The Auditorium Debate, better known as the Audi Rag, was held in the Main Auditorium on September 16, 2022. The debate involves a panel of students from the Election Commission and Senior Committee members, who question the Presidential and General Secretarial Candidates on their SOPs and manifestos. The debate began after a delay of over 40 minutes, with the members of the Panel introducing themselves, followed by a brief overview of the guidelines and structure of the Debate. The Panel consisted of Sneha Aggarwal and Aditya Mishra from the Election Commission, Abhigya Singh, Anirudh TK, and Pranav Taneja from the Corroborations and Review Committee (CRC), Shivank (ex AMC) and Gandhar Kulkarni. The candidates were then given five minutes each to introduce themselves and their manifesto points. 

Following his introduction, Yashwardhan Kiswani talked about making “fundamental rights” like water and electricity available to the GBM. His manifesto points included launching a BITS Community app, making the hostels accessible to all members of the GBM, extension of the gym timings and introducing locker rooms on the gym premises. Ashirwad Karande, the other Presidential candidate, talked about his initiatives, which include the opening of NAB rooms during the previous semester and the creation of academic drives. His manifesto points include improving the infrastructure, increasing seating capacity at ANC, and introducing air conditioning at SAC gyms and hostel common rooms.  

Next were the General Secretarial candidates. Naman Jalan was adamant about his vision of a transparent, accountable, and approachable SU, and not one dominated by a wing. His manifesto points include launching a Right to Information app and conducting a fresher’s night. Vinayak S. stated that the SU is not a popularity metric and that the post of the General Secretary is the most work-intensive post. The next candidate, Kamal Chauhan, was welcomed with loud chants of “power wing”. He shared that his manifesto focuses on improving the medical infrastructure on campus, and increasing student representation in the AUGSD and PU. Yash Sarda explained that his manifesto concentrates on revamping hostel infrastructure, increasing the timings for eateries to 4 AM, and increasing the library seating capacity. He shared that he will also be working on landscaping Meera Bhawan. 

Moving on to the questioning round, Aditya Mishra said, “You are done with your introductions, now we will give your introductions.” The panel shared that they had gone through the manifestos and highlighted the points as red, orange or green on the basis of their completion. They displayed the edited manifestos on the screen, with Ashirwad being 60% in red. The panel questioned him about the ‘student wellness community’ and claimed that there was no clear mechanism provided by Ashirwad to achieve this. They moved on to Yashwardhan Kiswani, whose manifesto was significantly less colourful.

Kiswani was asked if he was an ‘insecure leader’, earning an explosive reaction from the audience. He assured the EC and the GBM that he was confident in his campaign. The panel revealed that he had a confrontation with a hostel representative candidate during the Information Seminar. The EC also cracked down upon the trunk distribution initiative from the previous semester, calling it one of the most haphazard initiatives. There was a blame game of sorts with the panel and Kiswani trying to pin down the responsibility for the botched-up initiative. Kiswani stated that as part of the Executive Committee, he would follow all orders given by authorities as long as they were not unconstitutional.

Naman Jalan, a General Secretary candidate, was questioned amidst chants of “Cheater, Cheater!”, with the EC showing that Naman had ‘around one to one and a half original points.’ The EC questioned Naman whether he wished to stand on the shoulders of the previous Unions because his manifesto mainly consisted of initiatives already in the pipeline. According to Naman, he had included points about initiatives introduced by previous Unions that were never continued. Naman declared that he had acquired certain bills of the previous SU that were never made public to the GBM, where items were being overcharged. He stressed that his priority is implementing the Right to Information App for the GBM and bringing about more transparency in the system. The EC grilled him about the actual functioning of his proposed RTI, but Naman maintained that he wants tenders to be transparent and ‘signed in the SAC and not in a room with the President and General Secretary’.Naman was also asked to justify why he had chosen his election campaign as the moment to blow the whistle on this alleged corruption scandal. In the EC’s words, Naman chose to ‘misuse and support a leaked document containing sensitive information to appear as the GBM’s saviour’ instead of being a responsible student and informing authorities immediately after receiving the bills. 

Next, the panel declared that Yash Sarda’s manifesto looked like that of a hostel representative candidate instead of a General Secretary hopeful, with five out of seven points related to improvement in hostel conditions. The most extensive point in Sarda’s manifesto concerned living conditions at Meera Bhawan, following which the EC then reminded Sarda that the General Secretary or the SU has no jurisdiction over installations in the hostels. Sarda stated that his job as the General Secretary would be to raise concerns of the GBM to the concerned authorities.

The panel moved on to Vinayak S. and his manifesto point mentioning the Students’ Academic Congress. When questioned about the need for this body Vinayak went on to explain how it will unify multiple academic bodies and lead to talks, events and proposals of better quality, and how this body will be able to provide well-informed individuals that have ‘first-hand knowledge’ of academic problems. Finally, the argument went circular when the panel questioned Vinayak on how his SAC will generate any leverage to bring around any academic change, and Vinayak reiterated that it will provide for better-informed members of GBM to make the case for the students.

Kamal defended the Grievance portal manifesto point by saying that he will ensure a systematic and transparent approach. The panel then brought up an email written to them by a member of the GBM stating that they had been enlisted as an official campaigner for Kamal Chauhan without their consent, to which Kamal denied enlisting anyone without consent. 

Yashvardhan Kiswani’s first manifesto point, the BITS Community app, was then put on trial. It was brought up by the panel how a similar app, Hallparty, already serves this purpose. Kiswani stated that Hallparty doesn’t work under the SU. He justified the app’s need by stating the example of many freshers who miss out on clubs and departments because of a lack of information. When questioned about the conduction of clubs and departments recruitments over such an app, he went on to say that he will not force anybody to do so. When asked about the utility of anonymous department interactions concerning the functioning of the app, he stated that the app will serve as a place for tech teams and clubs to filter juniors. 

The panel clarified that SUTT was not liable to the demands of the SU and questioned the candidates on why their manifestos had a two-line description and their confidence in the SUTT to deliver each of their demands. The panel questioned whether Vinayak just intended to take credit for all the work the SUTT will put in, Vinayak was quick to reply that he deserves credit, not for the technical expertise but for coming up with a new initiative that is unique to his manifesto, holding talks with laundromat and SUTT officials and the solution to a problem faced by the GBM. 

The panel asked Kamal to elaborate on his proposal of increasing the number of available credits in a semester. Kamal said that his conversations with the Associate Dean of SWD were based on extending the already existing provision of flexibility provided to students in case of extraordinary circumstances. This, he added, would be of great help to students who can’t finish off their electives because of one extra credit that would otherwise necessitate a summer term. His comments roused warm applause from the audience. The panel however reminded Kamal that this was an issue that pertained to all the campuses and would require the approval of the Senate as this was outside the SU’s jurisdiction. Kamal’s insistence on having conversations with the SU of all four campuses made the panel question whether Kamal knew the difference between the SU and the Senate. The panel reprimanded Kamal for not consulting the Senator before adding the point in his manifesto.

Naman Jalan was questioned about his proposal to arrange a visiting optometrist, and whether he had contacted any optometrist outside Pilani. Naman assured the audience that he had spoken to the CMO and had his approval. On being quizzed about the name of the CMO however, he had no answer. Naman also mentioned that he planned to include medicines for fever, sore throat, etc in the hostels so that students can access them in need. When the panel informed him that chowkis of various hostels did indeed have first aid kits, the audience jeered in protest. Naman on his part mentioned the absence of paracetamol and ORS to which there was no objection.

The panel asked Naman to elaborate on his suggestion to hold ‘FreshersNite’, Naman recounted his ordeal of troubles as a fresher navigating amidst academics, clubs, and departments on his own as he had no one to guide him. He intends ‘FresherNite’ to be an event where first yearites get to meet their batchmates and interact with seniors.

The panel reminded Naman that this problem was unique to just the 2020 batch because of the pandemic and asked whether he knew of any events that were organised before the pandemic for the same purpose. The panel advised him to conduct proper research before ‘reinventing the wheel’ as BITS already had a culture of orientations for clubs, departments, and cultural association events for interaction amongst BITSians.

Things got heated when the panel announced that they wanted the candidates to state their CGPAs and their last sem SGPAs in front of the GBM. All candidates unanimously opposed the panel asking for their CGPAs. Vinayak commented that it seemed that the panel was insinuating that ‘you cannot have a conversation about academics unless you have a good CGPA, or a good career necessitates a good CG’ which the panel refuted. The panel also pointed out ‘it is interesting that only the seven pointers amongst the candidates did not feel that a good CGPA was a good reflection of academic prowess’.

The event ended with closing remarks from all the candidates. Kiswani urged the GBM to read each candidate’s manifestos and the EPC, and HPC articles before making a decision.