AUSG Presidential Debate 2026

The Ashoka University Student Government (AUSG) presidential debate was conducted on Sunday, 3rd May, 2026, and hosted by the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) in collaboration with The Edict. The debate was moderated by Anamta Husain (UG’ 27) and Somansh Sarangi (UG’26), outgoing editors of the Edict’s Politics Newsdesk. Presidential candidates this year are Partho Roy (UG’ 28), contesting under the USF banner; Ayush Solapurkar (UG’ 27), contesting from Horizon; and independent candidate Arash Lareb Syed (UG’ 28). Candidates for General Secretary are Kriti Chhibber from Horizon (UG’ 28), Sulagna Moitra from USF (UG’ 27), and independent candidate Shatakshi Shelly (UG’ 28). 

All candidates, in their affidavits, have pushed for greater transparency in the AUSG, emphasising the need for more outreach to make AUSG mechanisms more accessible to the general student body. Solapurkar, in particular, focused on organising more student town halls and informal meetings with AUSG leaders. This was echoed in Horizon’s Gen Sec candidate, Chibber’s affidavit, in which she highlighted the need for sensitisation on workers’ issues and for greater AUSG outreach. Syed (Independent) advocated for greater support to “all stakeholders”, particularly members of the support staff, and for strengthening the support and mechanisms of CASH-CADI systems and providing support to students navigating financial aid. Independent candidate Shelly, running for Gen Sec, campaigned for better accessibility of mental health support on campus. USF Presidential candidate Roy talked about holding more concrete negotiations with the administration regarding the current ResLife policies, and conducting the pending EOC Caste Survey. USF Gen Sec candidate Moitra emphasised the need for greater outreach to build a rapport between the AUSG and first-year students. 

The debate began with opening statements from the candidates. Roy set the tone with an “anti-admin” stance, accusing the new ResLife policies of being suffocating and the new policy around CADI suspension and Gender Affirmative Housing as being "targeted”. The candidates from Horizon, on the other hand, focused on the need for institutionalised accountability within the AUSG, with President contender Solapurkar saying that the collective’s goals rested on three tenets: “Accountability, visibility, and coordination”.  Chhibber emphasised that the AUSG had suffered due to its disconnection from the broader student body and its tendency to ignore “smaller problems”. This was refuted by Moitra, who pointed out that recent policies were a reflection of a broader shift in attitudes, not just within the administration, but in the state legislature as well, calling for the AUSG not to view campus events in a vacuum. Independent candidate Syed offered a softer counter to USF’s anti-admin stance, pointing out that working with the administration was a reality when it came to the role of the AUSG, and that it was in everyone’s interest to foster a healthy relationship with them. Shelly reiterated her commitment to accountability and to fostering checks and balances that would “continue in the long term”.

Moderators Sarangi and Husain then asked the candidates specific questions on the basis of their affidavits. When asked about maintaining a culture of internal critique, something which the outgoing USF-led SG was repeatedly accused of having failed to do, Roy explained that while a culture of critique remained crucial to their work, it would still operate under the broader USF vision of “placing students and workers first”. When asked about his plans for the caste-census, something spoken about extensively in his affidavit, Roy confirmed that it was ready to go out next semester. However, he confirmed that it would be both anonymous and non-mandatory, problems which plagued an earlier attempt by the Equal Opportunity Cell (EOC) at a similar endeavour. Roy offered no solutions to the challenges the EOC faced. 

Solapurkar was asked about his plans for making the AUSG more visible on campus. He detailed the need to “break down the hierarchy” internally, proposing informal meet-up sessions and more town halls to encourage student engagement. He repeatedly emphasised his belief that past experience leading the FAIR Comm  (Financial Aid, Inclusivity, and Resources Committee) would enable him to achieve this. 

Syed, discussing his agenda of greater inclusivity, spoke about having a more data-driven approach to understanding public opinion. “Anyone who feels excluded has a right to feel part of the Ashoka community,” he said, promising greater engagement with minority groups on campus. 

Gen Sec candidates were also asked about their manifestos. Chibber, campaigning about worker rights, spoke extensively about the need for sensitisation among students on workers’ issues and how to help make the campus more inclusive. She noted that she had spoken with members of other minority groups as well, including SAPSC, DemCol, and TransUnion, to better understand lived experiences. Moitra spoke about the broader USF vision, which extended well beyond campus-level issues, or at least addressed them in a much larger political sense. Shelly was asked about her role on the outgoing First Years Committee (FYC) and was quick to clarify that the committee had been within the purview of former Vice-President Ahana Walanju. She did, however, explain that she remained committed to greater transparency and accessibility of the AUSG. 

The debate then moved to open questions addressed to all the candidates. The two main points raised were about the new ResLife policies, action against which fizzled out in the wake of the workers’ protest, and internal AUSG accountability. Solapurkar began by expressing a need for “both internal and external” checks to ensure accountability. However, he was also vocal about the issue being more structural, stemming from the formation of ‘in-groups’ in the AUSG itself. “The AUSG was ineffective because it was largely run by working groups formed by friends and acquaintances for SG members,” he said. Syed added to this the need for better data through student recordings of room raids, and the need to collate this data as evidence to underpin any discussion with the administration. In terms of broader accountability, Shelly acknowledged the need for better management of the Public Relations Drive and for more regular reports on SG functioning. Chhibber hinted at plans within Horizon to promote greater inter-committee collaboration as well. 

The floor was then opened to the audience for questions. One audience member wanted to know the candidates’ position on “compromise” with the admin, in the interest of achieving certain goals. Both USF candidates were in opposition, promising to hold fast to their demands, while others took a more moderate stance - that admin engagement was unavoidable, and that the goal was to foster better dialogue. Another question, directed at the Horizon candidates, inquired into their objectives of inclusivity and asked how they intended to make good on it. “I trust the team I have built to bring up issues and talk to people,” answered Solapurkar, explaining that Horizon, as a collective, had worked to bring together a diverse group of people and was thus, by nature, well placed to fulfil its goal of inclusivity.  Another audience member questioned the USF candidates’ seemingly contradictory approach to retain their predecessors’ anti-admin, pro-student ideology, but to promise concrete change. Roy promised that the USF this year had a lot of fresh faces and was more committed than ever to accepting internal critique. 

In a brief concluding discussion on the availability of records, particularly details of AUSG meetings with admin, all candidates expressed reservations about making such records public, considering the outgoing AUSG had already conveyed DSA’s request that some of those conversations remain private. However, both Independent candidate Shelly and Horizon Gen Sec candidate Chhibber agreed that even meetings with admin had to be more transparent, and that this was something the incoming AUSG would have to work on. 

With that, the Presidential Debate 2026 was concluded. Due to the tight timeline, the UG Council candidates' debate could not be conducted. Candidates contesting are -

Independent: Shrey Agarwal (UG’29), Parth Kanwa (UG’29), Shatakshi Shelly (UG’ 28), and Abrar Khan (UG’29)

Horizon: Aditi Vadhavkar (UG’29), Arnav Gupta (UG’27), Aditya Deshkulkarni (UG’28), Anika Kumar (UG’29), Selam Sahile (UG’29), Ayushi Choudhary (UG’27), Asewe Letro (UG’28), Fathima Fida B (UG’29), and Teesha Aurora (UG’27). 

[Edited by Gauri Deshpande and Tanush Guha]