I don't remember seeing any threads discussing case studies for GS Paper IV, so starting one.
A foreign automobile company has recently entered the Indian market. It has set up an assembly unit in Chennai with an investment of $500 million, and has hired over 8,000 employees.
It has come to the government's notice that the company had indulged in corruption to acquire the requisite permissions for its assembly unit. As per regulations, the permissions should be revoked and unit shut down. However, this would strain the balance of payments and unemployment situations in the country.
This is related to these parts of the syllabus:
- Ethical concerns and dilemmas in government
- Regulations and conscience as sources of ethical guidance
- Ethical issues in international relations and funding
How should we answer such a question? We could either take a stand of unflinching morals (doing the "right" thing without concern for its consequences) or articulate a reconciliation of morality and pragmatism. I'm thinking the answer will be stronger if we can invoke some ethics theory/thinkers.
Comments
@ArindamSarkar Good reconciliation! That is probably how we should answer, but if I may play devil's advocate for argument's sake-- what is the message one sends out by offering a "way out"? In the long term, doesn't a "soft stand" lead to systemic corruption? Sticking to the rules and taking stern action, on the other hand, will send out a message that the country has zero tolerance towards corruption. That will ultimately boost investor ratings, our good governance ratings etc., thereby bringing in more foreign capital and creating more jobs. There is never going to be a right time to take a tough decision, so why not do it now?
Say the case study were slightly different-- You are Municipal Commissioner and it has come to your notice that an apartment's permissions were acquired by bribing officials. Rules say it should be razed down because it is non-compliant. But doing so would displace several low-income groups that have invested their life savings into this. What would you do?
[Governments "regularized" illegal buildings to solve this ethical dilemma. But the illegal constructions soon went out of hand resulting in a breakdown of urban planning. It is only on a court order that the government sees the need to put its foot down.]
In the second case there are two possibilities. If the building is an actual threat to public or has violated the norms seriously (no. of floors, FSI, water and sewage connection etc) then it should be razed and money should be drawn out of the builder to compensate the ones who have invested into it.
However, if compliance was taken through speed money (to cut the various procedures and red tape) but overall all norms are fulfilled, then it can be regularised.
I think you meant the first case - so the building has to brought down acc. to me. Also, in both the cases the corrupt municipal officials are to be suspended.
You are the DC of Kalahandi. Soon after your posting you noticed illegal felling of forests in which the Forset officials incld the DFO is complicit. You complain to higher authorities. However, instead of any action being taken you are informally advised that if you persist you will be transferred. Plus, a pusillanimous officer will replace you so that the matter can be hushed up.
However, you are adamant and don't care abt the transfer.
Now, as part of your job you are also looking after other schemes incld Sarva Shiksha under which you have been able to make available some good teachers in the interior schools. As a result the student attendance has gone up considerably and the tribal children and their parents are very happy with you. But when they get to know that you are going to be transferred they requested you to do something to prevent the transfer.
They claim that going by their experience by all possibilities the next DC will not be an efficient and honest officer. And the schools might not open again. Now the future of some 100 students (all first generation learners) is in your hands.
What will you do? Will a compromise 'here' on the pretext of doing better 'there' justified?
For ex- the govt has clearly ruled out your venturing into certain blocks of your districts (you are the DC- again) because there is a fear that you will the kidnapped (again the Maoists).
However these blocks are actually very poor and backward and to boost up the morale of the lower bureaucracy and to oversee the few developmental works there it's highly important (acc. to you) to visit these places.
The government will not give you more security bcs it is clearly against any such visit/inspection.
What to do?
I would communicate to the government the need to visit this areas, and request security cover. The government may refuse due to scarcity of security officers, and a higher priority need elsewhere. In that case, I'd explore other options in parallel, such as training NGOs, self-help groups (borrowing from previous answer) etc. So the development process can go on without violating the government order.
1. You are a police constable on patrol late in the night. You notice a burglar running out of a pharmacy shop. When you chase and catch him, he tells you that he stole some medicines for his dying child. He cannot afford them otherwise, so he had to resort to this. Will you take him to jail or let him go?
2. You find your best friend copying in the final exam. <--- Same as UPSC's model question.
But to make this spicier, say you know that your friend couldn't study the previous few days because he had a fever. And he needs to pass this exam so he can graduate and make some money to send it back to his needy family etc. What then?
3. Your friend downloads a PDF of "India after Gandhi" online. He can't afford to buy it, but he needs it to pass the IAS exam. Is this justified?
Some food for thought: Your friend says once he becomes an IAS officer, he can "serve the people". So depriving Guha of his 100rs is not a sin. He is already a rich man anyway.
On the other side, is it fair for your friend to put his own interest ahead of the author's right to compensation? Also, is it fair to other aspirants, some of whom have chose not to download the book because it is against the law? Why should they be at a disadvantage for doing the "right thing"?
All of these cases are related. Please don't provide "out of the box" solutions that evade the moral question. What I want to know is-- is it ever justified to do something "wrong"? If yes, where do you draw that line? Bonus points for those that refer to thinkers. Super bonus if they are Indian thinkers.
As a moderator of forumias should u delete the pirated uploaded study matterial ??
on one hand its against moral n ethics
on the other hand its about helping students .. most of them rely on this matterial and look upoon this matterial as their saviour...
what will u do ????
:P