In our country, handlooms are equated with a culture that ensures a continuity of tradition. This idea has become part of the public policy-framing and provides a legitimate basis for the State to support the sector. But the notion of tradition as a single, linear entity is being strongly contested today. The narratives dominant in defining culture/tradition in a
particular way are seen to have emerged as the identities and histories of large sections. The discounted and, at times, forcibly stifled identities are fighting for their rightful place in history. Against this backdrop, when we promote
handloom as a traditional industry, it is not surprising that large sections of our population choose to ignore it.
With reference to the above passage, following assumptions have been made
I. There is no need for the State to be involved in any manner in the handloom sector.
II. Handloom products are no longer appealing and attractive in the rapidly changing modern world.
Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Options