Page 2-3: In Conversation with the
Candidates contesting for SU President
ENGLISH
Page 4-7: Interview with the
Candidates Contesting for Gen Sec
PRESS
CLUB
Page 8: Food Review: Lazeez Rolls and
New Culinary Delights in Pilani
PRESENTS
THE FINE PRINT
Candidates’ manifesto points, proofs and attitudes speak
much louder than long hours of campaigning. It isn’t
unusual in an Auditorium Debate to come across a
worthy candidate you hadn’t heard of before, or for a very
popular one to lose face by slipping up badly on stage.
Firm opinions are torn to bits and new, more informed
ones and created. For those who missed the event, here’s
as unbiased a report as we could come up with.
Both candidates standing for President, Sagar Chourasia
and V. V. Sai Praneeth gave the impression of having
done substantial preparation and definitely cut a worthier
figure than any of the General Secretary potentials. While
Sai Praneeth defended the need and structure of a
freelancers’ portal on campus, he was caught off guard
when the panel grilled him on the implication of the word
‘collaborate’ with regards to the motor driving school.
Sagar Chourasia was qestioned by the panel for having
four of his manifesto points facilitated by the same local
dealer. Both were questioned about the Laundromat
service they proposed. While Praneeth had to draw
parallels with Sodexo, Chourasia was faced with a land
lease issue to sort out. Praneeth was further interrogated
on the necessity and plausibility of the ‘annual’ PAN card
and passport drive and Chourasia was asked about the
necessity of a committee he proposed to form. Neither
candidate was left absolutely speechless at any point of
time, nor were the two questioned on gaping or
embarrassing faults. That says a great deal about the
quality of the presidential candidates.
While Praneeth came across as confident and bold, albeit
with a slight tinge of arrogance, Sagar Chourasia seemed
soft-spoken and more respectful of the panel. The two
worthy candidates make for a study in contrast – a rather
variant choice for the BITSian crowd.
To those unaware, we have four candidates for the post
of General Secretary- Ashutosh Pandey, Ashutosh
Mundhada, Naman Munot and Shubham Gupta.
The election panel started off by asking Pandey, what he
thought the purpose of the Audi Debate was. He asked
for a clarification to whether they were talking about the
current auditorium debate or the informational seminar.
Then, he was tasked with clarifying the details regarding
his manifestos point about revamping the cycle club. He
pointed out repeatedly throughout the debate that the
main agenda of his manifesto is to make the Union
Council accountable at each level to restore the faith of
SEMESTER I
ISSUE II
PILANI
AUGUST 2014
the GBM. Given the nature of his points and his
demeanor, he was asked fewer questions than the others,
and the panel quickly moved on.
Shubham Gupta, on being asked his view on the role of
the general secretary, came up with the popular political
one liner on increasing the power in the hands of
BITSians. He explained how he planned to do this using a
referendum, which could be of online or offline nature.
After a lot of debating and cross-questioning with the
panel, he said the objective of his manifesto point was to
change the majority requirement to initiate a referendum
from 80% to a simple 50%. About the maintenance of the
SU online portal, he argued that he intended to do things
differently compared to the current plans of the SU Tech
team. There were logistical issues regarding his point
about the colour printing in S-9, but was not given
enough time by the panel to explain his stand.
Next, the Panel sought to clarify the manifesto point
regarding the sports electives proposed by Naman Munot.
He claimed to have talked to Dr. Geetha B., about the
same, who according to him encouraged the idea. The
panel, however, quipped that the idea lacked the backend
planning owing to the limited availability of workforce.
Munot stuck to his idea, suggesting that a new department
could be created rather than going through the
Humanities department. He was also interrogated for his
proposal of holding workshops all year for dance, music
etc. as departments like the Department of Theatre (DoT)
felt it could cause a loss in their sponsorship from
workshops.
Mundhada was asked about the video conference based
counseling which he plans on implementing. One of the
biggest concerns was regarding the bandwidth, although
he claimed that there were no issues during the testing
phase. His further claim that the service will be available
irrespective of who gets elected brought on some
applause from the audience. He defended his other points
like the tele-medical services and the APOGEE project
being funded by NEN. Here, the tables were turned in
terms of how the panel hadn’t checked one of the proof
mails.
While essential, the auditorium ragging, as it is more
commonly known, was attended mainly by impressionable
first years, easily swayed by meaningless hoots and cheers
and many, being off campus, lost out on the opportunity
to see the faults in their future stars.