By Bashaarat Masood , Deeptiman Tiwary
From a school teacher in south Kashmir’s Kulgam who earned accolades from the J&K Lieutenant Governor and was terminated from employment, a Ph.D in international relations whose passport was revoked just when he was to take up an academic job in a foreign university, to a scholar who was offered the position of an Assistant Professor but denied service verification by police — these constitute an aspect of the Union Territory administration’s security clampdown that has left many families in the lurch.
In each of these cases, officers in the J&K Police and the administration say there are either FIRs, or “evidence” that the person “indulged” in protests or stone pelting in the distant past, or just because a relative was a militant decades ago. In fact, official orders have been issued banning even the criticism of the government and its policies or schemes by government employees and “their family members”. These hard actions, with a punitive aspect, are also, as NC Vice President Omar Abdullah says, a reason behind the “silence” in the Valley.
Over the last three years, the J&K administration has dismissed 74 government employees “in the interest of the security of the state” without conducting an inquiry, giving them a chance to explain their position or even informing them why. The government has taken the route of Article 311(2)(C) that empowers it to dismiss a government employee without giving an opportunity to the individual to present a defence.
Of the 74 terminated employees, 67 belong to the Kashmir Valley and seven to Jammu region. Three of them are women — two teachers and a civil servant. The civil servant was married to a former JKLF militant.
When asked about the legality of such orders, Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha told The Indian Express, “There is not a single case, where there is no FIR, where there is no history or solid evidence… There has been a debate when Article 311 was being drafted in Constitution. Sardar Patel has himself said if there is a threat to the state, and there is irrefutable evidence, there is no need to give an opportunity to the person. He/ she should be removed.”
This story was originally published in indianexpress.com. Read the full story here.
