With the tension building up surrounding the Student Council for Cultural Activities’ (StuCCA) proposal to charge a nominal fee for Oasis 2024, a meeting with the GBM was organised by the StuCCA on September 12, 2024, in the Main Auditorium. Before beginning, the Election Commission did a headcount of the attendees to ensure that quorum had been established. Around 8:45 PM, the StuCCA started the proceedings of the evening by explaining their stance and projecting the fest ledgers for the General Body Members (GBM). 

The current ledger showed a negative balance with the fest-conducting bodies owing the institute a total of Rs 1.4 crores. Jaiditya Singh, the StuCCAn, Department of Controls, mentioned that the accounts department of the administration has refused further payments until and unless the ledgers go back to 0. Additionally, reimbursements to all departments, clubs, associations, and prize money distribution have been put on hold until the debt is paid off.  

The panel—comprising the StuCCA, the General Secretary (StuCCAn, Inventory), and the President (StuCCAn, Finance)—talked about following a deduction system, similar to that followed by BITS Hyderabad. They revealed that the GBM sent mixed responses to their initial email about a nominal fest fee of Rs 1650. Two main issues were raised; charging the people on their PS-II during the fest, and where the money would be used. Jaiditya clarified that students on PS-II would not be charged since they were not on campus, a change from their original decision. He added that to account for this decrease in students, in a semester with fewer registrations in the first place, the proposed fee was increased to Rs 1950.

He went on to explain where exactly the nominal fee would be going. He said that the budget had been prepared ‘very conservatively’. He briefly described all the expenses—professional shows, summing up to Rs 90 lakhs; prize money, summing up to Rs 10.5 lakhs; expenses for clubs and departments amounting to Rs 19 lakhs; travel expenses for Rs 29 lakhs; all the printing costs totalling Rs 15 lakhs; merchandise cost for Oasis coming up to Rs 7 lakhs; the total cost for instrumentation and equipment being Rs 2 lakhs; the food stalls in total costing around Rs 63 lakhs; and Rs 29 lakhs going into the inventory requirement for various clubs and departments that work during the fest. Combining all of them made the total expenditure as Rs 2 crores and 64 lakhs. 

Explaining the sources of the revenue stream, he described that the Department of Sponsorship and Marketing bring around Rs 28 lakhs; the revenue from the food stalls adding up to Rs 90 lakh; from outstation participant registrations generating between Rs 19 and Rs 20 lakhs; and the proposed fest deduction would amount to Rs 90.7 lakhs. Therefore, the total revenue would come out to be Rs 2 crores and 73 lakhs. Comparing the cost and the revenue, the profit would result in Rs 9.2 lakhs. This profit, he explained, is going to be used as a cushion in case some payments come out of the blue. 

Jaiditya explicitly said on multiple occasions that there are only two options— the GBM is charged the fest fee, or there will be no fest in case the deductions do not happen since the accounts department of the administration has refused further payments due to the existing debt. 

He explained the implications of charging the nominal fest fee. He noted that the three professional shows will be free of cost for everyone. He clarified that N2O would not be a part of this and would still be ticketed since the seating capacity in the auditorium was limited. Nevertheless, they asserted that they will subsidise the tickets for N2O, making them cheaper than the previous editions. He mentioned that the tickets for other club events like Adventure Zone would also be cheaper, but not free.  

They also listed the artists that they could get for each of the professional shows with the fee. For Bollywood Nite, they said that they could get the likes of Armaan Malik, Jubin Nautiyal, Guru Rundhawa, Salim Suleiman, and Vishal Mishra. For Hip-Hop Nite, they could get King, Raftaar, Karma, and Panther; and for Indie Nite, they could get artists and bands like Aditya Rikhari, The Yellow Diary, Mitraz, and The Pineapple Express. 

The floor was then given to members of the Corroboration and Review Committee (CRC), the Election Commission (EC), the EPC, and the HPC to ask questions. A member of the EPC asked the panel if the new nominal fee of Rs 1950 would be used only for this edition of Oasis or if it was intended to clear all previous dues. Jaiditya stated that this fee would not be used to clear any ledgers, since they would automatically become 0 due to ‘SU activities’, which would roughly take four semesters. He went on to say how this, in turn, meant that without fest deductions there would not be any fest for the next four semesters, since the cost of covering the ledger would come from said ‘SU activities’, and not from the fest conduction fee.

A volunteer for the EC raised the next query. He asked if there was an option to have a Rs 0 fest fee, ‘have the Department of Sponsorships and Marketing do their work’ and bring in revenue, and still have a fest wherein we do not have concerts of the scale that were previously mentioned. The StuCCAn, Department of Sponsorships and Marketing took the stage to answer, indicating that they had already pitched for sponsorships worth Rs 28 lakhs and hope to surpass Oasis 2023’s record of Rs 35 lakhs. However, he did not discuss the possibility of a fest on a smaller scale. 

The volunteer reiterated by asking how they planned to sustain the current fest model, where if fee deductions were removed, there would be a debt of tens of lakhs of rupees, and whether the StuCCA intended for all following fests in BITS Pilani to become deduction dependent.  A StuCCAn replied that the previous ticketed system could not be followed any more. It was explained that ticketed quotes of the artists were two to three times the basic quote the StuCCA received, and a major problem with the ticketing system were fake signings. This meant that the cost of entry to a Prof Show would increase from Rs 1200 to Rs 2000. 

The Controls StuCCAn explained that earlier, agencies were asked for unticketed quotes, yet the students were allowed entry only after purchasing a ticket. Jaiditya admitted that while this was unethical, it was within the ‘legal framework’. He further declared that because of the fiasco following the Mohit Chauhan concert last APOGEE, the agencies, managers, and artists were now well aware of what was being done. Owing to how Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) worked, the earlier system could no longer be followed.

It was also stated that if the deductions were entirely removed, the quality of this fest and professional shows would be mediocre, and the previous payments would still be on hold due to the negative ledger.

The views of the StuCCA were asked on deductions as a medium to fund the fest, and whether they could come up with a way to eliminate deductions or put this in the charter. It was expressed that they wished to see how this system worked out before implementing it. Further, the EC and the CRC would be consulted before proposing this as a permanent addition in the Oasis charter. They planned on deciding after the fest if the fee would be charged for future fests as well. 

When asked about how the ledgers would go from negative Rs 1.4 crores to hopefully 0, the panel replied by saying that this was a topic of conversation better suited to a Union Council-GBM meet rather than a StuCCA-GBM meet. It was stated that these deductions would not go into settling the ledger, and rather that they would temporarily make the ledger 0 so that payments could go through. There was a quick shift in the conversation, with a StuCCAn declaring settling the ledger to be the Student Union’s duty and responsibility.

A member of the EPC asked why the StuCCA had assumed everyone would attend all Prof Shows, and subsequently be charged for them. They were further questioned for their reasoning for making such assumptions rather than providing the option to attend particular shows, even at a higher ticket cost. Jaiditya announced that they couldn’t work with a variable budget and, hence, couldn’t allow people to opt out and not be charged because they didn’t have a mechanism to see if people were opting out and still coming to the show. He elaborated by saying that this is the true meaning of a ‘union’; where any fee charged should be charged uniformly.

They also planned to increase the fee for outsiders to more than what is being proposed for GBM members. Concern over footfall from outsiders was expressed by the EPC, to which the StuCCAn, Department of Publications and Correspondence, replied by stating that professional shows were now free for outsiders, making it easier to convince them to pay the amount charged. When asked how they planned on managing a huge crowd and technical issues during a professional show, the StuCCA stated they rely on on-ground guards, and the Departments of Audiforce, Firewallz, and the Safety and Medical Advisory Council but could not provide a clear procedure.

There was no surety given that the fee of Rs 1950 would not be increased in the future, however a CRC member noted that if the system gets put into the charter, it will be after accounting for such an increase. The StuCCA were then questioned by the CRC about the steps they were planning to take this time to ensure the fest did not result in a loss, since the deduction system could only work if the fest was self-sustaining; if the fest resulted in a loss, then the whole deduction system would collapse. The panel reinstated that they had a buffer of Rs 9 lakhs, and their strategy to ensure there were no losses was to be in ‘constant contact with the CRC’. When asked about the price for snaps, the panel stated they would be reducing the selling cost by 150 rupees. There was also a discussion to increase the prize money, which is currently Rs 10.5L. 

A GBM member asked the StuCCA why the students who planned to be off-campus during the fest would be unjustly charged and if there was the possibility of an opt-in system. To this, one of the StuCCAns answered that there would be no holidays if the fest were not conducted. He again brought up the concept of a ‘union’ and drew parallels between mess fees and the proposed fest fee. However, this analogy received a mixed response from the audience, as they could not understand the correlation of the two situations. The necessity of mess and the lack thereof for a fest was brought up as a counterargument. He explained that it would be harder to account for such a dynamic variable and would be akin to ticketing.

A fourth-yearite from the Sports Financial Committee disagreed with the StuCCA’s response, highlighting that the GBM was not given enough choice. He argued that the GBM should also be given the choice to have a fest on a lower scale if they are also being given the power to essentially cancel the fest. The StuCCA responded by saying that this would lead to lower outsider registrations and reduced revenue. They oddly emphasised on the disregarded possibility of an even higher fee of Rs 2500. They clarified that due to the urgency of the matter, they could not account for more fee options. Moreover, they added that they did not want to set a negative precedent of a sub-par fest for the junior batches.

A few GBM members raised concerns about placing their trust in the new system and how the StuCCA would guarantee that the ledger did not go negative again. They responded by saying they would not be able to proceed with the old system of conducting fests, noting the huge loss of Rs 35 lakhs that had been incurred during APOGEE 2024.

Following this, Yash Chogle from the Election Commission took to the stage and described the voting procedure. He explained that the EC would release a Google Form via root mail on September 13, i.e. Friday, and the GBM would have 24 hours from the moment the mail is released to cast their vote. The two voting options would be, having no fest deductions or charging the GBM Rs. 1950. For the vote to be considered valid, it is required that 33% of the GBM registered on campus this semester vote. With an electorate size of 4662, they would need a little over 1550 votes to establish a quorum and make any decision valid. The winning option would be decided by single plurality. On a parting note, he emphasised that if the criteria for minimum number of votes was not met, the default option was no deductions.