First on the NHRC: The national human rights institution has lost the little credibility it had due to the greed and unfairness with which it attempted to make temporary staff permanent. It is a body that is supposed to protect fairness and fight discrimination. What it has done is the opposite to what its mandate is. What is the compulsion of its commissioners to block a fair, open competition to recruit its staff? Anyone knows when employees are recruited on a contract basis in such institutions, it is the favor of the people in authority that influences the decision. And you make a rule that ensures that those on contract only can apply for the permanent positions. What could be a more blatant case of discrimination than this! And we have the national human rights body to champion the cause of discrimination!
People in this country have no faith in merit. The top political leaders are results of political movements and struggles, not competition on the basis of competence.
But maybe this case is just the tip of the iceberg. It only exposes the moral standards and integrity of the people who are appointed to be the watchdog of human rights violations in the country. Which may be why the NHRC’s presence has been felt so little during these difficult times. It also shows where the commissioners are focused on. It betrays the enthusiasm of people and human rights community that was there nine years ago when the NHRC was first instituted. Despite the controversial credentials of the first chairperson, the first team of the Commission was able to live up to the expectations to some extent. What followed was a royal Commission and it was a heavy setback to the institutionalization of the organization. Now we have it upgraded as a constitutional body and look at the performance of the new team. When I look at people who are entrusted to run institutions like this, I really find it unfair to blame the politicians for what they have done. The people outside politics are sometimes even worse and we have plenty of such examples.
Now to the universities: Nepal’s universities have been doing the same thing for the past many years. The chiefs in the constituent colleges and the university departments first employ lecturers on a contract basis. Then, after three years or so, the university’s so called Service Commission opens vacancies where only those on contract for three years can apply. It is often the case that the best candidates have never got a job on contract and therefore they are not eligible to even apply. As someone who has witnessed this all as an insider, I find it really ironic when some academics and professors talk about big ideas, ideals and morality and criticize politicians.
It is good that we still have some perennial believers in Nepal who have adequate faith in the youth as the future of this country. One would wonder how these believers are reading the incidents taking place in the campuses between and among students’ groups in the past few weeks. The Tri-Chandra Campus incident involving the Nepali Congress and UML students may be the case in point. Mind you – these students are going to be our future leaders and what they are demonstrating now is a trailer of the future drama.
Things have been like this probably because people in this country have no faith in merit. The top political leaders are results of political movements and struggles, not competition on the basis of competence. Ideally, the few years of democratic practices post-nineties should have established leadership on the basis of merits in all national public sectors. But we have the excuse of the 10-year Maoist insurgency and the brief takeover by the despotic king for all weaknesses democracy has had so far.
Nepal stands today at a juncture where neither the ideals of the period of struggle have worked nor a leadership based on merits established. The discourse on internal democracy within the political parties and their institutionalization was just beginning to take shape at the turn of the millennium. Probably, this discourse would have brought in some effect by now but again we had the excuse of the escalating Maoist violence and the royal experiment in between. People may argue that the peace process is not yet over and we should not talk about such issues. But this is getting too late.
The NHRC and the national universities, Tribhuvan University (TU) in particular, are just examples of how the national institutions have been deteriorating, or maybe that they have never been what they should have been. One could have a similar analysis of the judiciary, Public Service Commission, Commission for Investigation on Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and others. If one or two individuals leading such institutions show the moral gut and integrity, it could make a significant difference.
Bishwanath Upadhyay showed that in the judiciary, the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner Bhojraj Pokharel did that, Suryanath Upadhyay tried to do it at CIAA and Kedar Bhakta Mathema at TU when he led it. The public has acknowledged the positive impact. But what are our current vice-chancellors and commissioners up to? Here is one simple choice: Do something like a maverick when you have the opportunity of a lifetime or end up as a mediocre professional. Ironically, the latter seems to be the norm of the day: Just please the political masters who appointed you.
bishnu.sapkota@gmail.com
Related story
NAMS to add 400 postgraduate students in medical education inst...
