Passage 1

Indian states prohibit women from many factory processes. India's ten most populous states collectively impose 139 prohibitions on women from participating in specific factory processes. Governments impose these prohibitions given the dangerous nature of the processes. However, inter-state comparison and scientific literature indicate that these prohibitions are enforced without evidence of special health risks to women workers. For example, some states allow women to participate in abrasive blasting (used to clean metal surfaces), but others prohibit women from participating in the same process. Similarly, women are prohibited from participating in any process to manufacture lead or its compounds. However, scientific literature indicates that lead is not likely to pose special health risks to women. These prohibitions exclude women from high-paying jobs, making the prohibitions counterproductive.

The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(a) Highlight the economic benefits that would accrue if more women were employed in high-paying factory jobs.

(b) Indian states must abolish prohibitions on women in factory processes to ensure gender equality in employment.

(c) Implement the results of scientific literature that overwhelmingly supports the view that most factory processes pose no greater health risk to women than to men.

(d) Critically examine the evidentiary basis and consistency of state-imposed prohibitions on women in specific factory processes in India and suggest their negative impact.

Question

Passage 1

Indian states prohibit women from many factory processes. India's ten most populous states collectively impose 139 prohibitions on women from participating in specific factory processes. Governments impose these prohibitions given the dangerous nature of the processes. However, inter-state comparison and scientific literature indicate that these prohibitions are enforced without evidence of special health risks to women workers. For example, some states allow women to participate in abrasive blasting (used to clean metal surfaces), but others prohibit women from participating in the same process. Similarly, women are prohibited from participating in any process to manufacture lead or its compounds. However, scientific literature indicates that lead is not likely to pose special health risks to women. These prohibitions exclude women from high-paying jobs, making the prohibitions counterproductive.

The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(a) Highlight the economic benefits that would accrue if more women were employed in high-paying factory jobs.

(b) Indian states must abolish prohibitions on women in factory processes to ensure gender equality in employment.

(c) Implement the results of scientific literature that overwhelmingly supports the view that most factory processes pose no greater health risk to women than to men.

(d) Critically examine the evidentiary basis and consistency of state-imposed prohibitions on women in specific factory processes in India and suggest their negative impact.

ONLiNE UPSC · Accepted Answer

Statement (a) is not correct: While the passage mentions exclusion from "high-paying jobs" as a negative consequence, its primary focus is on critiquing the prohibitions themselves, not on a detailed exposition of the economic benefits of lifting them.

Statement (b) is not correct: This statement is too extreme. The passage argues against prohibitions without evidence of special health risks to women. It doesn't call for the immediate abolition of all prohibitions, as some might be justifiable if such evidence exists.

Statement (c) is not correct: The passage uses scientific literature selectively to counter specific prohibitions (e.g., lead). It doesn't make a sweeping claim that scientific literature supports the view that most factory processes pose no greater risk to women. Its focus is on the lack of evidence for special risks in the context of existing prohibitions.

Statement (d) is correct: The passage directly questions the prohibitions by pointing to "inter-state comparison" (inconsistency) and "scientific literature" (lack of evidence for special health risks to women). It gives examples (abrasive blasting, lead) and concludes that these prohibitions are "counterproductive" by excluding women from jobs. This is a critical examination of their basis and impact.

Website Link

Test Your Knowledge

Student Resources