The central ethical dilemma revolves around Rohit's choice between upholding the law by detaining captured Naxalites and maintaining public order by potentially releasing them, mirroring the 2021 Chhattisgarh Naxal attack where similar tensions arose between security forces and local communities.

Stakeholder Identification

Stakeholders in the case

(a) Options available with Rohit:

• Option 1: Release the Naxalites Temporarily to immediately defuse the situation and prevent civilian casualties.

  Pros	Cons
  Prevents immediate escalation and possible violence or civilian casualties.	Sends a wrong message of weakness or surrender to extremists.
  Gains temporary trust of the tribal community.	May encourage similar future tactics (crowd pressure) to obstruct law enforcement.

• Option 2: Use all means necessary to detain the naxalites including use of firearms on civilians.

  Pros	Cons
  Asserts authority of law and ensures justice by arresting wanted extremists.	It escalate into a larger protest or unrest if not handled sensitively.
  	It puts lives of civilian at danger

• Option 3: Detain the Naxalites and Attempt to Negotiate with tribal women. Use local leaders or women officers to mediate and calm the crowd. If the situation remains same the release the naxalites temporarily.

  Pros	Cons
  Reduces aggression without use of force.	It may take time, and if not successful, Sends a wrong message of weakness or surrender to extremists.
  Builds a bridge between security forces and the community.
  Upholds democratic and empathetic approach to conflict resolution.

(b) Ethical Dilemmas faced by Rohit:

• Public Welfare vs. Private Gain (of Naxalites): Balancing the safety and security of the community against the demands of the protesters who view the Naxalites as protectors, highlighting a clash between collective and individual rights.

• Rule of Law vs. Humanitarian Crisis: Upholding the law by detaining armed insurgents vs. risking harm to civilian tribal women. This reflects a crisis of conscience for Rohit.

• Use of Force vs. Principle of Non-Violence: Possible resort to force against unarmed women protesters questions proportionality of response. This emphasizes Kant's Categorical Imperative approach.

• Professional Duty vs. Public Sentiment: Duty to ensure state's internal security vs. addressing emotional outburst of local communities.

• Short-term Peace vs. Long-term Precedent: Releasing extremists may prevent immediate violence but may embolden insurgents in future.

(c) Most Appropriate Option for Rohit:

• Option 3 would be the most appropriate option for Rohit because:
  • It helps manage the situation with Emotional Intelligence by understanding the emotions of tribal women and trying to understand their perspective.
  • This approach prioritizes dilogue over use of force. Which presents opportunity to bring forth true face of naxalism. This is in line with Kant's deontological ethics.
  • Use of violence would negate the gains made over the decades and work in favor of naxalite propaganda. So a civil servant must balance constitutional morality with compassion and courage with caution.

(d) Extra Precautionary Measures in Dealing with Women Protesters:

• Deployment of Women Police Personnel: Ensures culturally sensitive engagement, reducing chances of escalation or misbehavior.

• Use of Non-lethal Crowd Control Tools: Such as water cannons, tear gas, or loudspeakers to disperse without injury.

• Engage Community Mediators: Tribal elders, local influencers, or social workers to explain the legal implications of the protest.

• Maintain a Non-provocative Demeanor: Avoid aggressive postures or verbal provocation by police forces.

• Video Recording the Operation: For transparency, accountability, and evidence in case of any allegation or misinterpretation.

• Safe Evacuation Plan: Keep ambulances and medical support ready in case of crowd stampede or accidental injury.

A civil servant must act with ethical prudence, emotional intelligence, and constitutional values. Upholding justice while safeguarding innocent lives reflects the highest standards of civil service integrity and leadership.