Decision making — bonded labourers freed but awaiting rehabilitation Statement: Over 27,000 bonded labourers have been identified and freed, yet they are still awaiting rehabilitation. Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Identify more cases of bonded labourers. II. Do not free bonded labourers until proper rehabilitation facilities are available. III. Remove impediments to ensure speedy and proper rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers.

Introduction / Context:
This question focuses on prioritizing humane, problem-focused policy responses. The issue stated is not the lack of identification, but the bottleneck in rehabilitation after liberation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• 27,000+ bonded labourers are already identified and freed.
• They are awaiting rehabilitation, which is the current bottleneck.
• Rehabilitation is essential for dignity, livelihood, and preventing relapse.

Concept / Approach:
We should address the identified gap (rehabilitation). Actions that worsen the humanitarian situation or divert focus from the stated gap should be rejected.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice sequencing: rescue/liberation → immediate support → rehabilitation/integration. If rehabilitation lags, fix that pipeline constraint.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I: Misaligned priority—addresses detection, not the stated backlog.
• II: Violates humanitarian principles; freedom should not be conditional.
• II and III together: tainted by II.

Common Pitfalls:
Thinking “more identification” is always good; here the binding constraint is rehabilitation capacity.

Final Answer:
Only III follows