With reference to India's projects on connectivity, consider the following statements : 1. East-West Corridor under Golden Quadrilateral Project connects Dibrugarh and Surat. 2. Trilateral Highway connects Moreh in Manipur and Chiang Mai in Thailand via Myanmar. 3. Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor connects Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh with Kunming in China. How many of the above statements are correct?

Defines the National Highways Development Project phases: Phase I is the Golden Quadrilateral (connecting the four metros) while other components exist separately.

A student can infer that since GQ is explicitly Phase I and described separately, other named corridors (like East–West) are likely distinct phases/projects to check.

Explicitly lists Phase II components as the North–South Corridor and the East–West Corridor, implying they are Phase II and not part of the Phase I Golden Quadrilateral.

Combine with knowledge that project phases are distinct to conclude East–West is a different component from GQ and verify by comparing phase descriptions.

Separately describes Golden Quadrilateral (route and length) and then describes North–South and East–West Corridors with their own routes and lengths.

Use the separate route descriptions to map both projects; if their routes do not coincide with GQ sides, that supports they are distinct projects.

Groups Golden Quadrilateral and North–South & East–West Corridors together as distinct entities expected to carry most freight under Bharatmala, implying separate identities.

A student could note the parallel listing (GQ vs NS‑EW) and use basic project naming/organizational logic to treat them as separate elements to verify.

Repeats that Bharatmala's economic corridors will work along with Golden Quadrilateral and North–South & East–West Corridors, again treating them as separate corridor categories.

Combine this repeated separation with a map: if East–West corridor runs interior routes unlike the GQ ring linking metros, it supports they are not the same project.

Describes a cross-border corridor route through Myanmar nodal points (Mandalay, Lashio, Kalewa) and mentions Imphal (Manipur) as on the route, showing patterns of links between Manipur and interior Myanmar.

A student could use a map to locate Imphal and Moreh (Manipur border town) and trace likely overland connections through the named Myanmar towns toward northern/central Myanmar to assess whether a highway could continue toward Thailand.

States that 'a pass joins Imphal (Manipur) with Mandalay (Myanmar)', giving a clear example of an established land connection between Manipur and a major Myanmar city.

Locate Mandalay on a map and follow roads southeast into Myanmar and east/south toward Thailand to judge whether a route from Moreh could be continued toward Chiang Mai via Myanmar.

Notes geographic continuity of mountain offshoots along the India–Myanmar boundary through Manipur, indicating feasible north–south land corridors in that region.

Combine this terrain pattern with road-network maps to see likely passes/corridors linking Moreh/Manipur into Myanmar for onward travel toward Thailand.

Defines the Indo‑Burma region as including north-eastern India, Myanmar and Thailand, implying a regional grouping where cross-border connectivity projects (like trilateral highways) are regionally coherent.

Use the regional scope to reason that a trilateral highway among India, Myanmar and Thailand would plausibly traverse Myanmar between NE India (Moreh/Imphal area) and northern Thailand (Chiang Mai).

Notes the North-East shares boundaries with Myanmar and 'serves as India's gateway to South East Asia', highlighting strategic intent to connect NE India with Southeast Asia.

A student could pair this strategic role with a map to evaluate if a highway from Moreh (gateway point on India–Myanmar border) could be part of a route reaching Chiang Mai in Thailand via Myanmar.

Describes a Kolkata–Kunming project that explicitly aims to connect Kolkata (India) with Kunming (China).

A student can note that Kunming linkage is associated with Kolkata rather than Varanasi and check whether BCIM/related corridors use Kolkata as the Indian terminus.

Gives the proposed route of the Kolkata–Kunming corridor through Imphal and Silchar, crossing Bangladesh via Sylhet and Dhaka to reach Kolkata.

Use this route pattern to infer that the corridor approaches eastern India (Kolkata/Silchar) rather than central Uttar Pradesh (Varanasi), so Varanasi is unlikely to be on this alignment.

Lists the Bangladesh–China–India–Myanmar Corridor (BCIM) as a named component within China's OBOR/BRI initiatives.

Combine this naming with route descriptions (e.g., Kolkata–Kunming) to see whether BCIM is identified with the Kolkata–Kunming alignment or with a different India terminus such as Varanasi.

Notes national highway projects and that Silchar in Assam is a node in East–West/National connectivity plans.

Use Silchar's prominence as a northeastern node to support the idea that eastern corridors (through Silchar/Kolkata) are used for China–India–Myanmar links rather than routes via Uttar Pradesh.

Explains the strategic significance of the Northeast as India's gateway to Southeast Asia and mentions the small Siliguri Corridor link to the rest of India.

A student can combine this geographic fact with corridor routes that pass through the Northeast to assess whether a corridor to Kunming would plausibly route via Varanasi or via northeastern states toward Kolkata.