The EPC interviewed Garvit Sukhija, SSMS President, to understand how the SSMS volunteers were chosen, why they were called to campus, and what work these volunteers have been doing on campus.

Garvit had reached campus in the last week of August. He listed some items on his agenda—planning the reopening of the messes, checking the vaccination status of the workers, and deciding which workers would be coming to work in the messes. He has also managed to start bread production at the Ram-Budh bakery, which Garvit said was only being used to make patties for evening snacks earlier.

Garvit mentioned that although it was his idea to call some volunteers to campus, it was a joint decision taken by ‘the leadership from the SSMS and the SU’. He ‘contacted the SU unofficially first’ to ask if they would be needing volunteers. The two parties then finalised the list of people they would be calling back to campus. However, there had been no official communication between the SSMS and SU throughout this process and channels like WhatsApp had been used.

As to why the SU did not contact the Chief Warden separately for volunteers, Garvit remarked that ‘we didn’t go into the logistics as such; just as [I] said, we would be needing [volunteers], then we can split the work’. He added that the number of volunteers needed was more than he had initially planned for as they would also be helping the SU.

When asked about why the decision to call SSMS volunteers was taken, Garvit’s response was that the ‘campus reopening process is quite difficult; we have not seen it earlier and we also stepped as the President and General Secretary of respective posts recently, so it would be difficult for us to manage; we would be needing a team [sic].’ He stated that the communication with the volunteers was also done through informal channels. On being questioned about why formal channels like the official SU or SSMS email addresses were not chosen for communication with the volunteers, Garvit said that ‘it could have been done.’ He then agreed to the fact that he had not put enough thought into it and remarked that it was a ‘hasty decision’.

Garvit was asked about the criteria behind the selection of the SSMS volunteers. He responded by saying, ‘We called people and told them if you’re interested, we need volunteers and can you do the work. The ones who agreed, we called them [sic].’

On being asked about how many members of the SSMS had been aware that volunteers were being called back to campus, Garvit commented that ‘it was a leadership decision’. When prompted to clarify, he said that only the SSMS President and Treasurer had been informed. He reiterated that other GC members, which includes the AMC, had not been involved as ‘it was a leadership decision’. 

According to Garvit, the other GC members had not been chosen to be SSMS volunteers as the fourth-year members ‘might have been busy’, the members in their third-year had been inducted into the GC in the online semester, and the volunteers had to work for the SU and the SSMS. He remarked that even though the ‘AMC members have a much better idea about SSMS than these volunteers, I needed someone I and the SU are acquainted with and we know we can fasten up the process by maintaining the dynamics of the relationship that we have [sic]’. He went on to add that ‘one of the SU leadership asked one of the AMC members too, they were friends with them, but they refused.’ Garvit clarified that he had not asked the fourth-year members if they had been busy. He believed that ‘there could have been a lot of other possibilities but it did not happen’ and agreed that it was a mistake on his part.

The final list of volunteers was: Aditi Sharma, Aryahi Anil Kumar, Jaideep Gupta, Pranav Shanmukh Yellayi, Shalmali Jain, Shreya Gupta, and Vasu Khandelwal. They had been called back after the Chief Warden had granted Garvit permission. 

Garvit took responsibility personally as well as on behalf of the SU President and General Secretary for not sending an email to the GBM once these volunteers were selected. ‘Yes, an email should have been a part of the process but what can I say? We forgot to do this,’ he said, further clarifying that it was an ‘eleventh hour decision’ and was therefore hasty in nature.

Since coming back to campus, the volunteers have been assisting Garvit in auditing the inventory of the messes, and organising health camps for the SSMS workers because the ‘mess workers will be coming from outside.’ He cited issues with ‘space’ and the fact that ‘it is up to the Admin’ as reasons for why the workers cannot be quarantined on campus. He mentioned that health camps will be held on a weekly basis, and vital signs like oxygen saturation will be measured. A temperature check will also be done every day when these workers enter the campus and the workers have been briefed about the importance of both wearing masks and sanitisation. Commenting on the vaccination status of the workers, Garvit said that barring one, all the other mess workers have received at least one dose of the vaccine. However, he was not aware of the percentage of workers who have received both doses.

Garvit was then asked about whether the SSMS volunteers would be sent back home to which he said that the question could be answered better by Shukla. He added that there was some concern regarding the travel tickets, and because the volunteers came to campus at the request of the SSMS, it would be unfair to send them back. ‘The mistake was not made by the volunteers. It was made by someone and he has been reprimanded’, he remarked. When asked about who this someone was, he said, ‘We have seen that Lamba has been suspended from the post. Although we were asked to send them [volunteers] back, Lamba has already been convicted for the same.’

Considering that the functioning of the mess is as much of a priority to the Institute as it is to the students, Garvit was asked why the volunteers were asked to pay for their travel expenses and why these expenses were not covered by either the Institute or the SSMS. Garvit redirected the question to the Administration and stated that he did not have an answer to the question. He then added that Shukla spoke to the Administration to try and have their travel expenses covered.

Since Garvit spoke to the Administration about getting the SSMS volunteers on campus, he was then questioned about why Shukla has been communicating with the Institute about sending these volunteers back or letting them stay on campus. He refused to answer this question.

Garvit then clarified that although the volunteers’ work on campus was still not done, it could, hypothetically, be given to new volunteers who could be recruited, if the current set of volunteers were sent back. When asked about why student volunteers were involved, he said that ‘it could be called the BITS culture of overseeing these activities.’

On the day the SAC incident happened, Garvit said that an official SU meeting with the volunteers was supposed to be held. He stated that he was neither involved in the meeting nor with the incident at SAC. 

Garvit added that he was unsure about the status of ‘all’ the volunteers being sent back to campus and wanted the EPC to confirm the same with Shukla. ‘There was one volunteer who was concerned about some things, and I don’t know the status of her going back or not.’ When asked to confirm which volunteer this was, it was confirmed that the volunteer in question was Shalmali Jain.

The interview concluded with Garvit agreeing that the selection of the volunteers was rushed. ‘My biggest mistake was that I didn’t scrutinise the list given by the SU and I needed to keep a check because they were the SSMS volunteers. After that whatever happened was more of the SU.’