Perspective: Shared accommodation in hostels

Although very intelligent, the proposal on the shared accommodation by the Dean, Admission committee along with the Students’ Council suggests the apparent incompetence of the relevant officials to provide comfortable accommodation to the incoming students. It is important that we analyze it.

The proposal says that if a current student staying in a single room volunteers to share his room with a fresher, the hostel fees for a semester (worth INR 4,000) would be waived. The semester mentioned in the relevant broadcast is “August to January”, i.e., six months. Thus, essentially, one can “rent” half of his room for INR 667 per month. I am skeptical whether a person who receives more than INR 8,000 per month will go for this sum given the privacy encroachment and the uncomfort a shared accommodation would bring along.

Is it too strong to term it as “rent”? Let’s see. The fresher has to pay double-room charges for half of the room he/she gets. Why? That is because, this is the way to compensate for the waiver given to the senior. Together, this becomes single-room rent per student. Thus, the institute accommodates two persons in a single room, and still manages to receive money for two single-room accommodations. Very clever! Why is this possible? Because the senior who already “owns” the room gets benefited. How? His room rent is paid by the fresher. And who feels the burden? The fresher, for whom getting admission in the best research institute in the country is such a glorifying experience, that he can share a room with even three other roommates!

The terms mentioned in the form for opting for this proposal are also worth noting. The institute is not providing any extra cots, chairs or tables, suggesting the fresher to put his bed on the floor, sit there, study there. Or, rather, suggesting that the institute will not add to its expenditure. The careful use of the words “may” and “might” makes it look like a legal document which almost always signifies an escape route. Thus, “an extra almirah … may be provided” and “a cot might be accommodated”. The clause “if there is enough space” is the best joke. The next term has a dangerous implication. It says “If the host has to accommodate for one more term …”, suggesting that a senior may be “forced” to continue with the fresher even after a semester. I am unsure whether it should still be called as a “voluntary” service. Further, “voluntary” is only from one side; as far as the freshers are considered, they do not have any choice. Considering the finishing date of the new hostels (near Juice Centre) is mid 2011, another semester of this “concentration chamber” is not unlikely.

One of my colleagues, who was definitely not happy with the proposal, exclaimed, “Why can’t they ask each faculty member to host one student in his/her faculty quarter!” I am unsure how to react to this argument. A few departments are moving to the new buildings. Could an empty building be used as an accommodation facility for a semester? One of the officials once mentioned (in a private communication) that there are no recruitments of the permanent staff after 1980s and hence a large pool of staff quarters is empty. Could these be utilized for a better accommodation?

I think it is discountable if we fall short of 10 rooms. But the number 170 is significantly large. The uncomfort this mismanagement is going to cause is well foreseen. Hence the use of terms like “the host and the guest are expected to maintain some common decorum”. The impression of the institute we are providing to the freshers is definitely going to get affected with this arrangement. Let us hope that the accommodation issue gets resolved soon.

Rupesh Nasre (CSA)