The debate amongst the candidates for the post of Batch Representatives for the 2018, 2019, and 2020 batches, was held on July 15, 2021. The EC examined the manifestos and asked relevant questions regarding the same. Their campaigns and the compliance—or the failure thereof— to the rules and regulations was also touched upon.
2018 and 2019
Manasvi Singh and Pranav S Yellayi were the two prospects from the 2019 batch, while Aman M Garg contested from the 2018 batch. Manasvi stated that the declining number of student-run initiatives and lack of schemes in a few domains motivated her to run for the position. Pranav pointed out his involvement in campus affairs and his urge to help people as the primary drive behind his decision to contest in these elections. Aman asserted that his manifesto points were ideal for any final year student; they ranged from mental health during placement season to merchandise for the 2018 batch.
The EC then asked all three candidates to voice their opinions on reopening the campus and proposals for vaccination drives. Manasvi and Aman—the only two candidates not to mention this in their manifestos—categorically stated how the administration would have to bear the brunt in bringing students back on campus. Pranav proposed a survey to gauge the status of vaccination of the students and give the administration a clearer picture before formulating a strategy to reopen the campus. However, all of them assured their full-fledged cooperation with the administration and the rest of the SU on this premise.
They were then interrogated about their seriousness regarding their candidature and whether they utilised the channels of campaigning provided by the EC optimally. Manasvi and Pranav explained how they contacted people individually rather than using the EC’s media that were suited for targeting a larger audience. Aman felt that the reach of the EC’s Instagram channel was inadequate; he claimed to have reached out to over a hundred people with the help of his camp. When asked about the complacency shown in campaigning itself, he asserted being tied up with his summer term and the forthcoming placement season as reasons for the apparent delay in his campaigning duties. He declared to reach out to the entire electorate within the time frame allowed by the EC.
Pranav was explicitly questioned about his conduct on social media. There were accusations of misogynistic comments being made in the past, which he categorically denied. The EC stated that Pranav had spoken disrespectfully to an EC member, on one of his groups on WhatsApp. According to him, a communication gap made him respond impulsively on said group. Upon being nudged about his ‘reactionary responses’, he attempted to justify himself by attributing this to the ‘hard work’ he put into his campaigning efforts and how the message ‘disturbed him mentally’.
The EC moved on to inquire about the candidates’ manifestos. Manasvi had to justify her point about ‘organising meets for the city-wide groups which already exist’ under the banner of the SU, even though regional associations already exist. She asserted that the SU’s involvement would lead to COVID-19 norms being followed more effectively and that there was a lack of meets organised by the said associations ‘in all cities except Pune’. However, she could not provide any evidence of the conversations with the five associations she claimed to have spoken with. She also presented a proposition to offer subsidised courses on Coursera. When inquired about the financial allocations, she gave the example of an already existing Financial Aid scheme available on the website and a precedent where Coursera provided free courses to the students during the first wave of the pandemic. However, the latter was dismissed as a marketing initiative by Coursera itself, and the EC refused to impute that to the SU. She further suggested a virtual hostel where interactions between 2020 and 2019 batches could be initiated outside the domain of clubs and departments. This system would allocate ‘book-pops’ and ‘book-moms’ to the junior batch and simulate campus culture online. The EC was unsure of the importance of this measure in the context of a third-year college student.
Aman had to elaborate upon a student-run panel to assist those suffering from mental health issues, especially during placement seasons. He diverted the answer to a particular grievance list he proposed to send to the PU and concerned authorities after examining his batch’s experience with PS II allotments. When asked about how contacting authorities made his duties as a representative any different from other students, he banked an office-bearer’s status as a more accountable and effective communication channel. He was also urged to back his claims about sharing resourceful drives with academic content, including question papers and recorded lectures. While he could not satisfactorily resolve concerns over copyright violations in such a scenario, he believed most professors would give their consent for the same. The EC interrogated him about setting a consolidated list of courses to provide a hassle-free process while making the Time Table. With many such planners already in place, he aimed to amalgamate all ‘relevant’ and ‘popular’ electives to avoid unnecessary confusion. However, the EC pointed out the instances of students choosing electives from across branches, and a separate branch-wise list would not help the cause. Moreover, the feasibility of this remained doubtful due to the lack of substantial proof.
The EC asserted that Pranav, via his manifesto, seemed to be ‘justifying those caught cheating during examinations’. He did not mention any preventive measures, instead proposed to act as a mediator between the accused and the Disciplinary Committee to push for more lenient measures such as community service. The candidate kept mentioning how the online semester posed challenges that led to students forgoing academic integrity, but punishing only a few students seemed biased. He also proposed to provide financial assistance to students who have lost their parents to the pandemic. The EC mentioned how this point in his manifesto was worded ‘misleadingly’ as he included a vague bracket of all those with ‘COVID-infected families’, he clarified the target audience for this measure and claimed to know two students who had already received these relaxations. The EC asked for substantial evidence to permit an undertaking of such gravitas. Pranav also affirmed to push for ‘minimising the number of evaluatives and providing buffers in courses’, especially given the demanding schedules of their sophomore year. However, the EC pointed out that this came under the Student Faculty Council’s purview and remained sceptical about the implementation by a Batch Representative. He was hopeful that the AUGSD would approve these said measures but could not provide any backing.
The debate concluded with the three candidates providing a minute-long summary of their stances.
2020
With six candidates up for the two posts of Batch Representatives, the debates for the 2020 batch followed.
The six candidates were Gaurav Mishra, Shreekar Puranik, and Yash Anil Saboo contesting from the 2020-A electorate and Aarsh Khare, Naman Gupta, and Suraj Phalod contesting from the 2020-B electorate. Campus reopening and vaccination turned out to be the main topics that the candidates’ manifesto points revolved around. The EC repeatedly questioned the feasibility of the points presented by the candidates.
Aarsh provided an eight point SOP for campus reopening with a deadline of three months that, as the EC pointed out, was copied from IIT Kharagpur’s plan for reopening. He proposed a bio-bubble inside the campus, with ‘300-400 students coming in every fifteen days’, followed by mandatory testing and a quarantine period. The EC inquired as to how he planned on accommodating parents accompanying the 2020 batch, to which he gave the example of the reopening plan of IIT Bhilai where he claimed no parents were allowed. It was pointed out to him that his plan might take ten months for full implementation. The candidate conceded he ‘didn’t have any authority as the Batch Representative’ to execute his plan. The EC commented that while his proposal was optimistic, it was not viable.
Gaurav Mishra talked about avoiding vaccine hesitancy amongst the students while proposing a survey to analyse the percentage of vaccinated students. He also claimed to have had a conversation with the Chief Warden which the EC quickly pointed out to have no proof of. While claiming that he would work closely with the Chief Warden and some ‘seniors’, Gaurav had no tangible timeline or logistics to bring his plan to fruition.
In contrast to the previous two, Naman Gupta said he did not have any particular promise regarding reopening since he was ‘not sure how the third wave will be’. His plan is to hasten whatever process is decided by the administration.
All three points in Shreekar Puranik’s manifesto revolved around his plan for campus reopening. He claimed to have spoken to some villages in Maharashtra to learn how they remained COVID-19 free—for which again, no proof was presented—and planned to implement that learning in Pilani. For fully vaccinated students, he proposed accommodating them into a hostel room from where they continue taking online classes but did not go into the details of how he planned to bring them there. He also suggested a vaccination drive on campus for people who required a second dose of the vaccine which he expected to ‘not be that big of a problem’.
Lastly, the two (previously nominated) outgoing 2020 batch representatives in the Acting Council, Suraj Phalod and Yash Saboo, put forward their plans. While Suraj suggested a plan of a selective vaccination drive on campus where ‘not all will be given the second dose’, Yash admitted that all decisions regarding the reopening will only be taken by the administration and SU can only recommend plans to the administration. His plan revolved around restarting the SU bus and train service that would bring in students from cities such as Jaipur and Delhi, for which he presented a plan of action as well. However, he faltered when EC questioned him about the finances for his IR Thermometer stations plan around the campus locations.
When questioned about why their candidature is better than the two outgoing AC members contesting in this election, both Shreekar and Gaurav talked about past leadership experiences. Naman planned ‘on learning along the way’ while Aarsh claimed what he lacked in experience compared to his ‘adversaries’, he ‘made up for in resilience’. Aarsh came up with many such inspirational cliches further in the debate.
The EC brought up a meeting between the AC and members of the EC which happened in March 2021. The Batch Representatives of 2020 batch, Suraj Phalod and Yash Saboo, were claimed to have opposed voting rights in the SU elections for the 2020 batch, citing lack of interactions of the batch with the candidates, leading to elections ‘being unfair’. While initially claiming no such discussion took place, both of them eventually wrote it off as something that was misinterpreted. They clarified that this discussion was for the posts of President and General Secretory and not Batch Representatives while also ensuring that ‘they were surely never on board with it’.
While Aarsh was questioned about his adeptness to answer all inquiries in 48 hours, as he claimed in his manifesto, Gaurav was questioned over his ‘Synchronised Evaluation Schedule’, in which he proposed a monthly schedule of evaluatives to be given by the ICs. On being asked how he planned to coordinate with all the ICs of all the departments, he admitted it was a difficult task. His points regarding subscriptions to e-learning platforms, ‘branch mentorship programme’ and ‘dev workshops’ were also scrutinised by the EC as to how they were different from the status quo.
Naman was probed about his plan for an online notice board that would have recruitment forms and events from all the clubs, departments, and tech teams of the Institute. Naman replied that he had discussed the feasibility of building the platform with the SU Tech Team. There was a controversy surrounding one of his campaigners, who (as claimed by the campaigner) used his sister’s phone number for the campaign, leading to widespread confusion. It was finally concluded that Naman was ‘not himself involved in this situation but it was his campaign member that led to this scenario’. His platform to connect first degree students and higher degree students also came up, which he presented as a way to get exposure to new interests amongst the ‘BITS family’.
The EC demanded a justification for Shreekar’s statement during his campaign about not going back to campus with ‘dirty SU politics’. When asked why his manifesto had only three points, he pointed out that eight to nine points seem unfeasible as the term for Batch Representative would only be until campus reopened.
Suraj’s point regarding improved transparency and accountability came under scrutiny since he himself was part of the AC for six months. He explained his stance briefly about how sharing non-conclusive answers from the authorities to the GBM might eventually lead to fake news but promised to inform the GBM of SU’s pitch to the administration at the very least.
Despite admitting that he does not ‘understand how fests work’, Aarsh argued that it would be possible to call foreign celebrities for online fests since the ‘finances saved in accommodation and travel’ could be used for their performance fee. He believed it would provide ‘a lot of exposure to the students’.
Yash’s manifesto point to conduct ‘yoga meets’ was also scrutinised and the existence of a similar programme was pointed out by the EC. Yash blamed it on problems with publicising such initiatives, particularly amongst the first years.
The EPC urges all students to register themselves on Office 365 and cast their votes on Sunday, July 18.