An insipid handful of BITSians witnessed an anti-climactic Audi Debate on Wednesday, the 16th as the lacklustre election cycle continued its relentless march. Onlookers witnessed candidates stumble under the scrutiny of an assertive panel who grilled them on various aspects of their proposals.

As both candidates stood unopposed, the information seminar where candidates usually address an audience and cross question each other was cancelled. Instead, they had five minutes to address the audience directly. The Presidential candidate, Bharatharatna Puli, made a strong case for the promotion of technical talent, with the goal of maintaining the high standards of BITS, something he feared would be lost otherwise. The General Secretary candidate, Shivam Jindal, hoped to secure opportunities for students by leveraging the brand recognition of BITS. When posed with the possibility of losing to NOTA, Puli deflected while Jindal conceded that NOTA had as much of a chance as he did.

The panel also noted the influence of manifestos of years past on the present proposals of both candidates, with Jindal specifically being questioned on the efficacy of his proposed changes. He was also posed with a question on whether the SU should handle BOSM as it used funds from the GBM. Jindal pointed out that the SU had become more fest-centric and reasoned that sports fests ought to be handled by sportspersons. When his idea of setting up vending machines was questioned, he admitted that there was “no specific need for a vending machine, it is merely a luxury.”

When Puli was asked if H-Reps should be sanctioned separate budgets, he claimed that the system in its present form had evolved to become foolproof. His online cab-booking system and app-based examinations were also brought into question. The panel insisted that the cab vendors’ aversion to technology would lead to the rejection of an online system. Puli countered, claiming he would print the forms and send them to vendors. On the app-based examinations, the panel believed that certain administrative divisions would be similarly averse. Puli claimed to have met a professor twice over the past month and secured his consent. The panel, however had met with same professor on the previous day and were rebuffed.

Overall, the debate was quite ineffective, with most exchanges ending with the candidates and the panel stating contradictory information. The audience was rather poor too; with the few that turned up hooting as if on cue.

While the Audi debate might not have been an effective tool to generate an opinion about our possible future representatives, it served as a reminder to actively seek information on them and decide whether or not to vote for the candidate, but to perform their civic duty and vote regardless.