Test: CLAT 2015 Past Year Paper - CLAT MCQ

Directions : Fill up the blanks, numbered [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] in the passage given below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each blank.

“Between the year 1946 and the year 1995, I did not file any income tax returns”, with that [1] statement, soubhik embarked on an account of his encounter with the Income Tax Department. “I originally owed Rs. 20,000 in unpaid taxes. With [2] and [3], the 20,000 became 60,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first-hand just now much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be [4], automobiles may be [5] and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the [6] until the case is settled.”

Q. Fill up the blank [1]

Directions : Fill up the blanks, numbered [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] in the passage given below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each blank.

“Between the year 1946 and the year 1995, I did not file any income tax returns”, with that [1] statement, soubhik embarked on an account of his encounter with the Income Tax Department. “I originally owed Rs. 20,000 in unpaid taxes. With [2] and [3], the 20,000 became 60,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first-hand just now much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be [4], automobiles may be [5] and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the [6] until the case is settled.”

Q. Fill up the blank [2]

Directions : Fill up the blanks, numbered [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] in the passage given below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each blank.

“Between the year 1946 and the year 1995, I did not file any income tax returns”, with that [1] statement, soubhik embarked on an account of his encounter with the Income Tax Department. “I originally owed Rs. 20,000 in unpaid taxes. With [2] and [3], the 20,000 became 60,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first-hand just now much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be [4], automobiles may be [5] and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the [6] until the case is settled.”

Q. Fill up the blank [6]

Directions : Fill up the blanks, numbered [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] in the passage given below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each blank.

“Between the year 1946 and the year 1995, I did not file any income tax returns”, with that [1] statement, soubhik embarked on an account of his encounter with the Income Tax Department. “I originally owed Rs. 20,000 in unpaid taxes. With [2] and [3], the 20,000 became 60,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first-hand just now much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be [4], automobiles may be [5] and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the [6] until the case is settled.”

Q. Fill up the blank [3]

Directions : Fill up the blanks, numbered [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and [6] in the passage given below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each blank.

“Between the year 1946 and the year 1995, I did not file any income tax returns”, with that [1] statement, soubhik embarked on an account of his encounter with the Income Tax Department. “I originally owed Rs. 20,000 in unpaid taxes. With [2] and [3], the 20,000 became 60,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first-hand just now much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be [4], automobiles may be [5] and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the [6] until the case is settled.”

Q. Fill up the blank [4]

Directions : For the word a contextual sentence is given. Pick the word from the alternatives given that is most inappropriate the given context.

OBVIATE: The new transit system may obviate the need for the use of personal cars.

Directions : For the word a contextual sentence is given. Pick the word from the alternatives given that is most inappropriate the given context.

SPECIOUS: A specious argument is not simply a false on but one that has the ring of truth.   

Directions : For the word a contextual sentence is given. Pick the word from the alternatives given that is most inappropriate the given context.

PARSIMONIOUS: The evidence was constructed from every parsimonious scraps of information.

Directions : For the word a contextual sentence is given. Pick the word from the alternatives given that is most inappropriate the given context.

FACETIOUS: When I suggested that war is a method of controlling population, my father remarked that I was being facetious.

Directions : For the word a contextual sentence is given. Pick the word from the alternatives given that is most inappropriate the given context.

 DISUSE: Some words fall into disuse as technology makes object to obsolete.

Directions: Choose the option closest in meaning to the Capitalized word.

FUDGE  

Directions: Choose the option closest in meaning to the Capitalized word.

GRANDIOSE   

Directions: Choose the option closest in meaning to the Capitalized word.

SPRY

At the end of 1995, the Union of India composed of

The full status of “State” was conferred upon the Union Territories of Manipur and Tripura in

In the word GRAPHOLOGIST, if 1st and 7th letters, 2nd and 9th letters, 3rd letters and 11th letters, 4th and 8th letters and 5th and 12th letters are mutually interchanged then which will be 6th letters from the left of the 10th letter from the left side?

Directions : Four alternative summaries are given below the text. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.

Physically, inertia is a feeling that you just can’t move mentally, it is a sluggish mind. Even you try to be sensitive, if your mind is sluggish; you just do not feel anything intensely. You may even see a tragedy enacted in front of your eyes and it will be able to respond meaningfully. You may see one person exploiting another, one group persecuting another, and not be able to get angry, your energy is frozen. You are not deliberately refusing to act; you don’t just have the capacity.

A. Inertia makes your body and mind sluggish. They become insensitive to tragedies, exploitation, and persecution because it freezes your energy and decapitates it.

B. When you have inertia you do not act although your see one person exploiting another or on group persecuting another. You do not get angry because you are incapable.

C. Inertia is of two types- physical and mental. Physical inertia restricts bodily movements. Mental inertia prevents response to events enacted in front or your eyes.

D. Physical inertia stops your body from moving: mental inertia freezes your energy and stops your mind for responding meaningfully to events, even tragedies, in front to you. 

Directions : Four alternative summaries are given below the text. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.

Some decisions will be fairly obvious- “no brainers”. Your bank account is tow, but you have two week vacation coming up and you want to get away to some place warm to relax with your family. Will you accept your in-law's offer of free use of their Florida beachfront condo? Sure. You like your employer and feel I ready to move forward in your career. Will your step in for your boss for three weeks while she attends a professional development course? Of course. 

A. Some decisions are obvious under certain circumstances. You may, for example, readily accept a relative’s offer of free holiday accommodation. Or, step in for your boss when she is away.

B. Some decisions are no-brainers. Your need think when making them. Examples are condo offers from in laws and job offers from bosses when your bank account is low or boss in away.

C. Easy decisions are called “no-brainers” because they do not require any cerebral activity. Examples such as accepting free holiday accommodation abound in our lives.

D. Accepting and offer from in-laws when you are short on found and want a holiday is a no-brainer. Another no-brainer is taking the boss’s job when she is away.

Directions: In the question, a pair of words or phrases follows a related pair of words or phrases: Select the pair that best expresses a relationship similar to the one expressed in the original pair.

Dulcet : Raucous

Directions: In the question, a pair of words or phrases follows a related pair of words or phrases: Select the pair that best expresses a relationship similar to the one expressed in the original pair.

Malapropism : Words   

Directions: In the question, a pair of words or phrases follows a related pair of words or phrases: Select the pair that best expresses a relationship similar to the one expressed in the original pair.

Peel: Peal

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. According to the writer……

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. The example of the Korean Cielo has been presented to highlight…..

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. One of the factors of the government’s projectionist policy was…..

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. The write ends the passage on a note of…..

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. The writer is surprised at the government’s attitude towards its industrialists because….

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.

Public sector monopolies like the department of telecommunications and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. make it possible for Indian business to operator only at cost several times that off their counterparts abroad. The infrastructure is in a shambles partly because it is unable to formulate a sufficiently remunerative policy for private business, and partly because it does not have the stomach to change market rates for services. After a burst of activity in the early nineties, the government is dragging its feet. At the rate it is going, it will be another fifty years before the government realizes that a pro-business policy is the best pro-people policy. By then of course, the world would have moved even further ahead.

Q. According to the writer India should have performed better thant the other Asian nations because…..