The Quiet Coup In Kashmir's Academia

(MENAFN- Kashmir Observer)
KO file photo

By Dr. Ashraf Zainabi

The word“merit” used to mean something in the academic world. It stood for rigour, honesty, impact. But in Jammu and Kashmir today, it has become a slogan stretched too thin, especially with the latest move to selectively extend the retirement age of university professors from 62 to 65. The government says the extension will be based on merit. But what does that even mean anymore?

In universities across the region, the reaction has been a mix of cautious hope and quiet disbelief. Everyone knows how things usually work. When rules are vague, it is the well-connected who benefit. In this case, the absence of any clear definition or public criteria for“merit” makes the entire proposal suspect. Without transparency, this promise begins to look less like reform and more like another opportunity to reward friends in high places.

There is a deeper unease here, one rooted in decades of academic decay. Nepotism is no stranger to our institutions. Promotions have often been decided not in classrooms or research labs but in corridors of power. The professor who knows someone in the secretariat is more likely to rise than the one publishing serious research or mentoring students through sleepless nights.

Now, with the retirement extension policy, this imbalance may become further entrenched. Those who have already occupied top posts and cultivated influence over time are best placed to push their cases forward. These are individuals who sit on committees, who know how to draft glowing self-assessments, who can quietly nudge the right people at the right time.

Read Also Is Higher Education Going Beyond Skilled Laborers and Building Visionaries? Kashmir's Dead Horse Theory

Meanwhile, many deserving educators, especially those who have stayed away from the power games, stand to be left out. These are teachers who have no godfathers, no fancy networks, but have kept the academic engine running in silence. They have guided generations, kept departments functional during crises, and shown up even when the system gave them little in return.

To imagine that true merit can be captured by publication numbers or student evaluations is to overlook how easily such metrics can be manipulated. Journals now accept payment for publication. Students, particularly current ones, can be coached or pressured into writing positive feedback. Certificates of excellence are handed out at institutional functions where real merit is the last thing being measured.

What makes a professor truly deserving of an extension is not the number of conferences attended or titles held. It is their long-term influence, their problem-solving skills, their resilience during institutional failures, and the success stories of students who went on to do meaningful work because of their mentorship. These are things not easily bought or faked. These are signs of real academic legacy.

Unfortunately, the current policy makes no room for these deeper indicators. There is no independent oversight. No blind review. No firewall between the applicant and the reviewers. This leaves the entire process vulnerable to lobbying, influence, and bias.

If the government is serious about fairness, the parent university of the applicant should have no role in the selection process. A truly independent nodal agency must receive applications directly, assess them without disclosing the applicant's identity to the review panel, and draw evidence not from the current students or administrative heads, but from older batches of students and peer feedback from non-teaching staff.

Every step of the process should be traceable and open to scrutiny. Timelines must be fixed. Records must be archived for possible audits. And above all, any attempt to sway the process using power, position, or money must lead to disqualification, not promotion.

This is not just about a retirement extension. It is about setting a precedent. Either we let this be a turning point for meritocracy, or we continue the slow erosion of trust in our institutions. Universities in Jammu and Kashmir are already fragile. Many departments are struggling to stay relevant in a world that is racing ahead with AI, climate science, and interdisciplinary research. Repeating old mistakes now could set us back another generation.

At the heart of it, this is a moral question, not just a policy one. If those in power choose to treat this opportunity as a favour to be granted rather than a standard to be upheld, they will only confirm what most already suspect - that merit in our part of the world is often just a polite lie.

But it does not have to be that way. This policy could still be saved, restructured, and turned into something that inspires confidence. It could become the first step toward fixing a broken system. That would require courage, clarity, and an honest look in the mirror. Whether the leadership in Jammu and Kashmir is ready for that is the real test.

• – Author is a teacher-researcher and can be reached out at [email protected] . Views expressed in this article are author's own and don't necessarily reflect KO's editorial policy.

MENAFN19042025000215011059ID1109448841