In June 2016, the Government of India liberalised the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy in several sectors. Which one of the following sectors was not affected by the changes made in the FDI policy at that time?

Introduction / Context:
This question tests your awareness of economic reforms and foreign investment policy in India. In June 2016, the Government announced a significant liberalisation of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) regime in order to attract more foreign capital and technology. Several sectors saw an increase in permissible FDI limits or a shift to the automatic route. The task here is to identify which listed sector did not experience a change in that particular round of reforms.

Given Data / Assumptions:

The question refers specifically to FDI policy changes announced in June 2016.
The sectors mentioned are multi-brand retailing, defence, private security agencies, and manufacturing of small arms and ammunition covered under the Arms Act, 1959.
We must recall which of these sectors remained unaffected in that particular policy announcement.

Concept / Approach:
In June 2016, the Government liberalised FDI norms in a number of sectors, including defence, civil aviation, pharmaceuticals, food products, private security agencies, and the manufacture of small arms and ammunition under the Arms Act. In these sectors, FDI caps were raised or the approval route was made more liberal. Multi-brand retailing, however, was a politically sensitive area and the FDI limits in this sector were not substantially altered during this specific announcement. The ceiling in multi-brand retail had already been a matter of debate and remained largely unchanged, making that sector the one which was not affected in the June 2016 reforms.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Recall that the June 2016 FDI reforms were described as opening up key areas such as defence, aviation, private security agencies, and the manufacture of small arms and ammunition.Step 2: Note that in defence, the overall FDI limit was raised, and more investment was allowed under the automatic or approval routes, clearly marking defence as a sector affected by the reforms.Step 3: Remember that private security agencies and the manufacture of small arms and ammunition covered under the Arms Act, 1959, were also among the sectors where FDI limits and conditions were liberalised.Step 4: Recognise that multi-brand retailing did not see a similar liberalisation in this particular policy package, and its existing restrictions and caps largely continued. Therefore, multi-brand retailing is the only option among the four that was not affected by the June 2016 FDI changes.

Verification / Alternative check:
Summary notes and economic news analyses from mid 2016 emphasise that the FDI reform package was aimed at sectors like defence, civil aviation, pharmaceuticals, food products, private security agencies, and the manufacture of small arms and ammunition. These sources also point out that multi-brand retail remained sensitive and relatively restrictive, and that the government did not significantly alter its FDI regime in that sector in the same announcement. This contrast between the sectors clearly confirms that multi-brand retailing was not one of the beneficiaries of the June 2016 liberalisation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Defence is clearly affected by the reforms; the government allowed higher FDI in defence, including possibilities for investment beyond earlier limits with government approval, so this option cannot be the unaffected sector.

Private security agencies were specifically named in the policy changes, with higher FDI limits or more liberal routes being introduced, which means they are not the correct answer to this question.
The manufacturing of small arms and ammunition covered under the Arms Act, 1959, was also explicitly included in the liberalisation package, with FDI rules being eased for that sub sector, so this option too was affected and is therefore not the right choice here.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to assume that multi-brand retail must have been liberalised whenever FDI reforms are mentioned, because this sector has been the subject of political debate and media coverage. This can lead candidates to wrongly exclude multi-brand retail from the list of unaffected sectors. Another pitfall is to forget that the 2016 package focused more on manufacturing and service sectors like defence manufacturing, aviation, and security services, while leaving multi-brand retail largely unchanged. Careful recall of which sectors actually saw changes in that particular announcement helps avoid these errors.

Final Answer:
Multi-brand retailing was not affected by the FDI policy changes announced in June 2016, so it is the correct answer.