The Auditorium Debate for the Student Union (SU) President and General Secretary candidates was held on July 16, 2021 at 6 PM. The panel, consisting of representatives from the Election Commission (EC), Corroboration and Review Committee (CRC), and Society for Student Mess Services (SSMS) questioned Harsh Shukla, candidate for the post of President and Harsh Lamba, candidate for the post of General Secretary, on their manifestos.

The debate began with both candidates introducing themselves and the panel asking a few cursory questions before they set about dissecting the manifestos. The first question that the panel had for the candidates was about the effort the candidates had put into preparing for the elections, since both of them had six points in their manifestos that were also mentioned in previous manifestos of GenSec and Presidential candidates. Shukla claimed that he had not referred to any past manifestos and all his points were a representation of the students’ wants. Meanwhile, Lamba admitted that a few of his points were inspired from past manifestos while most of his initiatives were a product of his discussions with friends and seniors.

The first point made by both candidates was regarding reopening campus. They mentioned that the Chief Warden approved of both their proposals, however, it was established that Shukla had not disclosed the cost of setting up clinics on campus to the CW during their discussion while seeking approval. There was also discussion about the fact that his idea of tying up with private hospitals was also suggested by Satyansh Rai—SU President, 2018–19, who could not ultimately bring it to fruition. After a lengthy discussion over the logistics and feasibility of these plans, the panel asked both candidates if they thought a sudden spike in COVID-19 cases would hinder them. Shukla felt that his plan covered all the required bases and a sudden spike would not throw a wrench in the works. Lamba too claimed that once everyone was fully vaccinated, an increase in cases would be no threat to campus reopening.

Moving on to the next point, the panel brought up a discrepancy in Lamba’s manifesto where he promised to extend Mediclaim insurance policy to COVID cases. They then spoke about the feasibility of Shukla’s promises of Practice School reform, asserting that this had been attempted by the previous SU without any major success. His rebuttal was that unlike him, the previous SU had not promised these reforms in their manifestos. Addressing Lamba’s plan to establish an Alumni–Student Mentorship program (ASMP), the panel pointed out that Student Alumni Relations Cell (SARC) already has a plan to create a similar mentorship program in addition to BITSAA’s existing Alumni Mentorship Program (AMP). In response, Lamba expressed his lack of faith in SARC and said that he intends to step in and see the plan through if they cannot achieve a satisfactory result.

The next point to be scrutinised was the transport initiatives planned by the candidates. Shukla proposed a detailed plan of setting up shuttle services, e-rickshaws, and e-cycles in partnership with Epick bikes. This point had also been proposed by Rahul Bubna previously and the panel presented several reasons he had outlined that had led to a failure to implement this idea. After an argument over logistics, the lack of demand for e-cycles, and the efficacy of this scheme at reducing pollution, the discussion moved on to Lamba’s proposal on this front. He suggested a simpler method of repurposing abandoned alumni cycles and renting them out to students. This was a point also made by Bharatharatna Puli—SU President, 2017–18—in his manifesto and the issues he had faced in implementing them were posed to Lamba who said that the Chief Warden had told him that it was a good idea.

Shukla’s next manifesto point was about e-booking and delivery of food from campus eateries. It was challenged on its feasibility and logistics with the main issue being the fact that the administration did not like the idea of delivering food because it would mean either housing several more delivery persons within campus or risking people bringing illicit substances in from outside. His rebuttal was that reducing crowding near eateries was a need and not a luxury due to the pandemic and so he could leverage this position to get the administration to agree to his idea. Lamba, on the other hand, proposed just pre-booking of food and did not face much criticism of his idea. 

Shukla’s academic initiatives were analysed next. His manifesto mentions the creation of three minors including one in Robotics. This sparked a heated discussion and ‘circular’ arguments about the fact that BITS does not have any faculty who can teach one of the courses necessary to fulfill a Robotics minor. After a lengthy discussion, the panel moved on to his next initiative which involved establishing exchange programs with Indian universities. Here the issue was the administration’s refusal to work with certain institutions since their system of grading is incompatible with that of BITS. His next initiative was starting a research journal in BITS to create a research culture and incentivise students to write and publish research papers. The panel asked him whether that would accomplish much because there is little evidence of a demand for such a journal. They also interrogated him on whether he was hypothesising that the papers that would be published in this journal would be ones rejected by other major publications and subsequently, questioned its quality. Shukla countered that by saying no journal starts off great and a college journal would incentivise students to do research and write papers. He also cited the Journal CURIE, a BITSian journal established thirteen years ago, as precedent. In response the panel stated the reasons this journal failed and had been taken out of publication. 

On the academic front, Lamba said that he hopes to initiate the Deferred Placement Programme, which several Presidents in the past have failed to implement. The panel criticised him for not contacting the Placement Unit (PU) Chief and for not having new proof of feasibility except for what Akash Singh, the last person to attempt the programme, had provided when he had run. They also listed the issues faced by Akash Singh and asked Lamba how he planned to resolve them. The panel further questioned him on the logistics of his plan for providing ungraded offline lab experience to the students who had online labs during the last year. His answers were mostly handing over the responsibility of handling the logistics to the administration and the course instructors.

As the viewer count of the livestream gradually dropped lower than the number of people on the video call itself, the discussion moved towards the hostel based plans of the candidates. Lamba had several ideas in this department, the first being the construction of a separate Laundromat for Meera Bhavan. He pointed out that both the Chief Warden, and the CEO of Laundromat were in favor of this initiative. The panel informed him that this initiative had been taken up by a past President who ultimately had not succeeded because there are renovations currently underway in the bhavan that make building a Laundromat there impossible. Lamba believed that these issues could be solved with negotiation. His second initiative was to bring air coolers, microwave ovens, and foosball tables to every common room. The EC said that the administration is opposed to this as microwaves are at a high risk of vandalism and maintenance is inconvenient on campus. Lamba’s plan to overcome this hurdle is to move CCTV cameras into the common rooms for constant surveillance. His final initiative is allowing girls to enter boys’ messes during breakfast and lunch hours to reduce the inconvenience of travelling to Meera Bhawan between classes. As pointed out by the panel, the several hurdles in this plan are the overcrowding of boys’ hostels, and the fact that two different caterers handle mess proceedings on campus and allowing girls to eat at boys’ messes would cause complications. Lamba countered this by saying that since the contracts for the caterers had not been signed yet and the messes were not operational, it was an unusual situation that could be capitalised upon. He also pointed out that he has the approval of an SSMS member.

Shukla, on the other hand, said that he has plans to rejuvenate campus culture by introducing an inter-hostel fest and other inter-BITS competitions. He claims that these will reduce the load on students and foster junior–senior relationships. In response the panel asked him if stressed out students have the time and energy to invest themselves in another series of commitments.

The last two points on Shukla’s manifesto are about a skill development program and an SU complaints portal. These went largely unchallenged since they are technical initiatives and the panel felt that arguing about their logistics or feasibility would be a fruitless debate.

Before concluding, the panel asked both candidates to describe a timeline to implement their initiatives and their priority order. After the manifesto points had been discussed, the panel presented their final criticism to the candidates. They pointed out the subpar running of the academic council by Lamba and Shukla, noting the fact that despite several requests there was only one General Body Meeting in the entire academic year. The candidates first blamed their seniors who, according to them, did not consent to having a meeting despite numerous requests. When it was pointed out to them that convincing other people was a major part of the job they were running for, they instead claimed that if the EC had conducted elections last year there would have been ‘better candidates’ in positions of power.

In their concluding statements, both candidates justified their candidature by restating their achievements, reiterating their manifesto points, and presenting their reasons to vote for them. 

The EPC urges all students to register themselves on Office 365 and cast their votes on Sunday, July 18.