Jammu kashmir school timings: Controversy has started over the change in the time of schools in Jammu and Kashmir. Meanwhile, Jammu and Kashmir Education Minister Sakina Itu said on Tuesday (July 8) that this decision is not final and it can be reconsidered.

The Education Department made changes in the time of all schools in the winter region of Kashmir and Jammu division on Monday (July 7). Schools closed for summer holidays due to scorching heat were reopened on Tuesday.

According to the order of the Education Department, the time of schools falling in the border of the municipal body of Srinagar will be from 7 am to 11:30 pm and the time of the border boundary will be from 8 am to 12 noon. Schools used to open around nine in the morning before summer vacation.

Opposition target

Many sections including parents have reacted sharply regarding changes in the time of schools. Opposition leaders also questioned the practicality of this step. AAP MLA Mehraj Malik said that when 12th pass people are made the education minister, there is no surprise that there is a lack of depth and foresight in the policies made by him.

At the same time, PDP chief Iltija Mufti said, “Now the Education Minister of Jammu and Kashmir is saying that for school children, ‘inhuman time’ can be adjusted ‘according to’ inhuman time ‘. Are our children laboratory rats, on which such extremes will be used? It is difficult to believe that they are waiting for the children to faint in this oppressive heat, so that this waste order can be corrected. This has become a completely ridiculous drama. ”

What did the minister say?
In Kulgam district of South Kashmir, Itu said, “I have received many calls about change in school time). I want to say that these (revised school time) are not final. If we feel that there is a need to change time, then we can do this. ”

On June 21, due to the rising temperature in Kashmir, the authorities announced a 15 -day summer holiday for all schools across the valley from 23 June to 7 July.

Munir ahmed crpf person marriage: Munir Ahmed, a jawan of the 41st Battalion of CRPF, was dismissed from service on charges of hiding a Pakistani woman named Meenal Khan and leaving the visa in India. This step is said to be taken due to security reasons, but there has been a sharp debate across the country.

In this case, social media was divided into two parts. One party says that the security of the country is paramount and strict action should be taken on violating the rules. At the same time, the other side is considering it an issue related to personal rights and religious identity. A retired IPS officer also expressed his opinion and said that marriage is a private matter. It is sufficient to give only information to the department. Removing from service without adversar causes does not seem appropriate.

People comparing Seema Hyder
Many users on social media raised questions by giving the example of Seema Hyder. Seema Haider is a Pakistani woman who illegally entered India and is now living with her children in Noida. A user wrote that a Pakistani woman can live in India with her children, but a young man was dismissed due to marriage. What is this justice? ” In this comparison, the main argument of the people is that no major action has been taken on Seema Hyder till now, while a government jawan had to lose his job.

Munir Ahmed’s side
Munir Ahmed clarified his side and said that he had informed the department before marriage. He said that I was married on 24 May 2024. I had sent a letter to the department on 31 December 2022, which included information like marriage date, place and invitation letter. He also told that this marriage was not an indiscriminate marriage to a foreigner, but was decided on the basis of family relationships. My wife is the daughter of my maternal uncle, who went to Pakistan after partition.

How appropriate CRPF’s move?
CRPF claims that the jawan did not take permission for marriage due to sensitive information. The procedural lapse of information in marriage could affect national security. Despite the end of the visa, it was illegal to let the woman live in India.