– Anonymous
The past few days have been filled with discussions, reactions, and, of course, plenty of memes about the insti elections. Social media is flooded with discourse on just how far some are willing to go to win—often ignoring even basic decency. Many are questioning the state of student governance, wondering if it has hit rock bottom. But are the problems with insti’s “recently doomed” student governance really just about ruthless backends and people from families lacking “ethical upbringing” ? Or is it time we start addressing some of the deeper, more fundamental flaws in how student governance is imagined and operationalized on campus?
One of the most interesting features of campus politics is its self-proclaimed lack of “messiness.” Even when we repeatedly witness incidents that contradict this claim, we continue to pretend the system itself works—that it isn’t inherently flawed, just occasionally corrupted by individuals and backends. This assumption rests on the idea that our elections supposedly run on merit, where candidates prove their worth through credentials and present feasible, implementable points. But we all know that’s far from reality. Elections remain riddled with regionalism, sexism, casteism, communalism, elitism and almost every other “-ism” one can think of. In fact, election season is when these fault lines become most visible on campus.
Even if we set aside the problematic assumption that campus politics can somehow remain isolated from the outside world, insti politics wasn’t doomed this year or last—it was doomed from the very beginning. From threats to character assassinations to slurs, there’s little that backends haven’t done, and it happens every time. Even physical violence—supposedly the hallmark of “ideological politics”—has occasionally found its way into insti’s so-called pure governance institutions. We react to these specific incidents, yet the overarching framework in which they occur remains shielded from our criticism. The recent reactions to election-related controversies seem to follow the same pattern.
So in what sense are we still defining insti student governance as different or better? My point is not that a “premier” institute should ideally lead the way in demonstrating true meritocratic governance, but rather that we should question whether such an ideal is even possible in the first place. None of the procedures or practices meant to operationalize this democratic pipe dream seem to be working. Is it really surprising that a vision of governance—one that deliberately ignores the inherent messiness of the real world—ends up being an arena for random men power-tripping? (This is obviously a generalization, but you have to admit it holds true in most cases.) Why are we still falling for this assumption?
In my opinion, this is what happens when we equate meritocracy with the ideal form of governance and assume that over-bureaucratizing elections makes them superior to “messy politics.” It’s also what happens when we prioritize feasibility over genuine concerns—when initiatives are evaluated not by their necessity but by how much budget can be allocated to them and how their benefits can be quantified. That’s not to say budgets don’t matter or that practicality should be abandoned. But in the name of eliminating messiness and chasing an unattainable ideal of “meritocratic” elections, all we’ve actually eliminated is real accountability to students and any meaningful discussion of change. Why are we stuck in this “feasibility-capability matrix”?
Maybe the dean denies feasibility simply because they don’t want something to happen. Why has no hostel affairs secretary ever proposed abolishing vigilance raids in hostels? Why do women still have to write their names in hostel registers at night when men don’t? (And I can already imagine hostel secretaries creatively solving this by making men write in registers too.) Why has no student secretary ever spoken about semesterly fee hikes? Why do we never get to discuss a cultural sphere whose entry points are heavily guarded by access to cultural capital?
And what about soapboxes? By now, I think we can all agree there’s nothing particularly productive or constructive about them. What’s the point of humiliating candidates, attacking them, and painting them as incompetent? Where do we discuss the things that “cannot be done”? Why do we keep imagining student politics as a process where people put forward initiatives, prove they can be implemented, and then disappear into a world of bureaucratic goal-chasing for the next year? Where is the space for deliberation? Where do we actually discuss issues?
At the end of the day, in the name of student governance, the administration delegates work to students—work that never truly questions or holds them accountable. And these students, in turn, work themselves to exhaustion to prove they are worthy—skilled enough to be employed yet docile enough to check for feasibility before doing anything. For them, a governance system based on “merit” and “feasibility” becomes just another feature of the “world-class” institute. But we forget that such meritocracies can only ever exist on paper. The way we talk about student politics is constrained by how the administration has envisioned student governance. We debate using the terms they have laid down for us. This, I believe, is exactly why we continue to assume that the system is inherently flawless. So when something goes wrong, we vilify individuals who mess up the perfect system—only to hope that better, more competent, and virtuous characters will save it in the future.
This isn’t to devalue the hard work of those involved in student governance, PORs, and organizations like SECC. Calling them selfish would contradict my entire argument. I do believe that many take on these roles because they genuinely want to contribute to student governance and enjoy doing so, even if that isn’t their only motivation. But despite this, we have to acknowledge that they are severely constrained in what initiatives they can bring forward and what they can even talk about.
Most of us have thought about these issues in one way or another and discussed them in smaller circles where we feel comfortable. But I genuinely believe it’s time we start talking about them openly.
What is the point of student governance when we’ve all heard stories of student representatives being part of committees just for the sake of it? What happens when the administration simply ignores SLC resolutions? What “merit” and “competence” are we really looking for when choosing candidates? Who appears meritorious, and who doesn’t? And finally—what is the mess we are trying to avoid? Is it a mess for us students, or is it a mess that somebody else simply doesn’t want to deal with?
_____________________________
Design by Vasuki
Article 19 