Last week, the Indian Institute of Architects (IIA) found itself mired in a contentious controversy as a group of concerned members voiced their grievances regarding the organization’s opaque and allegedly unfair election procedures. This development has cast doubts on the reputation of India’s oldest body of architects. In an attempt to address these allegations, the IIA has taken an unusual step of releasing “unofficial” and “unsigned” document, that may only serve to further undermine confidence in the organization.
The document, consisting of twelve points, was intended to provide explanations and clarifications regarding the allegations on the IIA’s election procedures. One of the key assertions made in the document was the affirmation of the exclusive and meticulous development of the IIA Election Module (IIAEM) for the institute. It emphasized that the module had undergone scrutiny and evaluation by the Standardization Testing and Quality Certification (STQC) authority, ultimately receiving approval from the Council members of the IIA.
Furthermore, the document sought to shed light on the intricacies of the election process itself, striving to assure members that it adhered to stringent standards of fairness and integrity. It urged members to maintain faith in the competence and impartiality of the scrutineers entrusted with conducting the elections.
However, the release of this document on an unofficial and unsigned paper has raised further questions about the IIA’s handling of the situation.
On the clarifications, some members have argued that the document falls short of addressing the specific concerns and fails to provide concrete evidence to refute the allegations of opaque and unjust practices. This perceived lack of transparency has only further eroded trust in the organization’s leadership, leaving members increasingly disillusioned and dissatisfied.
The protesting IIA members have shared that the current Election Module, developed by a private company, is easily hackable, as demonstrated in the video. There is no reason for IIA to not conduct elections through the National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL). The reasons cited by the IIA about the lack of funds and scarcity of time to appoint NSDL have already been rejected by the protesting members.
The fallout from these recent developments has far-reaching implications for the IIA and its standing within the architectural community. It is imperative that the organization provides a comprehensive, transparent, and authoritative response to the allegations. This can be achieved by responding to specific allegations and concerns through an official and signed document.
2 Responses
सब गोलमाल है
Too much hullabaloo is being made out of this. People take “free and fair elections” of IIA way too seriously, as does this journalistic portal. I mean seriously… Why is this election so important, so competitive. IIA’s contribution to India’s growth or even the growth and identity of our profession is rather negligible. Empowered as it may be, it’s mostly just a professional club of middle aged grumpies, who are vying for mutual recognition, and “fraternity meets” where they can guzzle down a few glasses of whiskey, sponsored by a plywood company. C’mon!