Read the following passage

carefully and answer the questions

given below it. Certain words
  have been printed
in<STRONG> bold</STRONG> to
help you locate them while
answering some questions.</P>

<P>If youre a 20-something, chances are you dont know
how banking used to be in the bygone era. Savings
accounts came without ATM cards. If you needed cash,
you had to<STRONG> trudge</STRONG> to the branch
to fill in a withdrawal slip. And you had to approach the
same branch in which you opened your account for any
additional service, even if you had moved to the other end
of the city.</P>

<P>Well, when you invest in any post office scheme today,
you can count on precisely the same old-world experience.
If you want to withdraw the monthly interest from the
Monthly Income Scheme, or the MIS, youll have to visit
the post office that holds your account.
<STRONG>Barring</STRONG> the PPF account, other
small savings schemes offer no online access. As you eye
post office schemes for their<STRONG> mouth-
watering</STRONG> returns and safety, you may also
want to factor in the legwork that goes with it. Old-timers
will tell you that the servicing leg of small savings schemes
has definitely gotten worse in the last two to three years.
Post offices do employ agents who are meant to maintain
your passbooks and complete the transactions; but with the
Government trimming their commissions in 2011, many
agents have quit or moved to greener pastures.</P>

<P>So, you really cant avoid that expedition to the post
office and the long wait in the queue when you invest.
Also, be prepared to repeat this if you want to verify the
interest credit or get your passbook updated.Then, there are
the myriad rules about withdrawing your money and taking
loans against your investment, designed to flummox you.
Sample the rules for withdrawal from the PPF. Other long-
term instruments, such as tax-free bonds, allow you to
simply cash out on the stock exchanges. But it is not that
simple with the PPF. To become eligible to withdraw
money, you need to wait for five years from the end of the
year in which you invested. After that, the withdrawal is
limited to 50 per cent of the balance at the end of the fourth
year immediately preceding the year in which the amount
is to be withdrawn, or the balance at the end of the
preceding year, whichever is lower! Here, closing your
account becomes a better option.</P>

<P>You also need to note that post office investments,
unlike most bonds, cannot be held in paperless or
electronic form. You need to safe-keep the NSC paper
certificate as this is often the only proof of your
investment. Plus,<STRONG> perish</STRONG> the
thought of holding all your post office investments in one
consolidated account. Every investment the PPF or a
recurring deposit or the MIS requires you to maintain a
separate passbook. But India Post is trying to address such
convenience and access issues through its ongoing
modernization efforts which were initiated in 2012 At the
core of this exercise is a computerized core banking
solution (CBS) aimed at replicating the services banks
offer to customers today ATM, internet, phone and
mobile banking. This could eventually allow you to operate
your account from any post-office on the CBS network,
regardless of where the account is based. Facilities for
NEFT and RTGS transfers are expected, too. Incidentally,
the first of such ATMs was opened earlier this month in
Delhi. Plans to link these with bank ATMs are also on the
cards. If not us, our children will perhaps see the benefit of
these efforts.













A piece in Wall Street Journal, Americas Insurgent
Pollster: Understanding the tea party is essential to
predicting what the countrys political scene will look
like, prompted thought on some differences between the
US and India in the context of the oft repeated fact that
both are democracies. Let us see how governance in India
can be improved.<BR>First lesson is that understanding
the voters is essential to winning elections. Second,
understanding which section of the population to pay
attention to matters: likely voters. Third, the
distinction between the political and media elites on the
one hand, and the mainstream public on the other. The two
groups see the world differently. <BR>Those lessons need
to be cautiously interpreted in the case of India. There
are significant differences between India and the US.
First, the US has a 2-party system, and most people
identify with one or the other. There are independents of
course but at the time of voting, these have to choose
one or the other. The choice is between Tweedledum and
Tweedledee mostly but still there are only two of them.
There is some fracturing of votes to green party or
libertarian party candidates but those are mostly
marginal. In India, we have a large degree of fracturing
and therefore the dynamics are different. <BR>Second, the
US is a lot more <STRONG>homogeneous</STRONG> than India.
Though there are regional differences in the US, people
are really not linguistically divided or divided along
caste lines. There are regional special interests but
they are <STRONG>restricted </STRONG>to state legislator
elections of assemblymen and state senators. During
federal level elections presidential and senators the
people choose candidates based on national interest
policies. <BR>&nbsp;In India, all interests are regional
interests. The people vote for MPs and not for governors
or chief ministers or for prime ministers. People vote
for either the parties (and hence the importance of
getting a ticket from a locally successful party) or for
some local MP. <BR>Third, the US has a greater degree of
participation in the democratic process. Based on the
fact that a larger percentage of Indians vote in the
general elections than the percentage of Americans vote
in their elections, one can be misled into believing that
Indians are somehow more into the democratic process. The
truth may be different. <BR>Indians vote and then forget
about it. But Americans get more into the process both
the width and depth of the process. The US voters
participate more actively in all levels of the
institutional structure of governance: the ward, the
city, the county, the state, and the union. Their
elections are regular and predictable first Tuesday of
November. They go to town hall meetings, they invite the
local legislators to come address them in local events,
they write to their senators and representatives, they
petition others to support or oppose specific policies.
<BR>Fourth, in the US, the executive and the legislative
branches of the government is clearly
<STRONG>demarcated</STRONG> and distinct. In India, there
is no distinction. This has the effect in the US of
weakening the power of the executive and keeping it in
check. As a <STRONG>consequence</STRONG>, the power
balance between the government and the people is more in
favor of the people (than is the case in India.)<BR>As an
aside I should note that this distinction between the US
and India is historically conditioned. The US had a
revolution that freed it from British domination. They
fought the British and replaced the rules that the
British had made for the US with rules that the Americans
made. The revolution was first and foremost a change of
the rules of the game. It was not about replacing people
but about replacing the institutions. The rules prior to
independence gave more powers to the government (British)
and less to the people; the rules after the revolution
put the people in power.<BR>Contrast that with Indias
story. There was no revolution in India. The British left
but the rules remained the same. Before independence, the
power was with the government (British) and after
independence, the power continued to be with the
government (nominally Indian). The institutions remained
and only the people changed. Nehru took over as the
<STRONG>imperial</STRONG> ruler of India from the
British. As he himself noted so proudly, he was the last
Britisher to rule India. Imperial rule often involves a
family succession. His daughter was next in the imperial
rule line. Then came her son. Then the sons wife, who is
the first Italian to rule India. Next will be the son
of the Italian who rules India. <BR>India continues to be
under imperial rule of foreigners. It is no longer a
British colony but it is still a colony
nonetheless.<BR>The government still holds all the major
cards, and therefore the intense struggle to get into the
government. Once you get into the government, not only do
you get to make the rules in your favor, and so decide
what is going to be done, but you also get to decide how
it is going to be done. This is due to the previously
noted fact there is no distinction between the
legislative and executive functions of the government in
India.<BR>Now back to the main theme. Important
distinctions arise from the difference in the power
balance between the people and the government in India as
compared to the US. For instance, Indians have a
paternalistic relationship with the government. They take
orders from the government and expect to be given stuff
in return for their obedience. Government is everything.
In principal-agent terms, the government is the principal
and the citizens are the agents. This is the socialistic
model. The government commands and the people dutifully
obey. <BR>In contradistinction to that, in the US, the
government is the agent of the people and the people are
the principal. The people command and the government
obeys. The congress makes the rules and the executive
(the governor and his staff, at the state level; the
president and his staff, at the federal level) obeys.
People control the congress and the congress controls the
executive. So the executives have to take their case to
the people, so that the people can decide and tell
congress what they wish, and then the congress tells what
the executive has to get done. The executives have
control over how to get things done, not what things need
doing.