Attitude — Practice Questions

Introduction: An attitude is a learned, relatively enduring tendency to evaluate an object favourably or unfavourably. Its structure is commonly described by the ABC model.

Body:

• Affective (feelings): empathy or indifference towards the poor. An officer who feels for a widow waiting for a pension will prioritise her file.
• Behavioural (action tendency): readiness to act — holding camps in remote villages, simplifying forms, speaking in the local language.
• Cognitive (beliefs): what the officer believes about the poor — “they are lazy” (stereotype) versus “they face structural barriers”. Beliefs shape how rules are interpreted.
• Interaction: a negative belief can breed contempt (affect) and avoidance (behaviour); correcting the belief through exposure and data can shift the other two.
• Link to prejudice: prejudice (A), stereotype (C), discrimination (B) — the same model explains unequal treatment.

Conclusion: Training that combines field exposure (affect), accurate knowledge (cognition) and service standards (behaviour) builds the positive attitude Article 46 and the Constitution’s commitment to weaker sections demand.

Introduction: Political attitudes are evaluative tendencies towards power, the State and public policy. Every thinking citizen, including a civil servant, has them; the question is how they relate to official conduct.

Body:

• Holding opinions is natural: civil servants are citizens and vote; denying them any view is unrealistic.
• Partisanship is the problem: allowing party loyalty to shape decisions, postings or the use of State resources.
• Why non-partisanship matters:
  • Continuity of administration across changes of government.
  • Equal treatment of citizens irrespective of political affiliation.
  • Frank advice to ministers of any party.
• Safeguards: conduct rules bar civil servants from taking part in politics; Article 311 protects them against arbitrary dismissal so they can be neutral.
• Commitment vs neutrality: officers should be committed to constitutional values, not to a party — the lesson of the “committed bureaucracy” debate of the early 1970s.

Conclusion: A civil servant may have political attitudes in private but must be non-partisan in office, committed to the Constitution rather than to any party.

Introduction: Son preference is a deep-rooted attitude with cognitive (beliefs about old-age support, lineage), affective (pride, anxiety) and behavioural (sex-selection, neglect of girls) components. Law alone cannot change it; persuasion must complement enforcement.

Body:

• Source: credible, relatable messengers — local women leaders, teachers, religious figures, successful daughters of the village. Trust matters more than authority.
• Message: positive framing (daughters as achievers) alongside facts on health and law; stories rather than statistics; repeated across channels.
• Audience: tailor to parents, grandparents and young couples; engage men, who often make decisions.
• Social influence tools:
  • Changing norms by celebrating the birth of girls publicly.
  • Public commitments by panchayats.
  • Identification with role models; aim at internalisation, not mere compliance.
• Supporting structures: incentives for girls’ education, strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act, 1994.

Conclusion: Combining credible sources, positive messages and changed social norms can move son preference from compliance to internalised gender equality.

Stakeholders: the cook; schoolchildren (especially poor children who depend on the meal); parents; local leaders; the headmaster and teachers; the district administration; the wider community.

Ethical issues:

• Untouchability, abolished by Article 17 and punishable under law.
• Dignity and livelihood of the cook.
• Children’s right to nutrition and education.
• Rule of law versus local pressure “to keep the peace”.
• Changing a deep-rooted prejudice, not merely suppressing it.

Options:

Course of action:

1. Make clear in writing that the cook will continue; no transfer of duties. Protect her dignity and safety.
2. Warn that untouchability is an offence under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; act legally against anyone who instigates boycott or threatens her.
3. Persuade through credible sources: meet parents with respected elders, women’s self-help groups and teachers; officials and the panchayat president share the meal publicly with the children.
4. Address the affective and cognitive roots: health workers explain hygiene standards; celebrate students who return.
5. Monitor attendance and nutrition; involve the School Management Committee.

Conclusion: The law sets the non-negotiable floor; persuasion builds lasting change. Upholding the cook’s dignity while bringing the community along reflects both Article 17 and empathy for the children.