View answer copy →Answered a very similar question
Their question: “Landslides — intertwining (geological/natural/anthropogenic) factors and comprehensive mitigation measures (15 marks, 250 words)”
Directly mirrors the PYQ, causes of landslides across geological/natural/anthropogenic buckets plus structural and non-structural mitigation, illustrated with recent Indian landslide case studies.
Key learnings from their answer
- ›Answers run on a repeatable two-bucket spine, Natural vs Anthropogenic (and Geological/Natural/Anthropogenic for landslides), and structural vs non-structural for measures (Q5's branching tree: Structural -> embankments, hydroseeding; Non-structural -> afforestation, terrace farming, contour bunds). -> A clean, pre-decided binary categorisation makes a 250-word answer instantly scannable and ensures you cover both sides without missing a dimension under time pressure.
- ›Current examples are dense and place-specific, each tied to a precise failure mode, Wayanad landslides 2024 (>500 dead, flagged as 'lacking bottom-up approach'), Joshimath subsidence ('better land-use planning needed'), Chamoli cloudburst 2021, Sikkim landslide 2021, Krishna river floods 2019 ('steep gradient'). -> Stock 5-6 recent disasters and attach a one-phrase diagnosis to each, so the example doubles as evidence for your specific argument instead of being name-dropped.
- ›Solutions are consistently anchored to named frameworks and committees instead of vague suggestions, Sendai, Hyogo and Yokohama frameworks, 2nd ARC recommendations, and the Gadgil & Kasturirangan committees on the Western Ghats. -> Tie every 'way forward' to a specific report or framework by name; it signals you know the actual policy architecture rather than improvising remedies.
What they cited: Wayanad landslides 2024 (>500 dead; cited as lacking bottom-up approach) · Joshimath subsidence (better land-use planning needed) · Sikkim landslide 2021 (roads damaged) · Nilgiri biosphere reserve (landslide-vulnerable)