It can be inferred from the passage that politicians

i. have vested interests in not privatising companies ii. use the privilege of their rank iii. dare not go against the labour unions

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

To those who believe the government can do nothing right, its polio eradication programme must have come as an eye-opener. Starting December 1996 nurses, health workers, government employees and others fanned out across the country administering polio vaccine to children below the age of five. Schoolchildren were pressed into service to remind the target families. Vaccination stalls were set up at railway stations. Health workers even went through trains on two days just in case some children had been missed out. The purpose of the programme is laudable. It aims to eliminate the disease from a country that has 60% of the total number of polio cases in the world. Was the coverage of rural areas as effective as that of cities? Was the vaccine potent? Whatever the questions, the implementation of the eradication programme is still impressive. It calls to mind the successful elimination of smallpox. Other government initiatives in the social sector too are laudable. There is the effort to eliminate illiteracy in more than 300 districts, the anti-leprosy programme and the successful effort to clean Surat which was until a couple of years ago the dirtiest town in the country. These programmes stand out because the government has been otherwise so ineffective in the social sector. India has the largest number of illiterates in the world. For most citizens, healthcare or clean drinking water is still only a distant dream. Malaria, after being successfully beaten down, has once again raised its head. Tuberculosis is rampant. And then are the new scourges - Aids and cancer. For all these failures, the government has a ready explanation – the lack of funds. True, even with existing funds, the health infrastructure and the public schools can be run much more effectively than they are. But the tack of funds remains a real problem. And with the constant pressure to narrow the fiscal deficit, the social sector will continue to be squeezed.
Government expenditure on health, education and other social sectors is absolutely vital. It brings enormous benefits to the country. Consider the future savings in hospital bills and orthopaedic aids or the gains from a more productive workforce. All these are tangible effects. But the private sector will not engage in these activities - not where the beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor – because it stands to make no profit, and profit is the raison d'être of the private sector. In other words, these are things the government should be doing - and that no one else can do as well. Instead, we have the lamentable sight of the government trying to ruin airlines, hotels, television channels, to take just three wide range of commercial businesses it has got stuck in. Some of these businesses are potential generators of huge profits. Yet the government manages to run its own enterprises into the ground, so that they either generate paltry profits or require budgetary support or help in the form of loans.
Last month, the head of the government's hotel business pronounced satisfaction at the fact that his organisation would require no budgetary support. This is not even funny. In the private sector, the benchmark of financial performance is the return of net worth. Where this is less than the return that could be earned on a fixed deposit, the stock market hammers the scrip down. But in most companies in the public sector, managers have yet to start worrying about such parameters. When the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy did a survey of 245 central government enterprises in 1992-93, it found that their return on a net worth of Rs. 73,915 crore was a meagre 4.59%. The total gross fixed assets of these enterprises were valued at Rs. 173,501 crore. If these assets are sold at their book value and the money earned is invested in fixed deposits, the government could earn more than Rs. 25,000 crore in a year, which is roughly 40% of the fiscal deficit. In fact, these assets would probably fetch far more. What stops the government from privatising these companies? The common explanation is opposition form the labour unions. This is no more than an excuse. Workers would probably earn more than they do today if their companies were profitably run by the private sector. The real reason is that ministers and politicians would lose some of their privileges - no more free aeroplane rides, no free hotel stays, no way of getting a hapless company to pick up their bills.
Meanwhile, the country pays the cost - in illiteracy and countless deaths due to disease. The other face of an unprofitable airline is a score of villages without drinking water or a thousand preventable deaths due to malaria.

Question

Multiple choice

It can be inferred from the passage that politicians

i. have vested interests in not privatising companies ii. use the privilege of their rank iii. dare not go against the labour unions

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

To those who believe the government can do nothing right, its polio eradication programme must have come as an eye-opener. Starting December 1996 nurses, health workers, government employees and others fanned out across the country administering polio vaccine to children below the age of five. Schoolchildren were pressed into service to remind the target families. Vaccination stalls were set up at railway stations. Health workers even went through trains on two days just in case some children had been missed out. The purpose of the programme is laudable. It aims to eliminate the disease from a country that has 60% of the total number of polio cases in the world. Was the coverage of rural areas as effective as that of cities? Was the vaccine potent? Whatever the questions, the implementation of the eradication programme is still impressive. It calls to mind the successful elimination of smallpox. Other government initiatives in the social sector too are laudable. There is the effort to eliminate illiteracy in more than 300 districts, the anti-leprosy programme and the successful effort to clean Surat which was until a couple of years ago the dirtiest town in the country. These programmes stand out because the government has been otherwise so ineffective in the social sector. India has the largest number of illiterates in the world. For most citizens, healthcare or clean drinking water is still only a distant dream. Malaria, after being successfully beaten down, has once again raised its head. Tuberculosis is rampant. And then are the new scourges - Aids and cancer. For all these failures, the government has a ready explanation – the lack of funds. True, even with existing funds, the health infrastructure and the public schools can be run much more effectively than they are. But the tack of funds remains a real problem. And with the constant pressure to narrow the fiscal deficit, the social sector will continue to be squeezed.
Government expenditure on health, education and other social sectors is absolutely vital. It brings enormous benefits to the country. Consider the future savings in hospital bills and orthopaedic aids or the gains from a more productive workforce. All these are tangible effects. But the private sector will not engage in these activities - not where the beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor – because it stands to make no profit, and profit is the raison d'être of the private sector. In other words, these are things the government should be doing - and that no one else can do as well. Instead, we have the lamentable sight of the government trying to ruin airlines, hotels, television channels, to take just three wide range of commercial businesses it has got stuck in. Some of these businesses are potential generators of huge profits. Yet the government manages to run its own enterprises into the ground, so that they either generate paltry profits or require budgetary support or help in the form of loans.
Last month, the head of the government's hotel business pronounced satisfaction at the fact that his organisation would require no budgetary support. This is not even funny. In the private sector, the benchmark of financial performance is the return of net worth. Where this is less than the return that could be earned on a fixed deposit, the stock market hammers the scrip down. But in most companies in the public sector, managers have yet to start worrying about such parameters. When the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy did a survey of 245 central government enterprises in 1992-93, it found that their return on a net worth of Rs. 73,915 crore was a meagre 4.59%. The total gross fixed assets of these enterprises were valued at Rs. 173,501 crore. If these assets are sold at their book value and the money earned is invested in fixed deposits, the government could earn more than Rs. 25,000 crore in a year, which is roughly 40% of the fiscal deficit. In fact, these assets would probably fetch far more. What stops the government from privatising these companies? The common explanation is opposition form the labour unions. This is no more than an excuse. Workers would probably earn more than they do today if their companies were profitably run by the private sector. The real reason is that ministers and politicians would lose some of their privileges - no more free aeroplane rides, no free hotel stays, no way of getting a hapless company to pick up their bills.
Meanwhile, the country pays the cost - in illiteracy and countless deaths due to disease. The other face of an unprofitable airline is a score of villages without drinking water or a thousand preventable deaths due to malaria.

Only i
Only ii

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself

Answer 1

Both i and iii

Answer 2

Both ii and iii

Answer 3

Both i and ii

Keep practicing — related questions