All of these offer a solution for brain drain, except

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

Why according to the passage does Britain want to send British patients to India?

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

What according to the passage is the key word to help developing countries prosper?

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

The best reason for Britain not going in for importing doctors and nurses could be that

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

How according to the passage can the western countries be labelled 'hypocritical'?

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

The word ‘diabolical’ in the passage most nearly means

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.
PASSAGE – I
The good thing about India is nothing remains secret for long. Somehow, word gets out and into the media, and then a heated discussion begins. And thus, some bad and malafide decisions are mercifully thwarted. These are the few saving graces of our democracy as it has come to be.
The latest decision in the pipeline is the UK's National Health Services negotiating with Indian medical institutions to treat British patients in India. This cannot be left merely to the NHS and a few private medical organizations in India. There are larger issues involved that need detailed discussions. The issues range from the macro to the micro, from globalisation to overcrowding in Indian hospitals. Bureaucrats, experts, NGOS must have a say as it impacts ordinary Indians too. The purpose of discussion is not to obstruct, but to ensure an equitable decision is taken in the larger public interest and to ensure that the privileged few–be they Indian or British–do not profit at public expense.
As with every decision, there are pros and cons. A few Indian doctors and hospitals will certainly profit. But the cons are far many too to ignore. As it is, our high-quality hospitals are overcrowded with Indian patients. A waiting list already exists, which of course the privileged short-circuit using connections. So allowing British patients to use our facilities could further clog our hospitals, deny beds to Indian patients. That's clearly unacceptable. But it can happen. Remember the money-spinning Apollo hospitals, controversy-ridden for not treating enough poor patients as it is mandated to do.
One can see why sending patients to India is an easy, cheap option for the British. Even including airfare, the total expense would be much cheaper. Our doctors and nurses are inexpensive by world standards, and extremely competent at that. Also some of our private hospitals, for instance the Escorts Hospital in New Delhi, are world-class. On the other hand, Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is overburdened. Waiting lists for even routine operations like cataract run into months. The best option for Britain would be to reform their NHS, upgrade hospitals and import more doctors and nurses. But that they don't want to do. Money is always a constraint and immigration is now a touchy political issue. It appears the British government and public want to have their cake and eat it too – they want good medical service, but don't want to foot the social and political cost of importing labour. So if doctors cannot or should not come to the patients, the patients must go to the doctors. So go abroad. Not only the British, but even Scandinavians who find themselves stuck at the rear end of interminable waiting lists, are increasingly going to France and Germany for surgeries and other serious medical interventions. India can be even more attractive–it's further, but still cheaper. To buttress their argument with moral ballast, British authorities sanctimoniously claim that by bringing their patients to  India, they  are averting brain  drain. India’s  problem is not  brain drain but excess brain and brawn. As much as the West needs new markets to sell their goods, India needs new markets to absorb her labour. Excess labour and consequentially, unemployment, is our problem, WTO negotiations have shown how hypocritical western nations are. They squeeze developing countries to drop subsidies and open markets, while they retain their subsidies and close their markets to foreign goods. In no field is this more blatant than agriculture, where western nations continue with huge farm subsidies while at the time same blocking their markets to  agricultural produce from developing countries. The West is almost diabolical in the way they not only exploit the inadequacies of poorer nations, but add a moral halo to boot. They pretend they are being charitable in giving aid when in reality it is often to help Third World nations buy their own products or services. Economists have shown how trade and not aid is what really helps developing countries to prosper. Halving the West's protectionist barriers could boost developing country incomes by $150 billion a year, three times what is currently given in aid.
But one can argue that India invests heavily in training professionals and it is a heavy drain when they leave our shores. This is true but perhaps there is a solution. We have no dearth of students. More top-notch educational institutions could be established with or without foreign investment in smaller towns to ensure growth and spread of ancillary industries. Some of these students may emigrate, but many will remain. Another option is to outsource diagnostic facilities in India, maybe even get foreign institutions to invest in upgrading our government hospitals in a few, select smaller towns (with airports) to avoid overcrowding in metropolitan cities. A certain number of beds in these hospitals could then be reserved for foreign patients. This could be a win-win for them and for us because the upgradation would attract better staff, ease congestion from big cities and provide better medicare to Indians living in the region.
We live in a changing world that constantly throws up new challenges. The clever thing to do is to convert these into opportunities. There is no wisdom in being blindly obstructionist or rapaciously greedy. Coming up with creative solutions is what we need most. We shouldn't be diffident about extracting maximum mileage out of our inherent strengths so that more Indians can benefit, so that the nation as a whole develops in a more even-handed manner than the current lopsided growth concentrated entirely in a few big cities, in a few geographical zones. A creative approach could simultaneously cure many maladies.

The private sector not engaging in activities related to health and education is indicative of

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.

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.

The author indirectly states in the passage that

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.

When the author comments – “This is not even funny" – he intends to convey that it is

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.

The author mentions the successful polio-eradication programme to

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.