Subject: Social Justice, Caste Discrimination, Ethics in Administration, and Child Rights. Location: Kendrapara District, Odisha.

The Scenario

In Nuagaon village (Ghadiamal Gram Panchayat, Kendrapara), an Anganwadi centre has been non-functional for nearly three months. The reason is not a lack of funds or infrastructure, but a social boycott by the villagers.

The crisis began on November 20, 2025, when Sharmistha Sethy, a 20-year-old Dalit woman and a graduate from a poor family, was appointed as the helper-cum-cook. She was the lone applicant for the post, which had been advertised in 2024 and 2025. Following her appointment:

• Parents stopped sending their children to the centre.
• Villagers refused to collect free nutritional rations (sattu, eggs) provided by the government.
• Currently, 0 out of 20 enrolled children are attending the centre.

While the villagers have not openly stated that caste is the reason, the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) and the appointee affirm that the boycott is rooted in caste prejudice. The District Administration has deputed a team to resolve the impasse, but the center remains deserted.

Questions for Practice

1. Identify the ethical and legal violations present in this case.
2. As the District Collector, you are pressured to transfer Sharmistha Sethy to a different location to immediately restore the food supply to the children. Would you agree? Justify your stand.
3. Outline a comprehensive course of action to resolve this crisis, focusing on both immediate and long-term behavioral change.

Solution:

1. Brief Summary & Stakeholder Analysis

An Anganwadi centre in Odisha faces a “Silent Boycott” because a Dalit woman (Sharmistha Sethy) was appointed as the cook. Villagers have withdrawn their children, prioritizing caste prejudice over their children’s nutrition. The administration faces a conflict between social resistance and constitutional duty.

2. Ethical Issues & Dilemmas

• Constitutional Morality vs. Social Morality: The Constitution abolishes untouchability (Article 17), but the village’s “social morality” enforces segregation. The administrator must ensure Constitutional Morality prevails.
• Rights of the Child vs. Parental Authority: Do parents have the right to deny their children state-funded nutrition because of their own bias? Ethically, the child’s right to life supersedes parental prejudice.
• Administrative Expediency vs. Social Justice:
  • Expediency: Transfer the cook $\rightarrow$ Centre reopens immediately $\rightarrow$ Peace returns (Short-term gain).
  • Justice: Retain the cook $\rightarrow$ Conflict continues temporarily $\rightarrow$ Equality is upheld (Long-term value).

3. Key Ethical & Legal Violations

1. Violation of Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Refusing food cooked by a Dalit is a classic form of untouchability.
2. Violation of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: Promoting social boycott or obstructing a Scheduled Caste member from performing their lawful duty is a punishable offence.
3. Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life): Denying children nutritional support endangers their health.

4. Critical Decision: To Transfer or Not?

Question: As the District Collector, you are pressured to transfer Sharmistha Sethy to immediately restore the food supply. Would you agree?

Decision: I will NOT transfer Sharmistha Sethy.

Justification:

1. Legitimizing Discrimination: Transferring her validates the casteist demand of the villagers. It signals that the State agrees that “Dalit-cooked food is impure.”
2. Bad Precedent: If the administration yields here, similar boycotts will erupt in other Anganwadis, making governance impossible.
3. Crisis of Conscience: It would be a betrayal of the Constitution I swore to uphold and a violation of Sharmistha’s dignity.
4. Administrative Strength: The “Iron Frame” of bureaucracy must not bend to illegal societal pressure.

5. Comprehensive Course of Action

Objective: Restore the Anganwadi’s functioning with Sharmistha as the cook.

Step A: Immediate Relief (The Safety Net)

• Action: Direct ASHA/Anganwadi workers to deliver Take Home Rations (THR) (dry ration like eggs/sattu) to the doorsteps of the 20 children.
• Reason: We cannot let children starve while we fight the social battle. Their nutrition is non-negotiable.

Step B: Administrative Assertiveness (The Stick)

• Fact-Finding: Visit the village personally. A Collector’s presence signals the gravity of the issue.
• Legal Warning: Hold a meeting with village elders. Explicitly state that:
  • The centre will not close.
  • The employee will not be changed.
  • Obstructing a public servant and enforcing a boycott invites non-bailable warrants under the SC/ST Act.

Step C: Persuasion & Social Influence (The Carrot)

• “Sahabhoj” (Community Dining): Organize a public lunch at the Anganwadi where I (the Collector), the local MLA, and respected upper-caste leaders eat the food cooked by Sharmistha.
  • Ethical Theory: Social Proof – When leaders break the taboo, it becomes easier for common villagers to follow.
• Incentivize: Link other village development schemes (e.g., road repairs, water tank) to the “harmonious functioning” of the Anganwadi. Create a collective interest in resolving the issue.

Step D: Long-Term Behavioral Change

• Positive Deviants: Identify 1-2 mothers who are willing to break the boycott. Publicly felicitate them as “Model Mothers.” Use them to influence others (peer persuasion).
• Sensitization: Conduct workshops with mothers on the scientific aspect of hygiene vs. the ritual aspect of purity.

6. Conclusion

This case is a test of the State’s Will. As an administrator, my duty is not just to distribute food, but to distribute Justice.

Yielding to the boycott might fill the children’s stomachs today, but it will poison their minds with casteism forever. By standing firm, we ensure that the Anganwadi feeds them not just nutrition, but also the values of Equality and Fraternity.

UPSC Value Box

Quote for Ethics: “The law is the public conscience.” — Hobbes.

Key Concept: Foundational Value of Civil Services — Impartiality and Empathy for the weaker sections.

Relevant Act: SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, specifically provisions against “Social Boycott.”