KU leadership vs transparency
Source: Kantipur Online, The Kathmandu Post (8 th July)
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=78897
By SIJAN RAJ BARAL
The recent spate of write-ups on Kathmandu University (KU) may have revealed an unexpected side of an institution that people thought was doing well. When one explores the excessive privation of a public institution that receives minimal government funding, the current criticism raised on improper functioning apparently seems invalid and targeted only against those who have adorned the image of educational reformists.
What many, both insiders and outsiders, feel is that KU's sacrosanct image can only be maintained if the present leadership is allowed absolute say in the administration and management of the university affairs. But what many do not know is the fact that the frontliners of KU have metamorphosed to become autocratic, unaccommodating and partisan. Therefore, if the policies come under the public hammer, the leadership alone must be held accountable; if the stakeholders of the university organ --- the students, teaching community, and the administrative staff --- complain about mismanagement and unprofessionalism, the leadership cannot make arbitrary arrangements to come clean; if the driving force of the university unite to point out the irregularities and propose amendments, the leadership must make way to the new breed; if the performance appraisal system has been replaced by nepotism and favoritism, the leadership must justify how free opportunity and evaluation system works.
KU needs to develop a leadership mechanism that does not look upon an individual alone, but functions on the support of all the stakeholders. KU needs to go through a cleansing process before any reformation takes place. KU needs to welcome other national and international intellectuals to assume leadership and not depend upon the disingenuous coterie.
Kathmandu University Professors' Association (KUPA) was formed and registered in the DAO, Kathmandu, last month. It is also the latest member of a larger federation -- the Nepal University Teachers' Association. However, it will take some time before the KU authorities take this new teachers' body in a positive vein. A narrow view put forward about the nature of such organization is that it will invite "politics" and KU will no longer remain as "reputed" as today! One must distinguish between the idea of politics and politicking. If KUPA proposes a participatory model of administration, if it wants the university bosses to be accountable and fair, if it upholds a check and balance mechanism, if it proclaims to protect the general welfare of the staff and wants to work collaboratively with the university, then KUPA is certainly a political force from within. And that is what it should intend to remain.
KUPA cannot be the sole answer to the ills that KU faces, but a proper representative body will position itself to revitalize the positive traits necessary of an institution. With the formation of this body, the majority already feel that their lost honor is restored and that the body will become a formidable force in bringing the derailed university management to the right track. Though this body will take some time to earn its gravity, the fallout of demeaning the unity of such a force may be ruinous to KU. It is but natural that students are concerned about the recent turn of events. But, can one concentrate in a usual manner when unusual circumstances disturb the academic atmosphere?
Unlike other public institutions in Nepal, KU has a credible percentage of young professionals. The spirit of this vibrancy should be reflected in the executive bodies that are formed in the university. Young people expect professional mentoring from those who have worked to build an institution. The university bosses have already come under sharp criticism for downplaying the contributions of other entities in the system. Independent members of KU resent when the leadership alone is acknowledged for what the university has achieved. How will an able academic community react if its potentials are continuously undermined and its achievements unacknowledged?
Everybody in an organization expects to upgrade one's portfolio, but the current scenario defeats the idea of proper delegation. A successful management practice is to entrust responsibilities and let the person do the tasks independently. When no authentic delegation has ever taken place in an esteemed institution, how can future leadership be available inside KU quarters? Individualistic leadership has never prepared others for higher roles, and this phenomenon is already evident here. KU is facing a leadership crisis. KU needs a better vision. But to start, KU has to shed the culture of adhocism.
At this time of crisis, insiders are deliberating on what values does this institution run. Besides being a popular center for learning, has it been successful in imparting values that generate decent conduct? How high is the integrity of a leader whose personal ambition supersedes institutional priorities? Is it not irrational that an institution holds an improved image and the staff remain impoverished? How should the students react if they do not get the quality they have been promised? Will modern society accept that policy-making and resource allocation are the prerogative of handful executives? What is the basis on which some development activities take precedence over the other? The present leadership has failed to work towards developing an institutional character of a public institution.
A usual practice in such circumstances of failure is to give up one's office and make way for new ideas. But if the leadership remains adamant the office invites the wrath of a rebellious force bringing unwarranted discredit to the institution. KU leaders only need to make a choice -- respect the sentiments of the stakeholders and exit in honor. Any obstinate step leading to confrontation will only be detrimental to the interests of the students, staff and the community.
As KUPA is working to rectify the functioning of the university, several anonymous entities are seen to be channelized to defeat the unified voice. Instead of targeting people at the personal level and engaging in conspiracy, all well-wishers must dare to show up for open debate. Institutional issues can be discussed without mud slinging. Perhaps the priviligenstia of the university can do a little service by behaving modestly and remaining apologetic for all the undue favours they have received instead of instigating others to bring disgrace to the individuals and the institution.
Posted on: 2006-07-07 19:55:19 (Server Time)
http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=78897
By SIJAN RAJ BARAL
The recent spate of write-ups on Kathmandu University (KU) may have revealed an unexpected side of an institution that people thought was doing well. When one explores the excessive privation of a public institution that receives minimal government funding, the current criticism raised on improper functioning apparently seems invalid and targeted only against those who have adorned the image of educational reformists.
What many, both insiders and outsiders, feel is that KU's sacrosanct image can only be maintained if the present leadership is allowed absolute say in the administration and management of the university affairs. But what many do not know is the fact that the frontliners of KU have metamorphosed to become autocratic, unaccommodating and partisan. Therefore, if the policies come under the public hammer, the leadership alone must be held accountable; if the stakeholders of the university organ --- the students, teaching community, and the administrative staff --- complain about mismanagement and unprofessionalism, the leadership cannot make arbitrary arrangements to come clean; if the driving force of the university unite to point out the irregularities and propose amendments, the leadership must make way to the new breed; if the performance appraisal system has been replaced by nepotism and favoritism, the leadership must justify how free opportunity and evaluation system works.
KU needs to develop a leadership mechanism that does not look upon an individual alone, but functions on the support of all the stakeholders. KU needs to go through a cleansing process before any reformation takes place. KU needs to welcome other national and international intellectuals to assume leadership and not depend upon the disingenuous coterie.
Kathmandu University Professors' Association (KUPA) was formed and registered in the DAO, Kathmandu, last month. It is also the latest member of a larger federation -- the Nepal University Teachers' Association. However, it will take some time before the KU authorities take this new teachers' body in a positive vein. A narrow view put forward about the nature of such organization is that it will invite "politics" and KU will no longer remain as "reputed" as today! One must distinguish between the idea of politics and politicking. If KUPA proposes a participatory model of administration, if it wants the university bosses to be accountable and fair, if it upholds a check and balance mechanism, if it proclaims to protect the general welfare of the staff and wants to work collaboratively with the university, then KUPA is certainly a political force from within. And that is what it should intend to remain.
KUPA cannot be the sole answer to the ills that KU faces, but a proper representative body will position itself to revitalize the positive traits necessary of an institution. With the formation of this body, the majority already feel that their lost honor is restored and that the body will become a formidable force in bringing the derailed university management to the right track. Though this body will take some time to earn its gravity, the fallout of demeaning the unity of such a force may be ruinous to KU. It is but natural that students are concerned about the recent turn of events. But, can one concentrate in a usual manner when unusual circumstances disturb the academic atmosphere?
Unlike other public institutions in Nepal, KU has a credible percentage of young professionals. The spirit of this vibrancy should be reflected in the executive bodies that are formed in the university. Young people expect professional mentoring from those who have worked to build an institution. The university bosses have already come under sharp criticism for downplaying the contributions of other entities in the system. Independent members of KU resent when the leadership alone is acknowledged for what the university has achieved. How will an able academic community react if its potentials are continuously undermined and its achievements unacknowledged?
Everybody in an organization expects to upgrade one's portfolio, but the current scenario defeats the idea of proper delegation. A successful management practice is to entrust responsibilities and let the person do the tasks independently. When no authentic delegation has ever taken place in an esteemed institution, how can future leadership be available inside KU quarters? Individualistic leadership has never prepared others for higher roles, and this phenomenon is already evident here. KU is facing a leadership crisis. KU needs a better vision. But to start, KU has to shed the culture of adhocism.
At this time of crisis, insiders are deliberating on what values does this institution run. Besides being a popular center for learning, has it been successful in imparting values that generate decent conduct? How high is the integrity of a leader whose personal ambition supersedes institutional priorities? Is it not irrational that an institution holds an improved image and the staff remain impoverished? How should the students react if they do not get the quality they have been promised? Will modern society accept that policy-making and resource allocation are the prerogative of handful executives? What is the basis on which some development activities take precedence over the other? The present leadership has failed to work towards developing an institutional character of a public institution.
A usual practice in such circumstances of failure is to give up one's office and make way for new ideas. But if the leadership remains adamant the office invites the wrath of a rebellious force bringing unwarranted discredit to the institution. KU leaders only need to make a choice -- respect the sentiments of the stakeholders and exit in honor. Any obstinate step leading to confrontation will only be detrimental to the interests of the students, staff and the community.
As KUPA is working to rectify the functioning of the university, several anonymous entities are seen to be channelized to defeat the unified voice. Instead of targeting people at the personal level and engaging in conspiracy, all well-wishers must dare to show up for open debate. Institutional issues can be discussed without mud slinging. Perhaps the priviligenstia of the university can do a little service by behaving modestly and remaining apologetic for all the undue favours they have received instead of instigating others to bring disgrace to the individuals and the institution.
Posted on: 2006-07-07 19:55:19 (Server Time)
11 comments:
i agree to what mr. baral writes in his article. there are many who feel that way. but will an institution that has gained popularity in such a short time agree that the leadership has really failed? why can't people who are agitating in the name of kupa simply admit that instituions need leaders like dr. sharma but they are manipulated by others who closely work with him? every day he get support from people within ku itself who can become his hands (actually his pets). it's a different things that the vc has used an old man like saraswati rimal, but i am surprised to know that a person like bhupendra (of electrical engineering) wants to work with vc and registrar instead of raising voice against these corrupt people. i am compelled to doubt about his intellectual ability. is he and many other suddenly getting undue benefits? are there many people like him who are promised favours for not involving in kupa. beware !
but, i am unsure if kupa has the courage and energy and strategy to push forward their demands. it will be logical if they can propose a substitute leader in case vc sharma steps down.
the 'system' will be transparent only if there are more people in the executive body who have naitikta and respect for others.
Mr. pradhyapak,
whoever you are come outside with your real identity. I also support freedom but we need VC very much. KU is only for professional people and not for politics. VC sir has already said that we need association, but not our union.
So, we need both VC and registrar, but not KUPA.
teacher
बराल सर,
तपाईको लेख राम्रो लाग्यो। का.वि.का हाकीमहरुको र उनीहरुका टट्टुहरुको वैचारिक वहस र छलफलमा जाने क्षमता छैन। उनीहरु सबैजना Yes-men हो र उनीहरुको काम नै भीसी र रजिष्ट्रारले जे-जे भन्छ, त्यो ठीक हो भन्ने।
अब, यस्ता चाटुकारहरुले चाकरी गर्यो भन्दैमा भीसीले आफुलाई निर्विकल्प सोच्नु हूदैन। भीसीले सकुन्जेल छिट्टै पद छोड्नु पर्छ र का.वि.मा आफुहरुले हुलेका नालायकहरुलाई पनि पद छोडन लगाउनु पर्छ।
बराल सर, लेख्दै गर्नुस है।
There has to be internal debate to reform KU
The KU leadership will never agree to work in a trasparent manner but what is does is very apparent to all the people:
KU has an outdated monarchic set up. If Sharma is the King and Sitaram his Prime Minister; Ram Kantha is the Crown Prince in waiting and Nastu Sharma; his personal minister. There has been a second revolution in Nepal - KU is waiting to happen.
If you think KU is corrupt; you should look at KU Teaching Hospital is a dictatorship run by Ram Kantha and his Personal Assistant, Nastu Sharma. Any person who has worked at this hospital will tell you it is autocratic and not many have left with disgust.
Even more, KUTH should be part of KU but KUTH is dictating KU and these mafia will eventually take over KU which should have been named Bel Prasad University anyway. That name is more accurate than the nation's capital. because it does not represent Kathmandu, Nepal and Nepalese people.
The reason VC and registrar are maligned so much is because of their hypocrisy with which they have fooled others. They give grandiose impressiona and talks about world class university and research.When you see through their talks, it makes you want to laugh at them and cry for the country.
Which proper university in this world has an administrator position like the registrar, being the head of research. This is just one parody of one person - many titles. How has KU, VC and registrar done to foster research in KU? It is inspite of them rather than because of them, little has been done. With a suitable visionary leader, this could change. However, there is noone in the near-future to fill this post as Surendra Kafle and Ram Kantha play the same game.
Perhaps the future generation with leaders like Samir Dixit and others like him will rescue KU. Till then, there will be many more problems than solutions in KU.
To Last commenter,
You can not compare Ram Kantha with Prof. Kafle. Ram Kantha is nothing more than a local goon in the garb of a doctor. If he is really interested in social service, he should try to confine himself within that. However, in the name of social service, both Ram Kantha and Bel Prasad are busy running their hegemony. To have power, they would do anything. Have you forgotten Bel Prasad was Royal vigilante appointed by king Gyanendra? Ram Kanth and Bel Prasad are supporting Suresh Raj becuase all of them are same; bloody mandales.
KU leadership is on the verge of collapse. From outside it may look like it is holding firm, but from inside, the crumbling has started. Only a matter of time....
यो दोस्रो कमेन्टर साथीलाई हो,
प्राध्यापकजीलाई पूर्ण नामका साथ बाहीर आईज भन्ने तपाँई "टिचर"ले पनि आफ्नो परिचय त खुलाउनु पर्यो नी। केयु प्रोफेशनललाई भनेर तपाँईले कसलाई देखाउन खोज्नु भाको हो, स्पष्ट भन्न पर्यो। सुरेश राज र सितारामको प्रोफेशनलीज्म हामीले मजासँग हेरीसक्या छौँ। त्यस्तै उनीहरुका नातेदारहरुको पनि। अब केयुकै टिचर हूदाहुँदै पनि भीसी र रजिष्ट्रार चाहीने तर कुपा नचाहीने तपाँईका कुराहरुले तपाँई टिचरको नाममा कलँक हो भन्ने देखीन्छ।
कुपाको सदस्य
whoever says KUPA is unnecessary is either a relative of the three most corrupt people in KU (SRS, SRA and BMT) or is an opportunist who is ready to become the slave of anybody who is in power. We always have to be careful with such people. Many people who are afraid of joining KUPA formally do not disregard the idea of 'KUPA', but they are afraid whether 'leaders' like Sameer Dixit can be firm untill the ultimate moment. There are rumours that Sameer is getting pressures from his family in fighting with VC. VC and his daughter (supported by Jyoti Pradhan) are out to tarnish everyones image who is in KUPA. No doubt they will not sell anywhere else without improving their skills. Good job practicing writing girls, keep it up !
But commentors in this blog are wrong to say that Sameer is KUPA's only leader. There are many people who have potential to take KU leadership to new heights. Some people have come in the front only because they have some advantage. But there is serious doubt about KUPA leadership if they keep changing position and take soft corners for VC. KU has really become corrupt and the only answer is VC and his team, including all the appointements made by him must quit. KUPA must work on how to throw these people out. One good news: Pushpa Raj is quitting office soon giving some excuse, probably ISc admission. Bhola has already talked with Registrar he wants to quit. Mukunda is looking for job outside. Jangab is already afraid of supporting Bhadraman. Sanjay talks with everyone with a smile. Deepak Subedi already regrets for playing fowl with KUPA. Mechanical and EE Technical officers have given pressure to their depts to join KUPA. Bhupendra has already fought with Saraswati and VC. He has already realised his mistake for floating his nonsense idea of a Forum. Now he wants to join KUPA. So you see guys, KUPA is becoming strong.
Everybody must just work to defeat the double standards of people in every depts. Beware, there are many.
But whoever thinks KUPA is not needed has not got a mind of his/her own.
Pradhyapak
Post a Comment