The Audi Rag was scheduled for 6 PM on Friday, the 8th of September — a highly anticipated event leading up to the elections on Sunday. The judging panel consisted of two senior members of the Election Commission (EC) — Nandinee Phatak and Sanchit Kabra — and three members of the SSMS Election Commission (SSMS EC) — Arun Ramanathan, Anshika Gupta, and Shaz Furniturewala.
BST was prevalent as usual, with the time going to half an hour after the scheduled start and still no sign of the event commencing. By this time, the lower hall of the Main Audi was nearly filled to the brim. The judges were seen preparing for the event, flipping through a plethora of articles, including a particular HPC printed issue. The candidates were going through their manifestos.
At 6:30 PM, all seven candidates walked on stage and took their seats to a massive cheer from the crowd. The EC introduced themselves to the candidates and audience. They requested the audience to maintain decorum during the debate, only to be received with loud jeers.
The candidates were asked to introduce themselves in half a minute and asked which other candidate they would prefer to win. All the other Presidential candidates voted for Sarthak, while he voted for Sahaj. Among the General Secretarial candidates, Abhinav voted for Sanskar, Ashish for Abhinav, and Sanskar for neither of the other two. The EC rebuked him for not answering a simple question properly, and after a back-and-forth, he reluctantly endorsed Ashish.
The EC criticised the generic SOPs (Statements of Purpose) released by the candidates, likening them to ChatGPT responses. They quizzed each candidate on a moderately complex English word used in their SoP, to which about half the candidates answered correctly. Notably, Sanskar failed to define the term ‘malign’ and, to his defence, challenged the EC to show its location in his SoP, only to be retorted by the EC for failing to know what he had written in his own SoP.
Before the EC went on to interrogate the candidates, they mentioned their request to Munish to provide a video apology for his divisive comment during the Information Seminar. They expressed their disappointment as he failed to do so. Thus, they requested Munish to provide a live apology for the incident. He then apologised, but not without being reprimanded by the EC for leaving his seat and walking to the front of the stage.
The EC then moved on to scrutinise the manifesto points. For each candidate, they marked multiple manifesto points in one of the three BITS colours: red, if the candidate failed to provide concrete proof for the same; blue, if the topic was already implemented or enforced; and yellow, if the point is considered an essential responsibility for the position the candidate is contesting for.
The EC questioned Sarthak as to why he failed to adhere to the nomination deadline. They criticised his lack of courtesy in requesting an extension, to which he quickly responded, saying ‘I was admitted in a hospital.’
The EC questioned Abhinav on why he decided to leave his posts in SSMS for a position in the SU, to which he pointed to a supposed 80% completion rate of his previous manifesto. This was followed by the EC revealing his current manifesto with many points marked in red. They questioned his repeated usage of the words “push” and “initiate”, only for him to defend them, mentioning their long-term nature and his critical role in ensuring their initiation.
Sanskar was heavily criticised by the EC for his BITSCad initiative, mentioning that they received numerous complaints from various departments for disrupting the decades-old interaction culture. ‘My motto is to provide information to freshers and not disrupt the culture’, he responded. While he found purpose in the website for current students, the crowd expressed their displeasure at its vote-grabbing nature.
The EC proceeded to show how Ashish had failed to upload proofs for any of his manifesto points, while Munish could not grant access to the EC to the drive link he shared. Ashish said he sent the proofs, although the EC disapproved of his last-minute work. Munish further failed to define a cooperative society, incorrectly calling it ‘a place where everybody co-operates’. The EC further exposed the lack of feasibility of his initiative to integrate Akshay into the SU App.
The EC questioned Abhinav’s idea to bring MedC under auditing by the SU. The EC reminded him that MedC is a subsidiary of the Birla Sarvajanik Hospital and whether he intended to undertake auditing — or ‘push’ for one — for the entire hospital, too. He defended his point, mentioning the difference between a financial and stock audit while emphasising his interest in collecting comprehensive data from the GBM to improve the supply of medicines currently available at MedC.
Munish was heavily interrogated on his plan to replace traditional autos on campus with electric ones. The EC reminded him that previous SU administrations failed to implement something similar. He said he would request auto drivers to buy new electric autos on a downpayment, install solar panels to set up charging ports, and provide the electricity generated for free. The EC had to remind him of the infeasibility of the plan, mentioning that he had no right to force auto drivers to take on new loans to fulfil his agenda.
Sanskar was questioned on his initiative to standardise auto rates. He incorrectly claimed that autos outside campus are ‘cheaper’, to which the EC countered by asking if he understood the difference between ‘standardised’ and ‘cheap’. He tried to clarify his stand by proposing a complaint portal to report specific auto drivers who fail to adhere to the standardised rates. The EC again rejected this idea, asking, ‘Is your system valid? Is it a valid use of your time? How many disputes will you solve in a day?’
The EC took a dig at Sahaj by asking for confirmation that he had completed many of his manifesto points when he was the Hostel Representative (HRep) of Shankar Bhavan, and feigning surprise at his almost fully red HRep manifesto after he had said yes. He was asked how he was expected to deliver as the president if he couldn’t get simple things such as installing soap dispensers done. He was then asked to clarify why he had listed the opening of NAB rooms as a manifesto point, when any member of the GBM had the power to ask for the opening of the rooms. Sahaj’s only reply was that he could be that GBM member.
Sanskar was questioned about a manifesto point wherein he said that the SU app would be used to sign up for merchandise when that was already a feature. They further asked if his disbelief in the ability of CRC and SU was so much that he felt the need to make it a manifesto point to get it done. He reasoned that students wouldn’t have complained if the execution was proper. The EC questioned him if mess signings would be stopped, to which he replied that mess signings would remain, but the students would have to open the SU app to sign up. The EC tried to point out the redundant nature of his idea by repeating it to him.
Sahaj was then questioned about the validity of mentioning inventory maintenance as a manifesto point when that was one of the primary roles of the General Secretary. He responded to it by saying that he would make the financial part of it more transparent. The EC then extensively interrogated Sahaj on his idea to link the SWD account to Amazon by cross-questioning and pointing out inadequacies in his logic several times. With the crowd going restless, they started making paper aeroplanes from the HPC issues previously distributed to the audience.
The EC questioned Abhinav about his program “therapy through art” that he thought of after reading one article, and whom he spoke to about its feasibility and implementation. Abhinav responded by saying he didn’t know the name of the person he talked to, which annoyed the EC, who replied that just a simple name and not even a hard proof of documentation was asked. They then questioned his authority on the topic, asking if he was qualified enough to suggest a treatment technique to the psychologists.
Munish was then asked why an entire section of the manifesto was dedicated to changes in Meera Bhawan and what Meera Bhawan HReps were for. After Munish’s response on his care about the whole campus, the EC asked if he thought the Meera HRep was less competent than others. The slogans turned a bit ugly after this, and Munish had to ask the audience not to bring his mother into the debate. There was sudden chaos in the crowd, and the EC, with a few others, had to put some effort into maintaining decorum.
Sarthak was questioned about his awareness of the Sports Union, since his manifesto mentioned that he wanted to conduct official inter-hostel tournaments and hackathons. When Sarthak responded by saying that he could allow the Sports Union to run the competition, the EC told him to apply to the Sports Union if that was the case. Furthermore, it was not a valid enough reason to be put in a manifesto, as the work was of the Sports Union, and not him.
Ashish suggested allowing students to book high-end labs through an online portal. He claimed it would help formalise the process, while the EC seemed to disagree, mentioning that the labs are already under professors’ control and students involved in their research projects will have access to them.
He was further quizzed on his plan for reducing severe punishments for substance abuse. On talking to the administration, Ashish found that it is subjective and at their mercy. He wished to quantify it, and the EC asked him how he’d accomplish it. He suggested mild and progressive punishments. EC quizzed whether he’d like to send them to rehab, to which he agreed and suggested looking at their personal background. The EC responded again, saying, “You just described DisCo. So now, if you’re looking at the whole background of students, it’s subjective because it’s case-wise. You’ve contradicted yourself!”
The EC further questioned his plan to make a 3D map of BITS, showing the existing EPC 3D map on the projector screen. Ashish insisted he wanted something more comprehensive by including a 3D campus tour, labelling every room number available to ease students’ welfare. The EC commented on his suggestion’s potential time drain and redundant nature, and criticised his lack of originality.
The EC questioned Abhinav’s idea to introduce a culinary arts elective. His first oversight was the lack of professors specialising in the discipline, and the hurdles required to approve a new course through the institute’s Senate. Although he claimed a senator supported his idea, the EC retorted, mentioning the difference between a senator and the Senate. He was also quizzed on his vision to revamp the printing service.
Sarthak was interrogated about bringing various eateries such as Haldiram’s and Burger Farm to campus, although he struggled to explain the logistics of setting it up. He said he spoke to the Dean of Administration and said, ‘We are in communication with the EMU’, to which the EC quickly retorted, asking whom “we” referred to. On mentioning it was the work of the previous SU Council, they were quick to accuse Sarthak of taking credit for the ex-council’s work.
The EC quizzed Priyanshu on his work for the SU until his second year. They brought up a previous incident where he ‘disappeared’ from the Oasis Review Meet, accusing him of cowardice for not completing his manifesto agenda. They questioned his genuineness and seriousness in his role, to which he responded by mentioning his contribution to a particular pitstop initiative. The EC snapped back, saying how the onus of pitstop operation falls under the SSMS, and claimed that the only tangible thing Priyanshu accomplished was talking to the ex-president of the SSMS.
The EC closed the debate by asking the initial question again to the candidates. The presidential candidates stuck to their original decisions, while Abhinav categorically stated his ‘disappointment’ in Sanskar’s debate performance and chose not to endorse the other two candidates. While Ashish didn’t change his opinion, Sanskar was impressed with Ashish’s answers in the debate.
The EC finally called the 4-hour-long ordeal to a close around 10:30 PM, thanking the GBM for their attendance and reminding them of the voting on Sunday.