Ethics · 13 Aug 2026

Kashmiri Pandit employees ethics case

Assertion (A): In August 2026, following a fresh threat letter naming six employees, the administration verbally instructed Kashmiri Pandit employees to stay home rather than compelling their attendance.
Reason (R): This 2026 response was ethically sound because it directly reversed the flawed 2022 approach of freezing salaries to compel attendance and a reversal of a flawed policy is automatically an ethically adequate response.
Select the correct answer:

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
CA is true, but R is false
DA is false, but R is true
This question is based on: After Threat Letter, Kashmiri Pandits Working in the Valley Told to Stay Home
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 13 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

A fresh threat letter naming six Kashmiri Pandit employees in August 2026 prompted the administration to verbally instruct them to stay home, a reversal of its 2022 response of freezing salaries to compel attendance - yet employees said neither response addressed their real concern.

Why for UPSC

GS4 Prelims-adjacent questions test whether aspirants can identify a subtle ethical fallacy - assuming that reversing a bad policy's direction automatically fixes its ethical flaw - rather than simply recalling the sequence of events.

Prelims summary

Two opposite administrative responses to threats against Kashmiri Pandit employees (forced attendance in 2022, forced absence in 2026) both failed the same ethical test: neither involved genuine consultation or individualized risk assessment with the affected group.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.