Minutes of the Third Meeting

The meeting opened with Member-A’s status report on the campus code-of-conduct push (unified CoC, missing appeals procedure, surveyed peer institutions) and a tangent on inviting staff to NTNS spaces. Then operational planning: working group is logistics-only, deliberation stays open on the forum; summer = online weekly reading circle + active forum, no general meetings; UG1 onboarding via Apex (induction-week slot), CC (club intro flyering), and a casual jam-session-with-discussion. Strategically, a long unresolved debate on political framing — explicit leftism vs issue-first progressive framing — produced a slight lean toward issue-first messaging but no decision; this moves to the forum. Concretely, Member-A briefed the group on the [Redacted] (case subject) DC outcome (made but uncommunicated), the approved security committee plan (lathis, training, bike ambulance, expanded outdoor CCTV with passive monitoring), and open follow-ups on CCTV retention, custody, and signage. Logo tweaks and a “no tyranny no silence” tagline were agreed.

• Existing campus rules are old, made without student consultation, and not consistently followed even by admin.
• Member-A is pushing for a single unified campus-wide code of conduct covering academic, hostel, and research domains, with procedures clearly defined for what happens when it is violated, including the formation and procedure of disciplinary committees, and the process of appeals (currently absent — admin keeps asserting that appeals exist but no procedure is written down anywhere).
• Surveyed CoC documents from other institutions (IISERs, IISc, NLUs, IITs) for inspiration. Notable: IIT Bombay’s CoC includes a “no anti-national activities” provision — flagged as the kind of language to avoid importing.
• Status of existing/in-flight CoC documents at IIIT-H:
  • Staff CoC: instituted ~September/October last year; published online.
  • Student & faculty CoC: pending with HR office. Member-A has tried to fast-track without success.
• Constitution of the disciplinary committee should be embedded in the CoC (as it is at most NLUs / IISc).

• Member-C proposed beginning to invite non-faculty staff (mess workers, security/storekeepers, etc.) to NTNS meetings — they have nowhere else to discuss the issues they face.
• Counter-suggestion: this is probably better as personal one-on-one conversation at first, since group meetings can be intimidating.
• Working definition of “staff” agreed: everyone employed at IIIT-H who isn’t faculty.

• Working group scope (Member-D): the working group should be logistics/collation only. Deliberation must be open to everyone — confining it to a working group makes it inaccessible by default.
• Decision: post planning items on the forum instead of in private group chats; everyone present today should join the forum (QR code shared in the room).
• Vote on agenda: the meeting started by voting on which 3 topics to take up. Topic 1 became “general plan for NTNS + summer plan.”

• Three options debated: physical-only, online-only, or hybrid.
• Concerns: hybrid is logistically painful; online-only is “subject to moderation” / can get chaotic; physical excludes the many members away from campus.
• Decision: no general meetings during summer.
  • Reading circle runs online, weekly (see §8 for content).
  • Forum stays active for ad-hoc discussion if anything urgent comes up (parliamentary documents, etc.).
  • In-person general meetings resume next semester.

• Need to meet the new Apex team before they leave, but only with a clear agenda first.
  • Member-I offered to informally float the idea with Apex members (mostly UG3s, some UG4s).
  • Want to formally request a slot during induction week (half-hour to one-hour session).
  • Member-A’s correction: Apex members are selected (appointed), not elected — terminology matters when approaching them.
• Two asks for Apex:
  1. A slot for NTNS introduction during club intros (route via Apex; CC handles club showcase, but NTNS is not a club and shouldn’t register as a SIG).
  2. GST volunteers to be present in cluster meets to help set culture. Person-1 is the contact for this; need to follow up with her.
• Cluster-meet integration: Member-B — if enough Apex members align with us, one cluster meet could effectively be turned into an NTNS introduction session.
• Backup plan: hand out flyers outside H-105 if a formal slot doesn’t come through. NTNS-branded stickers / IIIT-issue stickers also discussed.

• Idea: host a music/jam session during the first week of UG1 induction — casual, with embedded discussion segments.
• Format: an activity, with breaks for short conversations on cluster-meet sensitization and similar topics.
• Sensitization workshops to be planned (separate from the GSC-led oration-style sessions, which target audiences rather than enabling discussion).

The core question: should NTNS be explicitly leftist in its public framing, or adopt a progressive / issue-first framing while remaining political internally?

Arguments for explicit framing (Member-C, Member-D, Member-F):

• The same analytical lens used for campus issues (power structures, etc.) is what motivates broader political work — politics isn’t opt-in, it’s implicit in everything we do.
• Self-censorship is dishonest; if we believe the IT Act is unconstitutional, the email should say so.
• “Apolitical” framing produces empty, unsticky messaging with no call to action — calls to action are inherently political.
• People on the fence are unlikely to be galvanized regardless; explicit framing actually attracts the people most likely to act.
• Member-F: NTNS will eventually catalyse a student-union-style formation — opposing fronts will organise in response, and the “neutral” discussion will materialise then. So we may as well stop hedging now.
• Member-D: position NTNS as a progressive space, but never pretend to be apolitical.

Arguments for issue-first / less explicit framing (Member-B, Member-J, Member-L, Member-K, Member-E, Member-A):

• A visibly far-left framing deters “grey” students who would actually agree with the substance once engaged.
• Many self-described apoliticals/liberals would agree with NTNS positions if approached on issue terms.
• Risk of being painted into a corner by a witty right-leaning critic in spaces NTNS isn’t present in.
• Faculty face real consequences for explicit alignment (Faculty-X’s point about contract renewals, relayed by Member-C); students face disciplinary risk.
• Member-H: don’t broadcast leftism even when holding the same ideas; e.g., drop “unconstitutional” from the IT Act framing in favor of “problematic parts.”
• Member-M: people aren’t idiots — even with neutral framing, anyone thinking for a second will recognise the politics. So neutral framing costs little.
• Member-D: I don’t think the college will ever have a problem with us being political.
• Member-A: there are plenty of left-leaning and right-leaning faculty who have their own disagreements but have been teaching together for 10, 14, 20 years — it doesn’t really matter.

Points of partial convergence:

• Reading circle should remain explicitly political (longer-form texts, deeper engagement) and is open to all but de facto an inner circle.
• General/praxis meetings should be framed around concrete issues and injustices (as the protest meeting was), not ideological vocabulary.
• Member-C’s synthesis: framing should match the thing — protests are protests, IT Act is political; don’t overthink it, say what it is.
• Member-E: orient to people and necessity first; ideology supplies the tools but shouldn’t be the lead.

Vote (informal, by show of hands):

• “Politicize people” (issue-first framing): slight majority.
• “Attract already-political people” (explicit framing): minority but substantial.
• Decision: not resolved in this meeting. Discussion to continue on the forum.

• Format: longer-form texts, one chapter per week, online, weekly.
• Suggested readings:
  • Capital (Member-C — flagged as possibly excessive)
  • Capitalist Realism — Mark Fisher (Member-C’s preferred starter; relevant to current moment, has a tech throughline)
  • Critique of the Gotha Programme (Member-L — short)
  • Less is More — Jason Hickel (Member-D)
  • The organizing text Member-M shared (title TBD)
• Reading circle to remain explicitly political regardless of how general meetings are framed.

• Lamakaan — used to have a mailing list for events; Member-B to check.
• Rangbhoomi Spaces — moved out of Indiranagar to a larger space; weekly/bi-weekly plays, high quality (Member-K).
• Idea: NTNS could maintain its own mailing list pointing people to these spaces.

• IT Bill — May 9 deadline (shifted again). To revisit; Member-O was absent.
• Water issue — ongoing; if it goes through, NTNS can claim partial credit.
• AI politics — flagged as the kind of tech-adjacent political topics similar groups don’t cover, and which NTNS is uniquely positioned to take up.

• Listed on agenda but skipped — no representative present, exact date unclear (possibly July 6).

DC Process

• DC report submitted to registrar within a week of the incident; registrar’s decision issued within 4 days and sent to the student.
• Procedure followed correctly; only “leak” was the student’s own email of apology.
• Decision has been made but has not been communicated to the broader student body. Member-A is pushing the Dean of Student Affairs to make an announcement to students regarding this; announcement pending.
• Members urged not to draw conclusions until the full case report is released.

Security Committee — Plan of Action

Approved by Director and Registrar (with comments). Budget approved by GC the previous day; implementation expected within ~1 month. Follow-up meeting with registrar/director scheduled after endsems to address their comments.

Approved measures:

• Arming guards with lathis and pepper spray; walkie-talkies; self-defense training.
• Basic amenities for new security posts (lights, fans). Power sockets outdoors blocked pending prefab security posts (rain concern). Mosquito bats issued in the interim.
• Bike ambulance with first-aid kit (for incidents far from hostels — e.g., near main gate, Nilgiri).
• Guard training: self-defense, first aid, fire management.
• Additional guard deployment at currently-uncovered locations.
• Lighting improvements (e.g., main gate to Nilgiri, main gate to OBH, Kadam to OBH; ongoing tree-branch trimming).
• Fencing improvements near Felicity Park and the construction site (3 stray dogs entered through the construction site recently).

Emergency Number SOP

• Calls go to the main gate shift supervisor (always on duty, phone in hand).
• Full SOP supposed to be finalized by Monday — Member-A wants the final draft to incorporate suggestions from Parliament; current draft is too generic (lists situations but no specific steps).

CCTV Cameras

• Coverage to expand at outdoor locations only: building entrances, intersections (e.g., Kadam, near Nilgiri). No indoor cameras.
• Passive monitoring approved (record + retrieve on incident). Parliament opposed Staff-1’s push for an active command center; to be reviewed in 6 months.
• Access restricted to: IT head, registrar, security committee chair (Faculty-Chair).
• Open questions raised in the meeting:
  • Footage retention period (TTL) — unknown; needs to be made public.
  • Custody / anti-tampering — concern raised re: incident at Parijaat where police were told no footage existed.
  • Member-A: do not draw conclusions before the case report is released.
  • Request: signage notifying people they’re being recorded.
  • Request: make camera locations public once finalized.

Security Committee Composition (reconstituted Thursday)

• Chair: Faculty-Chair
• Faculty: Faculty-1, Faculty-2, Faculty-3
• Staff: Staff-1, Staff-2 + 2 others
• Students: Parliament rep: Infrastructure Council secretary, Hostel Council secretary. Member-A attends all meetings.

Engagement & Channel

• Member-A proposed (a month back) parliament-student office hours on top of of Faculty Student Interaction Sessions (FSIS); low buy-in elsewhere from the parliament.
• Outside informal within-batch conversations, there is very little formal interaction between Parliament and students — flagged as a structural gap.
• Forum thread for security committee suggestions to be opened.
• Debate over whether Parliament should send an email to students about the forum: Member-B pushed for it; Member-E cautioned that this risks making NTNS look like a extenstion of the parliament. Member-A: NTNS should be independent; NTNS members can independently popularise it through their own channels.

• Current logo (fist with antennas + “NTNS” lettering) generally well-liked.
• Member-E to revise lettering by end of Sunday.
• Suggested: replace the “NTNS” text with “No Tyrants, No Silence”.

• Discussion at the end about whether to set a hard stop time. General sense: leave it for now, revisit if it becomes an issue. Today ran ~2 hours which felt acceptable.