Reading Comprehension

What does the defense counsel accuse people in high places of doing?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

The defense counsel's defense relies mainly on arguing before the jury that _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

In passage, the case against Foster would have been dismissed if the judge had interpreted the Constitution in which of the following ways?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

The statement,''They can afford it if your members of the jury can'' is most likely meant to imply that _________.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

The passage implies that the prosecution had told the jury that any finding that vouches for the innocence of the defendants would be similar to _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

Defense Counsel's defense hinges on the ability of the jurors to _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Esteemed members of the Jury …. If you want to condemn these twenty men, then do it. I beseech no kindness on behalf of any one of them. They are no better than any other twenty men or women; they are no better than the millions down through the times who have been indicted and convicted in cases like this. And if it is obligatory for my clients to show that America is like all the rest, if it is necessary that my clients shall go to penitentiary to show it, then let them go. They can afford it if you members of the jury can; make no mistake about that.

The State says my clients “dare to disparage the Constitution.” Yet this police officer (who the State says is a fine, right–living person) twice dishonored the federal Constitution while a prosecuting attorney was standing by. They entered Mr. Foster’s home without a search warrant. They overhauled his papers. They found a flag, a red one, which he had the same right to have in his house that you have to keep a green one, or a yellow one, or any other color, and the officer daringly rolled it up and put another flag on the wall, nailed it there. By what right was that done? What about this kind of patriotism that violates the Constitution? Has it come to pass in this country that officers of the law can trample on constitutional rights and then excuse it in a court of justice?

Most of what has been shown to this jury to incite emotions in your souls has not the least bearing on confirming conspiracy in this case. Take Mr. Hepburn’s speech in Aspen. It is devoid of any conspiracy whatsoever.

Whether that speech was a comic story or was serious, I shall spare the efforts of discussing it. But I shall make a point to state that if it was serious it was as gentle as a summer’s spell of rain in contrast with many of the avowals of those who are accountable for working conditions in this country. We have heard from people of position assert that individuals who carp the actions of those who are getting prosperous should be put in a cement ship with leaden sails and sent out to sea. Every vicious appeal that could be envisaged by the brain has been used by the dominant and the strong. I reiterate, Mr. Hepburn’s speech was gentle in comparison.

My clients are damned because they say in their platform that, while they vote, they believe the ballot is secondary to education and organization. Counsel proposes that those who get something they did not vote for are sinners, but I guess you the jury know in true light that my clients are right. Most of you have an eight–hour day. Did you get it by any vote you ever cast? No. It came about because workers laid down their tools and said we will no longer work until we get an eight–hour day. That is how they got the twelve–hour day, the ten–hour day, and the eight–hour day–not by voting but by laying down their tools. Then when it was over and the victory won . . . then the politicians, in order to get the labor vote, passed legislation creating an eight–hour day. That is how things changed; victory preceded law . . .

You have been informed that if you acquit these defendants you will be despised because you will endorse everything they believe. But I am not here to defend my clients’ belief. I am here to protect their right to communicate their outlook. I ask you, then; to make your mind up on this case upon the facts as you have heard them, in light of the law as you infer it, in light of the history of our country, whose foundation you and I are ought to guard.

The motif of the passage is

Real Madrid had great players, but that’s not enough in today’s world. It needed someone who could bring sponsors to their stadium. It needed someone who could charm and entertain the spectators with his skills on the field. It needed David Beckham and didn’t hesitate to pay a huge price for him. Real Madrid’s revenues from club merchandise (Shirts, Caps et al) jumped 67 per cent in Beckham’s first season alone. Suddenly, Real Madrid started earning more from ticket sales, television deals and other promotional activities. Its overall commercial income, which includes money deals from sponsors like Adidas, Pepsi et al now stands at pounds 80 million a year. When Beckham was with Manchester United, it was the richest club; today it’s Real Madrid. This is the “Beckham Effect” and marketers & merchandisers are loving it.

What is/are the issue(s) discussed in the passage?

So what’s actually new to add to your list of “Big Concerns” for the future? With all due respect to professional prognosticators, which we are not, we’d add three items, based on a recent set of small-session meetings with executives in the United States, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India.

The first item – and biggest by far –  concerns family businesses, which make up a major portion of many economies. Such companies, of course, have distinct strengths. They can give employees a sense of humanity and belonging creating engagement. And in hard times, their cultures can be forgiving and resilient.

But we sense a growing fault line beneath the foundation of many family businesses. The first reason is linked to the traditional family company focus on the preservation of wealth, rather than the accumulation of it. That “protect the assets” approach may have worked in less complex times, but it could prove devastating in a global environment where risk taking and growth are essential to survival.

And then there is succession, which has never been easy within family firms. But today, increasingly longevity means that many patriarchs are staying in power for years longer, essentially forcing a whole new generation of family members into other pursuits. “Kids” these days do not wait until they are 50 to take charge and have an impact. It’s awkward and stultifying.

Directions: According to the passage, what is the meaning of devastation?

So what’s actually new to add to your list of “Big Concerns” for the future? With all due respect to professional prognosticators, which we are not, we’d add three items, based on a recent set of small-session meetings with executives in the United States, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India.

The first item – and biggest by far –  concerns family businesses, which make up a major portion of many economies. Such companies, of course, have distinct strengths. They can give employees a sense of humanity and belonging creating engagement. And in hard times, their cultures can be forgiving and resilient.

But we sense a growing fault line beneath the foundation of many family businesses. The first reason is linked to the traditional family company focus on the preservation of wealth, rather than the accumulation of it. That “protect the assets” approach may have worked in less complex times, but it could prove devastating in a global environment where risk taking and growth are essential to survival.

And then there is succession, which has never been easy within family firms. But today, increasingly longevity means that many patriarchs are staying in power for years longer, essentially forcing a whole new generation of family members into other pursuits. “Kids” these days do not wait until they are 50 to take charge and have an impact. It’s awkward and stultifying.

Directions: According to the passage, what is the meaning of stultifying?

So what’s actually new to add to your list of “Big Concerns” for the future? With all due respect to professional prognosticators, which we are not, we’d add three items, based on a recent set of small-session meetings with executives in the United States, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India.

The first item – and biggest by far –  concerns family businesses, which make up a major portion of many economies. Such companies, of course, have distinct strengths. They can give employees a sense of humanity and belonging creating engagement. And in hard times, their cultures can be forgiving and resilient.

But we sense a growing fault line beneath the foundation of many family businesses. The first reason is linked to the traditional family company focus on the preservation of wealth, rather than the accumulation of it. That “protect the assets” approach may have worked in less complex times, but it could prove devastating in a global environment where risk taking and growth are essential to survival.

And then there is succession, which has never been easy within family firms. But today, increasingly longevity means that many patriarchs are staying in power for years longer, essentially forcing a whole new generation of family members into other pursuits. “Kids” these days do not wait until they are 50 to take charge and have an impact. It’s awkward and stultifying.

Directions: According to the passage, what is the meaning of patriarch?

So what’s actually new to add to your list of “Big Concerns” for the future? With all due respect to professional prognosticators, which we are not, we’d add three items, based on a recent set of small-session meetings with executives in the United States, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India.

The first item – and biggest by far –  concerns family businesses, which make up a major portion of many economies. Such companies, of course, have distinct strengths. They can give employees a sense of humanity and belonging creating engagement. And in hard times, their cultures can be forgiving and resilient.

But we sense a growing fault line beneath the foundation of many family businesses. The first reason is linked to the traditional family company focus on the preservation of wealth, rather than the accumulation of it. That “protect the assets” approach may have worked in less complex times, but it could prove devastating in a global environment where risk taking and growth are essential to survival.

And then there is succession, which has never been easy within family firms. But today, increasingly longevity means that many patriarchs are staying in power for years longer, essentially forcing a whole new generation of family members into other pursuits. “Kids” these days do not wait until they are 50 to take charge and have an impact. It’s awkward and stultifying.

Directions: According to the passage, what is the meaning of merchandise?

Real Madrid had great players, but that’s not enough in today’s world. It needed someone who could bring sponsors to their stadium. It needed someone who could charm and entertain the spectators with his skills on the field. It needed David Beckham and didn’t hesitate to pay a huge price for him. Real Madrid’s revenues from club merchandise (Shirts, Caps et al) jumped 67 per cent in Beckham’s first season alone. Suddenly, Real Madrid started earning more from ticket sales, television deals and other promotional activities. Its overall commercial income, which includes money deals from sponsors like Adidas, Pepsi et al now stands at pounds 80 million a year. When Beckham was with Manchester United, it was the richest club; today it’s Real Madrid. This is the “Beckham Effect” and marketers & merchandisers are loving it.

Directions: According to the passage, what is the meaning of prognosticator?

So what’s actually new to add to your list of “Big Concerns” for the future? With all due respect to professional prognosticators, which we are not, we’d add three items, based on a recent set of small-session meetings with executives in the United States, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and India.

The first item – and biggest by far –  concerns family businesses, which make up a major portion of many economies. Such companies, of course, have distinct strengths. They can give employees a sense of humanity and belonging creating engagement. And in hard times, their cultures can be forgiving and resilient.

But we sense a growing fault line beneath the foundation of many family businesses. The first reason is linked to the traditional family company focus on the preservation of wealth, rather than the accumulation of it. That “protect the assets” approach may have worked in less complex times, but it could prove devastating in a global environment where risk taking and growth are essential to survival.

And then there is succession, which has never been easy within family firms. But today, increasingly longevity means that many patriarchs are staying in power for years longer, essentially forcing a whole new generation of family members into other pursuits. “Kids” these days do not wait until they are 50 to take charge and have an impact. It’s awkward and stultifying.

Which of the following inferences can be drawn from the content of the passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The productivity figures represent the number of machines per year produced at the plant in an average year during the late 1990s divided by the total manpower associated with that plant including both direct and indirect labour. All design staff and all sales and service staff are excluded. All managerial and supervisory staff are included. It might be expected that production volumes per man of the smaller type should be expected to be about double that of the medium type in a plant of equal productivity, but this ratio is a crude estimate and should be applied cautiously. If we accept this crude estimate for the appropriate correction factor, then the range between the maximum of 2 (smaller machines) and the minimum of 0.15 (medium machines) indicates a corrected ratio between the maximum and minimum productivity levels.

The figures for Taiwan which relate to standard machines are 2.6 (medium machines) and 5 (smaller machines) respectively. In the latter case, a high proportion of components are bought in. If, once again, we use the crude correction factor of 2 for machine size, then the ratio between the lowest Taiwanese score and the highest Indian score is a factor. This ratio should be compared to the corresponding ratio in wage rates; a comparison between the hourly rate paid to qualified machinists in the two countries suggests a wage ratio of about 6:1 for Taiwan relative to India at current exchange rates.

Now another aspect of the complete scenario: imports.

Today the import duty on a complete machine is 30% for all practical purpose, whereas the import duty on raw materials and components ranges from 35.85%. The story does not end here. After paying such high import duties on component, once a machine is made, it suffers excise duty from 5% – 10% (including on the customs duty already paid). At the time of sale, the machine tools suffer further taxation, i.e. central sales tax or State sales taxes which range from 4% – 16%. This much for the tax angle. Another factor, which pushes the cost of manufacture of machine tools, is the very high rate of interest payable to banks ranging up to 22%, as against 4%–7% prevailing in advanced countries.

The production of machine tools in India being not of the same scale as it is in other countries, the price which India's machine tool builders have to pay for components is more or less based on pattern of high pricing applicable to the prices of spares.

The machines tool industry in India has an enviable record of very quick technology absorption, assimilation and development. There are a number of success stories about how machine tool builders were of help at the most critical times. It will be a pity, in fact a tragedy, if we allow this industry to die and disappear from the scene.

It is to be noted that India is at least 6500 km away from any dependable source of supply of machine tools. The Government of India has always given a great deal of importance to the development of small scale and medium scale industries. This industry has also performed pretty well. Today, they are in need of help from India's machine tool industry to enable them to produce quality components at reduced costs. Is it anybody's case that the needs of the fragile sector (which needs tender care) will be met from 6500 km away?

Then, what is it that the industry request from the Government? It wants a level playing field. In fact, all of us must have a deep introspection and recognize the fact that the machine tool industry has a very special place in the country from the point of strategic and vital interest of the nation. Most important, it requests for the Government's consideration and understanding. It is therefore high time that the government gives the due attention to this industry which has a good potential.