H6: Far from Main Gate and Further from Elections

Hostel 6 is no stranger to unconventional methods of conducting council (s)elections. On account of multiple cancellations last year, elections were held in a short time span, and hence, they lacked the key elements of a student election: a black box, a soapbox, and a manifesto. You may read about it in Insight’s article published in September 2023 here.

This year, the selection process for the H6 General Secretary (GSec) was once again distinctively unique, with the position of the GSec being selected on the basis of nominations and an interview process, thereby completely bypassing the election process generally held in all hostels.

The respective hostel councils manage the day-to-day operations of each hostel.

Under normal circumstances, selecting the Hostel Council members involves elections for the positions of the Hostel General Secretary and Councillors of different domains (Sports, Cultural, Tech, Mess, System Administrator, and Maintenance). Every bona fide student who is a hostel resident is a part of the electorate and gets to vote for each of these candidates. The election process involves groundworks, manifesto submissions, the Black Box, the Soapbox, and finally, the elections. This year, the process for most hostels began towards the end of March and was supposed to be completed by the 15th of April. The timeline was designed to avoid clashes with the end-semester examinations and the summer break. However, as of now, Hostel 6 is yet again far from having its own council. 

The Process 

According to the SAC Constitution, the process for selecting the GSec involves appointing an election committee to conduct the Hostel council elections. This committee is appointed by the Warden in consultation with the outgoing Hostel General Secretary and Warden Nominee. Generally, the outgoing GSec helps in conducting elections for the council for the subsequent tenure. The SAC constitution also states that if the post of GSec is uncontested, the warden, in consultation with the outgoing GSec, can nominate a student for the position. 

What was different this time around? 

Owing to unanticipated circumstances, the GSec of Hostel 6 for 2023-24 resigned from his position towards the end of April. Generally, in the absence of the GSec, the responsibility of assisting with the election process would have fallen on the shoulders of the Warden Nominee, but H6 does not have a Warden Nominee. Therefore, the Warden, in consultation with the Dean SA and other official authorities of the hostel, proceeded with the selection of the next General Secretary of H6. On the 19th of April, an email was sent by the Hostel Manager, calling for applications for the post of General Secretary.

The email read, “Due to unforeseen circumstances, we have decided to select the mentioned position via interview process. The rest of the council will be selected later via elections.”

Insight interviewed the Warden of Hostel 6, Professor Mallikarjun Rao, on 27^th April 2024. He informed us that the committee overseeing the selection process would include representatives from the Hostel Affairs Council, some members of previous H6 council(s), the Warden, the Associate Warden, and the Hall Manager. The Councillors will be selected in the usual way through elections after the next semester starts. Unlike the previous year, where eligibility criteria were relaxed to allow for third-year students to apply to the position, this year, the criteria reverted to the usual standard, allowing only to-be fourth-year or above students to apply.

When asked why the elections are not being conducted, the Warden explained that he had been urging the GSec and the hostel council to hold the elections since early March. However, the GSec continuously postponed the process and eventually resigned in April. The intervention was undertaken with permission from the Dean SA to avoid further delays in the formation of the Council. 

“The Council was unable to give time to conduct elections in March. It would be difficult to conduct the procedures involved in elections during the examinations or after that, as residents would not be able to actively participate as the summer breaks would begin. We have also not been reached out to by students requesting for elections to be conducted. If many students wanted elections to happen, we could have conducted them.” 

-Warden of Hostel 6
Insight then floated an informal poll on the H6 WhatsApp group on May 1^st to gauge whether the H6 residents would prefer to have elections or not. The poll received 185 responses, with 176 in favour of conducting elections.

However, when Insight mailed the poll results to the Warden, his reply read, “The process [this poll] should have been done earlier. When we announced the process, no student came forward to express their opinion. Yesterday [4^th May] was the day of the interview. HA Council conducted the interview.”

The Warden also later informed us that the hostel council conducted a poll to gauge student opinion, based on which he was told that H6 residents would prefer nominations. Insight, however, could not find the proof of such a poll. We approached various members of the Hostel 6 Council 2023-24, who said that a poll was conducted by the GSec, but they could not produce the survey results. When Insight approached the GSec for the same, he informed us that no such poll was conducted.

Insight also mailed the Warden to find out why other routes, such as the appointment of an interim GSec through nominations or conducting online elections, weren’t taken. However, we are yet to receive a response.

During the nomination period, we asked the General Secretary of Hostel Affairs (GSHA) why the Hostel Affairs Council did not step in to aid in conducting the elections when they were being delayed. The GSHA explained that the H6 GSec did not refuse to conduct the elections; he simply requested more time. Generally, the Hostel Affairs Council doesn’t interfere with the individual hostel elections and steps in if the process isn’t being followed in a timely manner. The GSHA also said that the process was according to the SAC constitution, and the Warden and Dean SA were within their rights to have a nominated candidate as it is their decision once the deadline of 15th April has passed. When asked about why an interim GSec was not appointed, the GSHA said, “Many other things (other than nomination) could have been done, but the Warden decided to go through the nomination route, and since it was after taking permission from Dean SA, it was final”. To ensure that this situation does not arise again, the GSHA stated that the hostel council should be held accountable and that, going forward, they will push the GSec to conduct elections in a timely manner. 

The interviews for selecting the General Secretary were conducted on 4th May.

The election for the rest of the council will be held under the proper proceedings once the autumn semester begins. Until then, the day-to-day operations will be overlooked by the new GSec. 

We reached out to the Hostel 6 General Secretary for the 2023-24 tenure to find out the reasons behind delays in the process but have not received a response yet. Moreover, Insight was informed by the GSHA, that a mail would be sent to the residents of H6 detailing the selection criteria of the GSec. However, at the time of publishing, no such mail has been sent.

Insight’s Opinion

Why do students’ voices in the selection process matter?

In an institute where student representatives play an active role in many day-to-day functions, bypassing the election process can lead to discontent, leaving students without a say in their representation. A closed interview process lacks the same level of transparency, as the exact selection criteria may remain unclear to hostel residents. Since residents are directly affected by their representatives’ decisions, they should have a voice in choosing who will advocate for their well-being. Not having elections strips them of this vital input in decision-making.

Each of the procedures undertaken during the elections act as a filter as well as a preparation process for the upcoming tenure.

Groundworks with those who have previously held the post and other relevant stakeholders allows the candidate to understand the intricacies involved in different functions. Groundworks also enable the candidates to form a vision and key initiatives, which they get vetted by previous council members and stakeholders. Although groundworks were conducted, the timeframe for the process was much shorter, which might have made it difficult for the candidates to be able to do groundworks with a significant number of people. 

Manifestos allow the candidate to exhibit what they intend to achieve in the tenure and enable them to chart out and schedule their plans for the tenure. It also allows residents to hold the elected GSec accountable for their promises during the tenure. 

The Black Box process assesses the feasibility of ideas outlined in the manifesto through vetting, filtering out impractical points, and ensuring that residents can make informed choices based on implementable initiatives. 

The Soapbox is a platform for the electorate to question the candidates about their ideas on the manifesto and their plan of action to ensure implementation. 

The Election Process

When elections are not conducted in a proper, timely manner, the efficacy of all of the above processes is impeded. Instead of the process being wholly altered, a delay in the timeline could prove to be better in the long run. The entire process would require roughly 20 days. Elections can be conducted online or in a hybrid manner; the COVID lockdown period stands as a testament to this. The Warden commented that the absence of students during the summers made conducting elections infeasible. However, we believe that the appointment of an interim GSec for the duration of the summer break could be considered to handle the responsibilities till an elected Hostel Council is formed with due process. 

It is worth noting that the extended delay was primarily caused by the inaction of the GSec of H6, who eventually resigned. Furthermore, H6 lacked a Warden Nominee, who assumes the GSec’s responsibilities in their absence according to the SAC constitution. Having a Warden Nominee could have prevented the bypassing of the election process, especially with the GSec’s unavailability and resignation. Additionally, they could have facilitated better communication between the Warden and the GSec, ensuring accountability and preventing delays in conducting the elections.