The recent controversy surrounding a question in the Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) Agricultural Development Officer (ADO) examination has exposed a troubling issue: the infiltration of bias within bureaucratic institutions. Far from being a mere administrative oversight, the inclusion of a question allegedly portraying the Meitei community as the primary culprit in the ongoing Manipur violence, which erupted on May 3, 2023, suggests a deliberate attempt to push a one-sided narrative. This incident raises serious questions about the fairness and neutrality of public institutions tasked with upholding integrity.
The Manipur-based Meitei Heritage Society (MHS) has rightly called out the APSC for what it describes as a “mischievous question” designed to malign the Meitei community. The question, part of the August 10 examination, reportedly ignored the complex dynamics of the Manipur conflict, including the documented role of Kuki-Chin militants and Kuki-Zo civil society organizations, as noted in reports by the NIA, CBI, and a Supreme Court-appointed committee. By framing the Meiteis as the sole aggressors, the question not only distorts reality but also undermines the principles of impartiality that a public service commission must embody.
The MHS’s demand for the APSC to declare the question null and void is both reasonable and urgent. Competitive examinations, which serve as gateways to public service, must remain free from agenda-driven content that risks deepening communal divides. The APSC’s response, articulated by Chairman Debaraj Upadhyaya, that question papers are set by independent experts and sealed until the exam day, does little to address the core issue. While the process may be insulated from direct political interference, it is not immune to bias if the so-called independent experts themselves harbor prejudiced perspectives or fail to verify facts.
This incident is not an isolated one but a symptom of a broader malaise: the subtle infiltration of divisive narratives into institutions meant to serve the public impartially. The Manipur crisis is a complex issue, rooted in historical, ethnic, and socio-political factors. Reducing it to a simplistic, community-specific blame game in a competitive examination is not just irresponsible—it is dangerous. It risks inflaming tensions in an already volatile region and eroding public trust in institutions like the APSC.
The APSC must act swiftly to address the MHS’s concerns, not only by reviewing the question but also by ensuring that future examinations are free from such biases. This includes rigorous vetting of question-setters and a transparent mechanism to handle complaints about controversial content. Public institutions cannot afford to be seen as complicit in agenda-setting that undermines social cohesion.
As the MHS awaits a response from the APSC’s examination committee, the broader lesson is clear: neutrality and fairness in public service must be non-negotiable. The bureaucracy, often seen as a faceless machinery, wields immense power in shaping perceptions and opportunities. When it falters in its commitment to impartiality, it risks becoming a tool for division rather than unity. The APSC must rise to the occasion, acknowledge the error, and take corrective measures to restore faith in its mandate. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public it serves.
Enjoy the Editorial of Signpost News, edited every Tuesday.