Behavioral Education

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

We often listened or heard that education should be practical or it should enhance some skills to students. Mostly Maoist revolution had pronounced it too much that they used to patter it as people’s education which could fulfil their wishes or that would be the demand of New Nepal. The motto of education is mostly applicable in our private life in comparison to public. It is believed that students should feel independent to live with the skills they have learnt or the purpose of education is to make people sustain them independently. Reformists have furiously opposed the educational system which has been existing. They blame it as rote learning; parrot learning; feeding system; conventional or Gurukal type and so on. The cognitive mode of education is too old and traditional which is useless or it should be abolished as the pundits have argued. Or they have the belief that they could apply panacea in education system so that they can expedite the development course.

The modern scholars would argue that education should be non-cognitive or practical ignoring the fact. Education should have power to enhance development which is much psychological rather than mechanical. It should enhance skills to people; so the designers have been formulating the course as per the demand of time. In our country, there is provision that school curriculum should be changed in every 10 years addressing the need of time. A separate department, Curriculum Development Center (CDC), is established under Education Ministry to implement new courses. Some scholars would also be called from out of the government services for assistance. They have been hired as consultants who have given suggestions taking bulky money.

The irony is that the plight of education is always same; or those who have designed it would start to denounce just then. In spite of the effort made by all the government and non-governmental persons why the education hasn’t been practical or behavioral. What is the mistake behind it? Who is responsible of not making practical or behavioral? Why it becomes a bone of contention? Who is responsible for that? The curriculum development center has also invited scholars from foreign country and they have come to assist of being the advocator of new trend of education in the world. Why don’t they be able to frame such course? Certainly the foreigner would be called from high profile countries and scholars. Why can’t they frame practical or behavioral course?

We have considered scholars as seniors only who have consulting power or they have got extensive knowledge of the subject matter. In spite of their vigorous effort the plight of education remains always same or problematic. No chance of improvement can be seen as it has been coming as saga. The best evidence can be seen that the consultation of the foreign scholars, national consultants, and the scholars of the CDC have gone waste. It has different meanings: either they have no knowledge; or they don’t have such capacity to frame it; or there is political influence; or they must have been less educated; or they haven’t been paid well. The so-called revolutionary party had also formed government three times and we can’t see any visible improvement in the system. Where is the mistake? Are we trying to solve the problem? Or are we going to create even more problem? Aren’t there any scholars to solve it?

I think that the fact is ignored as practical or behavioral education is forced to us. After all we have been seeking percentage only instead of practical education. The colleges, agencies, institutions have sought percentage of students while selecting them. So it is unquestionable subject matter to all that the marks in marksheet determine the future of the students. Those who have argued about the practical and behavioral education also can’t reject it. They have also followed the same trend or they are mesmerized with good percentage. They have even awarded the persons who have got more percentage learning by heart; or they have said that is the practical education. Neither, why do they award them? Are they real or fake? I can’t understand that the same education is practical or behavioral to those who can secure good marks whereas it is useless to those who haven’t got good marks. I can’t understand the controversy or mistake in the system.

I have discussed with one of the scholars who have done doctorate in education about the differences of private and public school. He argued that private was bad as they have applied cognitive methods in teaching whereas public school students have more non-cognitive style of learning. Some government reports have also come to such conclusion of measuring learning achievement. At the final stage of debate he admitted the percentage of the student is the determining factor or measuring rod of their quality though we have advocated about practical or behavioral education. He dismissed all the things what he talked to me at first. Realizing the fact that educational philosophies have been arguing this and that but they can’t guide the education as a whole. All philosophies are part or they can never be whole. They have tried to be accurate with lopsided arguments and ideas.

I want to question why scholars have been sharing their weaknesses to the commoner ignoring their scholasticism. It means we have to question to the scholars first in which they have framed the policy but they have implemented another philosophy. Why don’t they frame the curriculum applying only one philosophy of education so that education becomes practical or behavioral? I haven’t even listened that the so-called developed countries have also been able to implement adequate policy or philosophy in their countries. The realization is that the policy formation policy of scholars has had defect. They don’t find any solution of the problem rather it has been politicized only or to vomit their so-called scholasticism. No standard rule is set to address human mind as it has been varied and all inclusive.

It reminds me post-modern concept of the Jack Derrida, in which reality is part or it has been fluctuating. We can’t get reality or fact in this world as we have been made deformed with social rules, regulations, government policies, and scanty understandings through education. The entire mind is relative or it has been aiming to stick to pluralism. The society has given some position to them and they have been fulfilling their duty in the world. They don’t have any magical rod to solve all the problems.

The relative mind of the scholars has put us in confusion so it is questionable. The concept of post-modern is that we have to return back to the olden time which was fit for us. Or it would be better to be ignorant rather than one sided preacher of so-called knowledge. The scholars who try to be true or evidential today are false as we have already argued. There is no solution of the argument except of leaving the field with self-realization. Human mind is always part and we have been seeking or pretending to be whole. Or we have been trying to be whole advocating something to prove us as scholars. If so, what may be the solution? 

Social Inclusion

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

Having equal opportunity in the society where we live can be one of the aspects of social inclusion. It aims at coordination, cooperation, mutuality, self-help among the members of the society which ensures peaceful living. The concept of inclusion indicates political matter in this era where the marginal have come to the mainstream of the society. In spite of its social nature the politics has played dominant role in our country these days. Certainly, it leads towards social harmony where all the members live happily helping one another.

I want to start it mentioning example of monkeys and dogs. When I went jogging I, had seen monkeys and dogs playing together. At first I felt odd when I saw monkeys and dogs sitting, lazing, running and playing together. It seems they have been living in mutuality or in coordination which surprises me a lot. The dogs would chase monkeys in my village or we tamed dogs only to fear monkeys. When the monkeys came to our area we would call dogs or set the dog free so that it would chase monkeys. We tried to tame dog three times for the purpose of chasing monkeys but we weren’t successful as they had taken away by tigers, may be leopards, but we used to call them tigers in our common understanding; we didn’t tame dogs then after.

In our neighboring village still they tame dogs and they have been used to chase monkeys. Monkeys would come to my village frequently it is much frequent than in the past; they are so fearless that we can’t chase them easily. They would climb to the top of the tree and teased us. No dogs could chase monkeys these days unless humans go together; rather dogs remain silent or ignorant to the monkeys. Monkeys eat everything in our village and its quite difficult for us to stay in village. They destroy all the crops even the seeds at the time of farming and all the fields remain barren these days. People could save nothing except gourd, bitter gourd and so on; or we do farming which the monkeys’ don’t take only.  Rather they would start to take the things which they didn’t take in the past due to the lack of production.

I go jogging to the Swoyambhu; and often visit the Pashupati area; I have seen monkeys playing with dogs. The dogs have no reaction at all rather they are lazing here and there. Monkeys are much active in comparison to dogs whereas in our village the dogs would be active more than monkeys. They live life in their own style in these areas where no party harms to other.  We can feel the mutuality between two races of animals; whereas the troop of monkeys and dogs can fight but monkeys and dogs don’t have any enmity.

It reminds me the Nepalese context of inclusion or they have been practicing the inclusive state like in Nepal. Social inclusion is a haunting matter for us which monkeys and dogs have agreed. It seems that they have some agreement not to be enemy of one another or they have been living in perfect coordination. There is no conflict at all where no dogs would chase monkeys and vice-versa. Moreover, we can even see some photos on facebook that the monkeys and dogs would help one another like human beings.

They have agreed not to hurt one another or build consensus between the races whereas we humans have the problem of untouchability, caste conflict, sense of superiority and inferiority, and so on. The inclusive state has looked after all the castes or class from equal eyes which seems always lack from the eyes of the oppressed group. I feel charm with the coordination and inclusion of monkeys and dogs which can be seen in our parliament also. In government offices also we can find such mixing of all castes like the monkeys and dogs. However, we experience some sorts of hatred among the castes in our country unlike in the agreement of dogs and monkeys. Being inclusive state, the people of different castes and status stay together irrespective of their qualifications.

Sometimes I feel like the condition of some village dogs which have still authority to chase monkeys. They chase monkeys so there is still some problem in village area. We have popular belief that the discrimination still exists in traditional village areas like the dogs of village. The dogs which don’t chase monkeys seem intelligent, cooperative, and coordinating. It means they have the power to accept the changing norms of the society. The dogs which chase monkeys are still fanatics, traditional, conventional and so on.  These dogs would prefer the traditional norms of caste system. They still prefer social discrimination and are opposite of inclusion. They are illiterate and conventional which can’t accept the change according to the demand of time. They seem like villain in the context of inclusive state.

On the other hand, the lazing dogs have no work at all; or they are lazing here and there. They don’t chase monkeys rather they are chased when they see monkeys. The monkeys would also chase such dogs which are feeble. The strong would fight against monkeys so that they would flee away; if weak monkeys would make them run. However, the coordination, cooperation, mutuality, amity, amicability, and etc. seem perfect these days which extends a good message to the society.

In my village nothing is saved in our farmland when there is agreement between dogs and monkeys or the monkeys could defeat dogs. We think to shift the place time and again. The news from Ramechhap and Sindhuli is also same like in our village. Monkeys destroy the crops what the farmers save. These people have even filed case in District Administrative Office (DEO) to control monkeys. However, the government has made rules to save monkeys and dogs or the government seems positive towards them as they are the representative of Lord Hanuman. Some of the animal right activists still clamor if the government tried to control them which makes the condition of farmers too bad.

Saving monkeys is thought as an important aspect by the government rather than dogs. On the other hand, dogs have been ignored as they have been living with the humans since time immemorial. They have been caught and castrated but no monkeys. The dogs do no harm to people except some stray dogs which would spread rabies to humans and the government think it necessary to control them. However, the government doesn’t think necessary to control monkeys though they have destroyed crops.

I come to realize that the state is being inclusive of monkeys and dogs in which monkeys are marginal to dogs. As the state has given rights to marginal so it has been applicable to monkeys. It seems that monkeys are in priority in inclusion policy rather than dogs. However, we can find perfect coordination and cooperation between these creatures. Let the inclusive state be alive and all should have equal rights!

Lure, ra ‘master jasto’…

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

I have read an article by Hisila Yami who is one of the prominent leaders of Naya Shakti Nepal, the youngest political party of Nepal. She was also the Tourism Minister of Nepalese government at the time of Maoist ruling before 9 years. She published an article in Kantipur Daily on 3^rd August which was about Pushpa Kamal Dahal (PKD) who was going to be a new Prime Minister of Nepal that day.

The article was about PKD in which she gave the detail after her visit with him from 2046 BS. She characterized him from her first visit commenting that he was lure, ra ‘master jasto’…. Lure means thin in Nepali and the English translation of this phrase is “thin, ‘like master’”. I am also a teacher or master I realize that I must be thin. The sentence refers that masters are thin and the language she has used is too much derogatory. It refers that leaders should be, may be fat, they should earn more, or they have some high personality, or they are prestigious, or they are powerful, or they are intelligent, or they are smart and so on.

The sentence insulted teachers very much as she treated teachers as a miserable creature who have no power at all or they should have been sympathized etc. They don’t have personality; they are thin, less smart, earn less etc. It refers that they should have been living with someone’s grant and they don’t have dignity at all. The meaning of such sentence is too serious in which teachers have been treated as a mean creature who have no power or capacity to do anything in front of political leaders. The sinister language from one of the responsible persons of the country is meaningful who had also served as the minister of Nepal government.

She might have thought that the leaders are respectable persons ignoring their activities in front of people. Being a ‘teacher’ and a commoner I want to characterize the leaders as following. We don’t regard leaders as good persons rather they are the illiterate, boastful, cheater, shameless, exploiter, corruptor, dacoits, extortionist, and so on. I can’t express all the words that people have used to characterize the Nepalese political leaders.

Let’s see all the characters individually; all the examples of the above adjectives can be described with proof. Everyone is aware about the educational qualifications of our leaders only a dozen have PhD qualifications with little evidence. There is a proof that only a boastful person can write such sentences in article. They are cheaters as they haven’t fulfilled the promise what they have done with their voters. They are shameless which can be a proof herself. They are exploiters that they have taken share of 5 crores as their share though the member of parliaments has the duty to frame rules not to implement the development programs.  They are corruptors the report of Transparency International report has proved it. They are dacoits which are proved by Shyam Sundar Gupta who is still in jail. They are extortionists which is a good example of herself and her colleagues that they killed teacher Mukti Adhikari in their so-called People’s War.

In spite of her understanding teaching is the best job in the world which she can’t understand. The teachers have wished best for their children; they are always with the success of the students. They have provided education to the small children so that they can see the world themselves.

Did she read herself or there were teachers to teach her? She didn’t respect teachers which may be right to complain but what is her morality? I guessed that she has developed such habit of so-called revolutionary and attack others when she didn’t respect her teachers or seniors. The revolutionaries think themselves above than others which can be reflected from her article about PKD. Her party killed 13000 people in the so called People’s War and the most heinous type of killing can be seen of Mukti Adhikari’s who was also a teacher. She might have some admonition towards teacher so they had done so. Her denouncement also proved that she some kind of hatred towards teachers.

I heard that she has been talking about the development of the country but ignores the fact that the pioneer person of the development. She is a political animal now without base at all. She won the first election first then loses it next time. Had she done well, she would have again won the election. She had taken election as a game ignoring her deeds so she lost the second election of being the third candidate. Still she doesn’t realize her position and denounced teachers using sinister language. I would like to question her: do teachers lose like her? Do they have to cheat others? Do they involve in corruption like her? Do they damage national politics? Do they stop the development projects? They have only given to others and help to produce manpower to the nation rupturing their existence.

She can be a best example of inefficient leader who have stopped the development process of the country from her proud nature. It means she can’t accept other’s existence of being so-called revolutionary. Does she know the power of teacher? They are like the candle who burn to spread the light to others. If the leaders could follow the teachers, they country was already developed before many years. Those who are simple and honest would be regarded as the worst one is the culture that the revolutionary would learn. Her ideas directly hurt the teachers who are the key of development.

Truly speaking she doesn’t have any respect to her teacher; it’s vain to celebrate teachers’ day by her. She is all in all herself and she has got certificates from the jungle. I think she has taken her certificates like Yarcha Gumba that she can find without any effort. It’s also shameful to be a teacher for her; if her teacher had seen it how would have he reacted? It’s a tragedy of our nation that the so-called leaders are so illiterate, half-wit, senseless and so on. Thanks god that she was also a student of the teacher.

She can’t understand the real aspects of teachers’ life. They don’t have anything to expect from others; they have given only; they have taken nothing from the students; they always wish for the progression of their students; they deliver same to all the students; they read for the sake of students. What they have read would be fruitful to the students like the thing that mother has eaten for her baby. So the relation of students and teachers is like child and mother. It seems that she has been doing fun of teacher and teaching which seems odd to her. She has been observing teachers from her vulture eyes like PKD, who is her political opponent or he is a son-of-step for her.

I can claim that no leaders can operate school nor can they teach the students; whereas the teachers can run the country. I can challenge her to go and handle class for one hour only. If I have been given opportunity to run the country, I will do certainly the better than her. On the other hand, her concept is sufficient to understand the understanding towards teacher by the political leaders. Such a responsible person would talk such irresponsible things; thus education is one of the neglected fields of the nation. In this way, we can’t develop our country.

Education is the key of development and teachers are the key to open the lock. Teacher and teaching is thus the best of jobs and it’s not the neglected profession in comparison to her so-called politics. I suggest her to respect teachers and teaching then only the aim of your politics can be fulfilled; neither should we understand her as a leader above mentioned adjectives. 

Indecision

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

‘A stitch in time saves nine’ is a popular proverb that makes us conscious all the time to take every moment valuable. Or it teaches us to utilize the moment of our life so that we can be benefitted in the future. Being careless in a small problem, we have created many, many mistakes in our life. It suggests us to do everything on time so that we can have better result in the future. In other words, it refers to the time to be utilized in our course of life. Or we must be conscious to recognize the moment which helps to save everything for the future.

The proverb is important that it suggests us to move utilizing the time or moment that comes ahead of us. Utilization of time is to dance according to the music. Or we have been keeping up with the demand of time so that we can get better result in the future. Time is an important element in our life. Unless we don’t use it well, we can’t achieve our goal. Time even influences us in every steps of life so we should be conscious regarding it.

The famous Irish poet, W B Yeats regarded time as an important factor in human life. It is powerful that can change us from young child to the old man. The poet has expressed some sorts of hatred towards time as it has made him old and useless. The time has power to make us more useful as well as one of the hated creatures. A child is lovely to all whereas an old man is hated due to the force of time.

We should be able to recognize the value of time. Or we should stitch in time to get further benefit. Those who can’t move ahead along with time will be back in their life. Our life span is short and transitory, thus we should utilize it fully to get the real flavor. Mostly, people would feel repentance when the time is spent which is useless. I have heard that most of the old people have forced their children to read and progress when they realize the fact that they have missed many, many opportunities in their life from reading.

The thing is that to go with the time we must have precise decision. As we have decided anything on time, we can have more opportunities than after. It’s necessary to move ahead with the sense of time to get the set goal. We people have the habit of deferring something for future ignoring the value of time. Since we have understood the importance of time we won’t miss it at any cost. We would also improve our habit of shifting duty for the future. Thus the decision on time would help to get much more opportunities in our life.

Delaying decision has created many, many problems; or that makes us lose many things at the same time. The first thing is that we can’t get the result what we can get. Secondly, we can’t start another work on time. Thirdly, we can’t keep our trust to others. Fourthly, we will be in dilemma for many days so it kills our time. Fifthly, we will have got mental tension.  On the other hand, decision helps us to go further either straight or with some alternatives.

The indecisive condition can also reflect our incapacity to deal with the problem. If we can solve any problem on time we can be the example of sound and effective mind. If the matter is related to public we can’t get the public support. The sound and effective decision on time would increase our credit which is full of reputation with many friends.

On the other hand, it’s better to decide though the decision can be wrong. It can help us in various ways. After all being humans we can have mistakes; no person is perfect himself/herself. Those who have worked would do mistakes. We shouldn’t face the above five situations or problems if we have timely decision. Moreover, it paves way to go further with new possibilities or opportunities. Justice delayed is justice denied. Thus the decision on time has many, many positive sides. We can focus our attention to new areas; we shouldn’t spend our valuable time; we shouldn’t take mental tension; we can be trusty to our friends; it also reflects our capacity.

Indecisiveness puts everyone or everything in confusion so we will lose various opportunities. Or we have to spend our valuable time in the same thing which is certain to happen. If we have capacity to decide on time, it sharpens our mind and our future is secure and full of possibilities. The decision of one matter can lead to other decisions that pave the way ahead. Hence, decision on time is like a stitch that saves us from other bad decisions. On the other hand, we should mend our shirt on time; neither will it be further damaged from small tearing or pores.

Timely decision makes us sound and rational; a rational mind is just opposite of idleness. Likewise, idleness doesn’t allow us to move ahead because it pushes us back. Once being back needs double efforts to go ahead which seems impossible. On the other hand, succession leads to success and failure needs much effort to be successful. An idle mind is the house of demons; we should act more to defeat the demon. The decision in time may have some mistakes; but the indecisiveness has various defects. Thus decision on time helps us to be clever and innovative. It can be also a lesson to change the course if life or we can move ahead with right decision. So it has double benefits or we can get sweets in two hands. 

Who need job?

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

The persons who have been working in any offices think that their job is not good for them as human habit performs. They think that the duty what they have been given is always burdensome for them and payment is always less. They have unlimited wants and the resource is limited so there is always a tussle between want and resource what they have. On the other hand, they have compared their situation along with others; maybe they have earned more or less; or maybe they are less/more skillful or educated; workers have been lacking something in their life irrespective of their need. People do duty to be sustained whereas they are reluctant to accept their duty as duty; rather they are always dissatisfied with their job and payment.

The main tussle can be seen with limited resources and unlimited wants or desires. The language of economics has divided need and want into two factions. They seem same but their meaning is just opposite. Need means the ability to pay to get something; want means something you can expect without your paying capacity. The persons have been guided by want, hence they are always ambitious and unsatisfied. It has been guiding them to be rebellious. As a result, they have got dissatisfied with the work what they have been doing. Unless workers can’t realize their limitations, they can’t get benefit from the work.

People can’t deny work as it has connection to their overall aspects of life. They work to be engaged and to get some money for sustenance. Neither would they remain idle; they don’t have anything to take meal, or to wear clothes, or to fulfill their basic needs. Why do they have such hatred to the work they have done? What may be the satisfying factor to them? Since time immemorial humans have been searching peace, happiness, prosperity etc. However, they can’t get it at any cost of being dissatisfied. When there is the development of the individual property which is the creation of modern world has put them in problem.

People work due to compulsion when they don’t have any possibility. They work for double benefits: to be rescued from idleness and to earn for their living. Skills, techniques, education, ability set their limitation. Human habit is that they want to work less and earn more which is a controversial factor of human subject. Skills, techniques, education and ability set limit to the ambition to earn more. In spite of various limitations, they are unable to understand it and are dissatisfied.

Unless they can’t identify the tussle of need and want, there is always a conflict between these two factors. People have started to work for the need; rather they exercise to meet their want. Their want is never fulfilled but need forces them to work. They have recognized their limitations with the skills, techniques, ability and education which they can’t apply in practice so are ambitious. Still they have tried to get much more than others guided by sub-conscious mind irrespective of limitations. Their conscious mind would work in search of job, while doing job their sub-conscious mind would work. Thus, we can find conflict between duty and ambition.

Workers need work to sustain themselves and their family whereas they have the habit of ignoring their duty frequently. They have tried to exchange with ambition or money. Those who have forgotten duty throughout the month would need money at last and the conflict would arise. The only way out is struggle, tussle, misunderstanding etc that invites conflict. Being rational animal we should have taken our duty as duty. We shouldn’t have the habit of fantasizing at the time of need. It makes us more irresponsible and we can’t get more unless we don’t work on time.

We should respect our work as it is pursuing by our need. If we can’t respect work it doesn’t provide anything. To get something from work we should fulfill our responsibility first. Hence, work is important for employer and employee. When their need comes to agreement they are ready to work. The need of both parties have released reliable outcome; then the work is done. If the workers neglect the work, it won’t have positive outcome; the employer should seek alternative which may not be in favor of workers.

The workers would feel that they could get work everywhere; however they don’t feel their limitations. It is said that skill, techniques, expertise, education are the pillars of work; these things only aren’t sufficient for us. If we quit job in one place and be engaged in other place, we will be new. We may have experienced but we can’t keep with the work due to new environment. We are novice in new place so that we have to begin from the beginning. On the one side, we are raw to the place and we can’t get grades and other benefits. The new place is new from all points of view.

In this way, workers and employer should have consideration that their decision of sub-conscious mind would be defective. Mostly, the workers should be conscious about the possible defects which have multiple effects. Employer establishes industry but it depends on employee to make it successful or failure. It’s a political or popular belief that the employers exploit employee. The consequence affects employee very much if the work industry is shut down. I have read a news on Kantipur Daily last time. Some clothe manufacturing company was closed by the employee in Bara district. The newspaper further wrote that the employee were out of work. There was a woman whose children would go to school without taking meal. They would ask leave in the school to go home at day time. The children made it clear that their mother would come home only at 12.00pm so they should go to home to take meal when the mother prepared meal. The teachers also stated that most of the children would come to school without meal. Hence, the condition of employee is too bad.

It’s a natural rule that the person who has invested would get some benefit in capitalistic society as s/he has invested money and time taking risk. However, the employees think that they have done for employer not for themselves. Hence the thought should be changed outrightly. The employer can close industry as it can’t be operated whereas employee can’t remain starved even one time a day. Though there is bilateral relation, the most sufferers is the employee. So we should respect work and fulfill our duty duly along with the need. 

An Irate Worker

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

There is a worker in my office who seems always angry and she never accepts the suggestion in her duty roster. She has the habit of complaining or rejecting, but there is no way out unless she completes the work what is assigned to her. She works when there is strong order to her though she has the habit of reacting. It is quite difficult for her to engage in work so the duty what she hasn’t realized is always a matter of headache to the administration.

Unless the force is used she doesn’t realize it so the use of it is her habit. It seems as if she is habituated to follow duty with force. It can be only the weapon that forces her to work. The workers’ mind is shaped in such a way that they need it as a dope in our culture. We have to guide them time and again so the duty is hectic and insurmountable. Rather the workers would seek their right forgetting their duty. Unless the workers aren’t able to realize their duty the meaning of work is useless.

I have always heard that the workers argue that the manager has favored some workers; they always think that they have been hated by the manager only. It helps to form the sense of alienation to them. No workers would accept that they have been favored by the manager. The question remains to whom the manager would favor. There is no answer at all so the controversy would always put me in dilemma. I think this as the issue that the manager should have realized.

For that the manager has to be prepared with different alternative ideas. The workers have questioned if they have to do the duty with some general alternatives; whereas the manager should have been prepared with the alternative that would make the workers do the work. Unless the manager isn’t prepared with alternatives, the workers would have found the loopholes and the manager would be failed. So the success of the manager would remain in this matter.

I have a friend who worked as a supervisor in UK. He had been recognized as one of the best supervisors and he got promotion and incentives from the company. He had also given me the evidence of his work so I should believe him. According to him the company has contracted with the owner to complete work on time. The supervisor should follow the time along with the management of the personnel.

He explained that the workers would quarrel time and again with him. But there was a system that nobody could attack others physically; rather they could quarrel or vomit their dissatisfaction. He stated that supervisor had the responsibility to make the workers do the work. The supervisor has the duty to choose right person for the right work; so the workers would be able to complete the work. He further explained that one of the black man workers was there and he should have given the difficult work for him as others couldn’t do that. Instead he came to quarrel with him saying that he wasn’t only the person in the company to work. Thus there is conflict with the supervisor and the worker. However, the work should have been completed on time and there was no other worker to do the work. He said that he should have convinced him for the work. Ultimately he was able to assure him and the work was completed on time. If the work wasn’t completed, the supervisor would be penalized.

The company instructs supervisor that he should complete the work on time and his duty was to guide the workers. If they don’t work the supervisor is responsible. The conflict of the worker or the manager can be seen from socio-political context. The need of the worker has connection with the job; and the need of the supervisor has connection with the worker.

The context of UK and Nepal may be different but the situation of workers was same. Or nobody would be able to fulfil the responsibility rather they would advocate for the right. The habit of worker is used to with the instructions, cheating, order, and with the money or salary ultimately. They would try to find the loopholes with the order, instruction, information and so on. We have faced many, many difficulties with the workers as they have created different problems. Sometimes they would have done strike; sometimes they would revolt against less salary; sometimes they would form union and so on. Thus the manager should be used to with the condition of the workers.

One of the persons who had returned from Dubai explained me that the company would cut two days salary if s/he was absent without information. Money is the matter and he was forced to work for the payment. The matter was that he was that he was forced to work for the money. On the other hand, we should be able to complete the work on time which can be defective to the manager and the worker both. So the meeting point is the salary and they should come to the agreement.

I realized that the worker wouldn’t work unless they aren’t forced. There is a popular system in labor ‘no work no pay’ or ‘hire and fire system’. These two things would come together in the field. If there is no work we shouldn’t pay for the worker. Hence they are forced to work. If we have let the workers freely, they won’t be able to complete their work. So the rule is made to force the workers work duly.

Let’s leave the conflict aside, the motto of the worker and the manager has met at some point and the work is possible. We should follow the rule to complete work on time; neither both of them would be in problem. On the other hand, the ‘hire and fire system’ is also made to force the worker and the manager to come to the meeting point. If we see from manager’s side it’s a king of threat as s/he wouldn’t be able to appoint the right worker on right work the system only doesn’t work. S/he should be able to find the right man and to train them again. As a corollary, the condition of the manager and the worker has got interconnection.

Finally, I want to conclude that the workers are worker unless we don’t use force they do nothing else. On the other hand, the supervisor is also a kind of worker. We have been bounded by time and money puts us together. Or we have been depending on each other. Thus the final point is coordination which helps us to meet the goal. 

Incentive or Bribery

By: Prem Prasad Sigdel

It is quite difficult to make the labors work as they are necessary for the work and their habit of cheating. Nobody can understand and there is no boundary which work is more fit to which situation. Since it is in the hand of the worker, they are the manager to handle the work. We can’t understand their heart neither can we work ourselves. Ultimately, it is the human subject that we have to deal with. The workers seem busy and nobody can question what they have been doing. Finally, the work should have been completed on time whether it is meaningful or meaningless.

It is quite difficult for the manual worker to engage regularly. Unless we don’t press them they would try to escape from the work. If we press more, they would escape from the duty. There is controversy with the use of pressure on the workers. Sometimes it may be positive; sometimes it may be regressive. If they have escaped from the duty, the work won’t be completed on time. They have the habit of deferring though the supervisor would supervise them regularly. The single effort of the supervisor is also not so fruitful unless the workers don’t follow duty properly. It’s quite difficult to identify the key.

On the one hand, we should pursue the time and we should encourage the worker for the work. On the other hand, we can’t make them work; nor can we suspend them from the work as time constrain. The only way is to complete work on time is to make the human subject happy with the incentives. If we think otherwise it is a kind of bribery. The controversy of incentive and the bribery is quite mysterious.

The situation happened in our institution where I proposed to give some incentives to the workers. According to the proposal, they would be called in the morning and the company would offer them meal to them. It made me think twice. What can I call the incentive given to them? Is it incentive or bribery? Unless we don’t pay them the work would be late; but we need to complete the work on time. If the work hasn’t been completed on time, there would be other problem. If we don’t pay them extra, they won’t work duly and fast. What can I call the money paid to them? I am in confusion.

The incentive is given to the worker to make them more active and to concentrate on their work. It is one of the ways to complete work on time. On the other hand, we have been bribing them. What is right or wrong? There are different possibilities that we have to think. If we complete work on time, it has positive result. The completed work can have better outcome than the money we have paid. On the other hand, it is a kind of bribery that we have done.

After all, I would like to call it as bribery but it is a different way to pay for the workers. The workers have been given salary still we have paid them again. If we pay again to them it is an illegal amount. Scholars have tried to find the difference between incentive and bribery. Whether they are synonyms or antonyms I can’t understand. It may be ethical but the payment it illegal. Since they have been given the duty, it should have been completed on time. The context is like two edged weapon thus I am indecisive. The words are quite different yet coincide each other.

The situation is confusing, ethical, illegal, controversy, yet real from my side. I am in confusion regarding incentives and bribery; ethical from the side of the completion of work on time; controversy due to the legality or illegality; illegal due to the illicit payment; real as it has been paid to complete on time. However, the payment is illicit; yet it is compulsory to run with the time. Our culture has been set in such a way that the workers would expect money from other ways.

Finally, we can say that the work which has been done by the authoritarian is legal; whereas it is illegal when it is done by the commoner. The same context can be seen with the debate of incentives or bribery. The developed countries call it as incentive or overtime allowance; we would call it as bribery as we have to move with limited resources.