Honorable chairperson, respected judges, teacher, my worthy opponents and my dear friends.

Wishing you all a very good morning. Today I’m standing before you to strongly reject the motion “rural development is the right answer to our unemployment problem”.

In my opinion, rural development is not the only answer to our unemployment problem. Unemployment is generally caused by the combination of lack of opportunities and the excess of workforce. I’m strongly rejecting my opponent who says that rural development successfully decreases the magnitude of unemployment without causing any trouble. My worthy opponent is trying to mislead us when by highlighting only one side of the development plan.

Developments in infrastructures and facilities in rural areas always results in the destruction of a local wealth. Every village has some art form, craft or natural beauty that is endemic and exclusive to that particular place, and defines that place to make it stand out in the map. Bringing in developmental plans for the sake of reducing the number of the unemployed will result in the loss of this wealth, killing the spirit, culture or tradition that the villagers who live there had. Moreover, bringing in bulldozers, cranes, pilers and JCB’s and leveling a whole landscape affect the nature drastically. Deforestation results in unpredictable weather, soil erosion and rise in pollution. Of course there have been many organizations which are intended to stop the developmental plans which harm the nature, but a good number of their resistant movements have been suppressed in front of money and power. The pristine stature should be preserved.

My second argument is that the rise of modern companies in the rural areas may result in the migration of the urbanites into the rural grounds, further increasing the lack of space there. A point comes when there is little or no distinction between the rural and urban lands, and hence proving the developmental plan

worthless. Setting up factories and industries results in the disruption of what was once a calm, peaceful life of the common man of the village.

My third argument is that, Developments in the villages may not be usually done with a vision of how it affects the life and well being of the people living there. With the corruption that is slowly engulfing our government, developmental plans are, most of the times, only aimed for the welfare of just one single organization, rather than the citizens of the place. Developments in rural areas should be planned and implemented keeping in mind the needs and taste of the villagers. There is no point in building a Mc Donald’s in a village, may it be for the sake of bringing job opportunities, or bringing variety to the village. It would be like trying to plant paddy in a desert. Unwanted developments in a rural area only leave the growth of the place stagnant; further growth and development is restricted and hindered by the unwelcomed de-developmental plans.

My next argument is that we are often mistaken when we take rural areas to be “underdeveloped”. In my opinion, they are “under explored”. Often there are certain hidden qualities of a village that are held secretly by the nature. We have to find it, and market it, and when money gets involved, employment opportunities which are not destructive, but rather constructive and rather blend with the nature are obtained. Coir industry and cottage industry are examples. The villagers should be trained and equipped with skills that enable them to make the most of the surroundings that they live in. Hence alternatives from building a concrete city out of the village are possible.

This brings me to my fourth argument, which I use to assert that developing the infrastructure of a village may give a rest to the unemployment problem, but may not guarantee a particular organization with workers of their expectation. The rural people are to be giver sufficient training and experience to make them competent for the opportunity. In many situations, we have heard the workers going on strike due to some problems which rose due to the monopoly and games

of and within the company. Their nature of expressing the unhappiness in the form of strikes, results in the ceasing of production and loss of money. Hence the intended profit through expansion becomes a tragic loss, thanks to rural development.

I would like to assert that rural development is not the only way in which the problem of unemployment may be solved, and hence it is not the right answer to the issue. There are many alternatives other than developing a rural area to reduce the number of the unemployed. Developing a rural area and replicating the urban situation of a life full of stress and strain does not help the world in any way. In the light of these points, I strongly reject the motion, “rural development is the right answer to our unemployment problem”.

Thank you.