Amidst the common understanding that there is no development in Nepal, the social and human development statistics have taken a significant leap. Significant progress has also been made towards physical infrastructure. Wide and loud roads, skyscrapers, tourist infrastructure, adequate irrigation, multi-use of water resources, clean and protected environment are underdeveloped by imagination or comparison. In some cases, the beginning in the name of development has become a curse.

Development as understood by the common man is the development of infrastructure, which is waiting for the day to turn the tide. All the small infrastructure projects have not been completed on time. Questions have also been raised about the validity of those that have been completed or are in the final stages. There are thousands of plans, and it is a ridiculous situation that all get priority. There is a rush to start projects worth crores by allocating lakhs.

Source assurance on paper but there is confusion as to from which source and when the payment for half the work will be done. In fact, the aid that came for development was not unconditional and one form. Actually used. It was only natural for development partners to receive assistance in areas of interest. Outside of the national budget system and out of alignment with priorities, there was no momentum. Even from the point of view of job creation and technology transfer, most of the aid funds were returned.

Our law is considered to be prepared according to the latest procurement principles established in the world with the help of the World Bank. However, since there is a provision in the aid plan of donor agencies to apply their own procurement 'guidelines', procurement arrangements are different even for the same type of work. The process is very long and complicated due to having to take 'no objection' i.e. consent from the lender step by step.

In recent times, there was a rule that only five jobs can be taken at a time in the construction sector, but according to the law, this was not applicable to projects funded by donor agencies. But since most of the development projects are funded by donor agencies, it was only used to create inconsistency. 

projects operate through bilateral and multilateral collaborations and agreements, so conflicts are common. Instead of a simple and time-bound system of dispute resolution, the pitfall we have created is the practice of delaying, entangling, forcing, and not letting it out by drowning it in legal language.

Due to this swamp, big projects have suffered huge losses and big investors could not be brought in. There is no practice of getting compensation even for the land that has red parts for investment by the Nepal government. When acquiring land through voluntary land donation and in some cases through the use of force, there is a situation where there is a need to compromise on the design and security of infrastructure such as roads.

On the other hand, in the absence of a proper compensation policy, the marginalized communities suffer more. The state is getting away with paying reparations and lump sums. The development administration has not entered into the rehabilitation and rehabilitation of the displaced. The tears of the needy and those who have no access to big infrastructure and the benefit of the masses was not a topic of discussion. Although periodical plans are prepared along with the adoption of planned development, institutional and professional practice of development administration is not seen. Even today, there are disagreements in principle whether development activities can be carried out through the development of administration or whether development administration can be a separate or specific category. 

The practice of aggregating the scattered development tasks and interrelated issues from the departmental development administration through the authority model is in vogue in other countries. Even in Nepal, there are no authorities that give average results, but they are running in the shadow of politics.

Nepal's development program is in a sense 'suffering' from the audit and monitoring system. While the result should be cooperative. Having about three dozen monitoring and supervision agencies and mechanisms is not an effective monitoring in itself. The psychological gap and friction of mistrust created due to the technical knowledge gap between the development administrator and the general administrator is also hampering our 'development'. While the technical examination is only nominal, the constitutional and legal basis of the audit is theoretical. There is a common understanding that

plans are rushed into production without adequate preparation. In fact, it seems that a 'discourse' has to be conducted on what preparation is. It can be said that the Planning Commission and the Ministry of Finance consider this to be preparatory work as they have given multi-year resource consent for DPR, land acquisition and environmental studies. According to the procurement regulations, the construction site must be available, meaning that if the tree has to be cut, it must have been done, and if it is private land, it must have been acquired. 

There is a lot of theoretical ambiguity and practical confusion in the name of tenure and forest development fund. It is seen that even the plans that have been decided by the Council of Ministers and approved by the Parliament have not been implemented. Apart from hydroelectricity, every infrastructure project constructed by the Nepalese government is of a social nature.

In this, there is no direct return as in commercial projects, but there is a law to give the same amount of land or to deposit money into the fund for using the forest area. Even though the government itself is the proponent of the project, some projects have not been completed even though they are unable to collect funds or give land. It seems impossible that all these water lilies will contract in our system like a lake of marijuana. 

development crisis period 

For development administration, do you need a technician who does 'development work' and a development administrator who does 'leadership' or do you need a professional development administrator? In the context of Nepal, development employers are tied or jailed to make decisions. Helpers, Facilitators and Co-ordinators are seen as Judges and Decision Makers as innocent Facilitators. 

The administrator was given a blank book called Development Administration but was never taught the technical knowledge. Also, administrators have to work not only in development work, but also in all areas including peace and security, defense, finance, trade, and commerce. Professional development can be envisioned by administrators. Development administration cannot give the expected results only by changing the responsibilities and powers in the existing structure. For example, the manager who successfully completed the 20 billion hydropower project will be eligible for another 30 billion project, or should everyone have a turn in a large and attractive project like administrative work? The second practice in Nepal is institutional.

Just as profit-oriented banks hire and fire high-yielding managers with millions of salary benefits, is our development administration ready to do the same? Can it be assumed that the salary of Budhigandaki project chief is comparable to the CEO of a commercial bank? Can you imagine the safety of those who work at night, do not get leave, in complex geography, underground, underwater, involved in risky work including explosives and inflammable materials, facilities and insurance? When will it be understood that the work to be done by