By Narayan Prasad Mishra
In some ways, Nepal is a mysterious country. It has many unspoken cultures and traditions by which the country has been run since time immemorial. One of them is the culture of purveying misinformation either for your benefit or for harming your opponents. Purveying misinformation refers to the act of spreading or disseminating false or inaccurate information to others. It involves deliberately providing misleading or incorrect details to deceive or mislead others. My beloved wife Shanti Mishra and I had strong thoughts that help anyone if you can but do not trouble or harm anyone in life. This does not mean that we should refrain from discharging our duties of reward and punishment, being strict with the rules and regulations. We never troubled anyone with a personal grudge. On the other hand, we helped the people in whatever way we could to the best of our knowledge and ability, even though we suffered a lot in life because of the culture mentioned above.
The first disturbing incident of my life regarding misinformation purveying was about Surya Bahadur Shakya, the then vice-chancellor. He was the man who had loved me immensely since I entered university but was made an enemy by a misinformation purveyor. I wrote an article titled “Tribhuvan University and Rashtriya Education Plan, 2028” (त्रिभुवन विश्वविद्यालय र राष्ट्रिय शिक्षा योजना, २०२८) which was published in Gorkhapatra on June 25, 1977 (2034 Ashad 11). The article focused on the education system with numerous suggestions to make it more practicable, effective, and successful. It included points regarding the appointment and powers of the vice-chancellor. I proposed that the executive high officers of the university – Vice-chancellor, Rector, and Registrar – should not be ex-officio members of the University Service Commission to prevent majority representation from the executive for its independence. At the same time, I argued that the vice-chancellor should not hold executive as well as judicial power, which would contradict judicial principles. Similarly, I advised against appointing deans from lower-level academic positions like lecturer or reader, as deans head institutes and should, therefore, be professors, ensuring that lecturers do not control professors through such appointments. I also stated that appointing a lecturer as dean without a proper system or process was akin to jumping like a frog. All the points I mentioned here have been rectified and do not exist now.
Information peddlers poisoned Vice-Chancellor Shakya’s mind, falsely claiming that I, Narayan Mishra, attacked him and raised unnecessary objections to curtail his powers and duties while also criticizing the king for appointing deans from among lecturers. As a result, I was marginalized and deemed an opponent of the New Education System plan, though I was luckily saved from the termination of my job for the charge of speaking against the King’s appointment. Ironically, all my suggested reforms were later adopted into the education system. One can verify this by comparing the articles in my book mentioned above with the current education system. However, I received no credit for my contributions. My honest writing for the country’s education reform caused me great suffering, as did my beloved wife, Shanti Mishra. I wonder if people will ever appreciate my courage, free thinking, and writing.
Another disturbing incident in this context involved the dissemination of misinformation about Ram Chandra Bahadur Singh, who was the Rector of Tribhuvan University at the time, by a lecturer named Bandhu Koirala. He informed Prof. Singh that Narayan Mishra was lobbying against him, portraying him as an unsuitable candidate for the position of vice-chancellor. This lobbying involved visiting various dignitaries and working against Prof. Singh’s appointment as vice-chancellor of the university, which was in the process of making the appointment. Prof. Singh asked me directly angrily whether that was true, being a straightforward man. I was surprised to hear it and told him I never did, and there was no question of doing it since that was not my topic of concern. Then he said when he heard it, he thought that he would also harm me in some way. As I denied, that was OK.
But it seemed the misinformation peddler gave him such an impression that he never got released of his doubt whether I was his enemy. Prof Singh, being a man of wooden head, never stayed away, troubling me during his tenure. He omitted my name from a group visiting the U.K., which was included by the ongoing vice-chancellor, Jagat Mohan Adhikari, who was appreciative of my work. He did not show his goodwill in giving me my due promotion. In fact, he pushed me out of his scene, considering me his adversary during his term as the Rector and Vice-Chancellor at T. U. without any reason. He was powerful because of his connection with Royalty and the ruling class. I was sure that was the harmful effect of purveying misinformation.
Till around the year 1990, I was the deputy registrar, equivalent to the level of the joint secretary of the government offices at Tribhuvan University. There was a vacancy for the higher level post named Prashasak (administrator), which is equivalent to the level of government secretary. Being the senior most among the then-existing deputy registrars, the post of vacancy was one of my claims. I applied for it. Prof. Shankar Raj Pathak was the vice-chancellor. After scrutinizing the applicants, the executive committee meeting held under the chairmanship of Vice-Chancellor Pathak decided to appoint me as administrator. I got this information from an officer of the personnel administration division who asked me to collect my appointment letter on my way home if I wanted since the time was around 4:30. The officer seemed so happy to convey that good news to me. I thanked him for informing me. So, I went to collect the letter on my way home. When I reached the administrative building, I thought of going to the vice-chancellor’s office to thank the vice-chancellor for my appointment and express my gratitude. So I went to see him. But I met the vice-chancellor Pathak on the stairs coming down from his office. As soon as he saw me, he congratulated me on the appointment. I thanked him.
After that, when I went to the personnel administration section to collect the letter, the man said he was waiting for the Registrar, Narottam Prasad Upadhya, to get his signature on the letter. The Registrar was still out of the office. I, therefore, left the office, did not collect the letter, and asked the man to send the letter to my office the next day. I did not receive the letter the next day. When I called the officer in the personnel administration section, he said he was still waiting for the Registrar’s signature. The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar disappeared from the office that day. I tried my best to contact the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar to inquire about it. They were not within my reach. I never got the letter. My promotion to a higher post, Prashasak, was rescinded. Imagine the pain I must have endured from it. Not only did I lose the promotion, but I also lost my prestige and respect in front of my lower staff and colleagues. I had to endure this painful incident due to my helplessness. Then, the 1990s movement started. The Vice-Chancellor, Pathak, and Registrar, Upadhyaya, did not show their courage to be in office. I still do not know what was the reason for the mysterious disappearance of my appointment letter. I can imagine that the purveying of misinformation was the reason behind it. I think the Vice-Chancellor, Pathak, and Registrar, Upadhyaya, are still living. I have not met them since then and have had no opportunity to show my curiosity to know that mystery. I hear that Registrar Upadhyaya is a strong disciple of Sai Baba. If anyone asks him about it, he might speak the truth if he is a genuine disciple of Baba, not a fake.
However, I got my promotion after the 1990s movement during the Vice-Chancellor Prof. B. C. Malla. I became the Chief of the Tribhuvan University Service Commission Office and also the Member Secretary of the Selection Committee. I am always grateful to the late Prof. Malla, the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Ram Man Shrestha, the Rector, and Prof. Bishweshore Man Shrestha, the Registrar, for their love, trust, and support during that period. The Vice-Chancellor Malla was considered a Nepali Congress supporter, and the Rector Shrestha and the Registrar Shrestha were considered Nepal Communist Party (UML) supporters. However, the Rector, Prof. Ram Man Shrestha, later joined the Nepal Communist Party (Maoists) and also became the candidate from the present Kathmandu 2 electoral constituency.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect People’s Review’s editorial stance.
Login to add a comment