Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding Smart India Hackathon 2017 ? 1. It is a centrally sponsored scheme for developing every city of our country into Smart Cities in a decade. 2. It is an initiative to identify new digital technology innovations for solving the many problems faced by our country. 3. It is a programme aimed at making all the financial transactions in our country completely digital in a decade. Select the correct answer using the code given below :

States that the Smart City Mission is operated as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) with central and state/ULB matching contributions.

A student could use this to check whether the named programme in the statement (if it refers to the Smart City Mission) is indeed a CSS and then compare programme scope/targets to the claim about 'every city'.

Explicitly gives the aim of the Smart City Mission: to develop 100 smart cities and names the implementing ministry.

A student could contrast the official target of 100 cities with the statement's claim of 'every city' to judge plausibility.

Describes AMRUT as a separate Centrally Sponsored Scheme selecting 500 cities and notes Smart Cities Mission and AMRUT were launched simultaneously and are interlinked but have different approaches.

A student could infer that multiple central schemes targeted different (and limited) city sets rather than a single scheme covering 'every city', and could map the numbers (100, 500) against the total number of Indian cities to assess the 'every city' claim.

Shows institutional design of Smart Cities (city-level SPVs, joint state/ULB equity) implying project-level, city-specific arrangements rather than a one-size-fits-all nationwide programme covering all cities.

A student could reason that the SPV model is suited to selected cities and therefore use that pattern to question whether a single 2017 event would be the CSS for all cities.

States the objective of Smart Cities Mission: promote cities that provide core infrastructure and be a replicable 'lighthouse' model focused on compact areas.

A student could use the 'lighthouse/replicable model' concept to argue the Mission targets demonstrative pilot cities (limited number) rather than immediate development of every city within a decade.

Describes Project 'Chunauti' (MeitY) as a government 'challenge' to identify startups and boost software products in targeted areas.

A student could generalize that MeitY and other ministries run challenge-style programmes to surface tech solutions, then check whether Smart India Hackathon (2017) was a similar MeitY-led challenge.

Gives a concrete example (Kritagya Hackathon) where an Indian government body used a hackathon to promote technology solutions for sectoral problems (agriculture).

Use this as precedent that the government organises hackathons to source tech solutions, and look up whether Smart India Hackathon followed the same model in 2017.

Explains the Digital India programme's goal to electronically empower citizens and improve governance, implying government interest in digital solutions.

Combine this policy context with knowledge that governments often sponsor innovation hunts to meet Digital India goals — then verify if Smart India Hackathon aligned with Digital India in 2017.

Mentions DigiSaksham, a government–industry digital skills programme, showing broader governmental focus on digital capacity-building.

Interpret this as part of a pattern where government fosters digital initiatives and skills, suggesting plausibility that a 2017 hackathon aimed at digital innovations; verify organizer and objectives of Smart India Hackathon.

Describes Smart Cities Mission and adoption of Industry 4.0 relying on IT strengths — demonstrates policy-driven demand for technological solutions to urban/manufacturing problems.

A student could infer the government had motivation to source digital innovations for national problems and then check whether Smart India Hackathon (2017) was one mechanism used.

Describes Digital India as a government programme designed to digitally connect departments and citizens to improve governance — a broad institutional push toward digitalisation.

A student could check whether Smart India Hackathon 2017 was an initiative under or aligned with Digital India or shared its stated objectives to infer if it targeted sweeping digital-transactions goals.

Defines a 'cashless society' and lists Indian initiatives (Aadhaar-enabled payments, e-wallets, NFS) that aim to reduce cash and increase digital transactions.

One could compare the technologies and targets mentioned here to the themes or problem statements of SIH 2017 to see if SIH focused on accelerating nationwide cashless transactions.

Explains Digital Public Infrastructure (Aadhaar, Jan Dhan, mobile penetration — the JAM trinity) as a pillar that enabled greater financial inclusion and digitalisation.

Use the JAM components as benchmarks: see if SIH 2017 projects explicitly aimed to leverage/advance JAM infrastructure toward making transactions predominantly digital within a decade.

Notes demonetisation (Nov 2016) and the government encouragement of bank-based and digital payment methods — a policy shock that accelerated digital-transaction push around the SIH 2017 timeframe.

A student could use the timing (late-2016 policy push) to assess whether SIH 2017 was likely to include or prioritize problems targeting a rapid shift to digital transactions.

Contains an exam-style item speculating that UPI could lead to major changes, including a (hypothetical) replacement of physical currency over decades — indicating official/academic discussion about long-term digitalisation timelines.

Compare the speculative timelines here (decades) with the 'within a decade' claim and examine whether SIH 2017 materials echoed similarly ambitious timelines for full digital transaction adoption.