Jamak was a beautiful moment of the evening. It was raining incessantly from the sky. At the bottom of the house, the mother was grinding corn in a threshing floor. The father lit the lantern when the mellow light of Panas did not reach him. Grandfather, father, we three brothers and the teacher who taught us at home were always enjoying the evening conversation.

Breaking the spiritual void, father suddenly asked a serious question - 'Father, what is mother doing?'

Even though I don't have a literal memory of that moment when I was just getting my secondary education, its emotional impact and the seeds of educational thought are still blooming today. As our conversation progressed, father asked again in a serious voice – imagine, what would happen if it was a state of corn and sorghum? I insisted Bal Sulabh. How can this be the state of our wheat and corn? Then the father patiently began an in-depth explanation of the philosophy of life, Father, I was presenting an illustration to illustrate the inextricable relationship between life and state thought.

As long as this wheat and corn is ours, its operation is natural, smooth and continuous. It grinds corn and only occasionally grinds wheat. But imagine, if this mill were of a state, it would sometimes grind the corn, sometimes only the weed, sometimes both together. Sometimes it was inactive. Sometimes, even the teeth of the jackal would be scratched by wandering around without me. Sometimes all the corn was roasted without grinding. Sometimes the mani and the hands would not sit properly and would move uncontrollably, creating a commotion.

I found the parable of the father mysterious. I asked in amazement, 'Why and how?' Father and Guru explained its meaning in turn and said that both the state and the family are the fundamental and basic institutions of society, but their form, purpose, operation method and dimensions of influence are as different as the heavens and the earth.

The family is a practice of self-righteousness, where family rule is governed by responsibility, love and relationship rather than rules. In the heart of parents, no other thought can last beyond the happiness of their children. Because there is both love and dedication at the core of the relationship. Family decision-making is simple, direct and even disinterested. A family's daily expenses, children's education and household decisions are naturally governed by consensus. 

Giving a glimpse of the complexity of state management and the intricacies of Rajdharma, they began to say, quoting the mystical episodes of Mahabharata - Fathers, Dharmaraja Yudhishthira, who is considered to be the symbol of truth, justice and religion, he himself was forced to tell a half-truth that he died in Ashwattha in order to mislead his guru Dronacharya during the war.

Although dead Ashwattha was not Drona's son but an elephant. Similarly, Kauravasena killed the 16-year-old unarmed Abhimanyu by trapping him in a crooked chakravyuha and striking him from the surface. When Hanumanji burned Lanka, not only the abode of demons but also the innocent vegetation was burnt.

Remembering the heartbreaking events like Kot Parva and Bhandar Khal Parva in the history of Nepal, they started saying - In order to gain government power, the blood of hundreds of innocent citizens was shed in such events in Nepal. Such events were not just political conspiracies. They were vivid examples of a profound warning of how brutal, dark and inhumane the governance of the state can be in the absence of policy, morality and conscience. 

This parable of an uneducated father is not just a story of family experience, but a poignant document of political philosophy, reflecting the complex realities of statecraft. This parable was not only intended to show the complexity of the governance system from the simple operation of a household device, it was the moral awareness of the subtle distinction between Rajdharma and Rajkarma, the necessity of balance of power and prudent operation. There was a warning about how the state system itself can become a factor of destruction when there is a lack of conscience, policy-blindness and restraint in the governance cycle.

At that time, how could I understand the depth of this story? But today I know, that story has changed my life ideologically. University classrooms and textbooks taught me the definition and techniques of governance, but I learned the essence of state management and the nuances of people's expectations from my father's example. The janto of the house became a metaphor for the state. The form of corn public expectations. Patterns of hand and hand policies and mechanisms. My mother is a living symbol of state governance. 

When I reached the hallowed court of the Supreme Court in the course of work, the sad cry of injustice hidden in the shadow of law made my father's illustration more alive. After that, when I was not an elected official and connected with the people as a local development officer, I realized that the state system is a rhythmic structure based on power, balance and discipline. When these foundations are weakened, the bureaucracy begins to undermine the values and morals of the state.

The real meaning of my father's parable was further understood by me when I was working in a specific category of civil service. It is indeed a difficult task to turn the wheels of the state in a right rhythm, at a balanced pace and in a fair manner. In some cases, this machine moves so mercilessly and blindly that sometimes the dreams of innocent devotees are dashed, sometimes even though the corn of truth appears to have been ground, only the mite of illusion is ground. Sometimes, the system itself flows directionlessly in the fog of half-truths called 'Ashwatthama Hoto-Hat'. 

This real experience of life taught me that the adage that 'Rajdharma: Hard: Always' is not just a rhetoric of Rajyashastra, but a bitter reality. Because the conflict between policy and practice is a daily challenge in the governance process. Even in the calm of retirement, the same question haunts me again, have we really learned to run the government in a fair and prudent way? Or are we still stuck in that unintelligible vision of childhood, where the vision to distinguish the subtle difference between corn and weed is still incomplete? 

Clear answers to such complex questions are not only difficult to give from this short article, but often impossible. However, in short, turning the wheel of the state in the right way is not just a technical or procedural act, it is an intensive, coordinated and sensitive process carried out through deep socio-political adjustments, strategic balance and prudent decisions. There are inherent complexities in the running of the state, and the task of breaking through those complexities is not as easy as we might think from the point of view of ordinary citizens. There are basically three main reasons for these complications.

The first reason: According to complexity theory, the state system is not a stable and simple structure, it is a complex, multifaceted and interdependent system. It is not just an administrative apparatus, it is a structure based on the coordination of various levels, bodies and parties, where numerous interests, oppositions and conflicts are embedded. Decisions arising from such a structure have multi-level effects, in which not only the expected results, but also unexpected, harmful or adverse socio-economic-political effects may appear. 

The nature of politics is such that policies or programs designed to solve the same problem can sometimes have positive, sometimes unexpected and sometimes negative effects. While the same decision proves to be beneficial for one section, it can be a serious loss for another section. It is therefore not easy to draw preconceived conclusions of policy implications.

The practice of Rajdharma does not stick to the boundaries of black and white. Its practice often falls within the 'grey area', based on a combination of discretion, contextual knowledge, time awareness and practical common sense. Therefore, the state administration, especially the policy making and implementation process cannot proceed according to any fixed formula or mechanical system, it requires the utmost discretion, flexibility and sensitive adjustment.

The second reason: Any structure of government tends to centralize power, which eventually pushes the system under the control of a minority of elites. As noted by the famous sociologist Robert Mitchells in his book 'Iron Law of Oligarchy', even a people-centered government system like democracy is highly likely to come under the control of a minority of elites over time.

Under the guise of democracy, policy-making, resource distribution and power management often become concentrated in the control of a small, organized and influential group. The viewpoints, priorities and interests of the main actors involved in state management – politicians, administrators, citizens, private sector, media, international partners – are often in conflict with each other. Such conflicts create a situation where the strategy of power concentration dominates the policy-making process rather than fairness.

Elites who have reached the core of power do not hesitate to use devious diplomatic methods such as informal networks, nepotism, factional alliances, party favoritism and economic alliances to reproduce power. In such a situation, policies are more likely to focus on the short-term benefits of a particular class rather than the long-term needs of the public. This has a profound impact of elitism on the governance process, which can threaten the very core of good governance.

Third reason: Bureaucracy, which is considered the backbone of state administration, is itself turning into a major source of policy chaos. The main purpose of the administrative mechanism is policy implementation, service delivery and governance, but in practice excessive rules, unclear procedures and redundant approval systems have made the decision-making process slow, complicated and ineffective. Every step from policy-making to implementation is plagued by unnecessary formality, red tape and process-oriented thinking. Due to the excessive numerical burden of regulations, ambiguous legal language, unclear procedures and mutually contradictory provisions, the administrative machinery seems to be trapped in a kind of regulatory maze. 

In such a system, decisions are confined to the top level, people's voices are neither heard nor reflected in decisions. As a result, for citizens, the government is visually present but absent in effect. Most policies are born on paper and die on paper. Lack of such administrative pragmatism creates an atmosphere of lifelessness and mistrust in the governance system.

This is why statecraft is not just an administrative process, but a complex statecraft, requiring a sensitive balance between policy and ethics, practice and consequence, logic and sacrifice. This balance is the soul of good governance. For this reason, theoretical correctness alone is not enough in politics, a combination of practical realism and contextual sensitivity is essential.

Policy-making becomes a conduit of public interest only when it is based on a proper coordination of theoretical clarity, moral direction and practicality capable of implementation. Therefore, a strong confluence of four basic elements is required to turn the state in a balanced, fair and responsive manner - strong political will, implementable policy, people-oriented government mechanism and visionary, service-oriented and ethical leadership. 

First, the key to political reform is strong political will. It is only on the basis of this will that tangible transformation of an inclusive, participatory, responsive, decentralized and just governance system is possible. In the entire process of efficient state management, the strong use of political wisdom and political prudence is mandatory. For the strengthening of good governance, strong willpower, a deep sense of responsibility and a strong political will that can reawaken collective conscience are indispensable. 

Secondly, for efficient state management, implementable, equitable and change-oriented policy-making is essential. The policy-making process needs to be pragmatic, public-interest and strategic, capable of addressing the nuanced sensitivities and multidimensional interrelationships of public expectations. Practices such as small-scale testing, accurate evaluation of results, public participation and use of subject expertise are inclusive of policy at the initial stage of policy-making. 

Thirdly, without the construction of an effective, active and people-oriented government system, the state cannot be made accountable and citizen-friendly. The essence of the governance system is not only policy formulation, but also its timely, quality and fair implementation. Only when governance structures are institutionalized and result-oriented, state policies are translated into practice and public confidence in governance expands. Where governance mechanisms are disorganized and incoherent, the ideals of good governance become mere slogans.