In memory of Kul Shekhar Sharma

Oped >> Opinion

DEVENDRA RAJ PANDAY

KATHMANDU, NOV 03 - At high noon of the Panchayat days, a file from one government department reached the desk of the then chief secretary. It was a proposal to the cabinet for as simple a decision as sending an engineer from that department for further studies abroad. The chief secretary opened the file, read the name of the candidate, raised his eyebrows and sent the file right back to the department. He felt he could not put his signature on the proposal since the candidate for further study, as brilliant and deserving as he was, would soon be marrying his daughter. The then chief secretary, Kul Shekhar Sharma, who leaves behind many such inspiring stories that one cannot but feel grateful for, passed away last week after living a full life. In this day and age, when self-seeking “ideology” dwarfs all social values and principles, and when the only purpose of a public post is to serve one’s material ambitions and the interests of one’s kith and kin or of a political party, what I have narrated resembles a fairy tale. Doesn’t it?

Kul Shekharji is also remembered, of course, for his contribution to the institutionalisation of the Panchayati state which developed acute contradictions and became more dysfunctional as the years went by. A presumed “developmental state” under a near absolute monarchy that denied rights to the people including cultural and social rights fundamental to development would have to fail, and it did. But Kul Shekharji’s career and work — he also became the country’s ambassador to the United States and governor of the central bank — illustrate the valuable contribution one could make as a public servant even in an otherwise disagreeable political system.

What one remembers most is the way he conducted himself as a public servant, and upheld the dignity of the civil service by virtue of his personal ethics and the values of fairness and justice he could not do without. With the two Jana Andolans of the last 20 years and the regime change from a monarchy to a federal republic, the contours of the evolving state appear more agreeable to our democratic sentiments and understanding of what the country needs to get out of the age-old social, political and economic backwardness. But it is hard to find a firm indication that this ideal is being pursued for outcomes agreeable to the people and their diverse interests and aspirations. In Nepal, the political system can and does change, but the essence of “governance” remains the same. There are many reasons. The absence of a public servant like Kul Shekhar Sharma (and a few others who were there in his time) with values that guided his civil service engagement is clearly one of them.

Kul Shekhar Sharma did not know the jargons of our time. Governance, transparency, civil society, ownership, partnership and so forth were not the words that one would find in a civil servant’s lexicon in those days or in government policies and programmes including those associated with foreign aid. Yet, unlike many of us today who know all the ins and outs of “good governance”, he could understand the concept of the conflict of interest without anyone having to tell him. There is now a big industry called “good governance” funded by donors with many professionals and NGOs marketing its invisible products. But rarely is anyone distracted by such a barrier to one’s self-maximisation as the notion of conflict of interest. Also because “governance” is merely understood as a managerial issue or, at best, a subject for technical reform, it seems there is no one to explain the role of personal integrity, independence and professionalism in the civil service — the so-called “permanent government” — of a democratic state.

Amidst all the jargons and externally pedalled concepts (empty words), both the bureaucratic and political leaders, hopefully with some exceptions, are happy in their respective fiefdoms with their paths crossing occasionally for mutual benefit, but rarely for the public good. With powerful civil servants falling prey to the demands of their own flesh and interests, there is no one to check the legal and illegal excesses of political leaders who fail to do their public duty every time they occupy and reoccupy the coveted ministerial posts. For them, there is little distinction between public resources and the means they can use for servicing private wants — or greed.

Public money (and public servants) meant for development relevant to citizens in all parts of the country is wasted and used for personal and political gains of the mighty in government or in the opposition. Apparently, not even the donors’ representatives selling governance can tell the prime minister or the ministers in earnest, “Sir/madam, this is not done.” With the exception of a few “harmless” reporters in the media, for example, nobody raises a finger against political leaders appointing their spouses and children to public posts, high and low. When the public posts are not so utilised, they get auctioned off to generate profit for the powerful, creating sinister chain effects down the line. In rare cases when voices of dissent are heard, the issue is personalised and not presented as a matter of principle critical to the functioning of a democratic, as opposed to a feudal, state.

In remembering Kul Shekhar Sharma, if one pines for yesterday’s top civil servants and their culture of integrity in relation to today’s challenges and opportunities, what will we have to help execute tomorrow’s difficult tasks? As we restructure the state and make its institutions inclusive, public offices will face fresh challenges. There will be conflicting demands, and the contests for power and resources will be severe. We can’t wish away this eventuality or shy away from the responsibility of righting the historical wrongs.

Equal opportunity, fairness and competent performance have to be the name of the game if we are to grow into a mature democracy. The question is: Who is to be the just and neutral arbiter in these contests, and what guidance will such an arbiter get from the political and bureaucratic culture we are nurturing. With all the current anxiety and uncertainty, we may yet have a great constitution; let us assume. At the end of the day, however, all critical decisions will be made by human beings who need some values, norms, examples of good practices and so on for guidance. Where will they come from?