Rebuttal note to the J&K Government
In public policy, words are never innocent. They shape perception, influence law, and often determine the dignity of those whose lives are governed by them. That is why the recent description of Academic Arrangement faculty in Jammu & Kashmir as part of an “internship platform” deserves serious reflection. Because they are not interns. They are lecturers. They are teaching assistants.
They are engaged under notified guidelines. They are paid remuneration, not honorarium. And for years, they have carried classrooms, completed syllabi, conducted examinations, and ensured that Government Degree Colleges do not fall silent due to faculty shortages. Reducing such engagement to an “internship platform” is not merely semantic imprecision. It alters the moral and administrative understanding of their role. Let us begin with the basics. The Academic Arrangement Guidelines notified by the Higher Education Department clearly provide for engagement of Lecturers and Teaching Assistants. The document does not use the words “intern,” “internship,” or “honorarium.” It uses the term “remuneration.” That word carries weight. Remuneration means payment in consideration of services rendered. It implies a contractual exchange, work for compensation.
An internship, by contrast, is primarily a training exposure. It is meant for observation, learning, and limited responsibility. Interns do not independently handle semester-long teaching responsibilities. They do not conduct examinations or evaluate answer scripts. They do not shoulder institutional workload year after year. Academic Arrangement faculty do.
Across colleges in Jammu & Kashmir , these lecturers step into classrooms where permanent posts remain vacant. They teach undergraduate students, complete academic calendars, manage internal assessments, and sometimes continue in the same institutions for multiple academic sessions. In practical terms, they perform core academic functions that sustain higher education in the Union Territory. Calling this an internship does not reflect reality. The High Court, in its recent judgment, has clearly held that fresh academic arrangements should not be made against clear vacancies borne on the recruitment rules, and that such vacancies must be referred to the Public Service Commission. It has also clarified that contractual engagement does not confer a right to regularization. These principles are rooted in constitutional equality in public employment. They deserve respect.
But the Court did not describe Academic Arrangement faculty as interns. It did not reduce their functional role to training exposure. It did not dilute the substance of their work. Its concern was constitutional recruitment, not semantic downgrading. There is a crucial difference between saying “contractual engagement does not automatically lead to regularization” and saying “this is merely an internship platform.” The first is a constitutional limitation. The second is a narrative repositioning. Why does this distinction matter? Because language in governance shapes how individuals are treated. When a contractual lecturer is described as an intern, it becomes easier to justify abrupt disengagement. It becomes easier to ignore the continuity of service. It becomes easier to portray years of teaching as temporary exposure rather than substantive contribution.
Yet the structural reality is undeniable, Academic Arrangements were introduced because sanctioned posts remained vacant and recruitment processes were delayed. Colleges required teachers. Students required classes. Academic calendars could not wait for administrative cycles. In such circumstances, Academic Arrangement faculty were not brought in as observers. They were brought in as stop-gap educators performing essential duties. If the workload is real and recurring, then the engagement is not incidental.
Of course, the constitutional route for filling permanent vacancies is through the Public Service Commission. That is non-negotiable. But constitutional compliance should not require rhetorical dilution of those who have filled the gap during administrative delays. There is also a deeper institutional question. For over a decade, higher education in J&K has functioned with a structural dependence on Academic Arrangements. Entire departments in some colleges have relied significantly on such engagements. If the arrangement were truly an internship model, it would not have become a recurring administrative necessity. The truth is simpler: the system needed teachers. And qualified youth, many with NET, SET, or PhDs, stepped in. Describing this engagement as an internship does not strengthen recruitment reform. It weakens trust.
The more constructive path lies elsewhere. If vacancies exist, they must be referred promptly to the Public Service Commission. If workload has expanded, additional posts should be created formally. If contractual arrangements are unavoidable, they should be time-bound, transparent, and clearly defined, without ambiguity in status. But honesty in description is the first requirement.
When official guidelines say “Lecturer” and “Teaching Assistant,” the same terminology should reflect in legislative replies. When payment is called “remuneration” in the governing document, it should not be casually reinterpreted as honorarium-like exposure. Administrative precision is not cosmetic. It safeguards institutional credibility. The debate should not be reduced to regularization versus discontinuation. That binary oversimplifies a complex structural issue. The real question is, why has permanent recruitment not kept pace with institutional need? Why do colleges repeatedly require Academic Arrangements if the demand is temporary?
If higher education in J&K is to evolve into a stable, credible system, it must confront this mismatch between sanctioned strength and functional demand. Policy reform must focus on timely referral of vacancies, predictable recruitment cycles, and defined limits on contractual engagement. But in the process, it must also protect the dignity of those who have kept classrooms running. A lecturer who teaches for an entire academic session, completes syllabus, evaluates answer sheets, and guides students is not an intern. A teaching assistant who shoulders workload year after year is not on casual exposure. They may be contractual. They may not have a right to automatic regularization. But they are educators performing substantive academic functions. Words matter because they shape how institutions remember contributions and how governments justify decisions.
Moreover, the experience of several years gained as academic arrangement in J&K has no value outside J&K. It is not recognized as valid academic teaching experience. This is very important. Again the terminology matters. Why they should not be called as Assistant professors (contractual)? In Kashmir, where educated youth already navigate uncertainty and competitive pressure, public institutions must be careful not to trivialize professional engagement through careless terminology. This is not a demand for bypassing constitutional recruitment. It is a plea for administrative honesty. Call lecturers, lecturers. Call remuneration, remuneration. And then, reform the system with clarity and fairness. Higher education deserves precision. And so do those who sustain it.
Dr. Ashraf Zainabi is a teacher and researcher based in Gowhar Pora Chadoora J&K
