For the longest time now, I've been trying to be tolerant and remain unshaken by slander. I have tried to work within a system that gave me cause for nothing but disillusionment, for people who perceived a willing worker as a bounden slave, and I have given it everything I had. I have done my best to keep my temper at check, and on the occasions that I failed in that effort, I have felt the need to apologise. I have tried to convince myself that the sense of entitlement with which people approach me is valid. Yesterday, all of this trying ended. I stood for office in the belief that critiquing a system without engaging with it is unfair. I stood, thinking that there is much work that needs to be done, and perhaps I could help do it. I stood, knowing that I had a dream of a law school that stimulated my mind and gave me the freedom to be who I want to be and I didn't think this was an illegitimate end to pursue, for a university. In two years of office, I've realised why nobody with half a brain or any sense of self-preservation would want to put themselves through this grind, if the grind is to be undertaken in earnest.
Yesterday was the fourth election that I contested in NALSAR, and the third that I won (marginally). I wasn't certain whether I ought to have stood or not, but with a system changing by leaps and bounds, I felt that perhaps my previous knowledge of its functioning and my investment in its success would be useful tools to have on board. Yesterday was also the culmination of my tolerance towards comments made without the slightest inclination towards thought, sensitivity or decency. So, I want to address certain longstanding charges against my work in office, and against me. These were well summarised by our present Vice President, in explaining to me why an Executive position for me was undesirable. As I write this, there are those who insist that I resigned from office because I wanted to be on the Exec, and this having not materialised, I chose to walk out. Well, in my experience in NALSAR, it's always easier to believe the worst possible of a person, but I would want to clarify that I resigned because of unsubstantiated, pointed insults to my dignity and the effort I put into these years in office; insults that I felt that I no longer needed to waste my breath tolerating.
Reason Number One: Condescending and Unapproachable
Being a representative has been hard for me. I'm an exceedingly private and hot-tempered person by nature. If there is anything I owe this office, it is the training I've had in biting my tongue and listening to people, regardless of what I feel about them or the point they are making. I am sure I have, now and then, snapped and the person talking to me felt that it was unwarranted, and for the most part I have tried to apologise when those incidents occurred. But what I find interesting is how I am unapproachable, only when I don't need to be approached. When there is something that folk require of me--their grades (in order to pass) or their attendance or medical certificates or bare Acts for examinations or exemptions from exams or reworking of examination schedules or rules they take issue with--they approach me; even when they want to insult the living daylights out of me, they approach me. Otherwise, I am unapproachable. Yes, I have not functioned in the league of my predecessors in terms of speaking to teachers to get marks increased or attendance added, but I have worked in the field of policy to ensure that every person in that situation gets the benefit in question; and this hasn't been for friends (they usually don't fall foul of NALSAR rules anyway) but for a wide assortment of people who are neither close to me nor have any specific reason to find me more approachable than others do. Yet, as a matter of image, I am perennially unapproachable, which begs the question, then why have people been getting so much of their work done through me?
Reason Number Two: Undemocratic and Oppressive
Here's a rough list of things I have worked towards in the past year in office, because the administration was finally one that was willing to be democratic:
These were, of course, undemocratic. It is immaterial that barely anybody showed up for open houses and that nobody really bothered to actually send in constructive suggestions on the rules, but I made undemocratic decisions.
I made decisions on the basis of what I wanted. I made the university's timetable, and now I'm told that it was on the basis of the courses I liked (and an effort to ensure they don't clash). The preference forms sent before making the timetable were for fun--you know, my vacation's worth of Excel-playtime while dealing with a painful breakup and being incredibly lonesome in a big city? Nine people chose both Banking and Finance and IoS, seven chose IoS and Cap Marks, while there were clashes ranging up to thirty-six (17 courses more than 10, all of which clashes were avoided) with these subjects and other ones. "Why couldn't Banking and Finance not be made to clash with IoS when over thirty students wanted both?" Here's my answer: "Because when you were asked to give in your preferences, you didn't bother to think it through, but you will not introspect enough to find fault with yourselves, so it's convenient to make me out to be some kind of self-serving bitch who made the timetable only to serve her own ends." Because spending an entire vacation researching timetabling software and learning PHP is totally work one would do while being self-serving.
So I asked the Vice-President which of my decisions he found oppressive and imposed. He said: "So many of them." So I asked, "Which?" And he said, "Erm, the timetable? Last year's timetable." I asked him if he noticed that the schedule that people suggested as an alternative in Semester 5 was the schedule that was followed in Semester 6 (oh no, but that would mean that student opinion had actually been taken seriously, an admission that would really harm the argument at hand), and he blinked and moved on to the other problems with me.
Reason Number Three: Monopoly over Power
This, supposedly, doesn't even require an explanation. I have a monopoly over power in this place and that's just a statement of fact now. I would, however, like to unpack this a tiny bit.
So I was Academic Representative in my second year and the Convenor of the same committee in my third year. I have a tiny group of friends. I have neither tried nor want to try bullying people into voting for me, so Boys' Hostel politics is not my cup of tea. When men have monopolised the political system and positions in the Executive since the existence of the system itself, that doesn't count. There have been two women in Executive positions in the history of NALSAR, and that isn't monopoly over power. One woman, winning three elections consecutively, working her guts out for humane policy in the university and building relationships with people in the administration (though never ceasing to oppose the things she dislikes, hence often being told off by the same members of the administration for 'abusing space') is monopolising power. The first time I spoke to the Vice-Chancellor was when I was asked to convince him into making an exception for a LLM student who could not afford to pay the fees to be admitted into the university, and the VC yelled at me so loudly that the Registrar's office heard. Clearly, 'hotlines to bigshots' involve a good deal of persistence and a much greater amount of work in terms of putting together cogent arguments that are hard to deny. And if you try it out, you might find that you'll have hotlines to bigshots too; even hotter lines, perhaps, given how horribly unlikeable I am.
Reason Number Four (and this is the best): Will Work Anyway
"You can work anyway, even if you're not in the Exec, so..." I mean, you can think it all you want, but at least don't say this to my face! It's not as though I wasn't aware that my batch wanted its personal slave, but was disinclined to consider the slave worthy of any respect. I was. But literally being informed that the reason why you don't merit any consideration is the fact that you'll work anyway was a punch in the face. It is also why I am not going to work. I don't work on policy because I need student validation, but they outlawed slavery a while back and I'd like to remind you of that. If you recognise the fact that the work one does it worth some consideration, then give it that respect, for Christ's sake! In any case, I'm also told that "there is nothing" to all of the timetabling and project bidding and enrollment forms: it's cake walk for some, I guess. It was hard work for me, to take on this work for the whole of the university, and a shitload of pressure, because nobody here really forgives mistakes, and I don't think I'm unjustified in expecting basic decency in being dealt with, after that. "Haan haan, Gen Sec chod do, VP ke liye vote kar rahe ho na?" is not basic decency (especially if you're crooning about how you're trying so hard to get me into the Exec). It's hypocrisy. And it's hypocrisy I'm done with.
I was told by someone else (with a sense of urgency) that the problem with voting for me "is not your work, it's you!" Which, forgive me, I don't understand. I'm guessing he was talking about my image, but I still don't understand it. My work can be divorced from my image, but the negatives can't? And, more importantly, ragging someone into voting for one does no harm to one's image, having no manifesto or plan of action does no harm for one's image, having done no work in all one's time in the university does no harm, having done no work even while holding office does no harm, but perceived condescension (with the humaneness of the person in other situations being completely ignored), despite work being done and a clear plan of action in hand, is good reason to refuse to support a person. Bravo!
I shall condescend, monopolise and oppress no longer.
Yesterday was the fourth election that I contested in NALSAR, and the third that I won (marginally). I wasn't certain whether I ought to have stood or not, but with a system changing by leaps and bounds, I felt that perhaps my previous knowledge of its functioning and my investment in its success would be useful tools to have on board. Yesterday was also the culmination of my tolerance towards comments made without the slightest inclination towards thought, sensitivity or decency. So, I want to address certain longstanding charges against my work in office, and against me. These were well summarised by our present Vice President, in explaining to me why an Executive position for me was undesirable. As I write this, there are those who insist that I resigned from office because I wanted to be on the Exec, and this having not materialised, I chose to walk out. Well, in my experience in NALSAR, it's always easier to believe the worst possible of a person, but I would want to clarify that I resigned because of unsubstantiated, pointed insults to my dignity and the effort I put into these years in office; insults that I felt that I no longer needed to waste my breath tolerating.
Reason Number One: Condescending and Unapproachable
Being a representative has been hard for me. I'm an exceedingly private and hot-tempered person by nature. If there is anything I owe this office, it is the training I've had in biting my tongue and listening to people, regardless of what I feel about them or the point they are making. I am sure I have, now and then, snapped and the person talking to me felt that it was unwarranted, and for the most part I have tried to apologise when those incidents occurred. But what I find interesting is how I am unapproachable, only when I don't need to be approached. When there is something that folk require of me--their grades (in order to pass) or their attendance or medical certificates or bare Acts for examinations or exemptions from exams or reworking of examination schedules or rules they take issue with--they approach me; even when they want to insult the living daylights out of me, they approach me. Otherwise, I am unapproachable. Yes, I have not functioned in the league of my predecessors in terms of speaking to teachers to get marks increased or attendance added, but I have worked in the field of policy to ensure that every person in that situation gets the benefit in question; and this hasn't been for friends (they usually don't fall foul of NALSAR rules anyway) but for a wide assortment of people who are neither close to me nor have any specific reason to find me more approachable than others do. Yet, as a matter of image, I am perennially unapproachable, which begs the question, then why have people been getting so much of their work done through me?
Reason Number Two: Undemocratic and Oppressive
Here's a rough list of things I have worked towards in the past year in office, because the administration was finally one that was willing to be democratic:
- Frequent open houses to discuss policy decisions
- Attendance being scanned in and sent to students every month
- All policies being mailed to the student body for comments, before being implemented
- Decisions like surprise tests being removed, etc. being made after polls by students
- All existing rules being scanned in and sent to the entire student body for comments, in order to have them re-worked
These were, of course, undemocratic. It is immaterial that barely anybody showed up for open houses and that nobody really bothered to actually send in constructive suggestions on the rules, but I made undemocratic decisions.
I made decisions on the basis of what I wanted. I made the university's timetable, and now I'm told that it was on the basis of the courses I liked (and an effort to ensure they don't clash). The preference forms sent before making the timetable were for fun--you know, my vacation's worth of Excel-playtime while dealing with a painful breakup and being incredibly lonesome in a big city? Nine people chose both Banking and Finance and IoS, seven chose IoS and Cap Marks, while there were clashes ranging up to thirty-six (17 courses more than 10, all of which clashes were avoided) with these subjects and other ones. "Why couldn't Banking and Finance not be made to clash with IoS when over thirty students wanted both?" Here's my answer: "Because when you were asked to give in your preferences, you didn't bother to think it through, but you will not introspect enough to find fault with yourselves, so it's convenient to make me out to be some kind of self-serving bitch who made the timetable only to serve her own ends." Because spending an entire vacation researching timetabling software and learning PHP is totally work one would do while being self-serving.
So I asked the Vice-President which of my decisions he found oppressive and imposed. He said: "So many of them." So I asked, "Which?" And he said, "Erm, the timetable? Last year's timetable." I asked him if he noticed that the schedule that people suggested as an alternative in Semester 5 was the schedule that was followed in Semester 6 (oh no, but that would mean that student opinion had actually been taken seriously, an admission that would really harm the argument at hand), and he blinked and moved on to the other problems with me.
Reason Number Three: Monopoly over Power
This, supposedly, doesn't even require an explanation. I have a monopoly over power in this place and that's just a statement of fact now. I would, however, like to unpack this a tiny bit.
So I was Academic Representative in my second year and the Convenor of the same committee in my third year. I have a tiny group of friends. I have neither tried nor want to try bullying people into voting for me, so Boys' Hostel politics is not my cup of tea. When men have monopolised the political system and positions in the Executive since the existence of the system itself, that doesn't count. There have been two women in Executive positions in the history of NALSAR, and that isn't monopoly over power. One woman, winning three elections consecutively, working her guts out for humane policy in the university and building relationships with people in the administration (though never ceasing to oppose the things she dislikes, hence often being told off by the same members of the administration for 'abusing space') is monopolising power. The first time I spoke to the Vice-Chancellor was when I was asked to convince him into making an exception for a LLM student who could not afford to pay the fees to be admitted into the university, and the VC yelled at me so loudly that the Registrar's office heard. Clearly, 'hotlines to bigshots' involve a good deal of persistence and a much greater amount of work in terms of putting together cogent arguments that are hard to deny. And if you try it out, you might find that you'll have hotlines to bigshots too; even hotter lines, perhaps, given how horribly unlikeable I am.
Reason Number Four (and this is the best): Will Work Anyway
"You can work anyway, even if you're not in the Exec, so..." I mean, you can think it all you want, but at least don't say this to my face! It's not as though I wasn't aware that my batch wanted its personal slave, but was disinclined to consider the slave worthy of any respect. I was. But literally being informed that the reason why you don't merit any consideration is the fact that you'll work anyway was a punch in the face. It is also why I am not going to work. I don't work on policy because I need student validation, but they outlawed slavery a while back and I'd like to remind you of that. If you recognise the fact that the work one does it worth some consideration, then give it that respect, for Christ's sake! In any case, I'm also told that "there is nothing" to all of the timetabling and project bidding and enrollment forms: it's cake walk for some, I guess. It was hard work for me, to take on this work for the whole of the university, and a shitload of pressure, because nobody here really forgives mistakes, and I don't think I'm unjustified in expecting basic decency in being dealt with, after that. "Haan haan, Gen Sec chod do, VP ke liye vote kar rahe ho na?" is not basic decency (especially if you're crooning about how you're trying so hard to get me into the Exec). It's hypocrisy. And it's hypocrisy I'm done with.
I was told by someone else (with a sense of urgency) that the problem with voting for me "is not your work, it's you!" Which, forgive me, I don't understand. I'm guessing he was talking about my image, but I still don't understand it. My work can be divorced from my image, but the negatives can't? And, more importantly, ragging someone into voting for one does no harm to one's image, having no manifesto or plan of action does no harm for one's image, having done no work in all one's time in the university does no harm, having done no work even while holding office does no harm, but perceived condescension (with the humaneness of the person in other situations being completely ignored), despite work being done and a clear plan of action in hand, is good reason to refuse to support a person. Bravo!
I shall condescend, monopolise and oppress no longer.
"I shall condescend, monopolise and oppress no longer."
ReplyDeleteThank God!
Not only are you condescending, unapproachable, undemocratic, oppressive and power hungry. you're also blind if you think you are none of these things.
ReplyDeleteO Come on Dear,
ReplyDeleteWe can argue until the cows come home but the point is somewhere just this,
You lost, the present VP won.
There is no problem in losing but you should not be loser.
Best,
cdspaddu.
There is no problem in losing, ninny. But you lost to a MAN... There there.
ReplyDeleteYou should consider taking up writing full time after law school. Your blog makes for a very interesting read.
ReplyDeleteYou indulge in everything that you accuse others of.
ReplyDeleteAlso don't accuse the present VP. He is a gentleman. You very well know who the masterminds are behind the coup.
Also, run to your mastermind now.
As Balakrishna puts it:
"take care, my dear"
"so Boys' Hostel politics is not my cup of tea."
ReplyDeleteuff yeh mard hi kyun milte hai mujhe hamesha shayar kyun nahi
To all the individuals seeking anonymity to comment,
ReplyDeleteYou may agree or disagree with Anindita's views, but if you wish to comment on this blogpost, which at the least can be applauded for its forthrightness, have the nerve to identify yourself before airing your respectable opinions.
"ragging someone into voting for one does no harm to one's "image, having no manifesto or plan of action does no harm for one's image, having done no work in all one's time in the university does no harm, having done no work even while holding office does no harm"
ReplyDeleteThe story of NALSAR elections. Competence, well, who cares?
And MAN? Really? Well, let's not go there won't suit to Mr. VP ;)
It's not a VP v. Ninny situation as much as these comments are trying to make it out to be. And I don't understand how people can be so vicious on either side while commenting. No wonder the need to be scared that you post comments as "anonymous".
ReplyDeleteEven as a close friend of "the VP", we appreciate the right everybody has to say what they feel, why do people have to hide behind this anonymity to say the most vicious things you could to a person?
ReplyDeleteSome of the comments are really disturbing.
The anonymity is what fuels that animosity Shreshtha. The comments have taken the article out of context, some even made in blatant ignorance of the facts at hand. The intention behind the article, I think, is lost. It is true that NALSAR politics is not only dirty, but outright biased and hegemonic.
ReplyDeleteIt is a democratic election where everyone votes. You thought you worked hard, probably you did. The other side did not think so and they did a better job of convincing the voters. I do not see any reason to go about ranting about the politics in Nalsar. The student body did not want you on the exec, that's all that matters in the end.
ReplyDeleteI see a perfect reason to democratize the way electoral politics (what you call "democracy" is actually majoritarianism) is done in Nalsar.
DeleteDirect Elections for Exec. So that retards like the present VP don't have the audacity to tell us about our competence!
Direct Elections, here you go..
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSSk0fkt2xM
Fuck you.
Not only are you brave enough to bare your soul through this but you managed to capture my thoughts as well.
ReplyDeleteBe strong, don't ever let anyone tell you where you belong.
As Gaga says,
"Be inspired to ignore their ignorant message and be happy that you are not addicted or burdened by hate as they are"
I agree with Shreshtha. "Retards like the present VP"? Saying something like that is also completely uncalled for. Please refrain from COMPLETELY missing the point and resorting to name calling.
ReplyDeleteAwh. I am so sorry. Go anonymously hate me now.
DeleteHeard of Defence of Truth, Aditi? :)
ReplyDeleteBahut Bura hua, bahut Bura huaaaaaa...
ReplyDeleteDid someone just say you lost to a Man? Wait, did you mean Khemka? A man? Hah hah hah. Good joke.
ReplyDelete^ Hahahahaha! That just made my day!
Delete^ I know, right? He takes forever to get ready [among other things, of course].
DeleteI wonder WHY I STILL love this 'retard' of a VP. Sigh.
~ THe Second Lady (popularly? so called).
Maybe because he's the only guy who'll allow you to keep his balls in your purse.
DeleteYour comment reeks of jealousy. Its been three years since they started dating. Get over it already!
DeleteSecond Lady, where is the treat? Mr VP won!
DeleteAt least the balls could temporarily come out of the purse to say to the person to their face what one felt. More than what we can say for you, don't you think?
DeleteSo even you admit that the balls could only "temporarily" come out. Haha!!!
DeleteNinny we really respect the work you have done in the last two years. Being unaware of the exact content of your conversation with the V.P., I dont think I should even comment on this post of yours. You found something hurtful you spoke about it. That is very brave of you. The only request I have is to join back and if any of these problems are found to have merit try to remedy them. While I for one believe you have been an exceptional Acad rep, there may have been mistakes which you made and havent been cognizant about them. If they dont turn out to be of any relvance then you dont have to bother. Knowing the VP (as one of my good friends), I can assure you he meant nothing in bad-faith. There have been people who have indeed found you a little formidable or at times unapproachable. May be it was just that the ice was never broken and no attempt was made from either side. No one is doubting the efficacy of the system you have brought in and your attempts at making it democratic. It is just that, if I find myself in trouble and I cant reach out to a certain representative of mine because there is a sense of discomfort and a certain ainaccessibility I would I may not be very possitive about the rep. For me the democratic system loses its meaning then. I think what Harsh wanted to communicate was about what many (if not majority) may have wish you to remedyin your third term as an acad rep.
ReplyDeleteOf my three years of friendship with the VP, I can assure you so much, that he would have never confronted you with some ulterior motives or in bad faith. For the rest who challenge his competence, were once his friends, who have in the past for their own personal interests, overrun their friendship and now have the courage and face to question his character, attitude and competence without introspecting their own.
i think childhood abuse history defines your mentality..also you cant survive in the outside world....
ReplyDeleteJust think before you type, you insensitive anonymous brute.
DeleteAt Anonymous above. It takes a surprisingly large amount of cowardice to leave a comment like that. The only consolation that the world has, is that people like you have to live in your own hate and fear for your whole lives. Good luck with your life, you're gonna need it.
DeleteNo one denies that you did not do good work in your previous tenures. However, you ought to understand that someone else in that position can also do good work. And i'm sure even if you are not in an exec position, you can still carry on with whatever you had planned, not like the SBC would suppress all your suggestions. Resigning as a representative was stupid on your part.
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point of this post entirely. The idea that another person could do as good a job is not in question. But what is the basis on which you elect? Work done and plans for the future, or the ability to glare at juniors and threaten them with dire consequences if they don't vote a certain way.
DeletePranav, you really did miss the point of this post. She did not resign because she didn't get an exec post. And for all you haters out there, you know what? I'm secretly glad Ninny resigned. I would love to see anyone even attempt the kind of things she's done for this university. Making time-tables isn't the only mandate of an academic representative. And for all those out there who think that making timetables is an easy job, it really isn't. Stop hating on people who do good work, it is extremely easy to sit and criticize others, but it's fucking difficult to sit all summer and do that kind of work on your own free time.
DeleteHear Hear servant is speaking for the master.
DeleteIt's nice of you to offer free psychiatric diagnosis. Since you have all that free time, perhaps you could try thinking about the real issue at hand - the substantive points made? Also, I hope you find joy in this outside world, because personally if it's filled with people who are without hope, without encouragement and without basic decency and respect for other human beings, I hope to god I don't become what it takes to 'survive' in it either.
ReplyDelete@ AnonymousJuly 12, 2013 at 12:43 AM
DeleteChill Maar
ReplyDeleteNinny, I did not like u loosing the war. leaders are always criticised and condemned by mediocres. u shud not care them. I FELT BAD REALLY.
ReplyDeleteOh, chill out people. Why don't you enjoy this topless picture of Emma Watson, instead?
ReplyDeletehttp://i.imgur.com/OalIP.jpg
where be the like button?
Delete"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
ReplyDeleteMargaret Thatcher
For you Ninny :)
No one else could've been more appropriate than good ol' maggie in Anindita's case: anti-unionist (undemocratic), BIG ego, elitist, talking down to people and an overdose of self-righteousness.
DeleteNinny, there is no doubt that you have worked for the college and for our batch in the capacity of a rep and then a convenor. But I think what the VP was trying to say was that means and ends are equally important. The problem was with the former.
ReplyDeleteI pray don't kill the new acad rep by putting her/him down by comparing. And acceptance is the foremost ingredient of merit. And the fact Ninny could garner just 2 out of 32 votes outside the batch says something. I credit her for all that she has done, but this post is way too polarizing and is doing much more than what it set out for. And ninny if you really think votes can be won by ragging and that it constitutes boys hostel politics then that should explain the 2 votes you got. There are people out here who live in the shell of NALSAR cut out from the realities, for they will never know and recognize that they do not live up to their own theories. And Anonymity is best here, you can get your intellectual bourgeoisie and the pseudo ones who try aping them so hard and have a discourse on this. Don't be French.
ReplyDeletePS.: to who so ever quoted margaret thatcher, please learn about her. It is detrimental to quote her in this context. Be original stop aping.
And to the leader wala comment "you watch too much roadies."
With malice towards one and all.
Well if you thought the elections were all useless maybe last year when you were elected as a convener you should've at least tried to make some reforms. Did anyone hear you complaining when you won?
ReplyDeleteShe did complain about the system then! Get your facts right. She was one of the few people who was vouching for direct elections to the exec then as well.
DeleteListen to this, it will give you perspective on how to deal with this.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM