THE TEST OF A GENERAL BODY MEETING
The usual Sunday evening calm and quiet of the JGU Academic block lapsed in the evening, as frustrated exchanges between the JSIA Student Council (2022-23) and the student body echoed throughout T3, with the SC having given up on attempts at damage-control with the drama that ensued. Having hosted their first-ever General Body Meeting (GBM) at the near end of their term, and shortly following the hasty resignation of the JSIA Vice-President, the Student Council faced an onslaught of grievances, questions, calls for accountability, and resignation. In what was supposed to be a platform for the Council to share their Fall 2022 report card, and expected questions concerning the floating impeachment motion against the ‘here-and-there President’, Pradeek Krishna, the SC, seemingly, was not prepared for what the students of JSIA had to say.
The four remaining members of the Council, Pradeek Krishna (President), B.S Ashish (General Secretary), Sangeeth Sylesh Chathakudath (Cultural Secretary) and Arshdeep Singh Dutt (Treasurer), sat on the stage presiding over the meeting. In a rough and impetuous start, the President announced his despair over calls for his impeachment and declared an incoming resignation on Monday, the 26th of February. Having said so in a hurry and without context for many, the student body was taken aback when everyone witnessed the President of JSIA walking off the stage and out of the room before the much-awaited GBM even began. Everyone now was in a Council-arranged General Body Meeting without the presence of the President or a Vice-President. The GBM’s tragic start was only the beginning, of what transpired into becoming the hardest test for the JSIA Student Council, or of what remained of it.
Introductions by the General Secretary were shortly interrupted, as the students questioned the careless departure of the President-yet-to-resign, among other concerns. A section of students, primarily belonging to the M.A. Diplomacy, Law and Business programme, raised concerns over the cancellation of Class Representative elections of their classes, following resignations, by the Council without consultation with the students of said class. Their main worry was over the alleged arbitrary decision to not hold elections, without any discussion. To this, the General Secretary responded by immediately agreeing to hold elections.
This, however, led to a one-sided discussion on a separate, and even bigger issue — an alleged violation of the Constitution by the entirety of the Council. Megha Saravanan, the former Vice-President of JSIA and the MA-DLB rep to the Council, was asked to resign by the rest of the Council based on her accepting a capstone internship which violated Part VI Article 19 Clause (ii) of the JSIA Constitution which “forbids the Vice President from accepting any opportunity in the form of an internship and/or opt for off-campus housing during the entire tenure.” Following this, the Vice-President resigned in a very public move on the 20th of February. Now, the Council, while upholding the Constitution on the Vice-President's matter, was accused of violating it and thus, being party to blatant hypocrisy.
Last year, on the 9th of November, the JSIA student body received an email from the Council with an announcement of the Redrafted JSIA Student Constitution being ratified by the Dean of JSIA. However, Part X Article 38 Sub-clause (c) of the JSIA Constitution highlights that a “period of fifteen working days shall be observed after the amendment(s) is/are proposed, inviting comments, challenges and observations from the Student Body, and the JSIA Administration.” Many students during the GBM accused the Council of not abiding by this, and directly ratifying the Constitutional Amendments with the Dean. To this accusation, the Council had no concrete response. Following this, the issue came up several times throughout the meeting.
Troubled by the extraordinary flight of the President from the room before the formal beginning of the meeting, the student body demanded that he be brought back, with him eventually returning to a roaring room of students disappointed in what many termed as the President not “taking accountability”. He, upon returning, was again questioned about the unconstitutional manner in which the JSIA Constitution was ratified, without observing the 15-day period as mandated.
Following this, several issues were tabled, many of which were responded to, while rest there was simply no clarity from the Council. From minimal recognition of, and attention towards, other courses other than B.A Global Affairs, such as B. A Political Science, to the cancellation of the Peer Support Programme, several concerns were raised. Here, the concerns were directed towards almost all the Council members, ranging from the Treasurer to the General Secretary, with the President speaking up only when directly spoken to, or explicitly asked to respond by members of the student body.
A primary theme emerging from the general feedback and issues being discussed was the lack of transparency present and the severe absence of effective communication. The GBM overall had a confrontational tone, where the student body finally had a platform to hold their elected representatives accountable after months had gone by since their election.
As the meeting drew to an end, one could almost see the overwhelmed expressions that dawned on the Council members, having not anticipated the possibility of being held accountable for the troubles during tenure. The meeting ended with a majority of the students demanding resignation from the entirety of the JSIA Student Council, or an explicit warning of pushing for a ‘general impeachment’. As the students and council members departed the room, along with the President now, the first General Body Meeting for the 2022-23 academic year concluded.
**The President of the JSIA Student Council has resigned since the publishing of this article.
*** The writer of this piece chose to remain anonymous
