted. In fact, such institutional and legal benefits outweigh the economic benefits (otherwise extremely well-to-do communities such as Jains and Parsis wouldn’t figure in the list).

Minorities get absolute freedom to run educational institutions due to Article 30(1) of our constitution and few other sections. It is an undisputed fact that education is the key to social and economic progress of an individual or community. And unfettered rights to establish and administer educational institutions of choice is an extra ordinary instrument available ONLY to minorities to control social and economic development of not just their own group (religion) but those of others as well.

In addition to #Core1 benefits as mentioned above, minorities get a dedicated budget to fund socio-economic schemes based on religion. You can avail a handsome scholarship from grade I all the way to your post-graduation if you are a minority student. And the budget for these schemes only keeps increasing significantly year after year. There are schemes to help finance any entrepreneurial ventures that minorities want to undertake. Easy access to finance can be key to establishing businesses. And availing it can become easy if you are a non-Hindu.

An important point to note here is that, unlike schemes run for caste-based-preferred groups, the distribution of resources in schemes run for religion-based-preferred-groups is perfectly pro-rata. So, even though you can get clubbed with a number of other co-minorities, your share of the redistributed resource is fixed and guaranteed.

The Government of India also runs several schemes (such as those under JNURM and 15-point programs) where areas with high(er) concentration of minorities get special attention from an infrastructure development point of view. So if you are a minority and are living in an area with a significant population of your religion, you stand a better chance of getting good roads, lighting, schools and so on.

Cost of not being preferred

World over, it is well recognized that affirmative action, in the immediate term *at least*, is a zero-sum game i.e. the non-preferred groups lose what the preferred groups gain. Some like Thomas Sowell have, with empirical evidence, argued very well that in the long run affirmative action is actually a negative-sum game (for the country) because both the preferred and non-preferred groups perform sub-optimally – for opposite reasons. Irrespective of it, there is no dispute on it being a zero-sum game at least.

One would therefore think that even in India, affirmative action could be a zero-sum game in the immediate term. However, for religion based affirmative action, it is actually a significant negative-sum game for the community that is in the non-preferred group. Firstly, you of course lose out on the seats and scholarships that goes to those in the preferred group. Secondly, you are deprived of the institutional and legal rights that minorities are given. However, the death-blow comes from the fact that you are not just deprived of benefits but are subject to severe restrictions if you are a non-minority.

So it is not just that you cannot easily establish and administer educational institutions of your choice but that you are subject to a myriad web of rules and regulations if you want to run a school or college. Run a school without a sufficiently large playground and you could receive a show-cause notice. Punish a rogue student who indulged in indiscipline in your college and your principal could be arrested. Refuse to admit a student who showed signs of being a complete academic misfit in your school and, well, your school could simply be shutdown.

An equally deadly scenario exists when it comes to another important institution of religious dimension. If you are a Hindu, your temple has most likely been taken over by the state government. Every single activity in the temple is subject to approvals from ‘relevant authorities’. As with every institution where Government has a role, these temples too have to deal with corruption involving officials.

On the economic front, there is partial spite in case you are a Hindu and belong to a community that is covered under the caste based preferred-groups policy. However, increasing discrimination there too is rendering the existing thin advantage slip-by. If you are a kid belonging to the OBC community, you can still get a scholarship from the Government for your education but it will be an order of magnitude less than what a minority kid studying the same course can get (exact differences covered elsewhere in this blog).

If you are a Hindu and do not belong to any caste-based preferred-group, then there is a complete loss even on the economic front. A poor brahmin kid is at the mercy of a state government to show some benevolence and grant it a scholarship with a meagre budget that can address perhaps a few tens of kids every year.

Therefore, the cost of not being in a preferred-group is chiefly threefold

  • Total lack of freedom to run educational institutions and being subject to extreme Government control.
  • Takeover of your religious institutions by the Government.
  • Measurable impact on the economic and infrastructure front

The ease of ‘redesignation’

The above two sections where we looked at the benefits of being a minority and the dangers of being a non-minority make it obvious that communities currently under the non-preferred category will desire to make it to the preferred group. One factor that can dampen the enthusiasm for such ‘conversions’, usually, is the difficulty associated with such a redesignation.

However, in the present case, two reasons make even this redesignation process very easy.

  1. The loose definition of who is a ‘minority’. There is only one requirement here – that of being a non-Hindu. All one needs to prove to become a minority and avail the numerous benefits is to somehow show how he is not a Hindu. Note: While this definition is actually true when looked at from a demographic point of view, the problem is the association of this definition with institutional, legal, social and economic benefits.
  2. The vague, or non-existent, definition of who is a ‘Hindu’. Except perhaps the Brahmin sect, who are joined at the hip with Vedas, Smritis, Puranas and rituals, every other community can venture to claim they are non-Hindus, or at least ‘no longer Hindus’. Most kshatriyas today are not into military or police service. Very few Vaishya communities are still in business. The remaining communities surely can cite the instances of them being denied equal privileges in the past to claim they were never ‘allowed to be Hindus’. Further, Hinduism as a religion, has never mandated any holy book, custom or ritual that every adherent must follow in order to be treated as an Hindu. This makes the task of detaching oneself from Hinduism even more simpler.

When it comes to becoming a minority, the key is to get the Government to accept what you are NOT (Hindu) rather than make them realize who you are. Due to this – historical conditions, present economic situations, relative social position – none of these matter in the attempt to get redesignated.

Another side-effect of such a classification, with no socio-economic parameters being considered, is that it is safe to assume that there is no exit criteria for falling out of the minorities list. Once you are in, you cannot be out just because for e.g. your community grew into a very affluent one. If there were to be the case, there is simply no explanation for why communities such as Jains and Parsis have to be in the minorities list in the first place. Get in once, and stay there forever.


There are significant benefits to becoming a minority in India. And the reasons are not just socio-economic but much more significant centering around institutional control. If you are a community that has a significant stake in institutions (such as Lingayats for e.g) it simply makes no sense to subject oneself to the draconian measures intended for the ‘non-minority’.

Demand for recognition as a non-Hindu is therefore only natural. In all likelihood, as knowledge of the benefits of redesignation and dangers of existing designation become known, more and more Hindu communities are likely to demand the same status.

Three Definitions of Minorities

Based on the actions taken by the State of India, three different definitions of the word “minorities” can be identified. Depending upon the purpose intended to be served, one of the three definitions is used. Here is a short introduction to the 3 types.

Type 1: “Minority need to be Majority”

This definition kicks in when a particular privilege is to be granted.

The spatial unit used under this definition is a area, block or district.


Under the PM 15 point program, various resources such as houses, toilets, roads, banks and other vital infrastructure which every citizen of the country requires is to be given, the definition of minority is an area, block or district where they are actually in majority. These units are variously called as MCDs, MCBs and so on.

Type 2: “Minority cannot be Majority”

This definition activates when a benefit is to be exclusively retained.

The spatial unit used under this definition is a state.


Article 30 of the Indian Constitution became necessary to ensure minorities do not suffer, due to their numerical inferiority, in being able to run educational institutions so they can sustain and grow their religion, culture, language etc.

In areas where the minority are in majority (as per definition 1 above), minorities have by definition numerical strength. They can naturally take measures to sustain and grow their culture and language. Further, as per the RTE law, all kids entailing the benefits should compulsorily join schools within a small radius of their locality. Thus, if RTE were made applicable in MCD/MCB areas, there simply is no threat to minority schools.

To overcome this logical khichdi, definition 2 is used. For the purposes of opening educational institutions, minority status is decided on a state basis and not on a district or block basis.

Type 3: “Only Minority can be Minority”

This definition is used when “non-minorities” need to be deprived of a benefit.

The spatial unit used for this definition is the Country.


In many states of India such as Jammu Kashmir, Kerala and Arunachal Pradesh, Hindus are numerically inferior. Therefore, they qualify as minorities under definition 2 given above and can obtain benefits such as protection under Article 30 and exemption from RTE.

To overcome this logical avial, definition 3 is used. Under this category, minorities are decided on a national basis. Various arguments such as overall literacy rates, employment percentages are used to justify this. And counter arguments showing literacy rates of minorities in 2011 being more than that of Hindus in 2001 are discarded without consideration.


Following are the 2 golden rules that can be derived from the above analysis.

  1. Only minorities can be minorities.
  2. If majority are actually in minority, refer to rule 1.

Is the NDA denying minorities their rights?

Today, the Hindustan Times has published an article titled “How the NDA is systematically denying minorities their rights” in which the authors, owing allegiance to the Congress party, make several claims trying to prove that the Modi Government is actually denying the benefits of many of the schemes that exist for minorities.

If one were to accept the claims in this article as-is, the only conclusion to draw would be that the NDA Government is anti-minority and is systematically removing all their benefits. The perception on the ground though, albeit with RW supporters, is the exact opposite i.e. that the NDA Government has increased its support and appeasement of minorities. Hence a closer look at some of the claims made in the article is necessary.

Allocations for minority welfare

In the third paragraph, the article says this

“First, the allocations for minority welfare have consistently declined since the time the BJP assumed office”

A little later in the 8th paragraph, the same article says this

“Even though it has nominally enhanced allocations for welfare schemes meant for minority development…”

It is quite evident the authors themselves are unsure whether the NDA Govt has increased or decreased the allocations!

Budget numbers

The article claims the following are the allocations for the year 2016-17

“It has dropped from Rs. 27, 172 crore in 2012-13 to Rs 9,930 in 2016-17. In percentage terms, it has come down from 1.93% of the budget (2012-13) to 0.50% in 2016-17.”

The authors have not given any link to the sources for these numbers. Let us look at some actual numbers.

Total plan outlay for minorities in the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) : 7283 crores

Total plan outlay for minorities in the 12th Five Year Plan (2013-18) : 17323 crores

Total minorities welfare department budget in the year 2012-13 : 3135 crores

Total minorities welfare department budget in the year 2017-18 : 4195 crores

Using the same reference years as in the article, the budgetary allocation for minorities welfare has gone up by 33% from the Congress Govt days to now.

Earmarking percentages in the PM-15 Point Program

The MoMA oversees a program called the “Prime Minister’s 15 Point Program for the Welfare of the Minorities”. Regarding this scheme, the article makes the following claim.

“The BJP ….. did not explicitly mandate that a percentage of the plan component of the budget be earmarked for minorities in proportion to their population”

Further down in the article, the authors make the following recommendation

“It would be expedient to mandatorily earmark 14% of the fiscal and physical outlays in the schemes under the PM15-PP for minorities”

On the 8th of February 2017, in response to a Starred Question (vide number 100) on the PM-155 Point Program, the Minister in charge of MoMA stated the following on the floor of the Lok Sabha

“All these schemes / initiatives are being implemented by participating Ministries / Departments, either exclusively or by earmarking of 15% of overall physical / financial targets (under the concerned scheme / initiative) or by monitoring the flow of funds in the minority concentration areas for the welfare of minorities throughout the country”

It is quite clear from the minister’s response that the Government is already earmarking 1% more than what the Congress is demanding.

Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MSDP)

Several claims are made under this category. Let us look at a few.

  • Claim 1

“It is being implemented in 90 districts with high concentration of minorities”

On the 2nd of December 2015, in response to an Unstarred Question (vide number 546) on the MSDP, the Minister in charge of MoMA stated the following on the floor of the Lok Sabha

“The Multi-sectoral Development Programme (MsDP), was launched during the year
2008-09 in 90 identified Minority Concentrations Districts (MCDs)…”

“The programme has been revamped in 2013-14 for better focusing and better
targeting on minorities. A total of 710 Minority Concentration Blocks and 66 Minority
Concentration Towns falling in 196 districts have been identified as per Census 2001 for implementation of the programme…”

So it was the Congress which focused on only 90 districts to implement this program in the beginning. The program has actually now expanded to over 196 districts (a 100% increase).

  • Claim 2

“It has been well documented that a majority of Muslims are not counted in the BPL lists because of various reasons. Consequently, these funds are either diverted to non-minority beneficiaries or remain unutilised.”

Firstly, The authors do not provide any pointers to those “well documented” reasons due to which majority of Muslims are left out of the BPL lists.

Secondly, in the 12th Five Year Plan spanning 2013-14, out of a total outlay of 530316 lakhs for the MSDP, an amount of 415380 lakhs has already been disbursed to the various States by the Central Government. This means even with a full year to go, more than 78% of the funds have already been disbursed!!

(Note: These funds are allocated on an yearly basis and disbursed. So it is simply not possible that the entire 78% was disbursed by the Congress in 2013 itself)

  • Claim 3

This claim is regarding the number of projects sanctioned & completed under the MSDP

“Union government said that in 2014-15, 4,70,165 projects were sanctioned for minority development but none were completed. In contrast, in 2013-14, when the UPA was in power, 52,698 projects were sanctioned and 16,967 were completed”

At first glance, it appears as if the NDA Government increased the total number of projects from 50+ thousand to 4.7+ lakhs without executing any of them. A closer look reveals the truth.

In February of 2014, just few months before the UPA Govt term ended, a new project was added to MSDP. This scheme is called “Digital Literacy under Cyber Gram” (DLuCG) and it imparts digital literacy in minority concentrated areas. Under DLuCG, each individual target (person) is considered as a project.

Under this scheme, the two states of West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh (till recently – a non NDA state) have been allocated a total of 3.43 lakh “projects” – most of which is still incomplete.

Since this scheme was non-existent during the Congress rule, it is totally incorrect to compare the project size of 52K back then with the project size of 4.7 lakhs now.

Detailed budgeting and expenditure tracking

The article makes the following suggestion

“In addition, to ensure proper monitoring of these schemes, a separate budget statement with details of targeted and non-targeted expenditure must be detailed

The Ministry of Minority Affairs, in its website, has a separate section for its schemes. In this section, minute details of every single scheme including budgets, grants, state-wise disbursement list and records of past several years are maintained and is available for download freely. It would have been good if the authors had at least once glanced through this website.


The article in Hindustan Times has several factual inaccuracies with regard to the handling of schemes for minorities by the NDA Government. It is quiet clear from available data that the present Government is in fact increasing its focus and spending on minority welfare schemes.

Amendment to Article 15 of the Constitution

In order to further the cause of #Core2 and #Core3, here is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of India.

The PDF version is available constitutional-amendment-article-15-draft.




further to amend the Constitution.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-eighth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—

  1. This Act may be called the Constitution (One Hundred and XXXXXX Amendment) Act, 2017.
  2. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
  3. In article 15 of the Constitution, under section 1, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:–

“15 (1) (a) In all matters concerned with access to, control over, or distribution of, any material resource of the country that is not private-owned, the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.”



All citizens in this country have equal rights to the resources of this country. There cannot be any discrimination when it comes to the State distributing the material resources of the country. Such discrimination leads to appeasement of certain sections of society that can only harm the nation in the long term. Needless to state, such discrimination is also unconstitutional.

It is to be noted that the proposed amendment will not conflict with the objectives of the special schemes sanctioned by the Constitution for the development of socially and economically backward sections of the society.

In order to ensure the original intent of the founders of the nation with regard to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution is brought to fruition, and to ensure the spirit of the Constitution makers with respect to Article 39(b) is explicitly upheld, it is necessary to amend the Constitution, as above.

The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.


New Delhi


The Quality of our College Teachers

Please read this previous related piece on the National Eligibility Test (NET) for context.

In order to become an Assistant Professor or a Junior Research Fellow in any of our Universities or Colleges, an individual MUST *qualify* in the NET. Even the IITs must consider the NET in order to recruit Professors.

Structure of NET examination:

  • There are 83 subjects in which examinations are conducted.
  • Every candidate must write 3 papers.
  • The contents of the 3 papers are as follows
    • Paper-I shall be of general nature, intended to assess the teaching/research aptitude of the candidate. It will primarily be designed to test reasoning ability, comprehension, divergent thinking and general awareness of the candidate. 60 (sixty) multiple choice questions of 2 marks each will be given, out of which the candidate would be required to answer any 50 (fifty)
    • Paper-II shall consist of 50 objective type compulsory questions based on the subject selected by the candidate. Each question will carry 2 marks
    • Paper-III will consist of 75 objective type compulsory questions from the subject selected by the candidate. Each question will carry 2 marks

Qualification criteria:

  • Pass marks for Paper 1
    • General category students : 40
    • Others : 35
  • Pass marks for Paper 2
    • General category students : 40
    • Others : 35
  • Pass marks for Paper 3
    • General category students : 75
    • Others : 60
  • Once the list of students who have passed as per above is obtained, the top 15% of students belonging to SC, ST, OBC, Disabled Category and General Category are made in each subject.

The 5 lists, each containing 15% of top ranking students, constitutes the “Qualifying Candidates” list.

Just so that we internalize it – let us paraphrase it once again.

The people who join our colleges and universities as professors come from this top-15%-list.

In the year 2015, a total of 23595 students constituted this qualifying list. Let us look at the performance of these “top” students. Here is a table capturing the lower end of the top-folks 🙂

Paper Marks Obtained Number  Percentage of top students
1 35-40 (including 40) 1120 4.74%
2 35- 40 (including 40) 287 1.21%
3 60-75 (including 75) 3644 15.40%


  • 5% of the top students – who actually hold a Master’s degree or equivalent – cannot even score 40% marks in a paper which tests their reasoning ability, comprehension, divergent thinking and general awareness.
  • 15% of the top students – cannot even score 50% in a paper which contains objective type questions on the subject of their choice. Again, these are Masters degree holders.