Directions : In view of the passage given below: Choose the best option for question.
When talks come to how India has done for itself in 50 years of independence, the world has nothing but praise for our success in remaining a democracy. On other front, the applause is less loud. In absolute terms, India has not done too badly, Of course, life expectancy has increased. So has literacy. Industry, which was barely a fledging, has grown tremendously, As far as agriculture is concerned, India has been transformed from a country perpetually on the edge of starvation into a success story held up for others to emulate. But these are competitive times when change is rapid, and to walk slowly when rest of the world is running is almost as bad standing still on walking backwards.

Compare with large chunks of what was then the developing world South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, China and what was till lately a separate Hong Kong- India has fared abysmally, It began with a far better infrastructure than most of these countries had. It suffered hardly or not at all during the Second World War It ha advantages like a English speaking elite, quality scientific manpower (including a Novel laureate and others who could be ranked according to their global competitiveness, it is tiny Singapore that figures at the top. Hong Kong is an export powerhouse. So is Taiwan. If a symbol were needed of, how far we have fallen back, note that while Korean Ceils are sold in India, no one is South Korea is rushing to by an Indian car. The reasons list themselves, Top most in economic isolationism.

The government discouraged imports and encouraged self-sufficiency. Whatever the aim was, the result was the creation of totally inefficient industry that failed to keep pace with global trends and, therefore, became absolutely uncompetitive. Only when the trade gates were opened a little did this become apparent. The years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered it’s the years since then have been spent in merely trying to catch up. That the government actually sheltered its industrialists from foreign competition is a little strange. For in all other respects, it operated under the conviction that businessman were little more than crooks how were to be prevented from entering the most important area of the economy, how were to be hamstrung in as many ways as possible, how were to be tolerated in the same way as an in excisable wart. The high expropriator rates taxation, the licensing laws, the reservation of whole swathes of industry for the public sector, and the granting of monopolies to the public sector firms were the principle manifestations of this attitude. The government forget that before wealth could be distributed, it had to be created.

The government forgot that it itself could not create, but only squander wealth, Some of the manifestations of the old attitude have changed, Tax rates have fallen, Licensing has been al but abolished. And the gates of global trade have been open wide. But most of these changes were first by circumstances partly by the funds of support the public sector, leave alone expand it. Weather the attitude of the government itself, of that of more than handful of ministers, has changed, is open of question. In many other ways, however, the government has not changed one with. Business till has to negotiable a welter of negotiations. Transparency is still a longer way off. And there is no exit policy. In defending the existing policy, politicians betray and inability to see beyond their noses. A no-exit policy for labour is equivalent to a no-entry policy for new business. If one industry is not allowed to retrench labour, other industries will think a hundred times before employing new labour. In other ways, the government hurts industries.