Dilemma: Development vs Displacement
A classic ethical dilemma in public administration where a Massive infrastructure project (e.g., Dam, Highway) requires displacing local communities.
Dilemma: Development vs Displacement
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Definition of Dilemma | - National macro-economic infrastructure development (dams, highways, ports) causing local community displacement and ecological disruption |
| Key Stakeholders Analysis | - State & Industry: macro-economic growth, trade connectivity, and public infrastructure utility - Local Tribal Communities: Right to Livelihood (Art 21), ancestral land, and socio-cultural identity - Environment: biodiversity loss, deforestation, and ecosystem degradation |
| Utilitarianism vs Rights-Based Framework | - Utilitarianism (Bentham): greatest good for greatest number justifying macro-development - Rights-based Ethics (Kant/Rawls): individuals must never be treated as mere means to an economic end - Resolution: mandatory Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Gram Sabha consent, land-for-land rehabilitation, and skill restoration |
| High-Yield Ethics Data & Exemplars | - LARR Act 2013 (70-80% consent requirement & mandatory SIA) - Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 & Supreme Court Niyamgiri Tribal Rights Judgment |
| Conclusion | - Success lies in moving from administrative imposition to **"Consent-Saturated and Equity-Verified Inclusive Growth"** |
| Real-World Precedent | - The Narmada Bachao Andolan and the *Narmada Sardar Sarovar Dam* Supreme Court litigation (2000) remain the classic real case testing utilitarian development gains against tribal displacement rights, and directly influenced the subsequent statutory push toward mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement embedded in the LARR Act 2013 |