In 2016, the Government of India announced a Rs 6,000 crore special package for the textile and apparel sector. Which of the following statements about this package are correct?

Introduction / Context:
To boost employment and exports, the Government of India announced a special package for the textile and apparel sector in 2016. The package involved significant financial outlay and specific objectives regarding job creation and incentives for entrepreneurs. Examination questions commonly present statements about such schemes and ask which ones are correct, testing careful reading of policy details rather than guesswork.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The package size is stated as Rs 6,000 crore for the textile and apparel sector.
• Statement 1: The package aimed to create one crore jobs within three years.
• Statement 2: It aimed to create jobs equally for men and women.
• Statement 3: It proposed tax and production incentives for entrepreneurs.
• The options ask for the correct combination of statements.

Concept / Approach:
The official objective of the package included generating around one crore new jobs, with a strong emphasis on employment for women, but not necessarily “equally for men and women” in a strict numerical sense. In fact, policy documents often highlighted the potential for a large share of these jobs to go to women workers. The package also included various incentives, such as tax and production-linked benefits, to encourage investment and expansion. Therefore, statements 1 and 3 correctly capture the main goals, while statement 2, with its emphasis on equal numbers for men and women, is incorrect or at least misleading.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate statement 1. Contemporary policy documents and press releases stressed that the Rs 6,000 crore package was expected to create about one crore new jobs in the textile and apparel sector over a three-year period. Thus statement 1 is correct. Step 2: Evaluate statement 2. The package did aim to create large numbers of jobs for women, even suggesting that the majority of new jobs could go to women workers, but it did not specify that jobs would be created “equally” for men and women in a strict 50-50 sense. The phrase in the statement therefore misrepresents the intent and is not correct. Step 3: Evaluate statement 3. The package involved measures such as additional incentives under schemes like the Amended Technology Upgradation Fund Scheme and other production-linked advantages and tax benefits, which can reasonably be described as “tax and production incentives for entrepreneurs”. Thus statement 3 is correct. Step 4: Since statements 1 and 3 are correct and statement 2 is incorrect, the correct option is “1 and 3 only”.

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard government summaries of the 2016 textile package note the job creation target of one crore new jobs and highlight a strong focus on women employment. They also list several fiscal and financial incentives designed to attract investment, such as enhanced duty drawback, additional rebate on state levies and support for technology upgradation. None of these descriptions claim that employment would be numerically equal for men and women, even though women were expected to benefit substantially. This confirms that statements 1 and 3 are correct and statement 2 is not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option A (1 only) ignores the fact that statement 3 is also substantially correct.
• Option B (2 and 3 only) is wrong because statement 2 misstates the gender distribution aim.
• Option D (1, 2 and 3) is wrong because it includes the incorrect statement 2.

Common Pitfalls:
A typical pitfall is to read the phrase “jobs equally for men and women” quickly and assume it simply means that women will also get jobs, rather than noticing the very specific word “equally”. Another mistake is to hesitate about whether tax and production incentives really formed part of the package, even though such fiscal incentives are a standard feature of industrial policy. Careful reading of the exact wording of statements and an understanding of how government packages are usually structured can help avoid these errors.

Final Answer:
1 and 3 only