On democracies and free meals

The good thing about IIT Kanpur is the active student involvement in the administrative processes (at least those related to students). This, I have never had a doubt about. I believed that the average intellectual of the IITians would rise beyond shallow greed to enable this system to be progressive. But over the last one year or so, I feel saddened to have been proved wrong.

Around a year ago, a proposal was received to hike the electricity charges to be borne by the students in lieu of increased electricity rates. A subsequent proposal was made to recover electricity charges from each hostel individually. The proposal aimed at generating greater accountability amongst the residents(students) regarding electricity usage. This system was finally implemented in the start of the present semester. Through all the back and forth discussions, the students remained silent about the new proposal, its shortcomings etc. until they received their first bill at the end of January. Then began a series of absurd discussions and arguments that have saddened me time and again.

Through these 6 months I have seen students spread misinformation first out of ignorance and then out of deliberation to serve the end they had in mind. I have seen them refuse to accept facts or update their opinions in light of new knowledge. I have seen them arm-twist statements and opinions till they toe the line. I have never seen more ignoramuses in my life.

I observed an egotistical unwillingness amongst the students to accept the flaws in their arguments/claims. This process of thought amongst young adults is frightening and terrifying. All that’s left after months of deliberation are the same claims they began with. “The institute should subsidise our lifestyle, the government should subsidise our lifestyle, we on our part shall claim no responsibility for it. “

As an office bearer, part of the hostel administration I (along with others) was expected to sign a letter addressed to the director.  I was informed to sign on the sheet only if I agreed. But would a blank against my name imply assent by silence? Did it appear as another deliberate attempt to highlight only one set of opinions? Or was it reluctance to record un-favourable opinions out of fear that they might gather more of their kind?

Any democratic setup/ process presupposes informed opinion. It presumes that every individual, that is to be a part of the setup, has access to unbiased information to form this opinion, and that the process/ setup that gather these opinions merely consolidates them and does not collude them. Hence, in presence of misinformation and biased referees this system fails.

That “we”, the “present” (future?) of the world are already corrupt enough in thought and action, that we cannot run a simulacrum democracy successfully, makes me numb. It breaks me to see that at an age when we should be broadening our vision, we choose to live in a voluntary myopia. We want low tax rates, and subsidies on everything. We want a rise in pay over time due to inflation, yet we do not want to accept inflation and increase in prices. We want free education, but want no one to be bothered about our grades. We want facilities and comforts, yet we do not want to be held responsible for them. We do not want to be responsible for the resources use, we do not want to be responsible for the waste we generate, we do not want to be responsible for the dying trees, for the thirsty animals and the homes we have destroyed. We do not want to be responsible for the miserable lives on which the "sales" thrive. Time and again, “we” fail ourselves collectively, and yet expect the society exclusive of us to somehow be different. 

It is easy to say change begins at home, or practice what you preach, yet it is difficult to resist the temptation to rush at every board that screams free meals.