This Is Your Very Own Personal Invitation To 2015 R: Fill & Download for Free

I gave my third UPSC interivew(CSE-2015) and I have seen my name thrice in the final rank list of Civil Services Examination, so my understanding of the Personality Test is based more on to the first hand experience(s).Let me give you a realistic picture of Civil Services interview:Firstly if I could describe CSE interview in one word then it would be "randomness". Now why is that? For the simple reason that people who are sitting there are not professional interviewers. Sure they are very experienced people and come from diverse backgrounds but is the life experience a sufficient criteria to make one a good judge of personality. If that's true then all HR firms would have only hired 50+ aged people but they are not doing so. Since the people there are not professionally trained for the job hence interview outcomes can be very random with marks of same person varying tremendously in subsequent years.Edit: Recently I came through this brilliant piece of work by a civil servant in Audit and Account Service. It gives a quantitative proof of my hypothesis above.“The above visualisation- scatter plot, which shows the correlation between the Interview scores of the same set of candidates in two successive years was the most surprising (and disturbing) finding. One can very clearly see that there is little if any relation between how a candidate may fare in the Personality Test in two successive years. With an R-Squared of around 0.1, the Interview process can be said to have limited Reliability(and as a consequence also of limited Validity.).Whatever the Personality Test tries to assess (the "IAS-ness") lack of reliability leads to a doubt on the validity of the measurement.”Here is the link for that: Civil Services Examination - Game of Thrones or Game of Chance?Secondly interviewers have their own biases and hence their judgement is not necessarily completely objective. There used to be one board earlier whose chairman generally disliked people from technical background ( specially IITs and NITs) coming to civil services.Thirdly not every interviewer takes his/her job that seriously. There have been boards like that of an infamous lady member who would leave the room during interview or sometimes have a lavish meal in between the interview. Then there was one ex-UPSC member who was playing games on i-pad during one of the interview.Forthly not every UPSC member is best suited for the job. Most of them are placed there because of political connections. A.P. Singh was a UPSC member and chairman of interview board who was "judging" candidates whether they are "honest" and "ethical" enough to join civil services. However he was himself accused in corruption cases and had to leave the position at UPSC because of case against him in Enforcement Directorate. Ex-CBI chief AP Singh resigns as UPSC member. Then there was one chairman (ex-UPSC member) who in one interview was caught unaware of the fact that Indian Information Service is also one of the civil services which people opt via Civil Services Examination. So at times interviewers are themselves clueless about many things.There are people saying that its only a a test of personality and not of knowledge and you are judged only on the basis of questions you answer. However I differ with this opinion. Some boards like that of Alka Sirohi ask highly factual and technical questions and there is hardly a chance of getting good marks if you fail to answer such questions ( some exceptions are always there).Some things which I have learnt from my interviews is that it is good to have a decent command over English language and being eloquent helps but don't overdo it. Also remember that the board members are alpha males ( or females) so be very respectful and humble. Even if you engage in an argument with them then be polite and if it stretches too far then take a dignified exit rather then pestering to prove that you are right ( even if you actually are).I don't want to discourage anyone but one should be aware of reality. Truth is that UPSC is a government organisation and it is as efficient and effective as any other govt. department can be. So don't have an idealistic pretty picture of an interview where the members will be at the edges of their chairs to listen every word coming out from your mouth. For you it might be the most important day of life while for them its just another routine day. In my interviews I have seen people yawning, dozing and asking questions which are factually wrong ( yeah one of the interviewer thought that Dadabhai Naoroji was a historian).One more thing that interviewers except the board chairman( who is a UPSC member) are specially invited for every session. They come from diverse backgrounds like bureaucrats, professors, academicians etc. Now they might be expert in their subject but many of them have no idea what to ask from civil services aspirant which leads to some absurd questions being asked in interviews. One of the teacher at a famous Civil Services coaching institute told us that some UPSC interview panelists have approached them to ask what questions they should ask in the interview. So you see as much as you are scared of what to expect in the interview, some of the panelists themselves are clueless of what to expect from you.Another thing which I want to clear is that there are many fake transcripts and questions of Civil Services interview which are circulated on the internet. For example I just searched "amazing IAS interview questions" and got this link BEST IAS TOPPERS PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTION AND ANSWERS . These smart ass questions have never been asked in Civil Services interview and will never be asked in future. These are just fake questions to make people believe that civil servants are one of the smartest people on earth ( now I can write a 1000 words answer on this myth but i will save it for some other time). Check out Varsha Singh's answer in this thread for another one of such hoax transcript. Also don't give a smart ass answer to any question in Civil Services interview, you will most probably get yourself kicked out of the final rank list, just give a simple, balanced, objective and common sense based answer.Lastly I want to give an advice to future aspirants. For CSE interview don't think too much about what will happen and what will not happen, just follow the Geeta's mantra of 'Nishkaam Karma'. I have come to believe in what is called the Deterministic philosophy which says that everything is already determined so your actions don't matter as such. Now I don't think think that this is a right philosophy for life in general but its good for UPSC interview because ultimately your performance is majorly dependent on factors which are out of your control, so why worry or sweat over what will happen in interview. Just go with a cool mind, expect the best but be prepared for the worst. Ultimately it's a very random event so prime focus should be on performance in Mains exam.P.S. - I have got decent marks (65-70 %) in both of my interviews till now. This attempt in CSE - 2015 (my interview for which took place in March 2016) was my third attempt and third interview in Civil Services Examination.

On last week’s episode (“The Real Cost of Cruises”), Hasan pointed out that:When you actually do the research, everything secretly sucks.My regular readers know I’ve increasingly felt this way about journalism itself. With each new deep dive I come up even more disappointed. And, well, this one was no exception. I was excited to watch it, as I’ve long argued that Canada deserves more scrutiny than we typically receive, and I suspect any full and fair review would find us wanting in some pretty serious ways. But this presentation, slick and funny as it was, didn’t help to those ends. While I generally appreciate what they tried to accomplish, their thin and flawed research undermined them at (nearly) every turn.Taking each problemed area in the order they appeared in the show:#1: The SNC-Lavalin Affair[Segment ran from 4:45 to 8:25 of the episode.]It’s less that the show got this one wrong, as it is that what they shared was so light on context that it misled more than it enlightened. That said, I’m vaguely sympathetic, in that it would have been hard for their team to find a good overview of the scandal, as most of our domestic coverage has been lacking.I’m a bit suspicious of any attempts to explain the scandal in brief, as it really is an intensely complex and nuanced story not all that amenable to being summed in a quick set of soundbites. That said, to give the sense here:SNC-Lavalin did some shady stuff going back to the late 90s, including a bribery scheme with the Libyan government under Gaddafi. The RCMP began investigating this in 2011, which opened some floodgates.By the time Trudeau was elected in 2015, SNC had undergone a full gutting. The bad apples were found and removed, thousands of employees turned over, and their internal processes were rewritten from scratch so as to keep the new SNC from becoming like the old.On account of this renewal, the management of the new SNC asked the Trudeau government for a deferred prosecution agreement, where they would admit guilt and pay fines and allow for ongoing government oversight in exchange for avoiding a criminal trial that would harm their ability to bid on future federal government contracts. (This would be bad for them and also bad for Canada, as SNC is one of the few firms of its kind.)The logic here is that SNC had been purged and was happy to pay further penalties, so criminal proceedings didn’t offer much upside. Trudeau agreed, and his government installed a new deferred prosecution regime accordingly.To Trudeau’s surprise, two people on his staff (who have a complicated form of independence) rejected SNC’s bid to take advantage of said process. Trudeau didn’t care much for this, and made repeated attempts at bringing the senior of those two people to see his way of thinking. She feels this was inappropriate. He feels like she’d never really given the case a fair shake, and that she wasn’t considering his arguments or those of their colleagues.Said person ended up being shuffled out of their role months later. This upset her, as she felt it was because of her SNC decision. (We don’t have firm evidence either way. The triggering event for the shuffle was unrelated, but it’s possible that Trudeau used this opportunistically.) Anyway, her concerns were eventually leaked to a major newspaper, which set off a scandal that saw her and a colleague quit Trudeau’s cabinet, which in turn let to him dismissing them both from his caucus.Now, to reiterate, the above is a very skinny version of what happened. For those interested in digging deeper, see here (about the original case) and here (about the recent ruling of Canada’s ethics commissioner). Those two pieces are, to my knowledge, the most rounded and complete summaries available anywhere. I’ve undergirded both with a generous cash-for-corrections offer, which I’m happy to extend indefinitely. As I say, it’s a notoriously complicated story, and the deeper you go the more dissatisfied you’ll be with most popular coverage.The short, short version is that Hasan assumes that the ethics commissioner’s ruling is some sort of undeniable proof that Trudeau did something particularly scandalous. While this is an understandable way of interpreting it as an outsider, that interpretation doesn’t hold up all that well when you go a few more layers in. Our political structure in Canada is weird and arcane, and it takes a real investment to get your head around it all. Trudeau definitely failed at managing his team, but it’s hard to argue that what he did was unethical. The center of this case isn’t a set of democratically-legislated Canadian laws, but rather the contents of an impromptu speech given almost 70 years ago in a different country. (If that sounds a little incredible to you, I really do encourage you to read up on it. Canadian politics are a trip.)#2: Quebec’s Bill 21[8:25 - 11:50]Quebec’s government did indeed pass a bill earlier this year that denies public employees their right to wear religious accountremont on the job. This applies equally to Catholics (75% of the population) as Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims (~5% combined), but is widely assumed by outsiders as being more about the latter than the former in its current urgency.That said, two big issues with the show’s presentation:The history of secularism as a governmental policy within Quebec is long and thorny, but the fountainhead of this movement was exclusively a response to state Catholicism. While there’s no doubt that part of the current legislation is being driven by anti-diversity sentiment, there’s far more to this particular story. Governments on both sides of the aisle have pushed secularization as part of completing the Quiet Revolution, and you can’t really understood these laws outside that context.Trudeau has zero influence over the direction of said bill. It was drafted by the CAQ, a right-wing party not especially interested in his opinion. The bill was also specifically structured around the notwithstanding clause of the constitution, meaning that the federal government can’t do anything about it for five years. Lastly, Quebec is both a province and a sovereign “nation within a nation”. For a sitting PM to interfere with their politics would be a suicide mission — especially when said PM is himself both Quebecois and a sitting MP for a riding in Montreal.So, basically, Hasan was right that Canada does have pockets which harbour sentiments that aren’t especially pro-immigrant, with rural Quebec being prominent among them. But Bill 21 is about more than that, and metro Montreal (which makes up half the province population-wise) is largely a healthy and diverse area that continues to attract a significant number of religious and cultural minorities.(This segment also mentioned a poll having found that a majority of Canadians are against the government increasing immigration quotas. While this is true, it’s not at all inconsistent with Trudeau’s policies or rhetoric. The Liberal Party of Canada has long been for broadening legal immigration and refugee programs within a pragmatic boundary. We’re already taking in 2.5x as many new permanent residents as the US per capita, and something like 40% of our progressive voters even agree that there’s a practical limit on how many can be effectively assimilated in any given year. This is true of virtually all left-leaning countries, and isn’t indicative of some “other side” to Canada.)#3: Saudi Arms Sales[11:50 - 15:35]So, some context about that arms deal:It isn’t clear how much it’s actually worth. Could be anywhere from $10 to $15bn CAD. The terms are private, and the order was cut at least once.The deal isn’t between Canada and Saudi Arabia. It’s between the latter and a major US contractor that happens to operate a manufacturing facility in Canada. Our federal government was mostly involved in the limited sense of giving sign-off in the form of an export permit.Canada has a strong tradition of inter-government continuity. For Trudeau to cancel a permit issued by his predecessor would open the door for future governments to follow suit, which is a precedent he really wants to avoid.Cancelling the permit would invoke a penalty rumored to be between $700m and $1bn CAD. That’s a lot of money to spend on a move that would put something like 3,000 Canadian labourers out of work. (It would also cause US firms to question locating their subsidiaries here, which could have ranging implications for our economy and defense industry.)It isn’t clear that Trudeau’s government actually can unilaterally interfere with the contract. There were some weird riders in it, which are unhelpfully subject to a gag order set up by the previous PM. (More on that here.)It’s widely believed that most of the ordered LAVs are already built or shipped, meaning that revoking the permit now would have marginal effect on Saudi Arabia getting their hands on this new fleet.Even if we had kept all of them back, Saudi Arabia would just have shopped elsewhere. (This is the weakest argument to me, but I can see why some would factor it.)Trudeau has deeply strained relationships with the new Saudi government already, given how outspoken he and Chrystia Freeland have been about their human rights abuses. They’re ultimately an ally we have to work with, and diplomacy requires some compromise.Canada has already suspended further export permits, and the Saudis already made it clear that they aren’t interested in placing more orders. So this is a one-off anyway.Taken together, it’s hard to see a positive calculus for cancelling the deal. At best it’s another symbolic stand for a country that’s already done more than any other in terms of standing up to Prince MbS and his shenanigans. If anything, those stands and the freeze on future permits are exactly the stances that progressives should want to see, which makes this story an odd target for progressive criticism.#4: “The Canadian Weird Al”[15:35 - 17:20]The show was particularly gleeful in casting shade on the man they imagined a “mascot” for Canada’s energy industry: Bernard the Roughneck.As it happens, I helped a candidate run a campaign against Bernard earlier this year. He made a real impression on us. We found him to be authentic, articulate, and a great example of an independent citizen speaking up for his peers — which is something we should want more of in any healthy democracy.As it concerns the idea that he’s a shill for Big Oil:He originally got press when he attended a rally against the Kinder Morgan TM pipeline as a counter-protester. In his interview he argued that the opposition was hypocritical and ill-informed. While I disagree with how he characterized said protestors, he made several solid points.The same outlet (Rebel Media) later shared excerpts from Bernard’s testimony at a public hearing concerning the same pipeline.They apparently saw in him the same things I observed during this year’s candidates debate: he’s a very watchable guy. His views skew conservative and he looks like a stereotypical oil patch guy, but he’s sincere and articulate and informed in a way that’s impossible to discount. (He’s also smart enough to realize that wearing his oil-stained coveralls is a good way to get attention, which I hardly fault him for.)The CAODC (an industry group) got wind of those clips, and invited Bernard to go to Ottawa to voice his concerns outside Parliament. The deal was that they’d cover his flight and lodgings, but he’d get no payment and they had zero input on what he said (which he told me was all off the cuff anyway).If this makes someone a shill, I guess I’m in favour of more shills? Bernard is an independent as they come, and would be actively hostile to anyone telling him what to say or think. It so happens that an industry group saw aligned interests and thought that politicians in Ottawa might listen to him, which feels like a positive use of free speech to me. It’s one thing to pay someone to say something for you, and quite another to amplify a voice that’s already speaking.Anyway, he told me yesterday that he’s very much #YangGang these days, which I think says something about him. He’s attracted to non-traditional politicians who are “in the game for the right reasons” (his words). While he has his ideological differences with Yang, the common denominator is their prioritization of authenticity and integrity. Just so, while I have my own differences with Bernard, he’d get my vote on those qualities — which is something I can’t say for the decision to caricature him as a male stripper who’d been dropped down a chimney by his corporate overlords.(Note: I’ve written some pretty negative things about Rebel Media. While I stand by all of them, I’ll concede that they do a good job finding people like Bernard and giving them a microphone, which is a real civic benefit.)[EDIT: I’m troubled by many of the views Bernard has expressed on Twitter re: our most recent election. Very different tone and substance from the guy in the campaign debates. Even so, I stand by my opinion above, in that he was never a shill, and we should value independent voices. His anger, while not well-directed in my judgment, is a reflection of how many in Alberta feel right now. Dealing with that anger is part of the political process.]#5: Competing Speeches[17:20 - 18:40]Hasan and his editors went to lengths to make it seem like a speech that Trudeau gave to oil execs in Houston was at odds with his frequent comments about his administration taking climate change seriously.To illustrate how disingenuous their clip selection was, let’s look at their excerpt in context. The entirety of what they quoted is in bold.These ambitious projects will go a long way towards ensuring North American energy security for years to come. I make no bones about it. We’re very proud of this. It’s progress. It’s important. As I said on the very first trip to the oil patch back in 2012, no country would find 173 billion barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.The resource will be developed. Our job is to ensure that this is done responsibly, safely, and sustainably. Which brings me to the second piece, equally critical. While developing our resources for the economic benefit of Canadians, we must also look to the future.There will come a day, far off, but inevitable at some point, when traditional energy sources will no longer be needed. In preparing for that day, we have two critical responsibilities. One is to sustain the planet between now and then so we can pass it on to our children better than we found it. And the second is to get ahead of the curve on innovation.[…] We would not be on this path, not even close, had we as a government not insisted that environmental protection and resource development go hand-in-hand. Our immediate predecessors tried a different route for 10 years—to ignore the environment. It didn’t work any more than the NEP of the 1980s worked [a policy instituted by Trudeau’s father]. They couldn’t move forward on big energy projects. Our predecessors failed because in the 21st century Canadians will not accept that we have to choose between a healthy planet and a strong economy. People want both, and they can have both. It takes compromise. It takes hard work, but it is possible.I can see criticizing Trudeau on the level of policy. Perhaps his regulatory interventions haven’t been strong as they could be. Sound minds differ on that front. But there’s no contradiction here. His whole platform all along has been “let’s accept that energy is 20% of our GDP and that climate change is real and dire, which means we need to find balance”. To suggest otherwise is just manipulative editing.#6: Pipelines = Production?[18:40 - 21:40]Hasan later confronts Trudeau on this idea that Canadians (or anyone) can fight climate change while still harvesting carbon-based resources en masse. To illustrate his point, Hasan brought up Canada’s nationalization of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, which he believes will lead to increased tar sands oil production, which in turn would mean more carbon in the atmosphere regardless of how Canada invests the resulting profits (currently slated to go towards clean energy R&D and deployment).I’ll give Hasan partial points here, in that Trudeau is being especially optimistic to say that more pipeline capacity won’t facilitate any additional production. Even so, his claim that we won’t be polluting more is still plausible. The most likely scenario for our energy sector is a mild increase in production paired with a flat-ish line when it comes to net emissions.Canada’s oil industry has been notably cooperative at both funding climate research and adopting new technology. We’ve made significant progress on both decreasing emissions per barrel and dealing with the ecological aftermath of oil extraction. The new carbon taxation scheme heavily favours serious innovation and deployment in these kinds of areas, which should amplify existing efforts/effects.While it’s true that tar sands oil requires additional work to refine, the effect on climate change vs. other oil sources isn’t as much as you might think. Something like 75% of carbon emissions come from end fuel consumption, not the extraction or refinement of the raw product (i.e., 75% of emissions are identical regardless of the source). To the degree that any of this R&D helps cars burn gas more efficiently (while also maybe capturing more carbon within their exhaust systems), that will have a 3x effect vs. extraction-level innovations.New regulatory burdens are making oil production in Canada more expensive. A pipeline will allow for better margins vs. the current costs of transporting the oil by trucks and trains, but won’t make the tar sands especially appealing vs. other sources. It’s hard to see economic rationale for a dramatic uptick in production.Oh, and for the record, the dirtiest oil in North America actually comes from the Placerita patch, which is about 35 miles from Netflix’s studios in Hollywood.#7: Carbon Taxes and Exemptions[21:40 - 22:10]Again, Hasan says something that’s kinda true, but that’s pretty misleading without context.This year, Trudeau’s taxes on carbon went into effect. But they exempt all oil and gas companies from paying taxes on 80% of their emissions.This is the kind of problem that comes with generalists writing about complex topics without adequate input from specialists. There are many ways of pricing carbon, and you have to view each system as a whole to understand the logic of each individual component.Canada’s new pricing regime is split into two categories: (i) a fuel tax, paid by consumers, (ii) a credits/penalties system, designed for emitters.The fuel tax is progressive, in that low earners will get regular cash deposits that exceed their additional expected expenses, while higher earners/spenders are now incentivized to buy a Tesla and/or fly less often.The credits/penalties scheme (OBPS) is pretty complex, but is premised on a set of industry benchmarks re: average emissions. Each emitter is then given a cap based on a % of that baseline. If you go below the cap, you get a tax credit. If you exceed it, you have to pay a tax, else buy credits from someone else, else trade in prior credits, etc.Now, let’s compare OBPS to a flat-tax scheme where a fixed price applies to all emissions (i.e., no exemptions).Say my company has a cap of 1,000 tonnes per year, and that the flat tax is $10/tn. If I get my emissions to 750 tonnes, I pay just $7,500.If I were to cut my emissions to 500 tonnes, I’d cut my bill to $5,000, but wouldn’t get any further reward.Big concern: my competition, who decided to invest far less in emissions reductions, would be able to out-compete me on price, as my gained efficiencies aren’t likely to offset the costs of getting there.Under OBPS, the company that cuts to 500 tonnes gets a generous tax credit, whereas the company at 1,500 tonnes has to buy some of those credits. If you set those scales correctly, you can easily give the innovator/adopter a meaningful financial advantage.This isn’t to say a flat tax can’t work, or that it’s inherently inferior. If you make it draconian enough, all companies will have adequate incentive to invest in R&D. But a tax that severe comes with ruinous political costs, and is likely to push global companies elsewhere. The upside of OBPS is that it incentivizes the right behaviour without ruffling as many feathers. The exemptions aren’t exemptions in the sense that Canada is turning a blind eye to x% of a company’s emissions — they’re just baselines in an incentives scheme, which give companies a target to shoot for and a reason to try.All in all, it’s a pretty sensible system, and wasn’t arrived at arbitrarily. I suppose one could make good arguments for competing systems (many of which were considered) but that’s a very different thing from suggesting that Canada’s worst emitters are getting a free 80% pass.#8: Promises, Promises[22:10 - 24:20](I’m skipping over his bit about Canada missing on their Paris emissions goals, which we definitely will. It just isn’t that interesting of a criticism to me. Pretty much all large countries are going to miss, which is the nature of these things. I suppose there’s a worthy discussion to be had about the theater of global accords, but I don’t see what that has to do with the theme of Two Canadas. Sure, Trudeau over-promised. But who didn’t? And what was the alternative? If he says “no, we don’t agree to these targets, they’re unrealistic” then he makes a lot of people very angry while changing nothing, as the whole thing was just collaborative PR anyway.)Anyway, Hasan goes on to bring up Trudeau’s backtracking re: his prior promise to respect indigenous sovereignty when it came to their lands. The prospect of twinning the Trans Mountain pipeline has drawn a number of objections from said groups, to which Trudeau has basically said “I hear you, but, like, c’mon, I’m obviously going to twin this pipeline despite your objections, so we may as well talk about compensation rather than permission”.This is bad, in that it is a clear walkbalk of a clear promise. That said, when you look at the options, you can kinda see where it was the least bad choice available:Oil is a considerable part of our economy. We have the third-largest reserve in the world. Letting all that oil sit in the ground would basically destroy the economy of two provinces while acting as a massive weight on the rest. Even if it were the right decision based on some ethical calculus, it’s politically infeasible. No PM would survive it.If you accept that we need to extract and sell some oil to ensure we stay rich enough to maintain employment and invest into clean energy / climate mitigation R&D, the next question is how we get that oil to market. The current method involves a lot of trucks and trains, which is terrible for the environment. Modern pipelines are safer, and way more efficient.Building a new pipeline is a political nightmare, as you have to cross an unwieldy number of property lines and ecosystems, which requires a very long and very expensive set of studies and negotiations and payments. Twinning an existing one is preferable in pretty much every sense. The land use rights are all already there for the most part (the new one deviates in places). You’re mostly just annoying people in some areas by bringing construction crews back (though that can be good for local economies), and introducing marginal risks of fresh contamination in the form of mistakes made along the way.So, like, Hasan’s point is valid. We really shouldn’t be telling indigenous people for the xth time “hey, sorry, but we’re not going to listen to you on this one”. But in context of a range of bad options, it’s far from obvious that any are less bad. And it’s not like this policy targets the indigenous. The Trans Mountain route runs across all sorts of properties, and is mostly equal in who it annoys.Also, it’s actually thanks to changes that the Trudeau government made in recent years that indigenous tribes have as much legal leverage here as they do — which Trudeau really doesn’t seem displeased with. He’d obviously like to get a move on with this specific project, but the fact that these tribes have expanded tools/rights is a net positive for which he should get some credit.(Note: A significant share of the protests are coming from communities not themselves in the way of the pipeline, but which would be affected by increased oil tanker traffic near Vancouver’s ports. I think they actually have the stronger claim here, though I’m again skeptical that there’s a better solution.)SummaryI quite like Hasan as a comedian, the show did get some things right, and I agree that both Canada and Trudeau deserve more scrutiny than they often get. But the research here was inexcusably thin, and the facts were made to fit the narrative. While this is a problem in itself, there’s also an election coming up here shortly, and these sorts of presentations have a non-trivial effect on voter understanding. I don’t feel they were well informed in this particular case, which kinda seems the entire point of the enterprise.

Bangladesh.First of all, many foreigners — especially people from the West — must note, it is not India, neither a part of India; she is simply a sovereign and independent state - Bangladesh by name.The country's official name is People's Republic of Bangladesh.The country's independence was declared on 26 March, 1971, and it earned the long-waited liberation finally on 16 December, 1971 from the then East Pakistan. So, the Independence day is celebrated on 26 March, and 16 December is our Victory day.The flag of Bangladesh has a meaning. It is a beautiful rendition of a red disk on a green field. The bottle-green colour is the emblem of the widespread greenery of the country, and the reddish circle in the midst is the sun rising over the country also symbolising bloodshed of the martyrs in '71 liberation war.The father of our nation is "Bangabandhu" Mr. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He is unanimously renowned for his bravery, unquestionable courage and leadership especially during the birth of Bangladesh and the post-liberation war period. He was assassinated along with the most of the members of his family on 15 August, 1975. 15 August is observed as our national mourning day.Sheikh Hasina is the current Prime Minister of Bangladesh. She is the daughter of Bangabandhu. She is well-known for sustaining equity to minorities and for being able to strengthen the diplomatic relationship a lot with countries like India and the US, and also for making the GDP rate over 6%.The parliament of Bangladesh is named as Jatiyo Sangshad. Jatiyo Sangsad Bhaban or National Parliament House is located at Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh. Designed by architect Louis Kahn, the complex, is one of the largest legislative complexes in the world, comprising 200 acres (800,000 m²).Dhaka is the capital of Bangladesh and the country's largest city. It is known as a significant financial centre of South Asia. As of July, 2014 census, the population of Dhaka is 15.391 million, making Dhaka the most populated city of Bangladesh, and one of the densest megacities in the world. Too little space, yet too many people here! So, don't get nervous to see crowds all around you on the roads or on the public transports whenever you are travelling to Dhaka. :PBangladeshi people are often mistaken for an Indian (or even Sri Lankan) because of a number of facts including almost similar colour complexion, linguistic similarity in the states of Eastern India and Bangladesh, and belonging to the same historic evolution. Still, Bangladesh is the name of a separate and individual identity. So, misinterpreting us as Indians or anyone else? A definite no-no. (See: History of Bangladesh)We are people from such a country which has experienced blood-shed and sacrifice for the sake of language. The martyrs were shot and killed on 21 February, 1952 while protesting against the then Pakistani Government for trying to make Urdu the only national language of both East & West Pakistan, whereas East Pakistan (Bangladesh now) had more native Bangla speakers than West Pakistan's Urdu speakers. Therefore, 21 February is Bangladesh’s Shaheed Day. In fact, 21 February is observed and formally recognized by UN as the International Mother Language Day throughout the world. Shaheed Minar is built as a memorial to the event. Also, on every 21 February, a month-long book-fair is held very close to the Shaheed Minar premises in memory of the martyrs' sacrifice for language. This "Ekushey Boimela" is considered as a legacy of Bangladesh.People from Bangladesh are seriously not endowed with what is portrayed widely with brutal poverty and diseases. Bangladesh is much beyond the myths. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country was worth 173.82 billion US Dollars in 2014. The GDP value of Bangladesh represents 0.28% of the world economy. Bangladesh is among the few 16 countries that are expected to graduate from the group of the least developed countries by 2025, according to the UN.Bangladesh is noted for the ethnic homogeneity of its population. Over 98 percent of the people are Bengalis, predominantly Bangla-speaking people. We are a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic country. There are many dialects of Bengali spoken throughout the regions. The dialect spoken by those in Chittagong, Noakhali and Sylhet are particularly distinctive. Moreover, about 87% of Bangladeshis are Muslims, followed by Hindus (12%), Buddhists (1%) and Christians (0.5%). Minority ethnic groups include Meitei, Khasia, Saonthals, Chakma, Garo, Biharis, Oraons, Mundas and Rohingyas.The country's development is mainly based on its rural economy. And the rural economy is based on its agriculture. Agriculture is the single largest producing sector of the economy, since it comprises about 18.6% of the country's GDP and employs around 45% of the total labour force. It should be added that, paddy (raw rice) is the staple grain of Bangladesh.The country's main cuisine, as I said, is rice. People here love to take rice with curry of fish/meat/egg/vegetables/lentils. We are fond of Rice & Curry more than anything else. Therefore, rice is a common item everywhere in Bangladesh. Another item for which Bangladesh is famous for is Hilsa fish (Ilish). Nothing can beat its superb taste! Interestingly, Hilsa fish or Ilish is a symbol of solvency as well as a customary part of the gifts exchanged at weddings in Bangladesh.It is a barely acknowledged yet a very significant fact about our cuisine culture that, we have a special inclination to juicy and soft sweets like "Rosh-gollas/Rasgulla" and "Lalmohon/Golabjamun" more than English pies, tarts or pastries. Entrepreneurs do invest in culinary sector accordingly.Bangladesh is clearly a country of colours and festivals. No doubt, weddings are an essential part of it! Marriage is regarded here as something very sacred and strong. Most of the Bangladeshi put all their life-long savings aside only to ensure that their children or siblings might get married off well. Therefore, weddings here are particularly big and fat, and can span several days including Mehendi Night, Turmeric Ceremony, Aqd, Wedding Day, Bou-bhat (or Walima). No matter what is the family's class or religion, they put their best effort to make the wedding a prosperous one, because sometimes the glory becomes a matter of social stature. Red is the common colour of our bride's attire, since red is considered as the symbol of festivity, prosperity, love and fertility.In Bangladesh, Eid-ul-Fitr is the biggest religious festival. Apart from that, Eid-ul-Azha (Qurbani Eid) along with Durga Puja are also significant religious festivals. Moreover, Christmas, Vesak (Buddha's birthday/Buddha Purnima), Janmashtami, Eid-e-Miladunnabi, Shab-e-Barat, Shab-e-Qadr etc. are celebrated with great joy and equity. At Tangi, near Dhaka, on the bank of the river Turag, one of the greatest peaceful congregations of the Muslim takes place each year called Bishwa Ijtema which is an event that draws attention of all the Muslim brothers around the world.Among the social festivals, Pohela Boishakh, Pohela Falgun, Nabanna etc. are notable. The people here love to celebrate the occasions and tend to welcome the different seasons in a joyous mood throughout the year.The Bangladeshi people start their conversation with greetings (mostly with a "Salam" since most people are Muslim here). They are not very much adapted to a hand-shake with a stranger or a less known person. They maintain a certain amount of distance while standing and talking to each other. Yet, saying a "hello" and shaking hands are slowly being embraced in the urban culture.It is considered unusual to stay outside home past 10 PM without any serious urgency, and this applies even for boys, especially those who are still students and living with their parents. This norm has been emerged basically out of the security reason at both Dhaka and outside. In fact, in other regions, 10 PM is contemplated as the midnight hour. Its completely normal here when I have seen my 80 years old Grandpa worrying immensely because my 58 years old Dad was late at coming home while the clock stroke 9:45 PM at my home-town. Yeah, different society, different culture!Bangladeshis are a social community. They love to remain surrounded with friends and fellows everywhere. Bangladeshi people value relationships to a great extent. But, remember, these people are way more conservative while conversing for the first times. In most of the families, till date, sons tend to live jointly with their parents even after marriage. Families in Bengali communities are patriarchal. The culture here is mainly family-oriented. During holidays, people prefer to sit along with the family members and would take a cup of tea or dine together or enjoy T.V. or hang out altogether. Besides, in the evenings, we often hang out with friends and have "adda" (chitchat) with them. Café culture is becoming popular only in a few urban areas.When it comes to the point of "adda", tea becomes an essential part. In fact, tea (or "cha") is a must-served item while attending guests at the Bangladeshi households. Tea stalls are a familiar image in almost all the streets of the country. And, really, the flavour and aroma of the tea leaves gently stirred in hot boiled water with a spoonful of the sweetened condensed milk at the stalls is splendid and surely a not-to-miss for the visitors!We are a hospitable, warm and welcoming nation as a whole. Whoever will travel to Bangladesh, would be welcomed by the fellow Bangladeshi people as if it were his or her own homeland. We may not be a developed country yet, but in terms of hospitality we are always affluent. Bangladesh is a secular country. So, we offer hospitality to the people from every nook and corner of the world regardless of class and religion. This sense of hospitality is a special attribute of our people which we can be proud of. We share a very emotional characteristic in common. Moreover, the Bangladeshi are happier than Indians, Nepalese and Sri Lankans, according to the 2015 World Happiness Report.Bangladesh is land of variety of seasons! There are primarily four and altogether six seasons - Summer, Monsoon, Autumn, Late Autumn, Winter and Spring - each season comprising nearabout two months. The seasons bring variety of colours to the land throughout the whole year.Our national animal is this -The Royal Bengal Tiger lives in the Sundarbans in the southern part of Bangladesh. The Sundarbans is the largest mangrove forest in the world. The Sundarbans covers approximately 10,000 square kilometres (3,900 sq mi) of which 60 percent is in Bangladesh with the remainder in India. It is, in fact, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The forest is also renowned for Chital or Chitra (spotted dear).When it comes to the Royal Bengal, the name and glory of our rising tigers - our national cricket team- must be mentioned also. Bangladesh is a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) with test & ODI status. The ODI team led by Mashrafe Mortaza and coached by Mr. Hathurusingha already has earned indubitable glory by beating Pakistan and India and winning consecutive ODI series. The Bangladesh team has now improved immensely and has been able to build a lasting ground of confidence through a transition long desired. The Bangladeshi are crazy fans of cricket and football. It should be added that, world football to most of our country-folks is, till now, synonymous with either Argentina or Brazil.Bangladesh, though being a tiny country, is the motherland of a Nobel-Laureate. He is Dr. Muhammad Yunus, winning his Nobel Peace prize in 2006 "for advancing economic and social opportunities for the poor, especially women, through their pioneering microcredit work" shared with his Grameen Bank.Three Bangladeshis - Bangladeshi-origin Labour Party candidates Rushanara Ali from Bethnal Green and Bow constituency, Tulip Rizwana Siddiq from the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency and Rupa Asha Huq from the constituency of Ealing - were elected MPs in UK general election held on 2015.Our national fruit is Jackfruit because of its widespread availability in our country. You will find this view quite a lot here and there around the villages and in Dhaka city as well especially during summer:Also, mango is widely cultivated and consumed here. Mangoes are used here often as gifts and tokens while visiting somebody's house. The sweetness and juiciness of a mango can make a Bangladeshi real happy! :PCox's Bazar Beach in Chittagong division is the longest unbroken sea beach in the world,running 125 km. It is, in fact, the top tourist destination of Bangladesh.Whenever you are planning to visit my country, you are invited to visit the following places too —Shaheed Minar (the statue built in memoriam of the martyrs who fought against the then East-Pakistani rulers and sacrificed lives for establishing Bengali language as the mother tongue in 1952) -b. Lalbagh Fort -c. Ahsan Manjil Palace on the bank of Buriganga River -d. Bangladesh National Museum -e. Jatiyo Sriti Shoudho or National Martyrs' Memorial(in memoriam of the martyrs who sacrificed themselves for the sake of liberation of Bangladesh during 1971 against Pakistan) -f. University of Dhaka Campus -g. Uttara Ganabhaban: an old seat of Maharajas with a beautiful palace now serving as the Uttara Ganabhaban (President's Official residence of the northern region) -h. Sitakunda -i. Moynamoti: Buddhist Bihar -j. Patenga Beach at the outskirts of Chittagong city -k. Hanging Bridge over Kaptai Lake at Rangamati, Chittagong Division -l. Nafakhum Falls at Bandarban, Chittagong Division -m. Ratargul Swamp Forest, Sylhet Division -n. Nilgiri Hill Range (Bandarban) -o. Sajek Valley (Rangamati) -p. Jadipai Waterfall (Bandarban) -q. Buddha Dhatu Jadi (Bandarban Golden Temple) -r. Saint Martin - the only coral island of the country -s. Kantoji Mondir (Kantoji Terracotta Temple) at Dinajpur -t. Sylhet Tea gardens -Planning to visit Bangladesh? You are invited at any time. We have all types of seasons endowed with the blessing of nature. So, depending on the season you cherish, you can visit the country during your preferred time-period.The official weekends are Friday and Saturday. Some organisations stay open on Saturdays though.Most of the shopping malls and markets get closed by 8-8:30 PM. Some bazaars, though, remain open till 10 o'clock at night.There are many more things yet to illustrate and elaborate, but it has already been so long an answer! Answers will be updated time to time upon your valuable feedbacks. For now, these are some things one can check out before travelling to Bangladesh. Hope these come to help.