In the above question, the following arguments are given

I. Yes. This is the only way to teach discipline to the employees.

II. No. Government cannot deprive its citizens of their basic rights.

III. Yes. This is the only way to ensure maximum productivity without disruption without disruption of work.

A strike is a protest by people to make the state give in to their demands. It can also be to express their agreement or disagreement to a certain idea. In Japan, workers work overtime to show their resentment with the management. On the other hand, in India, they leave all the work and take on the streets to show their discontent. Strikes are used in extreme situations when no other form of negotiation with government work.

Strikes are a form of freedom of expression. But, the Constitution of India provides its citizens with freedom of speech, not freedom of a strike. Instead of solving people’s problems, the government uses gas bombs to disperse the crowd. Such protests have become very common in the country. We recently saw Bharat Bandh for the protest against caste-based reservation in jobs and education. They allow the grieving party to voice their opinions on judgment and decisions by the government which is not in their favor. But can all the decisions be in favor of every person?

Some discussions and rulings are welcome by a set of people and unfavorable for the other set. If there are a billion people in the country, there ought to be at least a million opinions. The government can not fulfill all the million wishes but can make sure each of the billion people gets a chance to fair living. By conducting strikes we are harming our own growth. Strikes slow down the economy, make the growth sluggish, scares away the possible foreign investors with instability.

Also,The production in factories stop, inventories pile up, the transportation sector comes to a halt, the stores are clogged, and the workers have no work to do. They lose on their daily wage which is their bread and butter. They are under threat of losing their jobs. The various resources assigned to take the country forward come to a standstill and lay waste.

Clearly, strike is not a means of indiscipline but only a practice in which the workers exercise their fundamental right to voice their protest against the atrocities of the management. So, argument I is vague while II holds. Also the option of resorting to strikes often aggravates petty issues and disrupts work for long periods, thus affecting productivity. So, III also holds strong.

Hence the correct option is C.

In the above question, the following arguments are given

I. Yes. privatization will make these institutes financially healthy, competitive and quality conscious.

II. Yes. Privatization is the key of the new era - can we survive without it ?

III. No. Standard of education of these institutes will fall.

Private education is always superior to public for the simple reason of incentives. In a situation where there is no public education system, Private schools would be forced to compete against each other for customers, Which would grant the family a larger and better choice of schools or other institutes. Furthermore private schools depend on their reputation in order to gain new customers, This means that they would have a vested interest in ensuring that those who are most intelligent are taken care of and given scholarships since they are the ones who will improve their reputation later on.

Clearly, privatization leads to betterment in a bid win over the others in the field and earn both good reputation and money. So, argument I holds strong. Besides, privatization cannot be opted for just because it is the present trend. Also, privatization would, in no way, deteriorate the education standards. So, neither II nor III holds.

Hence the correct option is C.

Clearly, if the income of farmers is not adequate, they cannot be brought under the net of taxation as per rules governing the Income Tax Act. So, I is not strong. Besides, a major part of the population is dependent on agriculture and such a large section, if taxed even with certain concessions, would draw in huge funds into the government coffers. Also, many big landlords with substantially high incomes from agriculture are taking undue advantage of this benefit. So, both arguments II and III hold strong.

Hence option C is correct.