Revision summary
Sunil’s raids hit a sand mafia that stalks his wife and mother and threatens a repeat of a killing. Stopping raids, cowboy heroics, a first leak to TV, and dumping the file on a junior all fail. The right option is documented continuation with police, written intimation to CS and government, NGT/NHRC/criminal and anti-corruption forums, team rotation and witness protection. Fear is managed by security, not by silence. Poor tribals are victims and witnesses, not the face of the mafia.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
Illegal sand is a river, a treasury and a set of lives being stolen. Sunil’s family is being hunted to buy his silence. Withdrawing from lawful raids is not an option. Lone cowboy raids without backup are not the other option. The path is continued enforcement with institutional force and family security.
Body
Stakeholders
- Sunil, his wife, and his old mother under surveillance.
- Poor tribals used as a shield and as cheap labour, and those who fear the musclemen.
- Honest staff and the employees already in the nexus.
- The river belt, downstream farmers, and the public buyer of black-market sand.
- Local functionaries, the mafia, and the memory of the officer killed ten years ago.
- Police, Forest, revenue, courts, and the political executive.
(a) Options
- Option 1: Withdraw raids, go slow, and seek a quiet transfer so the family can sleep.
- Option 2: Go as a lone cowboy: more surprise raids with no paper trail to seniors, no police requisition, and personal confrontation with musclemen.
- Option 3: Leak names to the press first and fight the mafia on television.
- Option 4: Hand the entire case to a junior and leave the district without a record.
- Option 5: Document, seek police and armed protection, inform the Collector/SP, Chief Secretary and competent political executive in writing, move NHRC/NGT or a court where the facts fit, rotate the raid team, protect witnesses, and continue lawful raids with the institution, not with bravado alone.
(b) Critical evaluation
- Option 1 merit: stalking may ease for a week; the mother may eat without fear tonight.
- Option 1 demerit: you join the nexus by omission; the next officer reads that fear works; the river keeps dying. Rejected.
- Option 2 merit: speed and a reputation for guts.
- Option 2 demerit: you reproduce the dead predecessor’s tactic; staff in the nexus will leak the naka; the family becomes a softer target. Rejected as theatre.
- Option 3 merit: sunlight can deter.
- Option 3 demerit: sources burned, trial by media, possible contempt of a live inquiry, and tribals named as a bloc. Media is a careful later tool, not the first raid.
- Option 4 merit: personal exit.
- Option 4 demerit: abandonment; the junior is offered as a cheaper victim.
- Option 5 merit: raids continue, the file survives a killing or a transfer, protection is a State duty, and poor tribals are treated as witnesses and victims, not as the mafia.
- Option 5 demerit: promotion delay and residual risk; those are reasons for witness-protection style cover, not for stopping the trucks.
(c) Most appropriate course
- Do not stop raids because a muscleman visited. Fear is a fact to manage, not a legal order.
- Write a contemporaneous record of the threat, the stalking, the staff names, and the raid findings. Copies outside the captured office.
- Requisition police for every raid; ask the Superintendent of Police in writing for protection of residence and movement, including for wife and mother.
- Inform the District Magistrate if Sunil is not himself the DM, the Chief Secretary, and the competent minister in a speaking note: illegal mining, nexus, threat to life, request for a specialised team.
- Where the environment and river are injured, use the National Green Tribunal and pollution and mining statutes; where life is threatened, criminal law and, if public servants are bought, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- NHRC or the State human rights commission for the threat and for tribals held in fear.
- Team rotation so a single constable cannot sell the plan; surprise with sealed orders; GPS and weighbridges rather than a body in front of a truck.
- Witness protection for poor tribals who talk, and livelihood alternatives so the mafia’s small bribe is not the only cash in the hamlet.
- Media as sunlight only after the file is with a competent forum, without communal framing of the tribe.
- If an illegal oral order comes to stop raids, refuse in writing. A transfer may follow; the file must already be upstairs.
- Family: lawful relocation of the mother if needed, official security, and no private bargain with the muscleman.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD RAID[Lawful sand raids] --> KEEP[Continue with team] KEEP --> PROT[Police SP protection] KEEP --> UP[CS CM NGT NHRC] WD[Withdraw from fear] --> NEX[Nexus wins] COW[Lone cowboy] --> DEATH[Repeat of killed predecessor]
Conclusion
The mafia wants a quiet officer. Sunil should stay loud on paper and on the river, with police, seniors, courts and protection for his family. Withdrawal is surrender. Cowboy raids are a second funeral. Institutional enforcement is the ethical mean.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Case study. You are Vice Principal of a degree college in one of the middle-class towns. The principal has recently retired and management is looking for his replacement. There are also feelers that the management may promote you as Principal. In the meantime, during annual examination, the flying squad came from the university caught two students red-handeld involving in unfair means. A senior lecturer of the college was personally helping these student in this act. This senior lecturer also happens to be close to the management. One of the students was son of a local politician who was responsible in getting college affiliated to the present reputed university. The second student was son of a local businessman who has donated maximum funds for running of the college. You immealately informed the management regarding this unfortunate incident. The management told you to resolve the issue with flying squad at any cost. They further said that such incident will not only tarnish the image of the college but also the politician and businessman are very important personalities for the functioning of the college. You were also given hint that your further promotion to Principal depends on your capability in resolving this issue with flying squad. In the meantime, you were intimated by your administrative officer that certain members of the student union are protesting outside the college gate against the senior lecturer and the students involved in this incident and demanding strict action against defaulters. - Discuss the ethical issues involved in the case. - Critically examine the options available with you as Vice Principal. What option will you adopt and why?
Next question on this syllabus topic (2021 · Q8). View answer →
-
If a predecessor was killed, is continuing raids reckless?
Continuing alone is reckless. Continuing with armed police, sealed plans, senior written backing and family security is the duty. The killing is a warning to change tactics, not to stop the law.
-
May Sunil pause raids until protection actually arrives?
He may sequence a raid to the hour protection is in place. He may not issue a stand-down that the mafia can read as surrender. Put the request for force on paper the same day.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?
Ethics Case Studies
This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.
Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?
Ethics Case Studies
This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.
Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.
Ethics Case Studies
• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.