Keeping the national security in mind, examine the ethical dilemmas related to controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas in the country.

Q.2.b. Keeping the national security in mind, examine the ethical dilemmas related to controversies over environmental clearance of development projects in ecologically sensitive border areas in the country. (10 Marks, 150 Words)

Approach: Introduce the context by highlighting the dual nature of India’s borderlands-geostrategic importance vs. ecological fragility. In the body, identify and analyze key ethical dilemmas like security vs. sustainability, development vs. community rights, utilitarianism vs. deontology, and transparency vs. secrecy, with relevant examples (Char Dham Highway, Arunachal dams). Apply ethical principles—non-maleficence, stewardship, proportionality to frame the moral tensions. Conclude with a balanced way forward stressing security-with-sustainability, green infrastructure, transparent but sensitive processes, community participation, institutional oversight, and intergenerational equity for ethically sound decision-making.

Infrastructure projects in border areas like roads, dams, military bases, and hydropower plants are often justified as essential for national security and economic development. However, these projects frequently clash with environmental concerns, biodiversity preservation, and the rights of indigenous communities.

Ethical Dilemmas

National Security vs. Environmental Sustainability: Defense infrastructure in fragile ecosystems boosts troop mobility but risks landslides, glacial retreat, and floods.
- E.g., Char Dham Highway Project approved for security, despite destabilizing Himalayan slopes.
Economic Development vs. Rights of Local Communities: Hydropower and military projects displace tribal communities, eroding their culture and livelihoods.
- This violates Rawlsian fairness, as marginalized groups bear disproportionate costs.
Utilitarianism vs. Deontology: National security projects may justify biodiversity loss for collective safety (utilitarian view).
- Yet, deontological ethics demands protecting nature as an intrinsic duty; e.g., Arunachal dams submerging sacred forests.
Security vs. Sustainable Development: Border infrastructure is required for national security but accelerates glacier melt, soil erosion, and disaster risks.
- E.g., Landslides on new highways in Himachal and Sikkim highlight fragile sustainability.
Transparency vs. Strategic Secrecy: While transparency in clearances ensures accountability, secrecy over defense projects limits public trust.
- This creates a dilemma between RTI rights and safeguarding strategic interests.
Anthropocentrism vs. Ecocentrism: Security planning prioritizes human survival while sidelining ecological rights and intrinsic biodiversity value.
- This clashes with Gandhian ethics of harmony between man and nature.

Ethical Principles Involved

Non-Maleficence (Do No Harm): Projects should avoid irreparable ecological damage, as environmental degradation itself endangers security.
Stewardship Ethics: The state has a moral duty to act as trustee of natural resources (Public Trust Doctrine).
Doctrine of Proportionality: Security infrastructure must be weighed against the least intrusive ecological damage.
Polluter pays: Offender bears environmental costs.

Way Forward

Ethical Balancing Framework: Adopt a “security-with-sustainability” approach, ensuring defense preparedness while minimizing ecological harm.
Transparent but Sensitive Processes: Enhance public consultations while safeguarding classified military data. (Participatory governance)
Green Infrastructure Models: Use tunnels, eco-bridges, slope-stabilization, and climate-resilient designs to reduce ecological footprints in fragile zones, guided by Gandhian trusteeship and sustainable development ethics.
Institutional Oversight: Strengthen National Green Tribunal’s role in scrutinizing border projects with independent expert review.
Intergenerational Responsibility: Embed climate resilience and disaster risk reduction in all border-area projects.
Corporate & Government Accountability: Mandate adherence to environmental ethics under the Public Trust Doctrine, holding agencies answerable for violations.