Hard to Digest

Views expressed are personal.

Political instability usually shows how well the leaders of a state handle its affairs. Different philosophers have much to say about it. In the early 16th century, Machiavelli believed that any and all threats to the sovereign must be eradicated to preserve the prince. Derivative of his name, to call someone machiavellian means they are “cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous”. Political philosophy has many genres, of course, but a recurring theme is protecting one’s own social status and power. How would this change in an area where citizens go out of their way to express their concerns at an emergency meeting just to have every member of the administration shun them away at every turn? 

Machiavelli was clever at every turn: he explained the very nature of a prince and published “The Prince”, which served as a set of instructions and regulations for being a successful ruler. However, he made sure that this manuscript was available to the public. This was a move that ensured his loyalty to the sovereign as well as the public. According to him, a ruler is supposed to act in a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that the public cannot know about everything that the ruler does. Obviously, we live in a time that Machiavelli does not, but some of the journalistic principles with which he operated are admirable. There are many things that I have qualms with, but he made sure that everyone knew what exactly he was proposing. For a healthy state to thrive, everything must be apparent, even if it's any wrongdoing. If it is the number of people falling sick, we deserve to know about it. If the amount of money we pay requires a breakdown, we deserve to know about it. This is not a charity event where those better off give us “access to education”. And this is definitely not the education that is given that teaches us that financial aid students have to be treated lower than.

For a vice chancellor who does not understand the tiered system with which financial aid is offered, for an administration that can't seem to understand free healthcare for an epidemic that was perpetrated by them and for a certain someone who couldn’t look up from his phone when students were pouring their complaints, this, once again, boils down to be a blame game. In the 15-or-so-page transcript of the meeting with the VC and various other stakeholders, it seems apparent that frustration was not pent up with just students but the admin themselves. Incessant remarks about students' authority over university decisions were constantly raised. For every email that has been sent and every question raised, numbers were the first answer we received. Be it 35 lakhs or the 4 weeks we keep hearing; we must know their cause of functioning at such below the standard level. When the people who have applied, passed through admissions, and travelled to study in the middle of nowhere ask simple questions about what went wrong, there suddenly seems to be no answer.

Their excuse for answering this question is that some of us don’t pay or that our parents do. If this was a matter of transaction, why boast about your philanthropic endeavours? Why use the club-led activities to put on your socials? What use is your communication team when you only want to communicate to students who wish to get in and drop all forms of accountability once they become students?

If you have read this far, it must be apparent that the Machiavelli anecdote was pretty much useless to mention. It was just an easy reminder that the concept of transparency has existed for many centuries and is a fact that should help you digest your food better (not).