Volume 8.4 – The Institute Bodies – A Deeper Scrutiny

Is the structure of the institute bodies an efficient one? Does it ensure accountability? A closer look throws open a lot of questions.

AMIT GHORAWAT, RISHABH GOEL

Independent Bodies – Unaccountability in the guise of independence!

Dependent Bodies – Inefficiency in the name of accountability!

The “independent” bodies of the institute (Mood Indigo (MI), Techfest, E-Cell, Insight, Awaaz, Unnati) supposedly have a free license to do whatever they wish to, without any sort of accountability to the students of the institute. Is that the reason why they were made “independent” so that they cannot be questioned?

And are the “dependent” bodies totally accountable? Except the elections there are no checks on the General Secretaries (GSs). Unfulfilled promises, repeated election manifestoes – are these not signs of an inefficient and unaccountable system? Claiming accountability on the basis of elections has led to the propagation of an inefficient system which doesn’t always ensure that the best people are selected.

The team selection of these “independent” bodies has no officially recognized procedure as opposed to the Institute “dependent” bodies (which are deemed to be accountable because the entire student body elects them). This is often used as an argument by the Overall Coordinators (OC’s) of the “independent” bodies to justify that their Core Group Members (CGs)/Managers etc are not accountable to the students. As a result, students are not supposed to question whether any CG/Manager is doing his work in the right manner. “That is an internal team matter”. Insight too has had a lot of team problems in this last year. But can anyone question the actions of their editorial board or even the chief editors?? Of course not. After all, the people didn’t elect them, did they?

However, it must be noted that there are proper and set guidelines for the selection of Independent Body (IB) Heads (closed electorate and open candidature). As far as CGs and Managers are concerned, the outgoing team has a major role to play and this certainly ensures a better system of checks than what happens in the “dependent bodies”. The outgoing team closely follows the work of the new OCs and CGs/Managers and also intervenes when needed. For instance, on two occasions in the last few years, particular CGs were temporarily sacked with intervention from old teams. In another IB, ex-heads pulled up the slacking current heads. Who checks the GSs? How are they any more accountable to the student community than the IB heads?

This brings us to the issue of restricted electorate elections that have been set up for electing the heads of these “independent” bodies. This supposedly gives them the legality of having been elected by students. If that was the case, why aren’t the GSs elected in a similar fashion? But that is a different case, isn’t it?

The GSs are leading “dependent” bodies not “independent” ones.

A restricted electorate ensures less politicization of the election procedure. Do you hear of ‘dirty politics’ even half as often in the IB selection as you do during the GS elections? The candidature is however open. There have even been cases where more than one person from the outgoing team has contested these IB elections. If we

look at say the institute cultural council, hasn’t the outgoing council seen the work of potential candidates (for secretary posts) more closely than anyone else? One of the reasons that Institute secretary post has lost some of its gleam is the selection procedure by open elections which doesn’t give due importance to one’s contributions in the past and doesn’t always ensure the selection of the most able candidate.

These “independent” bodies don’t have any kind of regulation on where they spend their money. There might be arguments that since they get their money from sponsorships, they should have the “independence” to choose where they want to spend it. But is this concept being exploited by these bodies to get away with whatever they wish to? If everything was so hunky-dory, why do CGs/Managers need to get coordinators to fill in fake petty cash forms? Now, this is not to suggest that they are up to mischief, but only to point out that they get away with such stuff year after year because they are not accountable to anyone.

There is a substantial amount of financial accountability in the IBs. While all IBs have restricted hard earned budgets (out of which they pay 30% to IIT), dependent bodies get money on a case by case basis with no cap on the total funds. There is a natural tendency in most IB teams to be more sensitive and thrifty about budgets. Due to an absence of scarcity of funds, “dependent” bodies may not always make the most judicious use of their resources.

These are just a few of the many pertinent questions that have been debated over but no solutions have been proposed so far. Some of the solutions that we think can work are:

Selection Procedures

·Institute Secretaries/ CGs/ Managers: All should be selected by the outgoing team (+ some other relevant people if needed).

·IB Heads: The current restricted electorate needs to be amended to make it more relevant to the position and to have a structure such that there is an equal opportunity for deserving candidates from outside the team.

·GSs: A sensitive issue! A restricted electorate (essentially, more informed people voting) will ensure fairer selections.

Accountability

·GSs and IB Heads: Will be accountable to a board comprising of ex- and current GSs and IB heads. This board will not infringe upon the executive powers of the bodies but can give strong recommendations/suggest course of action to the DoSA when needed.

·Vision: What is the purpose of these bodies? To conduct bigger fests/ more inter-hostel events? Or to develop and spread cult, tech, entrepreneur-

ship, social work among students (both within and outside the institute). There needs to be a mission statement for each body which should be made public by the above mentioned board.

·Plan of action: A comprehensive plan of action (including details of budgets) to be submitted for review to the board by each of these bodies. Any non-adherence should be questioned and appropriate action should be taken.

The entire purpose of this article is not to question the motivation of the students involved in these student bodies. We fully respect their efforts and are sure that most of them work because they are passionate about it. These differences between “dependent” and “independent” bodies need to be resolved for better organization and smoother functioning. An unbiased system of checks is essential to ensure accountability and greater efficiency. Unnecessary politicization needs to be curbed and people should have faith in the selection procedures. IIT Bombay has built a rich tradition of extra-curricular activities which is envied by colleges all across the nation. The kind of passion that people have for their work should ensure that they also put their best efforts to pass the responsibility to the best hands possible.

This article stemmed out of several informal debates between 2 wing mates with different backgrounds. One of them being an ex-Institute Debating Secretary and GC Nominee. The other being an ex-Mood Indigo CG and OC.

Amit Ghorawat and Rishabh Goel have held the posts of OC, Mood Indigo and Institute Debating Secretary respectively. They may be contacted at ghorawat@ee.iitb.ac.in, rishabhgoel@iitb.ac.in.