The Foundation Day Panel Discussion

The most important and highly anticipated part of the foundation day was the Panel Discussion. A mail sent to the students read :

The idea of having Panel Discussions on 'IIIT Culture' came in the context of the recent 'Ragging' scene which led to 3 students being sent to Mussourie as a part of transformational measure.

Whether or not the word ‘transformational’ should have had quotes around it is open to debate. The mail went on to state the questions which would be asked (and hopefully answered), and it made interesting reading :

What is the 'IIIT Culture' as has been gained through the past experience in the Institute? How has it fared?

and

What kind of Culture should IIIT build - among the students as well as the faculty and staff - as an Institute striving for better nation-building?

After sitting through the panel discussion, one thing is clear for all to see – those questions were asked to some minor extent but they were not really answered. There are two more discussions left to be held, with different panelists, so there is yet a chance something constructive may come out of all this. The people who participated in the panel discussion made up a very good mix - two current students, two alumni and two faculty. The panelists were (as announced in the afore mentioned mail):

1. Prof. Rajeeev Sangal, Director
2. Prof. P J Narayan, Dean (R & D)
3. Sunil Mohan Adapa, Alumnus (Batch of 2003)
4. Jayachandra Sunkara, Alumnus (Batch of 2004)
5. I V Aprameya Rao, Student, UG IV
6. Varun Boppana, Student ,UG III

The Moderator was Prof. P R K Rao and the session by and large went smoothly. The session was initiated by the moderator, who chose to quote a couple of famous personalities and then proceeded to explain to the audience his interpretation of their wise words. Shortly, the session officially began with the moderator handing the stage over to the panelists. The panelists were given a limit of five minutes to state their opinions before the debate began, but the actual amount of time each panelist talked for was more or less random. Some of the speeches were interesting and provided a unique insight into what the panelist considered a part of IIIT culture, but most were barren and devoid of any great conviction.

Given the boring and repetative manner in which the speeches began before the proceedings gained some momentum, a reasonable section of the audience was seen rubbing their eyes, yawning and in some cases, even sleeping on the uncomfortable chairs. After each panelist had stated his point of view the debate began.

The panelists were asked if they had anything to say about all the points which the others might have touched upon. The panelists treated this like they did their initial speeches, carefully weighing their words before speaking and adding umpteen “aaahs” before most lines. Then began the most productive part of this discussion which, bar a speech or two, was otherwise dreary and mediocre till that point of time. The stage was thrown open to the audience.

The audience had some good questions to ask and some quaint comments to make, but none of them directly dealt with those burning questions due to which this discussion had to be held in the first place. Rather than approach the topic from a higher level of abstraction, the questions were more about individual references which the panelists had made during their initial speeches.

A special mention has to be made of Prof. P J Narayan, whose witty comments and interesting personal experiences earned much appreciation from the audience. His comments on the way people treat "muggers" and his replies to the questions from the audience probably added a bit of flair to the evenings proceedings.

Prof PRK Rao’s job was made easier due to all the questions asked, which barely kick-started any real debate. More discussions of this sort would certainly be welcome, but only if they would result in some good solutions being found. However, watching so many people leaving right in the middle of the session was disappointing to say the least and that is probably one of the reasons why we have need of more such discussions in the first place.