Ashok is Divisional Commissioner of one of the border districts of the North East State. A few years back, Military has taken over the neighbouring country after overthrowing the elected civil government. Civil war situation is prevailing in the country especially in last two years. However, internal situation further deteriorated due to rebel groups taking over control of certain populated areas near own border. Due to intense fight between military and rebel groups, civilian casualties has increased manifold in recent past. In the meantime, in one night Ashok got information from the local police guarding the border check post that there are about 200-250 people mainly women and children trying to cross over to our side of the border. There are also about 10 soldiers with their weapons in military uniform part of this group who wants to cross over. Women and Children are also crying and begging for help. A few of them are injured and bleeding profusely need immediate medical care. Ashok tried to contact Home Secretary of the State but failed to do so due to poor connectivity mainly due to inclement weather.
(a) What are the options available with Ashok to cope with the situation? (b) What are the ethical and legal dilemmas being faced by Ashok? (c) Which of the options, do you think would be more appropriate for Ashok to adopt and why? (d) In the present situation, what are the extra precautionary measures to be taken by the Border Guarding Police in dealing with soldiers in uniform?
Approach · directive: “what / which / what measures”
What it asks · Identify Ashok’s options when civilians and armed soldiers seek to cross from a war-torn neighbour at night, the ethical and legal tensions, the best course, and special precautions for the soldiers.
It asks 4 things — answer each
- (a) What options are available to Ashok to cope with the situation
- (b) What ethical and legal dilemmas Ashok faces
- (c) Which option is more appropriate for Ashok to adopt, and why
- (d) Extra precautionary measures for the border-guarding police in dealing with the soldiers in uniform
Open with · The crux, humanity versus sovereignty and security, as Ashok must act without orders; Kant's cosmopolitan right of hospitality sets the floor of temporary shelter in an emergency.
Cover
- Stakeholders: injured civilians, the soldiers, border police and residents, the State and Union, and India's diplomatic interests.
- (a) Options table: deny entry, admit all freely, or controlled entry, each with merits and demerits.
- (b) Dilemmas: humanity vs sovereignty, compassion vs security, initiative vs instructions; outside the 1951 Convention, yet Article 21 protects every person (NHRC case).
- (c) Controlled entry: admit civilians at one point, first aid, disarm and separate the soldiers, then register, screen and report; no asylum, no push-back.
- (d) Disarm first; intern apart (Hague Convention V, 1907); treat humanely; coordinate with the Army, intelligence and border guarding force; hand over on Union orders.
- Long-term: an SOP for mass arrivals, medical and shelter capacity at border posts, satellite links, and clear Union guidance.
Close with · Humanity and security served together: save lives first, contain the risk, and let the Union decide diplomacy.
Add value (verified)
- Article 21 protects every ‘person’, not only citizens — the injured at the border are owed life-saving care.The Constitution of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, as on 1 May 2024) — Article 21 ↗“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
- Kant's cosmopolitan right of hospitality: in an emergency, states must give non-citizens temporary shelter — read by some as a basis for a duty to accept refugees.Kant's Social and Political Philosophy — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗“And in an emergency such as a shipwreck, states must provide non-citizens with temporary shelter; this provision is sometimes understood as a basis for a state duty to accept refugees”
- NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, quoted by the Supreme Court in 2018: the Constitution confers certain rights on every human being, not only on citizens.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) v. Union of India, judgment of 26 September 2018 — Supreme Court of India ↗“In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh19, the Supreme Court explained it again, as under: “We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.””
- Border guarding follows 'One Border, One Border Guarding Force'; the India-Myanmar border is guarded by the Assam Rifles.Ministry of Home Affairs, Annual Report 2023-24, para 3.5 ↗“One ' Border, One Border Guarding Force (OBOBGF)'. Accordingly, domination of each border has been entrusted to a particular Border Guarding Force (BGF) as under: - 28 Name of Border Name of BGF India-Bangladesh and India-Pakistan Borders Border Security Force (BSF) India-China Border Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) India-Nepal and India-Bhutan Borders Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) India-Myanmar Border Assam Rifles”
- Hague Convention V (1907), Art. 11: a neutral Power receiving belligerent troops on its territory shall intern them, as far as possible, away from the theatre of war.Hague Convention (V) on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers, 18 October 1907 — Avalon Project, Yale Law School ↗“Art. 11. A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.”
- Hague Convention V (1907), Art. 12: the neutral Power shall supply the interned with the food, clothing and relief required by humanity.Hague Convention (V) on the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers, 18 October 1907 — Avalon Project, Yale Law School ↗“Art. 12. In the absence of a special convention to the contrary, the neutral Power shall supply the interned with the food, clothing, and relief required by humanity.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 373words · Minimalist IAS
Humanity versus sovereignty and security: Ashok must act without orders. Kant's cosmopolitan right of hospitality sets the floor: in an emergency, states must give non-citizens temporary shelter.
Stakeholders
- Directly affected: civilians, many injured; the soldiers; border police and residents; the State and Union; India's diplomatic interests.
(a) Options available to Ashok
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Deny entry | Lawful; no risk | Lives lost at the gate |
| Admit all freely | Humane; quick | Armed men unchecked |
| Controlled entry | Saves lives; contains risk | Needs men and skill |
(b) Ethical and legal dilemmas
- Humanity vs sovereignty: a duty to the bleeding against immigration law that bars undocumented entry.
- Compassion vs security: the soldiers may be pursued, or militants in uniform; sheltering them may look partisan.
- Initiative vs instructions: act beyond orders, or wait while people bleed.
- Law: India is outside the 1951 Refugee Convention, yet non-refoulement is widely seen as customary law and Article 21 protects every person; in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh the Supreme Court held the Constitution confers rights "on every human being".
(c) More appropriate option: controlled entry
- Immediately: admit civilians at one point; first aid and evacuation for the bleeding; disarm and separate the soldiers.
- Then: register and screen everyone; keep trying superiors by police wireless; report at first light.
- Why: refusal risks grave, irreversible harm; controlled entry, only manageable harm. Ashok neither grants asylum nor pushes anyone back, preserving lives and the Union's choice.
(d) Extra precautions with soldiers in uniform
- Disarm first: before entry; log and seal weapons, ammunition and communication devices; search for explosives.
- Intern apart: away from civilians, under guard; Hague Convention V (1907) has a neutral Power intern belligerent troops it receives, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war.
- Treat humanely: food, clothing, medical care and "relief required by humanity"; no questioning beyond identity.
- Coordinate: alert the Army, intelligence and the border guarding force (the Assam Rifles on the India–Myanmar border); hand over only on the Union's orders.
Long-term measures
- Prepare for the next influx: an SOP for mass arrivals, standing medical and shelter capacity at border posts, satellite links, and clear Union guidance.
Humanity and security can be served together: save lives first, contain the risk, and let the Union decide diplomacy.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 1 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
