Some of the prime infirmities that the passage seems to suffer from are because

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

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

The author says Marxism will become superfluous only when capitalism is superseded. What does he want to say?

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

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

According to the passage what separates bees from humans is

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

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

Even a cursory glance through the passage shows that some of the assumptions made by the author are appalling. What appears to be the most appalling of them all?

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

A philosopher once remarked that the difference between a bee and an architect is that the architect, unlike the bee, erects a structure in the mind before translating it into reality. Human civilization has taken considerable time to attain the stage of the architect. However, having got there, the contours of human evolution are determined by a continuous clash of ideas in all spheres of endeavor. The philosophical divide between materialism and idealism is often erroneously portrayed as matter versus mind. It is, in fact, a battle between the mind or consciousness as the highest form of matter and consciousness independent of the human body and, in that sense, cosmic in nature. While advances in modern science from astrophysics micro-genetic engineering reconfirm the former, the battle between sects of ideas, or ideology, continues to shape advances in every field. The answer to Descarte’s famous postulate ‘I think, therefore, I am’ is ‘I am, therefore, I think’.      
Ideology represents the structure of ideas that seeks to influence the course of human development. It not merely remains relevant, but also becomes pivotal in shaping the future. Presuming that the goal of humanity is to seek emancipation from all forms of bondage, the realization of that quest lies in Marxism.
Marxism is unique in that it can be transcended only when its agenda is realized. This is because its understanding of capitalism is by itself thorough enough for it to comprehend the historical possibilities that lie beyond it. Hence Marxism will be rendered superfluous only when capitalism, the object of its analysis, is itself superseded.
Put another way, the uniqueness of Marxism lies in the fact that all so-called theoretical advances, which supposedly render it obsolete, actually represent throwbacks to still earlier theories superseded by it. Alternatively, these are exaggerations of some particular aspects inherent in Marxism, but dressed in a new garb. These should properly be assimilated within Marxism. ‘Post-modernist’ or ‘post-Marxist’ theories which, at their best, emphasize a moral–ethical stance on social issues, represent pre-Marxist notions of social reformism, egalitarianism or progressive interventionism. On the other hand, certain reformist theories like Keynesianism, based on insights into the functioning of the capitalist economy, unknowingly recall insights actually contained in though not adequately developed within Marxism. It is not surprising that the Polish economist Michael Kalecki, by training an engineer whose only introduction to economics was Marx’s Capital, independently arrived at the so-called Keynesian Revolution.
Marx was not unique on account of subjective qualities that made him superior to other thinkers. What was remarkable was his approach to the analysis of capitalism and the unearthing of certain tendencies that he said were ‘immanent’ in capitalist social relations. The capitalist systems function in a manner that is not merely independent of the will and consciousness of its participants. Indeed, it makes the participants, whether capitalists or workers, victims of ‘alienation’ and mere personifications of the elements through which its inherent logic works itself out.

Why does the author say ‘We are a nation of the hypocrites’? How is it demonstrated, if at all?

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

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

While referring to the Uniform Civil Code, the author uses the expression ‘the part of the constitution they seemingly venerate’. What does this suggest? (I) It suggests that all articles of the constitution are held with the same degree of esteem. (II) It suggests that the respect the politicians show to the constitution is not real or genuine. (III) It suggests that the Uniform Civil Code is the part of the same constitution which they publicly eulogize and venerate.

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

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

The article leads to the conclusion that the author is

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

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

What is the central theme of this passage?

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

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Which of the following is one of the conclusions the author appears to have drawn?

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

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

The passage contains information which would answer which of the following questions?

Passage:
Vedanta Metals has emerged as a paragon of productivity improvement in the last decade. The company, in a bid to become globally competitive, has launched ambitious employee productivity programs during the period. The results are there for all to see. In spite of these improvements, the productivity of an average factory worker in India is currently less than one-third of the productivity of a worker in China, or in the USA.
However, what India lacks in terms of productivity, is compensated to some extent by the availability of cheap labor in the country. That, and the fact that most Indians study English as a language during their schooling, and a large majority of Indians know enough English to understand instructions in the language, makes the country an attractive destination for foreign investors looking to diversify their manufacturing base in order to reduce dependence on a single supplier in China or elsewhere.
Many companies are increasingly wary of doing business with Chinese companies because of the abuse of intellectual property in the country. The fact that the industries are run under the direct, or indirect, control of the government makes it hard to press charges against the Chinese in cases of industrial espionage. The case of AMSC suing the Chinese company, and one time partner, Sinovel, for theft of proprietary software is a case in point. The fact that the Chinese courts have dismissed the case has caused even more anxiety among manufacturers partnering China. On the other hand, the dismissal of a case, by the Indian apex court, which the government of India had filed against Vodafone, an MNC, has cheered many about the neutrality of the Indian judicial system.
India has a huge domestic market, and research has shown that consumer demand in India is expected to treble in the next twenty years, thanks to rising incomes. For manufacturers, this is a godsend opportunity to tap the growing domestic demand. An investment now will position them favorably to benefit from the coming boom in the domestic demand. That India has a huge talent pool of engineers in practically every stream makes it attractive to manufacturers like Nissan, who are setting up plants in the nation, and plan to use the nation as an export hub.

Which of the following would sum up the prevailing situation in Indian manufacturing sector?

Passage:
Vedanta Metals has emerged as a paragon of productivity improvement in the last decade. The company, in a bid to become globally competitive, has launched ambitious employee productivity programs during the period. The results are there for all to see. In spite of these improvements, the productivity of an average factory worker in India is currently less than one-third of the productivity of a worker in China, or in the USA.
However, what India lacks in terms of productivity, is compensated to some extent by the availability of cheap labor in the country. That, and the fact that most Indians study English as a language during their schooling, and a large majority of Indians know enough English to understand instructions in the language, makes the country an attractive destination for foreign investors looking to diversify their manufacturing base in order to reduce dependence on a single supplier in China or elsewhere.
Many companies are increasingly wary of doing business with Chinese companies because of the abuse of intellectual property in the country. The fact that the industries are run under the direct, or indirect, control of the government makes it hard to press charges against the Chinese in cases of industrial espionage. The case of AMSC suing the Chinese company, and one time partner, Sinovel, for theft of proprietary software is a case in point. The fact that the Chinese courts have dismissed the case has caused even more anxiety among manufacturers partnering China. On the other hand, the dismissal of a case, by the Indian apex court, which the government of India had filed against Vodafone, an MNC, has cheered many about the neutrality of the Indian judicial system.
India has a huge domestic market, and research has shown that consumer demand in India is expected to treble in the next twenty years, thanks to rising incomes. For manufacturers, this is a godsend opportunity to tap the growing domestic demand. An investment now will position them favorably to benefit from the coming boom in the domestic demand. That India has a huge talent pool of engineers in practically every stream makes it attractive to manufacturers like Nissan, who are setting up plants in the nation, and plan to use the nation as an export hub.