Development has been such an important buzz word that countries round the globe have been named as either least developed, developing or developed. Consequently, Nepal falls in the least developed category, but soon in 2026 it will be promoted to developing status. Still, the development underway in the country is far from desired. A growth rate of less than 4 per cent since the beginning of planned development in the sixties, also known as the Hindu rate of growth, is a pointer to this direction.

There are multiples factors that have led to the underdevelopment in Nepal. Dor Bahadur Bista, in his seminal book 'Fatalism and Development', had written that fatalism is the main cause of the underdevelopment of Nepal. Nepalese tend to cover up their weaknesses by ascribing it to their fate, blaming their failure to achieve anything in life to misfortune despite being competent. Nepotism and lobbyism were held responsible for the slow development by Bista.

Devendra Raj Pandey, a former secretary and also a finance minister, wrote in his book 'Failed Development in Nepal' that overdependence on foreign aid was responsible for the failure of developmental works in Nepal. More than triggering waves of development, it helped sustain the traditional power structure, according to Pandey.

In recent times, the interference of politics in all spheres of national scene has been recognised as a stumbling block on the path of development by all alike. What is worse is that it has entered the academia as well. Professor Tirtha Raj Khaniya, a former vice chancellor of Tribhuvan University, in his book 'Navigating Higher Education in Nepal: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions' has highlighted it clearly by mentioning the politicisation of the students and teachers in the higher education in Nepal. Khaniya has written that our politicians and government heads – chancellor and pro-chancellor, are interested only in putting their partymen in powerful and leadership positions in the universities.

The politicisation has led to the delayed appointment of office bearers, such as the dean, campus chief, directors as well as the controllers in the country's oldest university. In fact, they should be nominated a few months in advance like the US president so that the appointed officer could work with the outgoing one, leading to customary handover and takeover. Its absence has virtually crippled the academic functioning of the university, which has manifested in the delayed publication of the results by the Examination Section as well as the Service Commission. This has been one of the main factors leading to the flight of students to foreign countries.

Recently, a good initiative was taken by holding open competition for the vice chancellors of universities for the establishment of meritocracy in the academic institutions. It was also given continuity in Tribhuvan University for the appointment of deans, campus chiefs, controllers and the likes by the present university administration. But it was not successful as it was opposed vehemently by some of the political wings of the students, teachers and the employees.

After knowing that their party supporters were streets behind their competitors, a prominent office bearer of the Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) party is reported to have sung a chorus with the allied student leader, saying that the vice chancellor's campaign of appointing the number one candidate was a clumsy travesty of meritocracy designed to exclude one of the ideological groups.

It would not have been the case if the ace candidate had been appointed the vice chancellor of Tribhuvan University. Instead, the number two candidate was handed over the crown of the present vice chancellor by brushing aside the number one candidate on the list. It is no wonder then that a former chairman of the Community Campus Association said that the employment of number one candidate is not necessary in view of the vice chancellor himself being a number two candidate.

The vice chancellor made a sincere admission saying that he did not want the office bearers to go through the humiliation of being a number two candidate like himself, and hence he has insisted on the appointment of the topper candidate. Sceptics have, however, taken it as the act of the proverbial cat on a Haj pilgrimage.

The chancellor and the pro-vice chancellor, both of the UML, also could not maintain neutrality in this case because the Prime Minister was alleged to have intervened in the engagement of the office bearers by a prominent media. It had posted questions on its website asking people regarding what they felt of the aforementioned intrusion. The Prime Minister expressed his dissatisfaction, saying that there were many elements that oppose him in the country. But it was hard to believe given that a person no lesser than his party general-secretary had made a seemingly obtrusive remark on it.

Whatever has happened now cannot be reversed. But for the future, the evaluation criteria also need to be improved for the first candidate to receive appointment. Now, it has a two-stage process, according to which five candidates are invited for the interview after the evaluation. It is followed by the nomination of the top three based on alphabetical standing. It is at this point that room has been open for political maneuvering. Instead, it should be amended for the nomination of the first candidate with others on the waiting list.

The first candidate will then receive appointment starting from the post of the vice chancellor. Once the first ranked candidate is appointed as vice chancellor, it will be easier to emulate it for the office bearers also. This will not allow politics to dominate, and the meritocracy can be finally restored in the academia. The source itself should thus be cleaned instead of lamenting for pollution downstream.