Ashutosh Muduly, an ex-Quiz Club Coordinator and an active Media and Cultural(MnC) Council member, had applied for the post of Institute Secretary for Non-Performing Arts in the MnC Council. After the interviews and voting by the outgoing core committee, it was announced that Ashutosh won the verdict, 11 votes to 6. Around two days later, Kaustubh Agarwal, the General Secretary of the Media and Cultural Council, used his Veto power to dismiss the result. Owing to the rumours, confusion and contentions surrounding this incident, our team investigated the issue and talked to various stakeholders. Continue reading to know what happened.
The Student Gymkhana of our institute is a vast body with everything from a full-fledged Senate to different councils and cells coming under its umbrella. An essential part of the Gymkhana are the Councils, and each council is led by a General Secretary (GenSec), a position democratically elected by the campus – but the GenSec themselves can’t do everything alone, and that necessitated a need for the creation of the erstwhile “Associate Head” position which was recently renamed as the “Institute Secretary”.
What exactly is the role of this post?
The Gymkhana Review Committee[1],[2] of the tenure 2019-20 defined the responsibility of the Associate Head (or Institute Secretary) as assisting the General Secretary in performing their duties. The committee defined the appointment procedure of Associate Head (Institute Secretary) voting by the outgoing council core committee (consisting of outgoing General Secretary, previous Institute Secretaries, and all the outgoing coordinators/leaders of various clubs and societies in the council), to include the say of all sections of the council.
A major concern of the Gymkhana Review Committee was the friction these position holders might have with the General Secretary. The Review Committee addressed this discord as a difference of vision. Later in 2020, a document[3] passed in the Senate, created by some outgoing and incoming general secretaries mentioned- “the students selected for this post should be compatible to some extent-” as an essential fact and introduced the concept of Veto. According to it, in appointing the Institute Secretaries, the Incoming General Secretary holds the right to ‘Veto’ a candidate. It means that the GenSec holds the right to overturn the decision made by the outgoing committee if he/she feels “incompatible” with the elected candidate.
Ashutosh’s response
After the verdict was announced, Ashutosh was naturally appalled by this decision. His primary point was the fact that compatibility should not overshadow credibility. He asserted that this sets a bad precedent for the future as any person willing to become the Institute Secretary would believe that being on good terms with the incoming General Secretary is more effective than working hard in the council.
He also questioned the delay in the veto from the General Secretary. He pointed out that it isn’t fair for the General Secretary to announce the Veto after the results for the nominations were out. Ashutosh says that if the General Secretary found him incompatible, he should’ve vetoed the nomination instead of the result. He said he was surprised that veto was utilized, given Kaustubh had clearly told the candidates before the interviews that he had no plan to do so and would respect their decision.
Kaustubh’s defense
During our interview, Kaustubh admitted that the timing of usage of veto was inappropriate. In hindsight, he realized that he should have promptly shared his opinion with Ashutosh after receiving the nomination. Kaustubh further explained that after the nomination outcome, he had to reconsider his position on employing the veto power for the council’s benefit. While he recognized that the procedure outlining veto is inadequate and ideally should be more comprehensive, he felt compelled to implement the decision in order to prioritize the council’s best interests.
When we asked him why he gives more value to compatibility than credibility, he clarified that compatibility and credibility should have to go together to make sure that the council doesn’t run into any issues, and Veto is a right given to the General Secretary to ensure this. The outgoing General Secretary also defended the concept of veto when he was questioned by the outgoing core committee. He said that compatibility and credibility are independent of each other. The former is determined by the incoming GenSec and the latter is determined by the outgoing core committee. Even if one of them gives a negative decision, the candidate cannot be appointed and neither of the two entities can have a say in each other’s decisions.
On questioning Kaustubh about compatibility with Ashutosh, he answered that when they worked together, he felt the work could have been better if he was by himself or with someone other than Ashutosh.
When questioned on how his decision to veto could damage the perception of the committee for upcoming core teams, Kaustubh claimed that if Ashutosh were in the council, it would cause many hindrances in the functioning. He believed that as a team, they would not be able to achieve targets and solve problems in their tenure, leading to further, more significant issues. Since Kaustubh was elected to improve the council, he saw this tradeoff as necessary, despite acknowledging Ashutosh’s dedicated work as a coordinator.
Senate’s view
After Kaustubh used his Veto power to dismiss the result, the matter was taken to the Student’s Senate where Ashutosh brought various claims against the veto decision ranging from the unfairness to remove him after winning the election to the lack of proper reasoning behind the move.[4]
In the first special meeting of the Senate[5], Prashant (Chairperson, Students’ Senate) affirmed that all rules had been followed and the veto decision remained valid. According to the rule of veto, as of now, Kaustubh is not obligated to provide an explanation for his decision.
When we asked him about the reason behind the rule’s existence, Prashant suggested that it might have been born out of the belief that it would be unfair to elect someone without consulting the General Secretary. The General Secretary is entrusted with the responsibility of working in collaboration with the elected Institute Secretaries throughout their tenure. Thus, the Senate of 2019-20, in establishing the rule, likely considered the veto as a necessary power to ensure the fruitful collaboration of the General Secretary and Institute Secretaries in their efforts to enhance the council.
When we asked about his response to Ashutosh’s concerns, Prashant acknowledged that the current rule regarding veto might have loopholes and the potential for future failures. As a solution, he proposed that the Rules and Procedure Committee (RPC) should review and examine the rule and its procedures, a suggestion that was agreed upon by the Senate.
The Rules and Procedure Committee (RPC) is responsible for overseeing the rules and procedures of the entire Gymkhana. Presently, the committee consists only of the Chairperson and Parliamentarian. As of now, the RPC meeting has not taken place.
The current problems with veto are not just limited to its conception but also the lack of clarity regarding its process. Kaustubh personally sought guidance from various past and present Gymkhana members to comprehend the intricacies of the veto procedure. As highlighted by Abhiraj, the Parliamentarian of the Students’ Senate, the veto rule lacks thorough scrutiny to ensure the indispensability of every word and sentence, as well as comprehensive coverage of all possible scenarios and edge cases. Furthermore, since the rule has not been incorporated into the constitution, it does not provide exhaustive guidelines.
When our team asked why such a huge power was not given a proper framework at the least, with there being no mention of any procedure regarding the use of veto, renominations, and the boundaries of using veto, The Parliamentarian responded that “it was up to the former parliamentarians to answer that”.
This lack of framework leads to a large amount of subjectivity in implementing the rule. It still not clear whether Ashutosh is eligible for any other position within the council core committee. It’s also still not clear whether there is a limit on the number of times the veto power can be utilized.
And to top it all, the major issue is that the General Secretary can veto an elected person without being accountable for the reasoning. This deviates from the practice observed in the real world- the person exercising veto is accountable for their decision with reasoning. For example, in the US Senate, “A veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the House in which it originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the Veto. This Veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House.”
What now?
Renominations were held for both Performing and Non-Performing Arts Institute Secretaries where two candidates applied for each post. On 28th May, in a meeting chaired by the outgoing General Secretary, the interviews and elections were held with the outgoing core committee on the panel. After 1.5 hours of interviewing each for both the positions, Jitesh Sethi for Non-Performing Arts and Akhil Sagwal for Performing Arts were elected. The results were verified by the Senate and the incoming Institute Secretaries were introduced to the incoming core committee.
While Kaustubh took measures to ensure that the need for veto does not occur again by discussing his vision and action plans with the candidates beforehand, a member of the outgoing core committee confessed, “ a minimally interactive 3 hour online meet was a cheap substitute for the original highly-interactive all-night long offline meet. The contrast was evident when we were told to keep the questions to the minimum.”
Vox Opinion
“Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely”
This quote resonates strongly in the context of the veto rule implemented within the Student Gymkhana. The rule not only lacks the requirement for an explanation behind a veto decision but also lacks a mechanism to override such a decision, thereby negating the presence of checks and balances.
At IITK, the value of equality and providing a voice to all has always been paramount. The establishment of the Student Gymkhana itself aimed to empower students to take charge of decision-making. This issue of Veto goes beyond a mere legal right mentioned in the Senate documents. It strikes at the core of a fundamental issue – a student’s removal from their elected position, undermining the values we hold dear. It’s a case of a student being removed from a post, a post to which he was voted into but was removed from, removed by a student peer because of a vaguely defined term – “Compatibility.”
We firmly believe that accountability and transparency are fundamental pillars for the effective functioning of any organization. In the context of this incident, not only the absence of these principles is concerning but also the assertion that they undermine the purpose of the rule raises significant concerns and challenges its overall fairness.
This scenario prompts students to question the path to personal growth and competence as the key to achieving our goals. We must recognize that a mindset, which places excessive emphasis on personal connections rather than knowledge and merit, erodes the values we cherish and hold dear. It’s imperative to balance compatibility with credibility. Otherwise, students will focus more on the former than the latter, focusing less on what they know and more on who they know.
Written by– Likhith Sai, Manasvi N, Zehaan Naik
Edited by – Aarish Khan, Kunaal Gautam, Vrinda Sharma, Bhavya Sikarwar, Sanika Gumaste
Design Credits– Atharv Jiwane
