Response to ‘Resignation of a Representative’

Manasi Rao, Batch of 2018

This article is not meant to further engage in the controversy of April 2017, nor to malign the current and former Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC), The Edict, or any other individual. It is meant solely to provide an accurate, complete, and respectful narrative of the series of events that have transpired. Evidence is used as far as possible to substantiate any claims made, and citations and references are available to the reader if he or she wishes to know more. This pieces makes several corrections to the narrative presented in ‘Resignation of a Representative’ by Sparsh Agarwal (dated Jan 29th) and comments on what appear to be the Edict’s falling journalistic standards.

There are three points I wish to raise with this piece:

1. Corrections and additions to the sequence of events
2. The manner in which The Edict handled the article and its poor journalistic ethics
3. Sabotage of the article’s supposed objective by the author and The Edict themselves

Sparsh Agarwal’s account of events is one which flattens out complexity and provides an incomplete picture. There are 15 relevant emails, including a string of 6 emails from a member of the former AUEC asking me to resign repeatedly. The remaining members of the former AUEC were also cc’d on this thread and did not bother to correct their stance until four days later. All emails from the former AUEC commission to me were delayed (by 4 days and 7 days), causing more confusion. Instead of replying to my emails, the former AUEC seemed content speaking to members of Dhamma and other members of the house. Something similar seems to have happened now, when it appears (from a personal conversation) as though Sparsh had informed certain members of Dhamma before putting up this article, but not me.

Sparsh Agarwal also makes a passionate declaration of a fight for the truth and desire to uphold the people’s mandate, but fails to acknowledge that there already existed a mechanism for anyone to recall me from the House of Representative — petitions. If my resigning from Dhamma is public concern and violation of the people’s mandate, anyone could have filed a petition to have me removed from the house. Claiming that the former AUEC’s act of writing a retrospective amendment was their way of protesting my presence in house, is actually just misuse of the power that was handed to them. Also, bringing this matter up a year later undermines the public support I received both outside and inside the house. I received multiple emails from fellow students and the vote against the former EC’s amendment was unanimous.

However, what is more troubling is the fabrication of events and emails. No email of mine claims that I believed the “principle” (that a HoR member should resign if they have resigned from their party) was not on my side.This can be easily verified here. Moreover, I did not seek to exploit anyone or anything, but to use a precedent to fill in a loophole in the Election Code. Similarly, the minutes of the joint meeting held between the AUEC and HoR (April 13th), which had the largest audience the current HoR has seen till date, state that there was disagreement with the ‘principle’ on which the former AUEC suggested its retrospective amendment. Arush Pande and I, among a few others were vocal in opposing an amendment which would require an elected representative to resign based on their party affiliation. The house decided to throw the amendment out for multiple reasons, contrary to Sparsh’s belief.

I am not going to argue about the nitty-gritties of the proportional representation (PR) system, but maintain that in the absence of a law (not “ambiguity”), precedent is used. Moreover, even the application of the PR system to the tee in our current political set-up is questionable, considering that members of the house of representatives do not vote along party lines nor does a member of the house have any obligation to their party after they have been elected into the house. The author descends into a convenient interpretation of the PR system which suits his case.

I cannot help but point out that the court of law does in fact rise above an individual’s personal “court of conscience”. In the unfortunate absence of these fictional courts of conscience, a democratically elected house can categorically reject hastily put-together attempts to ensure my removal. Regarding retrospective rules, the examples you have provided have all been marred with controversy and one of the reasons is that the Indian constitution opposes retrospective laws (Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution, “No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.”)

I believe that it is important to also address the lacking journalistic ethics on the part of the author Sparsh Agarwal and the team at the Edict. Sparsh Agarwal’s article went online late on Monday night and in its original form lacked appropriate citations, despite taking direct quotes, some of which were paraphrased. The article initially only mentioned the email only by date and the link to the complete email was added only after 3 days after being published, at my insistence. The absence of citations allows for a one sided story and quotations to be used without adequate context. In fact, there continue to be emails, such as the one received from Dr. Quraishi and my (fictitious) email stating that I agreed with the principle on which the former AUEC was demanding my resignation, which remain uncited.

Furthermore, the article was also linked to my Facebook profile without my consent. Similarly, I was tagged on Facebook by an editor of The Edict, Zainab Firdausi, and prodded to offer my opinion and arguments on the Facebook comments thread. Thankfully the link to my Facebook profile was removed, after I requested the Edict to do so, but it raises the question about the purpose of Sparsh Agarwal’s article and the kind of debate some editors aspire to initiate. Facebook kangaroo courts and comments section debates are hardly the constructive discourse the Edict promised its readers a few weeks ago. The task of ensuring credibility of a newspaper rests in the hands of its editors.

Half true “opinion pieces” pose an additional threat to the student and institution of The Edict when published on the internet. On the internet they become accessible to the general public, who does not have access to university emails nor to the students targeted in the pieces. While people at Ashoka have the opportunity to form opinions that differ from those of Sparsh Agarwal, the general public does not hold that opportunity. This makes the one-sided account the only narrative available. There is a possibility of this slanderous article reaching graduate schools and employers, which can lead to long lasting repercussions. This possibility cannot go unmentioned because Sparsh Agarwal’s article was reposted in its original form (with the tag and without the citation) by ‘epeak News’. This disturbing development was brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief by a friend of mine and despite attempts by the Edict to take the piece down from this dubious website, the article remains the on the epeak News website. This article, which has not been fact-checked and nor does it include a disclaimer stating the same, is available on the website of a third party.There is no reason why this should not be a serious cause for concern for every Ashokan. It is time for the Edict to call out journalistic malpractice with greater earnest.

Questions should also be raised about the obvious conflict of interest since Sparsh Agarwal was closely involved in the events surrounding the aftermath of this controversy. If indeed the objective of the article was to shed light on the new round of amendments proposed by the AUEC, then an impartial person should have been chosen to write the article. In fact, the original article by Sparsh Agarwal even lacked clarification about the complete role of the AUEC in the controversy. As managing editor, Sparsh seems to have decided against fact-checking.

Lastly, it is important to question the point of this article. The last sentence is the only part of the article that links it to current affairs of the house of representatives. The rest of the article reads as a targeted attack, or at the very least old news being rehashed for publicity. If there were no qualms about using choicy bits of my email to the student body because it is “available on public domain” (not really, only to former first, second, and third years) then Sparsh Agarwal would not have needed to write this article, because nearly all of what Sparsh Agarwal mentions in the article is already in the former EC’s “public” email. He brings no new arguments, nor any fresh perspective to the events. It seems that this article has been used only to blame me, the previous Election Commissions, and a democratically elected house of representatives who democratically voted against an amendment. This is not to say that a media house must not criticize a democratic body, in fact, that is one of its primary functions. There is plenty of reason to criticize the house, and I’ll join you in that endeavor. For example, a similar amendment, regarding resignations from parties, in the Electoral Code, took place over email and was not deliberated and voted upon by the house since no meeting was called for it. Clearly, if there was concern regarding this piece of legislation the article would have read very differently.

Sparsh Agarwal’s article is not presenting an objective argument for procedural reform. It is a slanderous piece which uses a fellow student as fodder for gossip. One can only hope that over time more Ashokans will not have to fight for their narrative in the Facebook comments section or have to carry the pain and anxiety from becoming sensationalize unnecessarily. Making a cottage industry out of peddling half-truths and gossip is hardly the best way to build a credible student newspaper.