We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
In other words, what I am asking is this:
1. How many industries are actually in need of the PLI scheme (the EV manufacturing sector started this demand) and other industries (cellphone, toys, textiles, which copied the EV industry's demand)?
2. If the number of industries which actually need it is low, then why not have a single, cross-sector subsidy that goes out to all manufacturers? It can have a facility for simple loans and can be used by anyone seeking credit, which can be an MSME. a single-person undertaking, or even a regular entrepreneur who failed in getting funding and wants to cry in public. The cross-sectoral subsidy can have a production criteria and a P sign (for public) in the scheme. No other signs needed.
I understand that my cross-sectoral subsidy suggestion may not be regarded as prudent and economically correct, but it is based on practicality and efficiency. I do not see how industries can be discriminated by it any way.
(Now the answer: Gender-neutral washrooms are among facilitative measures that ensure that not only existing transgender students (even if it is a single student) get access to washroom, as a matter or right, like everyone else, but it also opens up these spaces to future transgender students. There is already talk of a quota for transgender persons, which must go through swiftly. That NALSAR and others are taking these measures is not because they are woke but because the UGC has sensibly asked all universities (https://www.deccanherald.com/content/459962/transgenders-rights-must-protected-ugc.html) to create transgender person friendly infrastructures - including restrooms.)