General Body Meeting – Phase II – Counterview
The opinions expressed in this piece are strictly that of the authors and not that of Insight.
– Recognizing that undisputed facts of the GBM have been recognized in the GS Review article and that no effort has been made to introduce new facts in this article
– Strongly condemning what transpired at the GBM
– Acknowledges further that opinions expressed here are also limited by subjective bias of the author and his finite rationality
The author would like to express the following points on the review in specific and the GBM in general:
1. Section 13 of the SAC Constitution mentions that impeachment can be called for on grounds of failure to abide by the rules laid down in the Constitution. Furthermore, Section 9.5 of the SAC Constitution clearly mentions a common duty for a general secretary is to conduct 1 GBM per semester and ensure that the minutes of the GBM are put up within 3 days. While some may still believe that grounds of impeachment were not satisfactory, it should at the very least be deemed legitimate. In a democratic setup where certain nominees table a motion at their own subjective (rational or irrational) discretion on grounds they believe to be satisfactory (provided they are mentioned in the SAC Constitution), a motion for impeachment is legitimate and democratically in order. The author wonders why the article raises a question on democracy, when the impeachment motion was the only thing that happened in the GBM that was democratically recognized.
2. In a private conversation, where Harsh, by his own admission was found to have said that ‘an institute GBM is a waste of time’ to one Rahul Yadav; and that the SAC Constitution recommends 2 GBMs in a year (well-pointed out in the GBM itself), it was refreshing to see a hostel general secretary taking charge of something certain GSes (at their own subjective discretion) felt was not required.
3. “this student community does not deserve to be served by us”. This, in the author’s opinion was by far the highlight of the GBM. How can an elected and/or responsible elected member of the institute have the audacity to talk to the student community like that? If our GSes themselves are confused about where their allegiances lie, even expecting rational responses from our elected representatives at a GBM (or anywhere else for that matter) seems to be a waste of time. Even if the author concedes that everyone came to the GBM with vested interests, one least expects such unbecoming behaviour from a GSAA. It’s quite a travesty to have such GSes in the institute, and believes that he should have been the one impeached for sheer lack of respect to the student community. The author believes it’s reasonably fair to assume that such sensationalist tactics for a fellow wingie was just to palliate the potential adverse situation for Harsh. What’s even more shocking is to note, that the article in the beginning and the editors in the revised version pass NO opinions on this despicable act. Isn’t selective opinion tantamount to bias?
4. if I were to tell you that – it’s fair that cartels form in a democracy in a situation where authorities do what they feel like, not consult seniors, and publicly go on to disrespect the student community at large, can impeachment not be justified? (More specifically, on grounds of conduct unbecoming of an Office-Bearer as mentioned in Section 13 of the constitution) Everyone in the institute is only finitely rational and they very much have the right to be.
5, The author fails to see why the article makes a distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘rational’. If I were to deem approaching seniors before a new event a rational requirement, and not having done so is taken ‘personally’ by the senior(s), isn’t personal vendetta spawning out of rationality towards the initiative and the subsequent lack of implementation thereof?
6. All this said, I leave the reader with this thought: Is IIT Bombay even ready to have GSes who want to honestly serve the institute in the first place?
Insight Team Member