Term Review: G. Sec Tech
This Review of the Tech General secretaries is borne out of an interview of both the Tech GSecs: Anusha Sharan and Anmol Shakya with The Scholars’ Avenue team.
We have proceeded in an elaborate fashion to take entire updates on every proposal that both the GSecs had presented in their Statement of Purpose while they were contesting in the 2017 Gymkhana elections.
The purpose of this review definitely is to disseminate correct and accurate information about the state of every proposal. But at the same time, this review also conveys major points that the new GSec Tech contestants must take into consideration while preparing their new proposals.
It was observed that some important proposals were implemented well but quite a few of the combined proposals by the two GSecs either could not be implemented or were left stagnant in the administrative pipelines. Let us take a detailed look at the state of every proposal one by one:
Anmol Shakya’s Proposals
Proposal-1: To outsource the Kshitij regionals Kascade to our neighbouring countries, i.e. Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal
Current state: This Proposal could not be realised this year.
Two universities in Nepal and Bhutan were contacted while Research Groups were contacted in Bangladesh. The contacted universities and groups seemed interested to participate as they considered to take regular follow-ups but there was a sudden decrease in the organizing team’s size which came down to 20 from 27, owing to which the team members were rendered to complete the essential tasks. The budget and the feasibility of the plan was not an issue but the minimum people which were required to take care of the foreign participation were unavailable.
Future aspects: This can be one major job to be taken ahead by the next year’s GSecs given that proper team size is maintained.
Proposal-2: To introduce a new event in the Tech GC regarding marketing campaigns for government policies.
Current state: This proposal could not witness an initial breakthrough during the entire tenure.
The new event was supposed to be implemented in a way such that the problem statement could be sourced from a PSU as it happened in the Inter-IIT Tech Meet and a suitable marketing campaign could be designed for it. The idea already drew a major essence of it from the pre-existing Ad- Design competition while the only visible difference to be(or not to be) mentioned is involvement of a PSU and a customised campaign design which could majorly be focussed on a social initiative(given that the plan surfaced). Apart from it, the feasibility from the initial stages itself was a dark area which could never be enlightened. The previous G.Secs of the different Halls of Residence pitched it as a matter which could be discussed in the subcommittee meetings ahead without any assurance.The major constraints faced were that the halls thought it to be an idea too unconventional to be taken ahead as a separate event and that the funds were so less that even the budget for Inter-IIT tech Meet had to be used to fulfil the requirements of the Tech GC in general.
Future aspects: Given the unwelcome response to this particular proposal further work on it can be discontinued and more attention can be given to the other proposals.
Proposal-3: To conduct an Open School Championship in Kshitij 2018 with events involving mental aptitude, dexterity to exercise combination and coordination skills.
Current State: This proposal which was well implemented with bringing up of collaborations with deemed organizations such as the National Science Olympiad Foundation.
The questions provided by the foundation along with some other mental aptitude questions were available on the website. A science olympiad competition was held and the schools could participate in Kshitij 2018 thus broadening its horizons. Apart from it, Maths Olympiads were organized separately for the school students and for the college students. The tests were conducted in various regional schools and schools in the Kolkata Region.
Future Aspects: The good work on this front must be carried forward.
Anusha Sharan’s Proposals
Proposal-1: To expand the horizons of the Technology General Championship by facilitating the showcasing of the winning solutions of events of the Technology General Championship, in conferences and exhibitions conducted by renowned international organisations and societies.
Current Status: Partially implemented and stuck in the administrative pipeline.
Though the head of departments of Computer Science and Engineering and Civil Engineering departments were contacted for establishing student chapters of various organisations like ACM and ASCE at IIT Kharagpur, they could not be formed in a single year. It has been assured that the process of establishment of these student chapters has started but it will take another year to complete. But the question is will the new GSec be enthusiastic to take this initiative forward? As of now, only IEEE is functional with Eureka, an event certified by IEEE which is part of Kshitij, but it was already there in IIT Kharagpur. So there is no substantial progress to show on this proposal and maybe TechGC events will need some other ways to make students prefer them over other more lucrative events out there.
Future Aspects: The new GSecs should take this proposal up from where it was left as giving a little more time to it can lead to its implementation.
Proposal-2: To expand the social reach of Kshitij by introducing an event which aims at creating software or working models using Artificial Intelligence and concepts of Data Science like Machine Learning, that can be used by differently abled people.
Current Status: Not implemented though relevant work done behind it.
H&R Johnson was contacted for this as they have a campaign to create technological solutions for physically handicapped people. This was supposed to come as a social initiative and not an event under KTJ. They had provided the initial draft of the problem statement but complete dependence on H&R Johnson for sponsoring the initiative proved to be fatal in this case as they refused to provide further funds after reaching their budget limit for the year.
Future Aspects: It must, however, be noticed that the entire dependence on one company’s whims for the implementation of such an important proposal was not a correct protocol. This proposal must be taken up seriously by the new GSecs and more efforts should be put behind it.
Proposal-3: To introduce some novel events in the Open IIT that are later on incorporated in the Technology General Championship with the consensus of all Halls of Residences.
The events proposed are as follows:
1. Cyber Security Challenge
2. Mobile Game Design
Current State: This again comes under the ‘Next Year Probably’ proposals.
Anusha says that right after her tenure started in June, she contacted companies around Kolkata for implementation of this. However, much to her surprise she realised that it was a long and tedious process and would take 3 to 4 months (not something that occurred to her while penning down the proposals). It was only after discussing it thoroughly with her Secretaries that she came to a conclusion that this proposal couldn’t be implemented this year.
Future aspects: She, however, has a wonderfully laid plan for the future Gsecs. She says things would be best if a cybersecurity workshop of 4 months is conducted in October and the one on Game Development is done during Spring Sem. She says that she even contacted profs to ascertain that Game Dev isn’t something that can be done in short and slack period.
Proposal-4: To have a Dashboard consisting of all activities related to the Technology Committee of the Technology Students’ Gymkhana and would also act as a forum for discussions on technology in general.
Anusha says that we don’t ‘particularly’ have a dashboard but they’re almost done with something similar. She and her colleagues have created a forum for registering complaints and feedbacks which would directly go to the Tech Gsecs. The work on it has been already completed and she expects it to be out by the end of next week. Also, she says that there’s a common platform for Sports, SoCult and Tech and there isn’t a requirement of a ‘separate dashboard’ for Tech (clearly very late realization).
We proceeded to ask them about their suggestions to the new candidates to which they suggested the candidates to propose some realistic and achievable proposals instead of far-fetched novel proposals. They wanted them to meet their ex-GSecs and take their suggestions to avoid the difficulties their predecessors faced in implementation of various proposals. They urged for a separate staff member for only technology events and lamented upon the trivial budgets passed by the gymkhana which makes the execution of the proposals a tedious task. They wanted them to take forward the steps taken by their predecessors.
To conclude it all, this year’s GSecs had very novel proposals but no substantial progress had been made on them. So what IIT KGP needs is not idealistic but realistic proposals, small initiatives which can be achieved over a period of one year and progress on the older initiatives.
