By Babu Kular Khongjirem
Favouritism is one of the most damaging social evils, undermining human values, weakening justice and gradually eroding the foundations of society. When individuals are given preference at the expense of others, fairness, honesty and truth are compromised.
This practice can be found in families, clans, villages, traditional institutions, political organisations, religious bodies and systems of governance. Over time, it damages relationships, weakens mutual trust and creates divisions within communities.
Those who benefit from favouritism may enjoy the privileges that come with their closeness to people in authority. However, those who are unfairly excluded are often left disappointed, humiliated and deprived of opportunities and rights they may legitimately deserve.
Favouritism can begin within the family itself. Some parents discriminate among their children, while certain relatives misuse their influence to benefit themselves or those closest to them. In such circumstances, personal interests take precedence over fairness, and truth is sacrificed for individual gain.
The same problem can affect clans, villages, raids and traditional institutions. From village headmen and sordars to traditional chiefs, those entrusted with leadership responsibilities are expected to treat everyone fairly. When leaders favour particular individuals or groups, they undermine the dignity of their offices and weaken the trust placed in them by the community.
In politics, favouritism can become particularly visible when government assistance and public resources are distributed according to political loyalty rather than genuine need. Supporters of political leaders and parties may receive repeated benefits, while others are overlooked despite facing serious hardships.
For instance, some supporters of MDCs, MLAs or ministers may repeatedly receive housing grants, roofing materials and other forms of assistance even when they already possess substantial houses. Meanwhile, impoverished families living under leaking plastic sheets, sometimes with livestock entering their homes, may remain without assistance for years.
Public welfare schemes should be guided by transparent criteria, financial need and eligibility, rather than political connections or personal relationships. When deserving families are excluded because they lack influence, the very purpose of social welfare is defeated.
One of the most concerning forms of favouritism occurs in recruitment and appointments.
When ministers, legislators, directors, institutional heads or management representatives favour particular candidates, the fairness of the selection process can be called into question. Other applicants may find themselves at a disadvantage regardless of their qualifications, experience or performance.
Allegations of predetermined appointments, manipulated interview marks and unfair selection practices undermine public confidence in recruitment systems. When candidates who perform poorly are allegedly awarded unusually high marks because of personal connections, the value of merit and academic achievement is diminished.
Qualifications such as an MBA, MSc, MA or MCom may mean little if appointments are decided on the basis of favouritism rather than competence. A qualified candidate may lose an opportunity to someone less suited to the position, while thousands of applicants may spend considerable time, money and energy pursuing opportunities in which they have little genuine chance of fair consideration.
Such practices, when established, can damage institutions, discourage capable young people and weaken the quality of public service.
Favouritism can also undermine personal integrity. Those who repeatedly engage in deception, manipulation and unfair treatment risk losing sight of the principles of honesty and accountability. They may maintain an outward appearance of respectability, but their actions can reveal a failure to uphold the values they publicly claim to defend.
It is particularly painful when favouritism enters religious institutions. Religious leaders are expected to promote justice, compassion, equality and humility. When their administrative decisions or personal conduct contradict these principles, they risk weakening the faith and trust of the people they serve. As the saying goes, only the person wearing the shoe knows where it pinches.
We must also remember that actions have consequences. Injustice can leave lasting wounds, damage relationships and create resentment that continues across generations. From a religious perspective, no wrongdoing remains hidden from God, even when human beings fail to recognise it. Those entrusted with authority should therefore exercise it with humility, honesty and a sense of responsibility.
Favouritism must be rejected in every sphere of life, whether within families, traditional institutions, political organisations, religious bodies or government departments. Leaders must be accountable for their decisions, recruitment procedures must be transparent, and public assistance must reach those who genuinely need it.
Ultimately, the strength of a society depends not on the privileges enjoyed by a few, but on the fairness with which all its members are treated. We must ensure that personal relationships, political loyalty and individual interests do not take precedence over justice and the common good.
No amount of outward respectability can erase the damage caused by dishonesty and discrimination. Even when disguised as kindness, loyalty or personal obligation, favouritism remains a form of corruption that can be deeply destructive to society.
A just society begins when fairness is valued above personal connections, merit above loyalty, and the common good above individual gain.
