No Jobs for Youth, Only Extensions for Favoured Few !
3 min read
“No matter how noble the objectives of a government, if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion; it is an evil government.” — George R. Jones
Shimla, Oct. 28 , Ritanjali Hastir
In Himachal Pradesh, this quote finds sharp relevance today as the Sukhu-led Congress government faces backlash over alleged favouritism in extending the tenure of Dr. Umesh Kashyap, BMO (Specialist Cardiology) at Civil Hospital, Palampur, allegedly owing to his close ties with influential figures. Despite retiring on June 30, 2024, Dr. Kashyap’s service was extended for six months from July 1, 2024, and the extensions have continued — now reportedly lasting till December 31, 2025.
While the state’s youth and employees from various departments are protesting for job security and delayed salaries, the government seems preoccupied with favouring a select few — its so-called “blue-eyed boys.” The extensions are said to have been granted on the plea that he has “no other source of income.”; has triggered outrage among unemployed youth and government staff waiting for opportunities. In a state reeling under job scarcity, where thousands of qualified candidates line up for every vacancy, the government’s decision to repeatedly extend a retiree’s service has raised serious ethical and moral questions.
This justification raises pressing questions. After decades of service, is it plausible that a senior officer has no savings or assets? And if such exceptions are made for the privileged few, what message does that send to countless qualified yet unemployed youth waiting for an opportunity? As citizens ask, “Are ordinary people not entitled to the basic right to live with dignity?”
Citizens and opposition voices alike have slammed the move as a classic case of “Mitro ki Sarkar” — a government run for friends, not for the people. Critics argue that such extensions not only rob deserving young professionals of fair chances but also reinforce a culture of nepotism deeply rooted in the system. Many ask whether the government has conducted any financial verification before granting such extensions, and if compassion is truly selective — reserved only for those with connections in power.
The pattern of selective extensions and opaque administrative decisions reinforces the growing perception that governance is increasingly serving the interests of a close circle rather than the wider public.
The controversy comes at a time when Himachal’s economy is already under stress, with a revenue deficit of ₹6,390 crore and an uncertain employment landscape. While the Chief Minister and ministers announced they would defer their salaries for two months citing “grim financial conditions,” decisions like this undercut their moral high ground and expose a widening gap between political promises and public realities.
Public sentiment across Kangra and surrounding districts reflects growing frustration. “If the government believes one man’s livelihood is reason enough for repeated extensions, then what about the thousands of unemployed youths struggling for survival?” remarked an unemployed youth in Palampur.
The issue, observers say, goes beyond one man’s extension — it reflects a governance mindset that values loyalty over merit, favour over fairness. As George R. Jones’ warning echoes, a government that blurs decency and fairness in pursuit of convenience risks losing its moral legitimacy altogether.
If the Himachal Pradesh government continues to justify such selective compassion while ignoring the broader crisis of unemployment and inequality, it may soon find itself answerable not just to the opposition, but to the conscience of the people it claims to serve.
