A society is not built by a single profession, business, or occupation; it thrives on the participation of people from all walks of life. Individuals choose professions that sustain their livelihoods, while some are compelled by circumstances to take up certain work. Ultimately, one must support their family, sustain oneself, and contribute to society in some way. With the formation of the new government, a campaign has been launched to eliminate middlemen from public service delivery. This is a welcome step. There has long been a demand for making public services easily accessible to ordinary citizens. However, ambiguity remains over who qualifies as a “middleman.” For some, an individual may be a facilitator; for others, the same person may be perceived as an intermediary. Across the country, nearly 30,000 professionals provide documentation services through land service centres operating in 135 Land Revenue and Survey Offices. Recent crackdowns against them have sparked unrest. While the government may view them as middlemen, they are, in fact, court-authorised service providers. They assist citizens in navigating complex procedures, although this has sometimes involved additional costs for service seekers. While it is reasonable to charge for services, the government should fix standard fees. Under no circumstances should citizens be compelled to pay extra through intermediaries to access public services, nor should officials accept such payments.
Many citizens face difficulties accessing these services. The state must simplify procedures. For instance, bank employees directly assist customers in opening accounts, but such facilitation is lacking in land transactions. Similarly, in transport offices and other public service centres, citizens often depend on external assistance. If the goal is to eliminate intermediaries, the government must deploy sufficient staff to ensure smooth service delivery. In Land Revenue and Survey Offices, these service providers help locate records and assist with processes such as land division, registration, and transfer. Their role has made services more accessible, though in some cases they have gained undue access to official documents. Instead, they should operate within defined limits, assisting citizens without encroaching on official functions. Ultimately, if public services are simplified, their role will naturally diminish. It is unfair to stigmatise individuals as middlemen. Everyone has the right to earn a dignified livelihood. Displacing them without alternatives is unjust. If their involvement has distorted service delivery, reforms and regulation—not elimination—should be the solution. Clear boundaries and service standards can address the issue. Even in developed countries, private entities play key roles in delivering public services. Sensitive services such as passport processing are often outsourced, with final approval resting with the state.
Revised interest rate corridor system introduced
Preparing legal documents related to land transactions—such as registration, transfer, and partition—is complex and requires technical expertise. Documentation professionals fulfil this role. Their services should not be arbitrarily restricted. In many countries, people rely on agencies even for visa applications. Therefore, public services should be simplified to reduce dependency on external assistance. Where such assistance remains necessary, government officials must ensure transparent and efficient service delivery without informal payments. This would strengthen public trust. The new government must work in the interest of all. Governance should be like removing a thorn without causing pain. Alienating one group after another will only deepen public dissatisfaction. Instead of abruptly displacing professions shaped by systemic realities, the government should explore viable alternatives. After all, the government is meant to serve everyone.
