Q. Anandpur was a sovereign state surrounded by two strong countries A and B. Due to attack by Country A, Anandpur had asked for support from Country B. With the effort of Country B , Anandpurhad foiled the attack of Country A.To save itself from future attack, Anandpur had accepted the sovereignty of Country B with certain conditions. Under these conditions, any law enacted by Country B for Anandpur could be applicable only after consultation with people of Anandpur.
Meanwhile, Country A had adopted the policy of terrorism to destabilise country B and Anandpur. Many civilians and Army personnel had lost their lives due to inhumanistic and aggressive policy of Country A. Country A had also supported the separatist movement in Anandpur. Even after the effort of Country B, the human development index was very poor in Anandpur. Due to violence and terrorism, Industrial development was also very poor in Anandpur. There was rising discontent among youth due to the high rate of unemployment in Anandpur. Due to the misconception, People of Anandpur thought that in place of Country A , Country B was responsible for all their misery and Poverty. Country B had tried every effort to convince the people of Anandpur that Country A was responsible for all their miseries.
At last, after exhausting all effort, Country B has totally revoked all the concessions provided to Anandpur and acquired the whole region of Anandpur without consulting the people of that region. Arguments given by Country B were that It was done for a temporary period to eradicate the roots of terrorism and improving the human development of that region.
In this Context:
Approach:
Stakeholders:
a) Ethical issues involved in the case:
(b) Ethical dilemmas involved in the case:
(C) Decision by Country B to eradicate terrorism
As country B had acquired territory of Anandpur for larger public interest. From the Utilitarian principle this step is right. But path adopted by country A is not right as per deontological Principle. This steps was not democratic as larger public consultation was not conducted before acquisition was done. But Country B had done all the efforts to bridge the trust deficit with Anandpur. Even after lots of efforts by Country B, there is a misconception among the people of Anandpur. There was also menace of terrorism in Anandpur. So as short term measures it can be ethically right to acquire the anandpur for larger public interest in terms of eradication of terrorism and generation of employment.
But this step was not a democratic one. So in long terms, Country B should have consultation with Anandpur and accept the provisions of earlier agreement.