Statement–Argument — Should Indian players who have represented India be allowed to coach other countries’ national teams? Arguments: I. Yes. Experience that does not harm one’s own nation can be shared to benefit others. II. No. It can endanger national prestige because such coaches may reveal team weaknesses to competitors.

Introduction / Context:
National-team coaching touches competitive intelligence, confidentiality, and reputational considerations. The policy question is whether former India players may coach rival national teams.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Coaches possess insider knowledge of systems, tactics, player tendencies, and preparation workflows.
• Argument I is a broad normative statement about sharing experience absent harm.
• Argument II focuses on a specific risk: leakage of strategic knowledge undermining national competitiveness.

Concept / Approach:
Strong arguments must connect the proposed allowance/ban to concrete competitive outcomes. In elite sport, information asymmetries and tactical insights matter. Without robust confidentiality frameworks, permitting such roles may plausibly hurt national interests.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Evaluate I: It is conditional (“does not harm”) yet provides no mechanism to ensure no harm. Lacks enforceable safeguards. Weak.2) Evaluate II: Identifies a realistic, proximate risk—knowledge transfer to rivals—which aligns with the policy’s protective intent. Strong.3) Hence, only II is strong.

Verification / Alternative check:
Where cross-national coaching is permitted, binding NDAs and cooling-off periods often exist—implicitly acknowledging II’s concern.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Only I/either/both” overlook enforceability gaps; “neither” ignores documented competitive risks.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming good faith alone prevents leakage; underestimating strategic value of inside knowledge.

Final Answer:
If only argument II is strong.