Minutes of the Second Meeting

The meeting opened with a discussion of the proposed amendments to the IT Act and the rules being circulated by MeitY for public comment. Three provisions drew particular concern.

First, the amendments extend the code of ethics and complaint mechanisms that currently apply to news media to commentary on news and current affairs more broadly — a category whose boundaries remain undefined. Second, the proposed Sahyog mechanism allows the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to refer content to platforms as a formal legal directive; non-compliance would cause platforms to lose safe harbour protections, effectively making ministerial direction enforceable as law. Third, anything issued by MeitY under the new framework would carry legal force.

One participant noted that these mechanisms have already been operating informally — the mining protests and transgender protests were cited as recent examples — and the amendments would simply formalise existing practice. Several court rulings have already curtailed speech protections, making a constitutional challenge difficult.

The public comment period closes on 14 April. The group discussed how to mobilise students and faculty to submit responses. The Internet Freedom Foundation’s detailed rebuttal was flagged as a resource. One participant suggested that responses include constructive suggestions alongside dissent, though others noted that the loss of safe harbour alone is sweeping enough that safeguards are difficult to specify in detail. Time was identified as the binding constraint.

The group discussed a signature and email campaign targeting the public comment window. Proposed methods included students near the mess with flyers and QR codes, and an institutional statement from faculty given IIITH’s standing on IT-related matters. Faculty were seen as a particular target: their institutional positions lend weight that student signatures alone may not carry.

It was acknowledged that the campaign might be symbolic. But symbolism was not dismissed. The point is to build a community that takes these questions seriously, to create a record that students and faculty at this institution objected, and to begin the habit of collective response. Both are worth doing.

A proposal was made for two parallel tracks: a weekly reading group on broader political issues, and a biweekly campus-focused discussion. Concern was raised that two meetings a week would be too much of an ask.

On openness: the consensus leaned toward keeping meetings open rather than tightly knit. Even in a poorly attended room, the practice of meeting matters. The reason for gathering should be compelling enough that people show up regardless of who else does.

Communication was discussed. Email was felt to carry more weight than WhatsApp groups. Instagram and other platforms were raised as supplementary channels. The group agreed to coordinate further.

The discussion shifted to GGC proceedings and a 2023–24 online harassment case that has remained unresolved. A previous email from GGC was criticised for being thin: it covered only two cases, one involving sexist comments and one workplace harassment, and was felt to exist for form’s sake rather than genuine transparency.

The group noted that academic misconduct cases are handled with a short, prompt description — issue, violation, action taken — and that something comparable would serve better than vague institutional language. Privacy was raised as a concern, but participants pointed out that academic cases also name no one; the standard for disclosure is clarity about what happened and what was done, not identification of individuals.

Procedurally, Faculty-4 is noted to be deliberately vague so that perpetrators cannot be identified. One case characterised as minor has nonetheless taken close to three months. GGC volunteers described having to push two or three times to get meetings to happen at all. One case has been stuck since mid-2024. The group agreed that GGC should ideally schedule regular slots rather than convening ad hoc, and that complainants should be able to opt in to receiving procedural updates without this being treated as a risk of re-traumatisation in itself.

A recurring problem was identified: the lack of GSC volunteers. Apex ends up functioning as a surrogate for everything, which was not its design. The trust deficit runs in both directions — faculty are apprehensive about students having formal power, citing past experiences with Apex; students see no transparency in how Apex members are selected, and describe the process as incestuous.

The positive features of Apex were also noted: proximity to students, especially first-years, and the willingness of members to dedicate time and effort. The issue is not the model but the selection and vetting. The final round of faculty vetting was described as a formality. SLO is supposed to do this work and does not.

One proposal: a structured selection procedure for GSC volunteers modelled on what works in Apex — proximity, trust, and time commitment — but with a more rigorous and transparent process. Faculty-1 was described as resistant to formalising student involvement on grounds that students should not be put in the position of heroes; Faculty-2 was described as more receptive.

The group identified four concrete actions: reaching the CoGeR chair directly about the delay; asking them to make the volunteer list public immediately; raising awareness of GSC and GGC processes more broadly; and explicitly flagging that the volunteer gap has persisted for two years without resolution.

The discussion moved to campus culture and gender. The premise offered was that misogyny at IIITH is not primarily a matter of individual bad actors but a socially incentivised pattern — one that the institute’s physical design, and its social structures all reinforce. The question posed was not how to punish individuals but how to alter the incentive structure.

Specific incidents were named: a “Diddy of the batch” category in the unofficial farewell awards poll, a yearbook portal that approved the category without apparent review, Felicity skits described as misogynistic. These were raised not as isolated failures but as evidence of a permissive environment.

One participant argued that calling people out publicly tends to harden rather than convert — those on the grey end of the spectrum get pushed further out rather than drawn in. The preferred model was quieter: one-on-one conversations, friends talking to friends, seniors modelling behaviour that juniors want to emulate. The “cool factor” was specifically named — misogyny reads as cool in certain circles, and the most effective intervention is to remove that valence, not through shame campaigns but through the ordinary social pressure of people whose opinions the target respects.

Another participant pushed back on placing too much burden on awareness and too little on structural response. Not everyone is ignorant; some behaviour is repeated and deliberate.

Some women participants noted that the onus is not only on women to have these conversations — men talking to men, without being prompted, was identified as carrying particular credibility and weight.

A consistent thread was that the people most likely to need changing are the least likely to attend any event designed to change them. Screenings and panels work for those already oriented toward the questions. First-year cluster meetings were proposed as a better point of intervention — mandatory attendance, early in the year, before social norms are fully calcified. Several participants noted that a cyclorama play drew thirty people, suggesting that performance reaches audiences that panels do not.

One participant observed that men on campus often do not meaningfully interact with women beyond particular contexts, and that much of what shapes understanding of gendered experience comes from women in one’s own life rather than from peers. The question of whether the institute creates spaces for that kind of interaction was left open.

GSC AMAs run by student volunteers — rather than by professors — were proposed as a mechanism: a non-judgemental space where men could ask questions, including ones they know are wrong, without the formality that shuts conversation down. The objection was raised that this asks a great deal of volunteers. The counter was that it is more realistic than expecting formal sessions to carry the work alone.

On the question of public discussion: one participant argued that bringing these conversations into more visible spaces — the amphitheatre, the canteen — risks being performative without producing change. Another argued that the practice of public conversation is itself a form of culture-making, regardless of immediate outcomes. Both positions remained live.

Ping! was raised as a vehicle. One proposal: a piece asking men on campus to reflect on whether they are having these conversations in their friend groups — not as a demand, but as an invitation. Art was also named: one participant felt that voice does not reach people who are not already listening, and that something visual or performative might open avenues that argument cannot. The point was left unresolved but noted as worth pursuing.

1. Submit responses to the MeitY public comment on the IT Amendment Act before 14 April. [24th April update: deadline for comments has been pushed to May 7th] Coordinate the email and signature campaign, prioritising faculty outreach given IIITH’s standing on IT-related matters.
2. Contact the CoGeR chair directly to ask why the volunteer slate has remained unfilled for two years and request a timeline for resolution
3. Propose that GGC schedule regular, fixed meeting slots rather than convening ad hoc, and that complainants be given the option to receive procedural updates.
4. Explore student-run GSC AMAs as a complement to formal sensitisation sessions, particularly for first-year cluster meetings.
5. Consider a Ping! piece inviting men on campus to reflect on these conversations in their own circles, without being prompted.
6. Continue meeting. Settle the question of weekly versus biweekly cadence in the group.