RAJA7 and Durga: Recognising Our Own Conflict of Interest

We have agreed to help select participants for a small community performance. Then we see a familiar name on the list: a close relative whose preparation we have encouraged for weeks. In this reflection on RAJA7, we at Ishta Mel consider a responsibility that begins before any choice is announced. Remembering Durga, we ask for the courage to recognise when our personal connection and our decision-making role have become entangled, and to act clearly while the decision is still open.

Why does our connection matter?

A conflict of interest can arise when something we personally want overlaps with authority entrusted to us for a wider purpose. We may want our relative to feel encouraged, our friend to receive recognition, or our own earlier recommendation to appear wise. The difficulty is that these wishes can pull on a decision that should serve the purpose of the shared activity.

We do not need to discover bad intentions before acknowledging the conflict. Affection can influence what we notice: we remember one person's effort in detail while seeing only the final work of another. We may explain away a familiar person's weakness because we know their circumstances. Someone less familiar may receive no such generous explanation, even though their circumstances are equally complex.

In a conversation around RAJA7, this gives us a particular question about fair conduct: where does our own involvement make the responsibility harder to carry impartially? We are looking at the position we occupy, not merely telling other people to behave well. Recognising that position early creates room for a practical response before anyone feels compelled to defend a completed decision.

Say what is relevant before the choice is made

The first useful action is a clear statement to the people sharing responsibility. “One participant is my niece, and I have helped her prepare. I should not make the decision about her selection.” This identifies the connection and its relevance without asking others to guess. We can keep the statement factual and avoid turning disclosure into a long account of our personal virtue.

Timing matters. If we mention the connection only after announcing the result, others have already had to rely on a decision they could not properly assess. Speaking before the choice allows the group to arrange an independent decision-maker. It also makes the next step easier to explain to participants, because the process has been considered while the outcome remains unknown.

Disclosure should be followed by an appropriate change in our role. Merely saying “I know this person, but I can be fair” leaves the same competing pressures in place. In our example, another volunteer can assess that selection while we handle an unrelated practical task. The response can be proportionate to the situation, but it should actually reduce our influence on the decision concerned.

Step aside from the influence as well as the title

Handing over the decision means allowing the other person to exercise their judgement. We should not continue recommending the preferred outcome privately, interpreting every uncertain point in our relative's favour, or repeatedly asking whether the decision is nearly made. These actions could retain the influence we said we were setting aside. Our conduct needs to match the boundary we have described.

We can provide information that is genuinely required, in the same clear form available for other participants. After that, we leave space for an independent assessment. If the group lacks someone sufficiently separate from the situation, it can arrange for another suitable person to help or postpone the particular choice. The important point is to acknowledge the difficulty rather than quietly treating our personal assurance as its solution.

Remembering Durga, we can ask for strength to tolerate that loss of control. Stepping aside may feel uncomfortable because we care about the person involved and cannot shape the result. Yet the courage needed here is the willingness to let a shared responsibility be carried without our preferred outcome directing it. We protect the meaning of the role by recognising where we should not exercise it.

Remain consistent when the result arrives

An independent decision may favour our relative or may not. Our response should not reveal that we accepted independence only on condition of a pleasing result. If the person is not selected, we can offer ordinary affection and encouragement without discrediting the volunteers. If the person is selected, we can acknowledge their effort without suggesting that our position helped secure the choice.

The same principle applies when the personal interest is less obvious. Perhaps we strongly promoted a particular proposal and now hold authority to review alternatives. We may feel attached to proving that our earlier recommendation was correct. Naming this attachment can help us identify whether another person should lead the comparison. Pride in a past opinion can create pressure even when no family connection is involved.

We can also remain available for responsibilities that are unaffected by the conflict. Arranging chairs, sharing general information, or helping the event run smoothly may still be appropriate. Stepping aside from one choice need not become a dramatic withdrawal from the whole group. A precise boundary often allows us to contribute more usefully because others understand which decisions are independent of our influence.

Make the next occasion easier to handle

Afterwards, the group can agree on a simple habit: before assigning decision-making roles, ask whether anyone has a personal connection or interest relevant to the choice. People should be able to answer without ridicule. If disclosure is treated as an admission of disgrace, members may become reluctant to speak. A calm response makes responsible action easier on the next occasion.

For our own reflection, we can ask three questions before accepting authority: what outcome do I personally want, what connection could others reasonably need to know, and which part of this decision should someone else carry? These questions are useful precisely because we can ask them before confidence in our own fairness becomes the only safeguard we consider.

When RAJA7 brings competition and responsibility to mind, we can remember Durga and practise a form of strength that includes restraint. We name the connection, arrange genuine independence, and allow the result to stand on the work being considered. Authority is then held with awareness of its limits. Our contribution lies partly in knowing when the clearest, fairest action is to give a particular decision to someone else.