Answer

In recent years, despite significant collaborative efforts by Central and State Governments to reduce the Naxalite menace, certain isolated regions still grapple with insurgency. The ethical dilemma faced by Rohit, a Superintendent of Police in charge of Special Operations, involves balancing utilitarian principles of maintaining law and order with deontological ethics of ensuring the safety and rights of local tribal communities

Key Stakeholders and Their Interests

Options Available to Rohit to Cope with the Situation

• Releasing the Naxalites: Rohit could opt to release the naxalites to immediately calm the crowd. This would prevent any loss of civilian life but would be a compromise of justice and law enforcement’s responsibility, allowing dangerous insurgents to escape.
• Retreat and Regroup: Rohit could order a complete retreat of his forces to avoid civilian casualties, leaving the situation unresolved and risking the resurgence of naxalite activities in the area.
• Negotiation and Dialogue (Principle of Non-Violence): Initiating dialogue with tribal women reflects Gandhian non-violence, seeking to understand grievances and de-escalate tensions through Interest-Based Negotiation that prioritises mutual understanding over confrontation.
  For example: Rohit can apply principled negotiation to identify common interests between the police and the tribal women, ensuring a peaceful resolution.
• Use of Non-Lethal Tactics (Doctrine of Proportionality): Employing non-lethal methods such as tear gas or water cannons follows the proportionality doctrine, ensuring that the use of force is minimal and only escalated when absolutely necessary.
• Request Reinforcements (Contingency Planning): Utilising alternative methods of communication to call for reinforcements adheres to contingency planning, ensuring preparedness for escalating situations. It reflects the Moral Duty to Protect the force and detainees.
• Safe Passage (Ethics of Care): Facilitating a controlled retreat for the detainees ensures that the ethics of care is prioritised, focusing on the well-being of both civilians and law enforcement officers.
  For example: Rohit can establish safe corridors to ensure that detainees and officers are relocated without harm, following the principle of duty of care.
• Transparency of Action (Doctrine of Double Effect): Transparent communication aligns with the Doctrine of Double Effect, where actions with potentially harmful side effects are permissible if the intent is ethically justified.
  For example: Rohit can use community liaisons to transparently explain the necessity of detaining the insurgents, mitigating the risk of misunderstandings.

Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Rohit

• Protection vs. Aggression (Ethical Dilemma of Utility): Rohit must balance law and order with minimising harm to civilians, reflecting Utilitarian Ethics by prioritising the greater good while preventing individual harm.
• Justice vs. Peace (Conflict of Duties): Rohit faces a dilemma between detaining known insurgents for justice and maintaining peace among the crowd, creating a conflict of duties.
• Authority vs. Compassion (Virtue Ethics): The conflict between asserting authority and showing compassion to the tribal women highlights Virtue Ethics, which values moral character and
  For example: Rohit must balance his role as an enforcer with the Aristotelian virtue of compassion to show understanding toward the women’s concerns.
• Duty vs. Morality (Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism): Rohit’s duty to detain criminals may conflict with the moral obligation to prevent civilian harm, highlighting the tension between Moral Absolutism (duty) and Moral Relativism (contextual morality).
• Transparency vs. Operational Security (Ethical Egoism): Balancing operational transparency with security risks creates a dilemma between Ethical Egoism (ensuring success) and the public’s right to know.
• Compliance vs. Pragmatism (Pragmatic Ethics): Rohit must decide whether strict adherence to legal protocols is practical in volatile situations or whether pragmatic approaches should be applied.
• Individual Rights vs. Collective Safety (Communitarian Ethics): Rohit must balance the detainees’ individual rights with the community’s collective safety, reflecting Communitarian Ethics, which prioritises collective well-being over individual rights.

Most Appropriate Option for Rohit: Engaging in Dialogue and Negotiation with Reinforcements and Safe Passage

• Rohit should combine dialogue with tribal leaders, request reinforcements, and ensure safe passage for detainees, aligning with Restorative Justice by balancing peace-building and law enforcement.
• This approach aligns with the National Police Commission’s advocacy for community engagement and dialogue-based conflict resolution, prioritising the well-being of all stakeholders while maintaining law enforcement’s integrity.
• Rohit should engage tribal elders, explain the need for the detention, and ensure safe passage for detainees, with reinforcements as backup. This approach promotes a peaceful resolution, aligning with restorative justice and preventing loss of life.

Precautionary Measures in Dealing with Women Protesters

• Sensitivity Training (Cognitive Behavioral Approach): Officers must receive training based on the Cognitive Behavioral Approach (CBA), focusing on understanding and respecting gender-specific concerns to prevent escalation.
• Female Police Involvement: Engaging female officers to interact with protesting women reduces the psychological distance between law enforcement and protestors.
  For example: Rohit can deploy female officers who are more likely to establish a psychological bond with the protesting women, thereby de-escalating the situation.
• Cultural Awareness: Demonstrating cultural competence in handling the tribal women’s protests is crucial for reducing tension, as it reflects respect for their identity and
  For example: Rohit should ensure his team is culturally competent, respecting the tribal customs and engaging in a manner that reflects their unique traditions.
• Minimal Force Use (Least Harm Principle): Applying the Least Harm Principle ensures that only the minimal amount of force is used, aligning with ethical guidelines that prioritise non-violence and de-escalation.
• Clear Communication (Active Listening): Using active listening to communicate the intentions of the police helps in reducing misunderstandings and demonstrates a willingness to engage in dialogue.
  For example: Rohit could ensure that interpreters use active listening to convey the police’s intentions clearly, fostering trust with the tribal women.

In resolving such complex crises, Rohit’s approach of balancing ethical policing with community engagement fosters trust and upholds democratic values. As the Bhagavad Gita teaches, “yato dharmas tato jayah” (Where there is righteousness, there is victory), emphasising the power of justice and ethical action in achieving long-term peace.

DOWNLOAD PDF