This article has been vetted for factual accuracy by the Election Commission.
The 11th of April witnessed one of the most eagerly anticipated events of the electoral process of BITS Pilani, the Auditorium Debate, better known as the Audi Rag. Here, the SU President and General Secretary candidates were interrogated by a panel consisting of the Election Commission and representatives from the Corroboration and Review Committee (CRC) and the Society for Student Mess Services (SSMS). The panel questions the nominees on the substance and veracity of the finer points of their manifestos. Each candidate is asked a series of individual questions. Their answers are often irrelevant, but nevertheless, they retain the right to reply as they deem fit.
The three candidates taking part in the debate were V Abishek Balaji, Ajay Singh, and Rahul Bubna – the former contesting for the post of the General Secretary of the Students’ Union, while the other two were eyeing the post of President. The panel comprised of Swarup N, Vishnu Raj, and Aparna M from the Election Commission (EC), Raihan Riaz from the CRC, and Satwadhi Das from the SSMS. All three hopefuls had prepared manifestos that promised a great deal. However, as the questioning went on, many of their points seemed to fall apart.
The debate began at 6:30 PM, after a delay of half-an-hour. Nonetheless, what did please the traditionalists was the pointless hooting, despite EC member Aparna’s plea to the General Body Members (GBM) to ‘maintain basic decorum and shut up’. Cheers for NOTA also arose occasionally in the auditorium amidst the shrill whistling sounds.
The panel expected the candidates to have a thorough plan for fulfilling their promises, and throughout the debate, attempted to establish that candidates did not have enough evidence to prove the feasibility of their manifesto points.
Balaji was questioned about his plan to keep the Student Activities Center open 24*7, since the Chief Warden had only approved an extension of timings until midnight. Elaborating, Balaji said that keeping SAC open 24*7 was a step by step process, similar to how the library’s timings were gradually extended over a period of time. The EC also questioned Balaji about him filing his nomination at the last minute, after having asked for extra time for further vacillation. To this, Balaji said that it wasn’t hesitation; he was deliberating and thinking things through. While he seemed to provide sufficient proof and satisfactory answers for his point about re-introducing the gliding club, the EC made it clear that he had no written record of the discussions that he claimed to have had with those concerned regarding the opening of the horse-riding facility – he said that he had ‘talked to the Director of the Birla Education Trust’ who was very positive about it.
This was not the only instance of candidates claiming to have done things, though. Ajay Singh also got the panel significantly agitated by his answers. For instance, when he was informed that granting girls permission to enter boys’ messes was logistically infeasible he replied, Where there is a will, there is a way. I and the SSMS governing council(GC) define the logistics surrounding this’. When Satwadhi pointed out that the SSMS would be completely against such a notion, he demanded the SSMS GC convene and vote on the matter at that very instant. He was then reminded by the SSMS representative that he was still a member of the GBM, and he had no power to request, much less demand an SSMS vote on anything. In the heat of the moment, Ajay Singh promised the GBM that he would ‘stand with girls’ and ensure their entry into boys’ messes if elected.
This was not the only altercation between the candidates and the SSMS that evening. Balaji also claimed that no decision taken by the SSMS in the last two years was valid as the minutes of the meet of any Governing Council meeting are seldom signed. This accusation came in response to Satwadhi questioning him about his manifesto’s Feed India Programme point, considering that its implementation was already underway within the SSMS.
Rahul Bubna had his own share of unverified points. He could not prove that his “informal talk” with the manager of Looters (to facilitate providing subsidised protein to sportspersons – one of his manifesto points) ever occurred. His manifesto proposed the idea of implementing digital notice boards to reduce the reprography expenses in every fest, a point which the panel showed was both expensive and unnecessary. However, Bubna’s widely popular plan to have PS4s for gaming in old SAC enraged the panel, which demanded to know how such an incomplete point with negligible background work had made its way into his manifesto. He also had his fair share of what one hopes were misunderstandings – after the panel had established that one of his manifesto points were baseless and unfeasible, they asked him if he had included this point arbitrarily in his manifesto, to which he replied a simple “Yes.”
The repeating of points from older manifestos wasn’t as marked this year, but was present nevertheless. All three hopefuls were found to have taken from older manifestos; while the panel did not lay traps this year, they did make some stinging remarks, especially against Ajay. He seemed unaware of how the financial system of BITS functioned, while attempting to defend his point about Apple Mac labs. Both Balaji and Ajay, who had this point in common, somehow attended different meetings with the same set of representatives for the same purpose – causing acute confusion among the panel members and the crowd.
The debate ended with each candidate being given one minute to convince the GBM to vote for them. Undoubtedly, they considered this time highly crucial, for they had all come well prepared.
While the auditorium debate threw the necessary light on the candidates’ preparedness regarding their manifestos, only time will tell the story of the Students’ Union Elections, the polling for which is due to take place today.