The Race for GSTA is Riddled with Blurred Blueprints

The position of General Secretary, Technical Affairs for the 2026–27 post is among the two contested positions this year, with Veeraditya Karan Parakh and Shresth Keshari competing for the role. Both bring substantial ITC experience; Shresth’s broader vision centres on expanding access and connecting more stakeholders to institute tech. Veer, on the other hand, frames his tenure around strengthening and fixing existing institutional mechanisms within ITC verticals.  These are meaningfully different approaches, yet their manifestos, measured against previous GSTA campaigns, share a notable weakness: vagueness where clarity is essential. 

Several proposals are framed too broadly for understanding their impact, with soapbox responses relying more on hope and conditional “ifs” than on structured roadmaps supported by contingency plans. This pattern was also evident in the manifesto video, where both candidates defended aspirational commitments using similar phrasing and citing preliminary conversations with stakeholders rather than presenting concrete implementation plans. When broader themes were brought up during the soapbox, such as PG representation, Inter-IIT, and GC participation both candidates largely circled back to promoting their manifesto points with limited reflection on current constraints and potential roadblocks. As a result, the discussion lacked the more comprehensive and well-rounded perspective that such questions are intended to draw out. 

In Shresth’s manifesto, several proposals appear as reiterations of the same underlying idea, with certain points referenced multiple times under separate headings rather than presented as clearly distinct initiatives. Despite projecting his extensive involvement across GSTA verticals as a key strength, Shresth’s manifesto allocates only one initiative each to tech teams and hostel tech, despite prior experience in both. The manifesto proposes greater engagement in emerging domains; however, the Soapbox discussion revealed gaps in awareness of existing efforts within ITC and academic departments. That said, the attempt to widen technical participation by involving PG students, alumni, and Techfest can be appreciated as an intent to expand the ecosystem through multiple channels.

Veer addresses several widely acknowledged ITC pain points in his manifesto; however, much of his approach builds heavily on ideas seen in earlier manifestos with minimal substantive changes, and in some cases revives initiatives that were previously unsuccessful. When questioned in the Soapbox, there was little clarity on what corrective measures would address the inadequacies. Although certain proposals outline a clearer plan of action, when questioned about the failure of similar past attempts, the explanation largely centred on poor execution or inadequate promotion in previous tenures.

Overall, both candidates outline several common objectives for their tenure, but diverge in how they seek to implement them. However, without delineated execution frameworks, both remain aspirational. It remains difficult to assess how either vision would concretely shape the functioning, priorities, and overall direction of the future tenure.