Ajaz Choudhary
Jammu & Kashmir, June 17
The recently advertised Naib Tehsildar posts by the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board (JKSSB) have sparked an unwarranted debate, with a section of aspirants objecting to the inclusion of an Urdu language test as part of the recruitment process. As per the official notification, the selection process includes two papers—an objective-type paper and a qualifying Urdu language test aimed at assessing the candidate’s basic proficiency in reading and writing Urdu.
Interestingly, this criticism arises despite the fact that several recruitment drives held throughout the year by the JKSSB, including those targeting science stream aspirants and other professional domains, did not involve any Urdu language requirement—and yet, no objections were raised at the time. The recent backlash, therefore, appears selective and lacks logical consistency, especially considering the nature of the post in question.
The position of Naib Tehsildar falls under the Revenue Department, where knowledge of Urdu has traditionally been considered essential. Revenue records and administrative documents in Jammu & Kashmir have historically been maintained in Urdu, making the ability to read and write the language a functional necessity rather than a cultural imposition.
Experts and local observers have pointed out that criticizing the Urdu test for Naib Tehsildar posts is not only baseless but also undermines the practical requirements of the job. “If someone cannot read or write Urdu, how can they manage the responsibilities of a Naib Tehsildar, which involve interpreting and handling revenue records primarily documented in that language?” questioned a retired revenue officer from Poonch.
A comparative example can be drawn from Punjab, where the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board had previously advertised Patwari posts with a mandatory requirement for proficiency in Punjabi and Urdu. Notably, there was no public outcry in Punjab, which reflects a mature understanding of linguistic relevance in public service roles.
It is also important to highlight that Urdu remains one of the 22 scheduled languages under the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and has official status in Jammu and Kashmir. Even after the inclusion of other languages as official ones, Urdu’s administrative and historical significance remains intact.
Critics argue that if the language requirement is removed, the logical alternative would be to create an additional bureaucratic layer—translators to interpret Urdu records for officials unable to read them. This, however, would only lead to inefficiency and delay in public service delivery.
Observers believe that the opposition to the Urdu test does not stem from practical concerns but rather from a deeper bias against the language itself. They stress that Urdu is a world-renowned language with rich literary and administrative heritage, and any effort to marginalize it from essential services is both regressive and counterproductive.
In light of these arguments, it becomes clear that the inclusion of a qualifying Urdu language test for Naib Tehsildar posts is justified, necessary, and aligned with both constitutional provisions and administrative requirements. The criticism appears not only misplaced but potentially harmful to the standards of governance and efficiency in revenue services.
