Election Results
An email from the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) on 10 November, 2024 announced Ananya Makker’s (UG’27) resignation from her seat in the Undergraduate Council and House of Representatives due to “personal health concerns.” This left a seat vacant in the Student Government (SG), and as per protocol the AUEC announced a by-election to fill it. Nominations closed 15 November and the student body voted on 21 and 22 November.
Leher’s Utsav Kumar Mathur (UG’27), Toofan’s Domil Antony Johnson (UG’26) and independent candidates Aditya Bali (UG’26), Abhiyash Kumar Jaini (UG’27) and Dhruvajyoti Sahu (UG’27) (from the United Students Front (USF)) contested the election. Sahu won with a vote share of 22.19% (219 votes). According to the AUEC’s Final Vote Tally, the voter turnout was 36.17%.
Process and Participation
The AUEC announced a day before the election that the quorum for the by-elections, “at its discretion” was set at 20%. This marks a 15% decrease from the usual quorum (35%) adhered to for all AUSG elections. The Edict spoke to Muhammed Razin (UG’27), one of the five Election Commissioners about the reduced quorum. Razin referred to the history of by-elections at Ashoka, and said that they “tend to fail because they do not meet the 35% quorum.”
Voting in the by-elections occurred through Google Forms instead of the usual AUEC website due to ongoing technical issues with the latter. The AUEC, in an email, assured the student body of their multi-pronged approach to ensure privacy and security. This included an “email verification” step, to detect irregularities. Indeed, 10 votes were considered invalid and excluded from the final tally as they were cast from “ineligible email addresses or cohorts.”
Voter participation in this by-election defied the recent trend of low participation – according to an email from the AUEC, 504 votes were cast just four hours after polling began. Quorum was met early on and the final turnout neared double the required number of votes. While this can be attributed to the reduced quorum, the active email discourse that preceded the election says otherwise.
Campaigning, Attendance Records and Email Debates
Email announcements and heated back-and-forths accompanied the imagery-filled posters that candidates used to campaign. Different Leher members sent emails advocating for Mathur’s three-point agenda. This included “streamlining financial aid processes” and “simplifying Student Government structure.” They also highlighted Leher’s past work and emphasised that they “deliver” and “not through shaky attendance records.” Yet another email attached the attendance records of both the UG Council and the HoR, urging the student body to “check who’s voicing [your] concerns and who’s missing in action.” The email endorsed Mathur as a candidate who “knows how the SG works.”
The Edict reviewed the attendance records of both committees, as presented in the Public Information Drive. According to the HoR’s records, the last meeting (on 28 October) did not even meet quorum, with four members (out of thirteen) present. Those present included Ahana Walanju (UG’26), Speaker of the House, Aditi Warrier (ASP’25), President, Toofan’s Aekam Gulati (UG’26) and Samarth Jain (ASP’25), Vice President. Toofan members have recorded the lowest attendance in the HoR, followed by the USF’s two representatives. In the UG Council, on the other hand, members of the USF recorded some of the lowest attendance percentages, accompanied by some Independents.
The USF, however, was quick to respond over email. Terming Leher’s statement “regressive,” USF members questioned their premise, asking how they have “decided that the only way to work in the Student Government is to have perfect attendance.” Accusing Leher of leeching off their ideology and having a “parasitic relationship” with them, the USF said that they do not “feel the need” to limit their stances to meeting rooms. Rebutting the Leher email’s sign off “work quietly,” USF ended their email saying they will “not apologize” for their ‘loud’ politics.
The emails gave voters a sense of the debate and discourse that usually accompanies election season at the university. Razin, in conversation with The Edict emphasized this, “It [the emails] bolstered a sense of political discourse among the students,” in terms of “who to vote for, [what] ideas to vote for [...], even without a candidate debate, there was a candidate debate.”
Razin added that the UG’27 batch recorded the highest voter turnout in the by-elections, constituting 31% of the total number of votes. The freshers’ batch (UG’28) were close behind, and secured a 29.3% vote share. The Edict also spoke to UG’28 students, who are first-time voters.
What voters think
Shalom Katyal (UG ‘28), referred to Johnson’s campaigning in the mess and said it was “one of the biggest contributing factors” behind his voting. He added that he “did see the mails”, and they “especially affected my [his] voting pattern.”
Amber Jha (UG ‘28), had similar things to say. Some candidates had approached him, asking if he had cast a vote. He attributed his voting to this and the emails, “if I had not received those emails or I had not been approached by them, I perhaps would have not voted.”
The USF’s win in the by-elections signals a potential shift in the political landscape at Ashoka University. This can be evidenced by congratulatory posts from the members of AISA all over Delhi and the country. It was also seen in the USF’s celebratory open meeting on 25th November, alongside members of the Democracy Collective, the TransUnion, and the Savitri Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (SAPSC). This victory has also altered the composition of the House of Representatives – now, the number of members from Leher and the USF are at an equal footing.
[Edited by Madhumitha GI and Vishnu Prakash]
Comentários