Nuclear menace

The A-bomb nicknamed Fat Man flattened Nagashaki 56 years ago killing over 74 thousand people instantly. On August 6, 1945 the US Air Force had dropped a similar bomb on Hiroshima. That claimed more than one hundred and forty thousand lives, besides reducing the city to rubble. The dropping of the atom bombs on Japan during the closing days of World War Two ushered in the age of nuclear conflict, and notions of balance of terror and nuclear deterrence in relations among the great powers. The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima/Nagasaki may never be settled conclusively. Though widely condemned on humanitarian grounds America has defended its use of the atomic option as a fast track to Japanese surrender and peace in the Pacific theatre. There is also the unstated feeling that Japan got what it deserved for its rampant militarism during the l930s and early 40s. Interestingly the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima does not so much as hint through any of its many exhibits that the nuclear punishment was undeserved. Perhaps it is not in the Japanese character to seek pity or commiseration. But it is more likely there is a sense of collective guilt. Be that as it may, Japan remembers the two A-bomb drops every year and pledges itself anew towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the international outrage against nuclear weapons has never attained critical mass. Unfortunately also, even within Japan, repentance for past militarism is not total, as indicated by disputes with neighbouring countries over the way Japanese school textbooks gloss over the war and by the annual homage paid by Japan’s prime ministers at a controversial Shinto shrine honouring Japanese war dead.

The nuclear age has willy nilly come to our own part of the world. Nepal is sandwiched between the two giant neighbours with nuclear capability and a third nuclear power has only recently emerged in the neighbourhood. The Kargil mini-war of 1999 between India and Pakistan would have turned nuclear, had the US not prevailed upon Pakistan to withdraw. Had the nuclear trigger been pulled, not only would Nepalese manhood serving in the Indian army been caught up in the holocaust but our country would have been down wind from the nuclear fallout. To give the devil his due, nuclear weaponry has helped maintain a balance of terror in the world and an uneasy peace. The flip side is when one country goes nuclear it compels a rival power to do likewise and so on down the line U S nuclear capability predicated similar capability for the then USSR and that in turn made China go nuclear. Next to follow this logic were India and Pakistan. So there is no putting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. The only real hope is in treaties and agreements against first use of nuclear weaponry or use against non nuclear powers. A modicum of progress has been made in this area. Nepal for its part has been protesting the use of nuclear weapons ever since China entered the nuclear club. When India conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998, incidently on dates which fell on the birth anniversary of Lord Buddha, apostle of peace, Nepal again protested. And we must keep on protesting out of conscience even if there is little hope of any practical result.

Decentralization of higher education

By Dr Radhaber D Khati

The concept of decentralization is understood by different people in different ways, or is interpreted differently on different occasions. In a society which is traditionally authoritarian and centralised, this word connotes something else.

Traditionally speaking, if a society or the country where we are in is peculiarly bureaucratic and traditional in our own sense, public administration and the process to exercise power have to follow the path naturally, leading to a point where power and politics are centralized. Thus educational or higher educational institutions, which rely very much on the external policy makers, politics and the people who finance them, are bound to come under the forces of influence, not just for their establishment and development but also for their very survival. Since the traditionally centralized nature of national politics and the political power-play have gradually taken a new turn, even if not necessarily towards complete decentralization, the organizational setup that runs under the existing political system automatically needs to be run that way.

To avoid these complications stemmed from decentralization, the new system of ownership or the delegation of power, it is highly recommended that a thorough and complete clarity in the domain of authority and the separation of power should be there in such an organization. This separation of power could only relieve the problems arising out of the overlapping of these two domains. Therefore, it has been argued by some with a degree of practical administrative convenience that certain degree of centralization is required in administrative decision-making in every institution, while others go a long way to come under the realm of decentralization.

Decentralization in the administration of higher education is, at times, understood also as a power of decision making to be given to the academicians, since it is believed that this power is, in most of the time entertained by the administrators in such an organization is basically academic. Actually, it would be beneficial to institutions if the academicians were brought in for participation and given responsibilities of organizational decision making. A participatory mode of decision making is what is required for efficient running of a system of management at a university.

Arrangement for a greater number of administrative and teaching personnel may not just be able to serve the purpose of smooth running of a large university organization whose networks are spread throughout the country.

The job of making decision becomes more cumbersome when these broad groups of administrators and academicians in a higher educational organization are further divided into other many sub-groups in accordance with their affiliation with political parties that pledge for vested interests.

It is increasingly being realized that the present day chief executive and other superior authorities of a university have so much of problems that the main thrust of their work, which ought to be raising the academic standards including the provision of educational infrastructures and the encouragement to serious research and innovations, are almost thrown aside.

It is argued that a monolithic organization, due to its size and nature, generally suffers from inefficiency in administration and decision making. Due to this, such organizations suffer. This could be so, especially, in those institutions which are centrally operated, but with widely spread branches, extended almost to all part of the country, of which some are even inaccessible to the modern means of transport and communication. In a country like ours with much traditional socio-economic set up, collecting information independently is not an easy job. Analysing and examining information for decision-making is even tougher.

When modern electronic system for discharging regular and efficient information services lag far behind, organizational administrators and decision makers cannot have any other options, in getting the right information, but to rely on the age old system of postal communication.

Taking into account problems plaguing a centralized university, it has become necessary to give a serious thought to decentralizing not all but some of the functions of an university. Functions such as academic, financial and administrative must be decentralized in order to take appropriate decisions and adopt suitable techniques for achieving educational objectives. Moreover, under the present circumstances, the efforts towards decentralization of the system of higher education should not be made in haste without doing any homework.

Decentralization system must be operated in phase-wise, instead of implementing it at the gross experimental level. So, let us decide which aspect of the university powers and functions are to be decentralized first, and after receiving feedback, we can make changes accordingly. In this connection, it would be appropriate to decentralize the academic and administrative powers, whereas matters such as planning, resource allocation and evaluation of university activities are to be centralized to see that both systems run smoothly to help the university perform its duties successfully.

In a country like ours, the effectiveness of decentralization in university administration may be influenced positively by the following factors:

1.Decentralization should largely depend upon the effectiveness of the coordinating mechanisms which ought to be strengthened at various levels;

2. Decentralized units should be routinely exposed to self-scrutiny and countercheck to get regular feedback;

3. Accreditation mechanisms should be introduced effectively along with processes emphasizing decentralization;

4. Adequate and relevant training should be provided to the concerned functionaries to make decentralization effective and productive.

Therefore, these two terms- centralization and decentralization- can hardly exist as independent domains, separating from each other. The point is that some centralizing factors are supposed to be working even in a decentralized administrative set up. In our country, the tendency is to ignore a practical compromise between the two in order to run the administration of an academic institution like university more efficiently and effectively.

Unexpected greetings

By Pradeep Bhandari

After living abroad for the last 4 years,I am recently in Kathmandu with my family. Although I have been in constant touch with Nepal through e-mails, internet and occasional phone calls to my family and friends, this visit has been the only way to verify the image and information about Nepal I have accumulated in the last few years.

The first impression was not bad as we could manage to get through the immigration and customs at the airport and head towards home in our cars within minutes. But this was soon to change! My ten-year old son was the first one to break the silence as we were all looking intently through the windows of the vehicle to be familiar with changes since our last visit to the city. It must have been very hard for my patriotic son to say, "It is disgusting. I think I can not stand this anymore!" But he said it anyway. I could say nothing to my son as he uttered these harsh words when I noticed that the car we were travelling in was actually swimming in a stream rather than plying on a road, and there was also a brook on each side of the river to make the matter worse!

It was, however, very relaxing and gratifying as we reached home and met our family. The next few days gave my son more experience in surviving a life in Kathmandu. He also realized that the driving of a car through the narrow streets of Kathmandu was far more exciting than any of his computer games back in England. As for me, I thought that Kathmandu should be named the ‘City of Sign-boards’ rather than the ‘City of Temples’.

It is indeed amazing to note that Kathmandu is still surviving despite all these rapid changes. Probably, the resilient nature of we Nepalese has made it possible to bear with these changes that may not all be good. It is a common sight these days to find youngsters sitting at one corner of their houses browsing the net. It is also not difficult to make a long-distance overseas telephone call for a cool Rs 20 per minute from any streetside STD/ISTD shop. At the other extreme, it still takes ages to entangle bureaucratic hassles and get you work done on time. Half of the population in Kathmandu seems to be still living in the 19th century whereas the other half, especially the young, seems to be struggling to keep pace with the advancement of the 21st century.

At the end of our two weeks’ sojourn in Kathmandu, I ended up having mixed feelings towards the way the city has grown in the past few years. But, I would certainly not want to agree with the view of a relative of mine who lives in Butwal and who had recently visited Kathmandu after many years just like me. He opines that Kathmandu should experience a major earthquake, similar to that of Gujarat in India, so that we can re-build the city with a proper planning and vision for the future.

I shall keep on loving Kathmandu, whichever way it grows and however deformed it may look. After all, this is the city I was born in and where I grew up!

Anomalies and local self - governance

By Shankar L Chauhan

Two years ago, when the Local Self- Governance Act came into force, there was an expectation that the local body would have a better choice, required authority and hold over the use of resources at the local level. Since the Act and related regulation had provided a new impetus to decentralisation process in the country, the thrill was natural and obvious. This thrill can be read as the build up of perceptual expressions by local leaders and civil servants. This led to some confusion in understanding the Act and subsequently made an impact on its implementation. Some confusion was genuine, for they were generated by the Act itself.

Whatever the understanding and interpretation made by stack-holders, the understanding of Act by a layman was plain and straight. That a person living low on a socioeconomic ladder, Local Self - Governance would mean he or she will have a greater pie in decision making process that affects his or her life. For instance, there will be a chance for a group of villagers to decide whether to build a suspension bridge over a river or have the village connected with the business centre by a trail.

The excitement was even greater among the elected members in local bodies. That they can infinitely become stronger to address the needs of the people in a manner they think appropriate. In order to achieve this goal, proper guidance and support are needed from the ministry concerned.

It has been observed that over the years, the local - centre working relationship has not been positive. Theoretically speaking, there are fewer questions on decentralization of power that the local bodies can exercise or share between centre and local bodies. However, in a situation where these local units have no access to resources to finance their choice of activities, the realization of devolution of power is still a distant dream. Critically speaking, the district with poor resource base is just like a fox without teeth.

There are innumerable causes that displease local institutions. The officials at the National Planning Commission (NPC) and the Ministry of Local Development might agree with the view that over hundred of projects are financed every year whose status, locations and existence are not known to anybody. Despite this, the local institutions continue to map out developmental planning. In the existing mechanism, there are many known pitfalls for individual’s intervention. As a result, when an individual intervention appears as ‘super natural power’ the local units feel dejected, frustrated and totally confused.

People at the grass root level do not know what the government policy intents to achieve. The share of people’s participation and voluntary contribution are common criteria for selecting a project. And based on this qualifying criteria, people are asked to participate in developing physical structures. But there are no clear regulation as to who manages and who possesses them. One would find a number of evidence in rural and remote areas where service centres have turned into cowshed and villagers have no authority over the employees. Question arises if such development projects can be brought under the purview of local institutions.

By constructing concrete buildings in villages, some national wealth has been generated. Usually the living standard of a community is calculated on the basis of such infrastructure. But while calculating service coverage, many errors are made. As a result, neither the socio - economic status of a community nor is real service availability properly estimated. For instance, the service of a doctor is calculated based on post occupancy, but whether a patient receives service or not does not matter.

Legal experts have pointed out anomalies in the Act which need to be amended to make decentralization effective. But it appears that the government finds very hard to recognize changes that need to be implemented, especially when old-fashioned politics is still predominating. This suggests the government at the centre still wants to retain responsibility, probably due to the fear that its hold over state affairs will become loose.

Amidst chaos and confusion, some of the local bodies are mustering courage to do the best possible. However, there is no denying the fact that there is a minimum functional uniformity amongst the local units while they all abide by the same Act and regulations. Some local units have reasons to do nothing, others live on the remnants of old system, all influenced by the individual interest and understanding. How can one expect positive changes, given such a murky situation? Perhaps conscious of this, some non- governmental organisations have extended technical and financial support for capacity building of local institutions. But a tangible result can be expected only when the government gears up for effective implementation.