Sumit awaits battles bigger than NOTA

The elections for the General Secretary of Hostel Affairs (GSHA) have, time and again, occupied the centre of election drama, and this year is no different. Although the position is no longer contested, the path for Sumit Yadav, an outgoing ISHA and the lone candidate in the race for the GSHA, is riddled with challenges beyond avoiding NOTA. 

Sumit’s manifesto includes several ambitious initiatives to address topical issues, such as delivery timing restrictions, constraints on shop timings, and inadequate services at the IITB Hospital, among others. While these issues are undeniably relevant, the practical question of implementation looms large over his campaign. On certain points, he conceded that no concrete plan had yet been formulated; on others, when presented with facts and calculations, he appeared reluctant to acknowledge evident limitations. An example of the latter was when Insight pointed out the financial unfeasibility of having vendors deliver food from the main gate, he responded with “This is your concept, not my concept. We will decide in committee on a solution which satisfies the needs of the students.” Such exchanges underscored a broader lack of clarity regarding operational strategy.

Beyond questions of execution, several manifesto points appear unlikely to even commence within his tenure. Admittedly, this is not a shortcoming unique to Sumit; such overextended timelines have become a recurring feature of GSHA manifestos. Nevertheless, their inclusion raises concerns about prioritisation and deliverability. A reluctance to accept problems was also highlighted in his adamant refusal to even understand the question, as depicted when Insight asked him about his push to extend OPD hours for the IITB hospital. The situation was further compounded by the announcement of at least five factual corrections during the soapbox itself.

A traditional fallacy in GSec manifestos has been the introduction of initiatives that seem like solutions looking for problems, and this is the case with some of Sumit’s manifesto points as well. An example of this is the construction of overhead covers from Hostel 12-13-14 to the LHC. While at the outset, such an approach is not inherently harmful, the case is different for Hostel Affairs, as these initiatives usually entail significant financial overhead. Sumit’s lack of receptiveness to such concerns in the soapbox is hence a cause of concern.

The GSHA’s vision is pivotal to ensuring a comfortable stay for thousands of students in the institute. However, it is important that this vision is directed towards taking steps that find the perfect balance between feasibility and actual impact. So far, Sumit’s campaign has struggled to justify its ingenuity in targeting either. It would be interesting to see whether he can incorporate the feedback given to him and redirect resources at his expense to develop more resilient, practical strategies to fulfil his promises.