The school books controversy explores the intersection of educational oversight, political accountability, and the challenges of academic integrity in J&K’s public education system. Danish Mohuiddin reports.

What began as objections to the contents of two books procured for government school libraries in Jammu and Kashmir has rapidly evolved into one of the most significant controversies confronting the Union Territory’s education system in recent years, exposing questions not only about the books themselves but also about the processes through which educational material is selected, scrutinised and approved for use in public institutions.

Within 48 hours of the controversy surfacing, the administration withdrew both books from circulation, Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha suspended eight officials associated with the procurement process, ordered a high-level administrative inquiry, blacklisted the authors and publishers of the publications, and directed that all material produced by them be withdrawn from the Union Territory. Separately, Education Minister Sakeena Itoo announced a departmental investigation, promising legal action against those found responsible once the inquiry establishes how the books entered government school libraries.

The episode has simultaneously become a political flashpoint.

While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has accused the National Conference-led government of permitting educational material that allegedly promoted a separatist narrative, the elected government has rejected suggestions of complicity, pointing instead to the immediate withdrawal of the books and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

At the centre of the controversy are two publications approved under the Centre-sponsored Samagra Shiksha programme, India’s flagship school education initiative that provides grants for strengthening educational infrastructure, including government school libraries.

The books – Personalities and Legends of J&K, authored by Hilal Ahmad and Santosh Meena, and Great Personalities of Jammu and Kashmir, authored by Sushant Giri – were among hundreds of titles selected for higher secondary school libraries after a multi-stage evaluation exercise undertaken by expert committees constituted by the School Education Department.

According to official records, expressions of interest had been invited from publishers for supplying age-appropriate books to more than 18,000 government schools and around 400 PM SHRI schools across Jammu and Kashmir. Four expert committees comprising academicians and education specialists evaluated submissions for different educational levels, eventually recommending 463 books from 364 publishers.

The two disputed publications formed only a small part of that larger procurement exercise.

The controversy emerged after the Jammu Kashmir Peoples’ Forum (JKPF), a civil society organisation, alleged that one of the books contained chapters on several separatist leaders, including Maqbool Bhat, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Shabir Ahmad Shah, Masarat Alam and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. The organisation argued that such content was inappropriate for government school libraries and urged the administration to initiate action against those responsible for approving the books.

The allegations rapidly gained political traction.

Opposition parties demanded accountability, while social media amplified excerpts and interpretations of the publications, placing the School Education Department under growing public scrutiny.

By July 3, authorities had ordered both books withdrawn from government schools pending examination of the objections raised against them.

Official records later showed that before the withdrawal order, 123 copies of one publication had already reached schools in Jammu, Ramban and Udhampur districts, while 128 copies of the second had been supplied to institutions in Jammu and Baramulla.

The following day, administrative action escalated considerably.

Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha ordered the suspension of eight officials associated with the procurement and evaluation process, citing “serious negligence” and “dereliction of duty.” The officials included members of the expert committee responsible for recommending books for higher secondary schools, officers associated with Samagra Shiksha, an academic officer of the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), a government higher secondary school principal and lecturers posted in different districts.

A senior IAS officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry within 30 days into the circumstances under which the books cleared official scrutiny.

The administration also ordered the disengagement of a contractual computer assistant associated with the procurement process and blacklisted both the authors and publishers of the books.

The disciplinary action reflected the administration’s position that the presence of what it described as “highly inappropriate content” represented a significant failure of institutional oversight rather than an isolated procedural lapse.

Almost simultaneously, Education Minister Sakeena Itoo announced a separate departmental inquiry.

Speaking in Kulgam, Itoo described the contents of the books as “intolerable” and “unacceptable,” while directing the School Education Department to conduct a time-bound investigation.

She maintained that accountability would be determined through due process and that legal action would follow against anyone found responsible once the inquiry established how the publications had entered government libraries.

The minister’s response underscored the elected government’s effort to distinguish itself from the procurement decisions under scrutiny while affirming support for an institutional investigation.

The existence of two parallel inquiries—one ordered by the Lieutenant Governor’s administration and another by the Education Minister—reflects the complex administrative arrangement governing Jammu and Kashmir since its reorganisation as a Union Territory in 2019.

Although both inquiries seek to establish responsibility, they originate from different centres of executive authority, illustrating the overlapping governance structure within which education policy presently operates.

The controversy has also drawn attention to the procurement architecture itself.

Educational book selection in government systems generally involves multiple stages intended to ensure that publications meet prescribed academic, pedagogical and ethical standards. Subject experts evaluate content, committees recommend titles, administrative authorities examine compliance, and procurement agencies oversee distribution.

The current controversy has raised questions about how material that subsequently became the subject of official objection successfully navigated these layers of scrutiny.

Whether the issue arose from deficiencies in evaluation, inconsistent application of guidelines, inadequate supervision or procedural oversight remains central to the ongoing investigations.

The inquiries are therefore expected to examine not only individual accountability but also the robustness of institutional safeguards governing educational procurement.

The controversy has also reopened a broader discussion about how educational material should be evaluated in politically sensitive regions where history, identity and public memory often remain contested.

School libraries differ from academic research institutions in both purpose and audience. While universities routinely engage with competing historical interpretations and controversial political figures as part of scholarly inquiry, educational material intended for school students is generally expected to meet stricter standards of age appropriateness, contextual accuracy and pedagogical suitability. Determining where those boundaries should lie has frequently generated debate, not only in Jammu and Kashmir but across India and elsewhere.

In the present case, the administration has maintained that the issue concerns failures in the vetting process rather than a broader review of curriculum or prescribed textbooks. The disputed publications were procured as supplementary library resources under the Samagra Shiksha programme and were not part of the official syllabus taught in classrooms. Even so, the controversy has demonstrated that books placed in school libraries are subject to public scrutiny similar to that applied to prescribed textbooks, particularly when they deal with politically contentious subjects.

The episode has simultaneously highlighted the challenges faced by expert committees responsible for evaluating large numbers of publications submitted by publishers during government procurement exercises.

Officials involved in such processes are often required to assess hundreds of titles within limited timelines while considering literary quality, educational value, factual accuracy, language, relevance and age suitability. The ongoing inquiries are expected to determine whether the established review process was followed in full or whether procedural lapses occurred during evaluation, recommendation or final approval.

The administration has indicated that the investigations will examine individual as well as systemic responsibility. That distinction may prove significant.

If the inquiries conclude that existing safeguards were bypassed or ignored, responsibility may rest primarily with those directly involved in the selection process. If, however, shortcomings are found in the institutional framework itself, the controversy could prompt broader reforms in procurement guidelines, expert committee functioning and content verification mechanisms.

Beyond administrative accountability, the issue has inevitably acquired a political dimension.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the principal opposition party in Jammu and Kashmir, has portrayed the episode as evidence of ideological bias within sections of the education system. Party leaders demanded the dismissal of Education Minister Sakeena Itoo, a judicial or high-level inquiry into the procurement process and a comprehensive audit of books available in government school libraries across the Union Territory.

The BJP also questioned how terminology and profiles of certain political figures, which it considers inconsistent with India’s constitutional position on Jammu and Kashmir, found place in government-approved publications. It argued that the controversy extends beyond two books and warrants a wider examination of educational content.

The National Conference-led government has rejected any suggestion that it endorsed the disputed material.

Instead, it has emphasised that the books were withdrawn immediately after objections were received and has pointed to the disciplinary proceedings and departmental inquiry as evidence that the government acted promptly once concerns were brought to its notice. Education Minister Sakeena Itoo has repeatedly stated that responsibility will be fixed only after the inquiry establishes the circumstances under which the publications were approved.

The difference in political responses reflects broader disagreements over educational governance rather than merely the contents of two publications.

For the opposition, the controversy has become an issue of political accountability and ideological oversight. For the administration, the emphasis has remained on identifying procedural lapses and determining responsibility through departmental and administrative investigations before arriving at conclusions.

The controversy has also renewed attention on the role of expert committees in public decision-making.

Such committees are typically constituted because educational evaluation requires specialised academic expertise rather than purely administrative judgement. Their recommendations carry considerable weight in procurement exercises, making transparency, documentation and accountability central to maintaining public confidence in their work.

The disciplinary action against members of the higher secondary evaluation committee has therefore generated discussion among educationists regarding the responsibilities—and potential liabilities—attached to expert advisory roles. While governments depend upon subject specialists to make informed recommendations, experts likewise operate within administrative frameworks whose standards and review procedures must be clearly defined.

Observers say the outcome of the inquiries may influence how future expert committees function, including the extent of documentation required during evaluations and the mechanisms available for independent review before procurement decisions are finalised.

Another aspect attracting attention is the government’s decision to blacklist not only the disputed books but also the authors and publishing houses associated with them.

Blacklisting is an administrative measure generally used in procurement processes where authorities conclude that suppliers have violated prescribed standards or contractual obligations. Whether the decision withstands further legal or administrative scrutiny, should it be challenged, remains to be seen. At present, the order directs that publications authored or published by the concerned individuals and publishing houses be withdrawn from the Union Territory.

For schools, however, the immediate implications are likely to remain limited.

The two disputed titles constituted only a small fraction of the hundreds of books procured under the Samagra Shiksha programme, and officials have indicated that they have already been withdrawn from circulation. The larger objective of strengthening school libraries through government funding continues unaffected.

Yet the episode is likely to leave a lasting institutional imprint.

It has exposed the extent to which educational material, particularly in regions marked by complex political histories, is scrutinised not only for academic quality but also for its historical framing, language and public implications. It has also demonstrated how rapidly questions of educational policy can evolve into wider debates involving governance, politics, public trust and institutional accountability.

Ultimately, the significance of the controversy may depend less on the disputed publications themselves than on what the ongoing inquiries reveal about the processes that brought them into government schools.

If the investigations identify procedural shortcomings and recommend reforms that strengthen transparency, documentation and expert review, the episode could become a catalyst for improving procurement standards rather than merely a moment of political controversy. Conversely, if systemic questions remain unresolved, similar disputes may continue to arise whenever educational material touches upon subjects that remain politically and historically sensitive.

For now, the parallel inquiries ordered by the Lieutenant Governor’s administration and the School Education Department will determine whether responsibility lies with individual officials, institutional processes or a combination of both. Until those findings are made public, many of the central questions surrounding the procurement, evaluation and approval of the books remain unanswered.

What is already clear, however, is that the controversy has moved beyond the pages of two publications. It has become a wider examination of how educational institutions balance academic evaluation with administrative oversight, how governments ensure public confidence in educational content, and how accountability should be assigned when established review mechanisms come under question. The conclusions reached in the coming weeks are therefore likely to shape not only the immediate disciplinary proceedings but also future approaches to educational governance and library procurement across Jammu and Kashmir.

About the Author

Danish Mohuiddin, a postgraduate in Convergent Journalism, approaches storytelling as a visual and narrative craft. With a strong interest in cinematography and filmmaking, his work often lingers on the human dimensions of news. Drawn to stories that matter to people, he writes with an eye for both movement and meaning.