[Rajas Chavan]

The case mentions ongoing clashes between tungals and anarsians. Rehan, a doctor is faced with a dilemma whether to treat the general who is the catalyst for this unrest.

Following perspectives arise:

Rehan, being a doctor should stay true to his profession and atleast stabilise the patient if not treat him competely. However this is a rational thing to do.

Given the human nature, a thought will cross Rehan’s mind as to why should I treat the person who is responsible for the death of my wife and family members?

Even if I stabilise him, will he stop fomenting the violence that is the cause of numerous casualties of my people?

The case also mentions, Anarshians having influence in government with virtue of holding important portfolios. Having treated the general, he will also risk government action apart from facing wrath of his people.l which can put his life in danger.

However, the conflict has been caused due to alienation of the anarsians by the tungals. Hence, looking at the broader view and timely resolution for the crisis, Rehan should keep his biases in check and stabilise the general so that major stakeholders – tungals, anarsians and general(citing the help he was offered) are brought to the discussion table and a consensus is reached. In this way, a resolution can also be reached and the region can be brought back to peace.

Drawing parallels from the rohingya crisis which has paralysed the rakhine state of myanmar, where lakhs of rohingyas are subjected to ethnic cleansing and no discussions are taking place between the government and the minority sect, thereby worsening the situation.

 

 

[Author]

Posts