ClearMains
10 marks · 150 words
Practice this question
Handwrite your answer the way you would in the real exam, photograph it, and get AI-graded, rubric-based feedback — scores per dimension, strengths, gaps, and what a topper would add.
Handwrite it, get it evaluated →Want the full paper experience instead? Assemble a timed practice paper from the full GS4 question bank.
More on GS4 · Case Studies
Case Study You are a young IAS officer recently posted as the District Collector of Dantewada, a remote and impoverished district in the state of Chhattisgarh. Dantewada has been the epicenter of the violent Naxal insurgency, a protracted conflict between Maoist rebels and security forces that has claimed thousands of lives over the past few decades. The Naxalites, claiming to fight for the rights of tribal peasants and the oppressed, have established a parallel system of governance in large swathes of Dantewada's forests and villages. They run their own courts, tax civilians, and have targeted government infrastructure and security personnel through deadly ambushes and landmine attacks. Despite the heavy presence of paramilitary forces, the district administration's writ barely extends beyond the district headquarters. Most development funds allocated for Dantewada have been siphoned off by corrupt officials or remained unutilized due to the precarious security situation. The situation in Dantewada is highly volatile, with regular incidents of violence disrupting governance and development efforts. As the senior-most civilian authority, you are under pressure to find an effective strategy to resolve this long-standing conflict. In the above scenario: 1. What are the major ethical dilemmas involved in this issue? 2. What would be your priorities and action plan as the District Collector to restore administration and deliver development in this conflict-affected region? 3. Reflecting on this case study, what policy measures would you recommend for resolving protracted insurgencies through a comprehensive approach combining development, security, and grievance redressal?
Case Study Arvind Mehta, a senior public servant, currently heads the Budget Division in the Ministry of Finance. His division is presently involved in allocating budgetary support to various states, four of which are scheduled to hold assembly elections within the current financial year. As per the latest Union Budget, more than Rs 8,300 crore was allocated to the National Housing Scheme (NHS), a key centrally sponsored welfare programme aimed at providing affordable housing to weaker sections. By June, Rs 775 crore had already been disbursed under the scheme. Parallelly, the Ministry of Commerce had been pursuing the establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in a southern state to promote exports. After nearly two years of consultation between the Centre and the state, the Union Cabinet gave its approval in August, and the process for acquiring land has since begun. In another development, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had proposed a natural gas processing plant in a northern state to support the regional gas grid, an essential element of the country's energy security strategy. The land for the project is already available, and after three rounds of global bidding, the contract was awarded to M/s XYZ Hydrocarbons, a multinational company. The first tranche of payment is scheduled for December. To meet the funding requirements of these two major development projects, an additional Rs 6,000 crore is required. It has been proposed that this amount be re-appropriated from the NHS budget. The file seeking approval for this re-allocation was sent to the Budget Division for examination and processing. On reviewing the file, Arvind Mehta became concerned. He realised that diverting funds from the NHS could delay its implementation, a scheme widely promoted by senior political figures and closely linked to electoral commitments. On the other hand, delaying fund allocation to the SEZ and the gas plant could lead to significant financial losses and reputational damage at both national and international levels. Upon raising the issue with his superiors, Arvind was advised that the matter is politically sensitive and must be expedited without delay. Question: a) Identify the ethical issues involved in reallocating funds from a welfare programme to development projects. b) In light of the responsibility to ensure prudent use of public resources, what options are available to Arvind Mehta? Would resigning from his post be a reasonable or ethical course of action?