Culturals Contingent in Crisis

Inter IIT Culturals is often spoken of as a test of endurance, teamwork, and institutional pride. For students, it demands weeks of preparation, late nights, and academic compromises. However, Inter IIT Culturals Meet (IICM) 8.0 highlights shifted from the performances and victory to the pattern of mismanagement that exposed deeper issues of preparedness, communication, and accountability within IIT Bombay’s contingent leadership and core team. Basic requirements like train tickets and living arrangements were not taken care of appropriately. Leadership was not prepared for the precarious steps they had taken, such as carrying large numbers of extra members to aid in competitions.

Consequences to these actions unfolded in the form of prolonged uncertainty, unsafe arrangements, and decisions that placed the burden of leadership failure on students. This article aims to investigate the deep-rooted problem of a lack of accountability, respect, and, at times, a borderline violation of rights.
The first problem initiates far before the contingents reach the host IIT. Contingent finalisation for Inter IIT Culturals is a complex and delayed process. Former contingent leaders pointed out that the contingent selection used to happen as late as early December, since people cited multiple commitments like placements, etc. Booking reservations for 300-400 participants during December, a peak travel season, is logistically challenging. While travel agents and vendors manage this volume, these arrangements rely on timely payments and consistent follow-ups.

CLs usually contact a third-party vendor for train bookings, as it is an unfeasible and tedious task to book them directly through IRCTC. Consistent vendor follow-ups were conducted to prevent last-minute disruptions and potential duping.

However, this year, either the number of tickets wasn’t conveyed properly, or consistent follow-ups were not taken from the vendor. As a result, only 200 tickets out of the 300 were confirmed at the time of departure to Kanpur. Half of the contingent members were forced to endure a 24-hour journey by sharing berths, with little sleep and extreme discomfort. Unsurprisingly, many arrived exhausted, and some even fell ill upon reaching Kanpur.

“From our experience, the core issue was not ticket availability but decision-making. While booking through Tatkal for a large contingent is risky and expensive, early bookings outside Tatkal windows were possible. We put systems in place to manage this and booked over 500 tickets internally even before final participant lists were confirmed, using common names as placeholders where required. These were later regularised through official letters from the Dean and coordination with railway authorities,” noted last year’s contingent leaders.

Furthermore, they mentioned, “We had clearly cautioned against continuing with this vendor. They had failed to deliver on commitments in earlier Inter IIT editions, and without early confirmations and constant follow-ups, the risks were always high,” in our conversation with them. The continued dependence on a vendor, particularly one known to delay bookings to extract higher charges closer to departure, meant that when follow-ups were inadequate, the system failed predictably rather than unexpectedly.”

Beyond this glaring failure, boarding was handled arbitrarily. Instead of following individual train bookings, contingents were split and redistributed across three different trains to accommodate exact numbers in each train. Several participants reported confusion and distress, as some were reassigned to trains different from those originally booked and had to prepare a fake identification to be verified by the Ticket Collector.

The problems only worsened once the contingent reached Kanpur. There are two modes through which contingents participate in Inter IIT – online and offline. The online contingent makes their submissions from home itself while the offline contingents travel to the host IIT. The train bookings are made for the entire contingent, offline as well as online. In places of the online contingent members, extra members are tasked with helping with production, lights, video editing, council members, ICC Web team and Institute Cultural Coordinators, freshers responsible for handling logistics, etc. Often slipped into the campus amidst large crowds, they are mostly posed as a requirement for extra manpower, coordination and management on actual grounds. While this practice operates in a grey area of Inter IIT regulations, it is widely known and has historically relied on informal accommodation

Despite efforts by host IITs to curb the presence of unauthorised members in contingents, complete enforcement is elusive. Monitoring every individual across campuses spanning hundreds of acres is impractical. In the previous Inter IIT, IIT Patna attempted to address this through head-counting at entry, but the measure proved to be ineffective. Counting more than 50 people per bus, amid long queues at the gates, led to severe congestion and buses being halted for hours in freezing conditions, which caused significant disruption at the campus entrances.

However, this year, IIT Kanpur enforced stringent protocols at the campus gates, hostel gates, eateries, etc. Participants from IIT Bombay mentioned, “They created an app for guest identity verification, which produced a QR upon logging in, which had to be used at all entry and exit points, including hostel gates. Moreover, the guards were extremely strict and often asked students to produce identification near public hangout spots and eateries as well. We were very unhappy with such constant scrutiny.”

From a host institute’s perspective, these measures were within administrative and ethical bounds. However, the heightened scrutiny meant that contingents carrying unofficial members required robust preparation and clear fallback arrangements. IIT Bombay, taking an unprecedentedly large number of unofficial members, reaching upto 40-50 members, was unprepared to handle this scenario. Since we were the first ones to arrive, other IITs that arrived later had already adjusted their plans after learning of the enforcement measures through informal channels.

The responsibility for anticipating such risks lies with the Contingent Leader and core coordination team, whose responsibility includes risk mitigation, planning, and safeguarding all members travelling under the contingent’s responsibility. In this instance, the absence of a contingency plan resulted in unofficial members being left without clear accommodation or communication, despite awareness amongst the leadership that their presence did not comply with host institute regulations.

Last year’s CL noted, “Bringing a large number of unofficial participants, especially girls, without proper planning created avoidable accommodation and safety risks, particularly if official accommodations were unavailable. Additionally, better communication and coordination with experienced council members could have prevented many of these issues.”

For the first night, 12 girls who were a part of the unofficial contingent were temporarily sent to the previous year’s contingent leader’s home, while 29 boys were sent to a hotel nearby. The unofficial members employed creative methods to enter the campus, such as identifying connections with staff in IIT Kanpur to use the guest entry facilities or persuading a Blinkit driver near the gate to drop them inside the campus at a negotiated rate of Rs. 200 per 3 people.

After the situation spun so out of control, the administration was informed about the situation. It was conveyed to the core team that ensuring everyone’s safe return to Bombay was their responsibility, and that leaving members stranded in Kanpur under such conditions was unacceptable. However, under the official travel rules applicable to government institutions in India, undergraduate students are required to travel by third-class railway. Securing immediate train bookings for up to 40 members during the peak December travel season proved challenging.

As a result, alternatives for arranging accommodation for the members in Kanpur were explored. Later in the night, genre captains noted, “We were informed that the Dean of Student Affairs at IIT Bombay had written to the Dean of Student Affairs at IIT Kanpur, requesting entry and temporary accommodation for the students, and that permission had been granted. Based on this, the unofficial members reached the campus gates expecting arrangements to be in place. However, they were made to wait outside, eventually sitting at a nearby café with their luggage in the cold, without any clear communication about their accommodation.”

It was communicated much later that although the Dean of Kanpur had permitted their stay, concerns were raised by other IITs that this arrangement was unfair and could place them at a disadvantage, as IIT Bombay would have additional members on campus to assist with contingents, logistics, or transportation. As a result, security personnel at the main gate received no clear or consistent instructions regarding the students’ entry.

After hours of waiting in the cold night, with no alternative place to go, the members were eventually allowed inside purely on humanitarian grounds. Upon reaching the allotted hostels, the students were informed by security at the hostel gate that they would not be permitted to leave the premises, as an entry-exit pass was required and they did not possess one.

The troubles and woes of these students did not end there. They weren’t staying in rooms that were originally booked under IIT Bombay’s name, but were taken to a dingy and old room, potentially a storage room. The room windows would not close, buckets were placed to collect water from leaky ceilings and dark, black stains on the floor made the conditions intolerable. Concerns further deepened since the conditions for the boys were far worse. They were made to sleep in a large hall on floor mattresses, without blankets, and to make matters worse, the windows would not close, forcing them to spend the night exposed to freezing temperatures

The next day, the students were still not allowed to step outside their hostels. By this point, it became evident that there was no clear plan in place to either improve their accommodation or communicate next steps. Emergency arrangements were made to fly the girls back to Bombay, while the boys were once again sent into nearby hotels. These hotels, however, were equally unhygienic and unlivable. Left with no real support and a dignified alternative, the boys used their own money to travel to Varanasi, hoping to claim ₹3,000 reimbursement later.

However, the tale of mismanagement didn’t end here. After the four-day Inter IIT meet, participants expected a safe and coordinated return to Bombay. Instead, the logistical lapses observed earlier were repeated during the return journey, with no clear communication on times or dates for departure to Bombay. Late at night, one day before the supposed day of leaving, a poll was taken to count the number of people returning to Bombay via train. This information should have been gathered much earlier to allow for basic planning and appropriate arrangements. A little later on the same night, participants were abruptly informed by the core admin team, “Guys, be ready with your packed bags by 9 am tomorrow. We might have to leave anytime.”

By 9 am the next morning, this sense of uncertainty only deepened when another message followed: “Guys, our train might be at night, so some people might have to change their corresponding later bookings.” Several participants raised immediate logistical concerns. One student flagged that they had a pre-booked flight from Mumbai the following day, asking what steps they should take given the uncertainty. Another asked about participants listed as “unofficial” who were staying outside the campus and had already returned their hotel room keys, assuming schedules were final.

Although contingent members were expected to compromise in response to the ad hoc management and coordination by the administrative team, there was no response to the queries they raised in the general WhatsApp group. Genre captains themselves were unaware of what was happening and were therefore unable to reassure their members or answer even the most basic questions. People kept asking about boarding times and transport to the station, but they were also met with silence.

Messages flooded as the admin team was criticised for not responding despite having read earlier concerns. As delays continued, a PhD student in the group wrote that participation in Inter IIT Cult already required adjustments to academic schedules and coordination with supervisors. Such last-minute changes and a lack of clear communication placed participants in a difficult position, particularly if delays reflected poorly on them in front of their academic advisors.

The GSec later responded to this in the chat, stating they were on a call with the ticketing vendor and would explain the situation in the announcement group once more clarity was available. The message asked participants to wait and emphasised that the team was working on resolving the issue. However, this drew further backlash as participants questioned whether an apology without concrete information addressed the immediate problems faced by those affected.

It was not until 7:42 pm that evening that a single message appeared: “We will not be leaving today.” This enraged the participants more than ever, since many of them had previously requested details so that they could make their own arrangements and leave, but they were assured that an alternative would be arranged soon.

After a month of relentless practice and a final-day performance, contingent members were mentally and physically exhausted. Naturally, they expected a smooth return home and a brief period of rest before the semester resumed. However, the expectation was much farther than the reality.

At 8:20 pm on the same night, a message outlined the sequence of events involving the travel vendor and stated that the issue had been escalated to the institute authorities stating, “We have informed the Dean and the Cultural Chairperson about the situation where the vendor who was supposed to book the tickets and provide them yesterday did not follow up on his promise and continued postponing travel arrangements. After further discussion with the DoSA and the Chairperson, we have concluded that the vendor is not trustworthy. At this point, the priority is bringing everyone back to Mumbai. We are extremely sorry for the situation, and despite having made arrangements at least two months prior, everyone is being made to go through this. For now, we are looking at alternative arrangements and will keep everyone updated on the next steps.

Later that night, at 10:30 pm, a long message was sent on the WhatsApp group outlining the available options:

“So we have 2 options for everyone given the situation as discussed with the institute admin. We can have a direct bus from IITK to IITB that leaves tonight/ within 2-3 hours, and the entire journey will be around 26-28 hours including breaks. Alternatively everyone can look for their own flight/travel based on your convenience and responsibility and get the 3AC equivalent reimbursed as per institute norms (around Rs. 3000). Our admin instructed us to leave this choice to you guys as to which mode of transport would you prefer to travel by. Again we know this isn’t the ideal situation anyone would like to be put in given all the effort that was put into this whole ordeal and we sincerely apologise for that but for now do let us know through your genre captain what form of transport would you prefer to leave by.”

For some participants, this created immediate financial and logistical constraints. Booking last-minute flights or train tickets was not feasible for everyone, either due to high prices or lack of availability on short notice. The urgency of the situation further complicated decision-making. Following this, genre captains were instructed to submit a list of students who would be travelling by bus. The process was rushed and left little room for decision-making by the students. They were not given due time to check alternative travel options, compare prices, or even speak to their parents before committing to a mode of transport. Taken together, the choices presented shifted the burden of uncertainty onto participants, people who were already navigating through academic commitments, financial constraints, and the consequences of the earlier delays.

What made the situation even more jarring was the nature of the arrangement itself. The bus that was ultimately arranged was a non-AC seater with a capacity of around 50 people. In practice, this meant that members were expected to remain seated for an extraordinarily long journey, which ultimately took close to 43 hours to reach Bombay. Some of the concerns raised were stopping at very fragmented intervals for washroom breaks and sitting for 43 hours on the road as the cold wind blew through the windows.
It is difficult to comprehend how arrangements could deteriorate to this extent despite the existence of dedicated positions meant to ensure seamless coordination.

The very purpose of the core team is to plan travel well in advance, guarantee that every contingent member returns safely and on time, maintain amicable and professional relationships with other IITs, and prioritise the well-being of the students they are responsible for. In this case, dedicated roles risk becoming ceremonial titles rather than positions of real responsibility, and the same cycle of negligence is bound to repeat itself at the expense of student trust and well-being who have travelled all the way to a different state after a month of sleep deprivation and extreme exhaustion for the “Inter IIT experience”.