The Lazy Third Eye: Reclaiming Student Democracy

What are the rights and duties of the administrator and the administered? This short question has haunted public intellectuals, and a great many treatises have attempted to shape an inherently complicated boulder into a palatable sculpture. I make no attempt to draw a parallel to any of the works through this effort, however. 

What I do aim to achieve through this series, however, is to convince you that the way decisions are being made in IIIT benefits no one, least of all the students. At the same time, there is no system, no villain, that one has to fight against except our own lethargy and apathy. There is some sense of a false dichotomy that exists in the imagination of most students that pits the administration against the students, each presumably serving to accomplish their own needs. In truth, this is largely a misunderstanding that is perpetuated by the manner and method of decision-making that a large number of students have witnessed. What does the administration have to benefit if they serve worse food in the mess? If nothing, it serves to only worsen the image of the institute in the coming years, which, I am sure, is an end no competent administrator wants. (The decision of whether the administrators in charge of IIIT are competent or not is something I leave to the judgment of the readers.)

“Ask not what [IIIT] can do for you, ask what you can do for IIIT”

~ John F. Kennedy, paraphrased

No academic institute can run without the cooperation of the students who, without any doubt, form the largest single body of stakeholders. However, it is a problem when the largest stakeholder feels the need to not show up when their representation is asked, even begged for. In the paraphrased words of someone who has worked closely with the administration, students have started considering the college as a service provider, instead of seeing themselves as an equal part of the institution. It is the results of this separation that can be seen now.

The 2025 Student Parliament elections will probably enter the (small) record books, where nomination seats are empty for UG3 and UG4; however, for those who were observant, this is not an oddity. Rather, it follows a consistent pattern of student disengagement from administrative affairs, from the lack of participation in the Faculty-Student Interaction Sessions (FSIS) that happen every year, to the haphazardly-convened meetings with the mess committee members. It was only the absurdity of a frog in a chicken biryani that could disturb the student body collectively out of a slumber, and even that was a mere blip in the spectrum of things. We might joke about it in private, but hardly anyone steps forward to do something.

Even if one chooses to disassociate themselves from such so-called controversial discussions, there is still a cloud of responsibility that hangs over everyone’s head. There are little things that demonstrate this sense of responsibility towards one’s place of study — the bare minimum being keeping the place clean for all. More often than not, litter is strewn around, even in the presence of dustbins merely a few feet away. Overflowing dustbins are left to flow like a fountain of trash, with residue being left outside the dustbin and not inside. Toilets inside hostels and academic blocks are left with human excreta inside or even around the rim of the bowl when the previous users fail to properly flush and clean the mess. Washing machines bear the signs of an abusive relationship: broken half the time, dirty most of the others, and having to bear the dirty laundry of everyone (okay, maybe the analogy was stretched too far). 

These might seem like little things; however, it is the indifference to this that is an indicator of larger matters. We must not deflect the blame to others in this regard, for the fault is of the student community, even if it may not be us who commits this. It is our duty and responsibility to hold ourselves to the highest standards; only then can we have the right to demand the highest standards from others.

“Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”

~ Sir Winston Churchill

The Student Parliament was first formed in 2001. In its initial years, it served as a body to bridge between the students and the administration, doing everything from organizing cultural events to communicating academic updates and everything in between. Arising from a past culture where the students and the faculty were very closely bonded due to the nature of the establishment, the Student Parliament has evolved over the years to adjust to the needs and demands of the burgeoning student body.

Perhaps the most drastic shift in the operation of the Student Parliament has come about after COVID-19. While our previous reporting on the matter ended on a hopeful note, it is with hindsight that one can say that not much has changed in the intervening years. There have been various attempts to rectify the situation; however, the fact still remains that the actions of the Student Parliament remain privy to only those who choose to ask their representatives what they have done for them. And these problems are not new — Ping! itself has reported on such inactiveness previously, as early as 2013. This is not to levy the blame on any particular member or the process of election, rather the mindset with which most students see the Parliament, and this is not something that can be corrected through the imposition of any single person’s moral code, but rather the collective moral code of the student body.

To begin with, one can peek at the most pertinent change that was proposed by the then Student Parliament — a lack of publicity. Social Media was the solution drummed up to solve the lack of transparency and publicity around the entire Student Parliament. Quoting from the article, “The Parliament felt that a misconception was prevalent amongst the students with limited contact with the MPs and that they considered the Parliament ineffective and opaque.” On its own, it sounds like a reasonable conclusion to come up with, given that the Parliament should maintain transparency about its dealings with the administration, and social media is something that everyone uses rather frequently. After the initial enthusiasm, however, there has been a significant drop in the frequency of posts. Updates are now reduced to once a semester, and even those are incomplete — for example, there is no summary of the mess kerfuffle in the winter 2024 summary post.

The annual report, a staple feature of the Student Parliament, has not been published for the 2023-24 term, despite assurances and promises. Meeting minutes are published for only those meetings that the Parliament thinks are important for the rest of the public to be aware of, with a very arbitrary definition of important. When asked why this is the case, the oft-repeated reason is the lack of manpower, which begs the question: why are people standing for the Parliament if they cannot fulfill their duties? These and more are questions we should be asking our representatives, but they go scot-free precisely because no one holds them accountable for doing justice to their position.

There are several sides to this question, and putting the blame on a single person or entity is akin to the parable of the blind men encountering an elephant. The mess has understandably taken a significant mindshare of the Student Parliament, leading to members proclaiming that they had been reduced to the Mess Committee at one point. It did not help that the outgoing UG4 batch had started absolving responsibilities towards the rest of the Parliament, and several UG2 members felt the academic load and reduced their role in the Parliament, leaving much of the brunt to be faced by a few members. This directly led to the burnout of at least 1 member of the Parliament, and it has contributed to the lackluster functioning of the rest of the Parliament.

Another major issue is the chasm between UG and PG students. While this is a large topic to cover and is out of scope for this article, it is undeniable that casual interactions between UG and PG students are fairly limited. Coupled with the ground reality of UG students being more entrenched in the system and being able to sway more people due to their presence, there is a systemic underrepresentation of PG students.

Multiple Parliament members have confirmed that there is enthusiasm amongst PG students; however, they don’t know how to channel it. When asked about it, Pradeep Pal, Ph.D. student and former General Secretary, agrees with the overall sentiment, adding that his appointment as General Secretary led to several PG students joining the parliament in the next session. He noted that PG students themselves are relatively reluctant to take initiative, preferring to spend more time on work that helps them academically, like coursework or research, and that the Student Parliament should be more proactive in reaching out to PG students in particular. 

He also recommended that the Student Parliament appoint PG students to chairs for hostel, mess, and academic committees, given their experiences in other academic setups with similar conditions. This would also encourage greater PG participation, as it indicates that the Student Parliament is a far more inclusive body than it may otherwise seem. It is also not out of precedent — there have been cases of rare but exceptional participation from PG students. Pradeep Pal himself follows the footsteps of Ankit, the first PG General Secretary elected in 2019, and looks up to his tenure as a model of how the Student Parliament should function. Under Ankit, the Student Parliament handled a number of highly important issues, including but not limited to: the COVID-19 crisis, including the timely suspension of in-person classes, evacuating hostels in an orderly manner; started dialogue on issues like hostel cross-entry and the CAA-NRC laws; and uncovering irregularities like the water bills that were consequently refunded to students. Another case that Pradeep cites is of Rhitesh, who, as a PG1 student, was made the chair of the StallComm on the recommendation of Pradeep. In his words, Rhitesh brought maturity to the role, with notable contributions including ensuring that canteen prices are not hiked irregularly and helping out in the movement of stalls from the guest house to the BBC area amicably.

However, it is worth giving credit where credit is due. The hostel and health committees have usually been up to the task. The hostel committee, in particular, is the largest and most well-represented committee in the Student Parliament, and this shows in the breadth of issues handled by the committee. The health committee is similarly proactive, and fortunately, doesn’t have too much on its plate currently. It is also ably assisted by the administration, with the respective institute committees being proactive and actively taking students into consideration for decision-making, not just the dissemination of information. Prof. Radhika Mamidi has on several occasions ended her email asking for approval of the Student Parliament for proceeding ahead with decisions, indicating their trust in the body.

I just want us all to ask the question throughout the year, and not only during the election period. Does the student parliament sufficiently represent the students? Do we, as students, sufficiently push for the things that we want in the community?

It’s time to open our lazy eye.

This is Part 1 of the series. In future parts, we will be on top of several things that we believe are going wrong with the administrative side of things. Stay tuned! Thanks to Pradeep Pal, Devansh, Soham and Rishabh for their valuable feedback.