Q.15. Case Study:

Nishant’s situation presents a classic ethical dilemma where personal choices are at odds with public advocacy. Let’s discuss each question in turn:

1. Admission in Government School: If Nishant believes in the value of government schools and has publicly advocated for them, enrolling his child in one would be consistent with his principles. It would demonstrate his commitment to his beliefs and could inspire confidence in others to follow his lead.
2. Leaving Intellectual Discourse: Abandoning his intellectual discourse would not be necessary or beneficial. Instead, Nishant should continue to raise awareness about social issues. However, he might need to address the perceived hypocrisy and ensure that his actions align more closely with his words.
3. Calling Party Followers: Seeking support from his party followers could be seen as an attempt to deflect criticism without addressing the underlying issue. It would be more constructive for Nishant to openly discuss the matter and explain his position to maintain credibility.
4. Admission in Elite School: If Nishant chooses to pursue admission for his child in an elite school, he should be prepared to face and respond to criticism regarding the inconsistency between his public stance and personal actions. He should also consider the message this sends to those who have trusted his advocacy.

In conclusion, Nishant’s actions should ideally reflect his public statements to maintain integrity. However, the decision also depends on his personal circumstances and the specific reasons for his choice, which may include considerations for his child’s welfare and educational needs. Transparency and open dialogue about his decision-making process could help mitigate criticism and preserve his role as a social advocate.