After being in strict discipline and following a formal dress code of the school for so many years, the students must be granted some liberty in college life, as they have to take on the responsibilities of life, next. Besides, schools adopt uniforms to take care of the security of the child - an aspect which doesn't matter much in the Colleges. So, argument II holds strong. Also, the environment of the college depend on the students' dedication and etiquette and not on their uniforms. So, argument I is vague.
It is mentioned in the statement that most people are forced to live under Governments which refuse them from personal liberty and the right to dissent. This means that they are not indifferent to these rights but have a desire for them. So, only I follows.
It is mentioned in the the statement that India's economy depends mainly on forests. This means that forests should be preserved. So, I follows. But, that only preservation of forests can improve the economy, cannot be said. So, II does not follow.
The fact that a certain rule has been more welcomed in a certain country does not imply that the problem is more prevalent there. So, I does not follows. Also, The amendment seeks to discourage only sexual harassment of women and shall in no way discourage employment of women. So, II does not follow.