You need to know your whistleblowing rights and your protection if any.

The EU has a directive that certainly won't apply in India. https://www.eqs.com/en-us/compliance-knowledge/blog/eu-whistleblowing-directive/

Thanks for this critically important question. It applies far beyond academia.

IMO, there are two related answers:

1. Always seek to work with/hire/promote/support people who are laser-focused on excellence at whatever the institution is doing. The corollary is to avoid people who are more focused on other people, drama, their own promotion, etc. than on the institution's mission.

2. Always seek to work with/hire/promote/support people who demonstrate proven excellence at whatever the institution is doing. The corollary is to avoid people who have not demonstrated such excellence even when given opportunity to do so.

A relentless cultural focus on an institution's goals, along with active avoidance of people, drama, and other forces that distract from those goals, tends to prevent or weed out "unethical occupation of positions by unsuitable and under-qualified individuals".

Thanks again for this question.

Thank you very much for answering, I have shared your answer in facebook groups too without your permission. I hope you are fine with it.

Donald E. Watenpaugh

Avaniendra Chakravartty

I'm not on Facebook, but I'm honored that anyone would share my thoughts there as long as they are attributed to me and not plagiarized. Thank you!

Sir I have attached the format that I shared about your thoughts. Regards

Also the link below should take you to the page on facebook I think regardless of you being in it or not.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=350272023321818&set=a.107506120931744

There is difference between selection of people for a responsibility, and appointing them politically. I think the cautions expressed here about the former kind of selection are good ones. However, I would like to address the latter, political appointments.

In a democracy, we have a means for selecting individuals for high responsibility that avoids politics: it is jury selection. Basically, the first requirement is to randomly select from the population to be served a number of persons including necessary redundancy. Each of these persons is then vetted according to some agreed upon objective criteria regarding suitability. Then the resulting group is presented to the public and publicly ranked according to suitability for the position. The top ranked handful is then formally voted on by the population served, thereby choosing the candidate.

Although this candidate might be found unsuitable by other communities. This community has made the best choice it can out of the available candidates.

There's need of political commitment & not appointment

If the people become good academicians by acquiring the quality education, it's great boon to the community in general & country in specific. When a particular agenda is to be introduced in the system then there is political appointment rather than commitment. People with good academic & moral background may not follow the diktats.

@ Baydaa Ismael , thanks

This is a common problem in every developing nation in Asia or Latin America or Middle East.

Thank you Mahender Singh Donald E. Watenpaugh L Kurt Engelhart Chris Oliver Wazir Ali for giving your time to answer. The question I asked was in the context of BPKIHS (http://www.bpkihs.edu/), though, as mentioned, it is a recurring feature in other parts of the world. But what saddens me and distresses me is that not a single Nepali citizen or employee of BPKIHS responded to the question. I feel we have become conditioned to do things that benefit us either monetarily or to boost egos of powerful and influential people. I am a nobody working in an institute and categorized as NON MEDICAL, who are not even allowed to vote in local institutional faculty welfare elections. Hence, when esteemed and respected individuals with such remarkable professional experiences take out time to answer, it gives me hope, strength and motivation to continue doing what I do. Thanks and many regards. Namaste

What you're talking about is not something new or something out of the ordinary. This happens pretty much in every state in India, and perhaps many other countries. In India, this is a common scenario. It varies from state to state. Whichever country has corruption in the system, this will be bound to happen. That's all!

When any new government comes to power, pretty much all the top officials will be transferred: judges, police officials, key officials, and administrators from the previous government. This includes the appointment and transfer of Vice Chancellors. This way, things will be under the control of the ruling party whatever that may be. Secrecy must be maintained, and the finance should flow into their system in an unrestricted manner.

This is just a political game. Whoever would benefit them more, would be kept in power. Whoever challenges them or is less worthy of them, will be missing from the action.

Changes are needed at the grassroots level. However, that's not gonna happen. As academicians, we can't change the fabric of the system. People must learn to live with it. That's all!

Seithikurippu R. Pandi-Perumal

Learn to live with it when the most privileged people in your society are tyrants and criminals? That is not satisfactory to me!

There are more of us than them. Their only ability is force and fraud. Surely the majority has some way of outmaneuvering them? I suggest this is why more majorities are enforcing democracy.

Kurt

Hi Dr Avaniendra Chakravartty . Placing the wrong person in a particular position has a very bad impact on the performance of the institution in all respects. The most important thing in any institution is the top of the administrative hierarchy, so it must be competent and appropriate for the position, otherwise the results will be disastrous.

Democracy has its own set of ills, and there is no better alternative to it, I feel. All democracies beginning from the USA, Australia, England and most other developed democratic countries must have gone through the phases that we in Nepal are going through at present more than a century or two ago. 🙏

In an oligarchy there are much different definitions of competence than in a democracy. Oligarchs organize for their isolated purposes, while democrats organize for a collective purpose. There is no point at which these two purposes converge, even with a benevolent dictatorship.

An isolated opinion can never take the place of a democratically produced opinion. The former is an historical form, the latter is a modern, some would say scientific, form. The modern form is a result of intelligent, informed actions of large groups of people.

Who would go back to ancient forms of medicine?

Its a real challenge which has to be addressed by Government and respective Board of the Universities which are tasked with scouting, appointing and monitoring the work of highest officers of HEIs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

"The system intends to ensure that all competent and interested parties have an equal chance of holding public office. It also minimizes factionalism, since there would be no point making promises to win over key constituencies if one was to be chosen by lot, while elections, by contrast, foster it."