I agree with your comments. Just to elaborate on them: 1) Indian economy is still in transition from it's socialist roots to capitalist philosophy. For about 40-50 years, we have been driven by subsidy-based, closed economy, thereby limiting competition and disincentivizing innovation. 2) In a capitilistic society, Government should limit it's role to a large extent as a regulatory body. It should let the market forces play out but should promote innovation and entrepreneurship. 3) It is clear from the article that these weavers suffer as much from the lack of market access as such from the Chinese competition. Consumers would be willing to pay that much more if the "Benares" brand is promoted appropriately (perhaps more as a luxury good). 4) In terms of access to market, the intermediaries have to be cut, the supply-chain made more efficient, and innovative practices encourages. This can be effectively done with academic-industry partnership - something India lacks to a large extent. Imagine, our premier academic institutions working actively (with a grant from Government or Private foundations) in researching cost-effective ways of making these sarees (process innovation), designing better sarees (product innovation) to reflect changing societal trends, and redesigning the supply-chain (market innovation) to sell directly to the consumers. 4) We need to understand that "information" is a key aspect of revitalizing these industries. These weavers lack the information about the changing consumer preferences, newer techniques, and newer markets. Perhaps, Sarees, are not the only good these Weavers could manufacture. They should be constantly innovating. This is where Government has it's role - to promote and encourage innovation in each and every industry.
