Jharkhand’s exam turmoil escalates into a crisis of trust

By Kumar Krishnan* 

The student movement sweeping Jharkhand over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations has evolved far beyond a demand to cancel tests. It has become a deeper confrontation over trust between the state’s youth and the government.

The Jharkhand government has agreed in principle to cancel the 14th JPSC Preliminary Examination and the backlog examinations of 2023 and 2025. The fallout has already led to the resignation of former JPSC Chairman L. Khiyangte and three commission members. Authorities have also proposed CID and ED investigations, a fast‑track mechanism for case disposal, and a 90‑day deadline for probes. An expert committee comprising members from IIM Ranchi, IIT‑ISM and XLRI is expected to recommend structural reforms.

Officials say nearly 98 percent of student demands have been accepted. Yet the protests continue — largely because one key demand remains unresolved: a CBI investigation. Students insist that only a CBI inquiry into the JSSC‑CGL and other disputed examinations can restore credibility. The government argues that the CGL exam was conducted under judicial directions and appointments have already been made, making unilateral cancellation legally untenable. While the legal position is significant, students say it does not address their distrust of existing mechanisms.

The cancellation of examinations, while significant, has created new anxieties. Thousands of candidates — many nearing the upper age limit — now await clarity on revised schedules, syllabi, age relaxation and protection of their interests. Protesters argue that responsibility must be established through evidence and want clarity on whether irregularities occurred, at what level, and who was involved.

The movement’s moral core has also become a point of contention. Water cannons, tear gas and lathi‑charge were used when students marched toward the Assembly. Police say a section of protesters attempted to break barricades and pelted stones. Students maintain the protest was peaceful and accuse the police of excessive force. Both sides say an impartial inquiry is needed to establish what happened.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi condemned the use of force on students. The silence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah has drawn criticism from student groups, who argue that the issue concerns the future of thousands of young people and the credibility of recruitment examinations.

After days of confrontation, students have sought a direct meeting with Chief Minister Hemant Soren, saying minister‑level talks have failed. They want written assurances, clarity on legally constrained demands, and a time‑bound roadmap. Observers say this should be seen as an opportunity rather than a challenge, and that direct dialogue could help break the deadlock.

Experts warn that the proposed committee must not become “another report gathering dust.” They recommend reforms across the entire recruitment chain — from question‑paper preparation and printing to transportation, CCTV surveillance, digital records, evaluation and result publication. They also call for a predetermined mechanism for handling complaints, including timelines and public disclosure of findings. For many families, a recruitment exam represents years of sacrifice, and a leaked paper or manipulated process is seen as an attack on a candidate’s future.

The Ranchi confrontation has raised a fundamental question: Should a democratic government need police force to listen to its own youth? Despite tensions, the movement has largely remained disciplined. Protesters say they are committed to non‑violence and want the government to treat dissent as a democratic right, not hostility. Recruitment controversies have surfaced under previous administrations as well, and without systemic reform, observers warn the cycle will continue.

The government has taken several steps; students have shown their strength. What remains is dialogue. The real test for Jharkhand is not another examination — it is whether the state can rebuild trust in its recruitment system so future candidates do not have to protest merely to demand fairness.

---  

Senior journalist