Village-to-city exodus harms both — determine the sensible response Statement: The exodus from villages to cities is detrimental to both. Courses of Action: (I) Make rural postings mandatory. (II) Provide fewer trains linking cities to smaller.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Rural-urban migration can strain urban infrastructure and deplete rural human capital. The goal is to identify which proposed course of action reasonably addresses root causes rather than arbitrarily restricting movement. Given Data / Assumptions: Migrants often move for jobs and livelihood security. Course I: Mandatory rural postings (unspecified target group) implies coercion without tackling job scarcity. Course II: Reducing trains would hamper mobility and commerce, while pushing unsafe or informal transit. Course III: Rural employment generation addresses core economic drivers of migration. Concept / Approach: Effective policy must work on push–pull factors (jobs, income, services) rather than restricting freedoms or infrastructure. Creating rural opportunities reduces the incentive to migrate. Step-by-Step Solution: Reject I: Coercive postings risk morale problems and do not expand rural employment for the broader population.Reject II: Curtailing trains penalizes citizens and the economy; it does not solve the job gap.Accept III: Employment schemes directly tackle economic push factors, making migration optional rather than compulsory. Verification / Alternative check: Programs like rural public works, agribusiness value chains, and MSME support have shown migration-moderating effects. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II or I and II: Both rely on restriction, not development.II and III: Still includes a harmful anti-mobility step. Common Pitfalls: Confusing control measures with solutions; mobility is not the cause—lack of opportunity is. Final Answer: Only III follows

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments