“There was still one and a half minutes left when they stopped me.”

Imagine preparing for months for a government job, running every morning, carrying your family’s hopes—and then being told your chance is over before the announced time is finished.

This is what one young candidate reportedly said after the recent Gilgit-Baltistan Police recruitment physical test. His words raise a question that goes far beyond one running test: Are we really testing candidates fairly?

According to several candidates, the requirement was to complete one mile in 6 minutes and 30 seconds. They claim the test was stopped before the full time had passed. They also say that hundreds of candidates were made to run together in a limited space, causing collisions, falls and confusion.

If the official requirement is 6 minutes and 30 seconds, why should a candidate be stopped earlier? And if hundreds of people cannot run safely in one group, why are they being tested together?

These questions deserve clear answers.

But there is another question that we should not ignore: If physical fitness is so important for joining the police, why is it not equally important after joining?

Walk through some police offices and departments and you may see serving personnel who struggle to run or even walk for a few minutes. Some have gained considerable weight and appear far from the physical standard expected of a police officer.

So where is the system to regularly check the fitness of serving policemen?

If physical fitness is necessary to become a police officer, should it not remain necessary throughout a police officer’s career? A police department does not only need fit candidates at the door. It needs healthy, active and capable personnel on duty.

The issue, therefore, should not be about making entry tests easier. It should be about making the whole system consistent strict but fair at recruitment, and equally accountable after recruitment.

There is also a bigger problem. We are living in the 21st century, but many of our systems still belong to another era.

Around the world, policing is changing through technology, digital records, body cameras, data analysis, modern communication systems, scientific investigation and better training. Artificial intelligence and digital tools are increasingly helping governments make services faster, more transparent and more efficient.

Yet we often remain stuck in old ways of recruitment, testing and administration.

A modern police department should not only ask, “Can you run one mile?” It should also ask: Can you use technology? Can you communicate effectively? Can you handle modern investigations? Do you understand digital crime? Can you work professionally with citizens? And are you physically and mentally prepared for the demands of modern policing?

The police officer of tomorrow will face challenges that are very different from those of our forefathers. Cybercrime, digital fraud, surveillance technology, online harassment, artificial intelligence and increasingly complex forms of crime require new skills—not simply physical strength.

Physical fitness matters. But modern policing requires more than running.

The complaints about the recent GB Police test should therefore be investigated transparently. The official timing, test procedures, number of candidates per group and any available video evidence should be reviewed. The reported arrests of protesting candidates should also be explained clearly.

Young people are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for something much simpler: the same rules, the same conditions and the same opportunity.

Gilgit-Baltistan needs a police recruitment system that combines fitness with merit, technology, professionalism and accountability.

We cannot build tomorrow’s institutions using yesterday’s methods.

A fair recruitment test should test candidates honestly. A modern police system should prepare them for the future.