The Presidential Debate 2025: Surveillance, Substance Use, Inclusivity, and Workers’ Rights

On Friday, 2nd May 2025, the Presidential Debate was held, hosted by the Ashoka University Election Commission (AUEC) and The Edict, ahead of the ongoing Ashoka University Student Government  (AUSG) elections. The debate was moderated by The Edict’s outgoing Politics News Desk Editor Madhumita GI (UG ‘26) and current Managing Editor Fatema Tambawalla (UG ‘27). Presidential candidates Insha Husain (UG ‘26) and Ahana Walanju (UG ‘26) from the United Students Front (USF), as well as the independent candidates Swapnanil Mukherjee (UG ‘26)  and Swayam Nath (UG ‘26), presented their agendas and answered questions about their manifestos. It was structured in three rounds: opening statements, moderator’s questions, and an open-floor question & answer session. 

The debate began with opening statements. Husain emphasised the importance of open discourse, calling it essential for students to have an “active voice” in shaping campus life. They stressed on the need to have an informed ideology as a student body, claiming it was only through “ideology and understanding” that they were effective in the last term. Mukherjee followed, focusing on student unity and administrative accountability. “Why are we running? We are tired, annoyed, angry and frustrated by the administration not dealing with student issues,” he said, raising concerns about inadequate living conditions on the new campus.

Vice-Presidential candidate Walanju criticised the administration for sidelining student concerns and delaying decisions without explanation. Echoing Husain, she also stressed the need for student politics grounded in clear ideology. Another Vice Presidential candidate, Nath, argued that “nothing good has happened in the last three years” and called out administrative failures on basic issues like Residence Hall conditions and leaking air conditioners. 

Student Culture and Substance Use:

Candidates were asked about their stances on substance use on campus. Nath stressed the need for open dialogue, emphasising that punitive action is counterproductive. “It’s not like every time you do substances, you are abusing them; you can also use them for recreation,” he added, inviting everyone to reflect on the term “abuse” in the substance abuse discourse. “Students can’t be penalised for being teenagers; college is a space to learn and grow,” agreed Mukherjee. Walanju raised concerns about poor medical access during emergencies and proposed collaboration between the infirmary and the Ministry of Community Well Being (MCWB) so cases like alcohol poisoning are not automatically escalated to the Residence Life Office. Husain pointed out that the AUSG was unfairly blamed for inaction on substance use, while the administration’s over-reliance on surveillance and punishment ignored the root causes. 

Inclusivity in Clubs and Societies:

On reforming induction processes, Husain criticised current “merit-based” induction processes as “arbitrary” and exclusionary, arguing that students should have easier access to recreational spaces. Mukherjee raised the question of practical constraints in inducting all applicants and called for evaluation mechanisms “tailored” to club types instead. He said that defining diversity metrics should fall to the Student Life Office (SLO), which will frame policies based on admissions data for each cohort, not the AUSG. When the moderators asked them how easier access could be materialised, Walanju called for easing administrative pressure on clubs to meet event quotas and removing rigid standards. Nath added that the shortage of physical space for activities was a key issue that required redressal. 

Surveillance and Workers’ Rights:

Moderators asked Husain and Walanju how they planned to address the erosion of student rights and mental health infrastructure as outlined in their manifesto. Husain reiterated that punitive measures have worsened the mental health crisis, referencing wardens’ disregard for official protocol. Walanju added that communication with the administration—especially the interim Dean of Student Affairs (DSA) —has been difficult, but that they have tried to maintain alternative channels and sensitise wardens.

On surveillance of campus workers and wage protections, Husain said that workers must be “empowered to collectivise” because students may not always be able to speak on their behalf. She reiterated the need for sustained engagement and platforms like the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) for them to voice concerns. In agreement, Nath pointed out that students face limitations in supporting the workers since many of them are hired through third parties. Mukherjee then steered the conversation towards administrative “accountability” for contractors, citing how wage cuts were reversed under “pressure from students”. 

Functioning of the SG: 

In this segment moderators began by asking Mukherjee and Nath about how the two will manage the role of President and Vice President, considering neither has previously occupied a position in the AUSG. Mukherjee replied saying that despite not having worked in the AUSG, “It doesn't mean I haven’t been working with admin. I have been working with the admin on multiple axes, so I know what the larger problems are.” Husain, from the other side, found this  answer “inadequate,” asserting that “the way the government works with the admin is very different from how they work with students.” Nath countered by noting that some members are standing for re-election, which would help maintain an inclusive space for new candidates.

Moving on, the moderators turned their attention to the last accountability debate and the insinuation that ministers felt “compelled” to send out statements on behalf of their ministries, as reported by The Edict. Husain and Walanju were asked how  they would set about resolving such conflicts of interest were they to arise.” Walanju asserted in response, “I do not think we compelled any minister to send out statements. We understand that our ideology comes from a certain angle, but we will actively try to incorporate diverse student opinions.” Husain added that the ministry was not functioning under either of them, and as a councillor, they never interacted with any of the ministers.

Addressing Mukherjee and Nath, the moderators asked them to clarify what they meant by having a standardised escalation plan for protests, pointing out that the last protest did have this in place. The two said they wanted to move away from the previous government’s “ad-hoc” approach and ensure decisions happen through “a proper streamlined process.” Husain retorted that every decision was made in consultation “with the student body.” 

Inclusivity and Discrimination:

Finally,  moderators questioned the candidates on how they planned to create a more inclusive campus environment and respond in a timely manner to incidents of racism.  While all agreed on the need for sustained sensitisation, Husain and Walanju emphasised that collectives like the Savitri Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (SAPSC) and the Northeast Collective have done great work to make the campus more inclusive. “All forms of discrimination are structural,” added Husain, calling for more systemic changes. Walanju suggested student representation from these collectives in administrative bodies. Mukherjee also pushed for Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH) and Committee Against Disciplinary Infractions (CADI) workshops to be made more accessible and conducted in an offline mode.  

Audience Questions:

The concluding portion of the debate consisted of audience questions. Mukherjee and Nath were asked about being complicit with the administration’s view of the AUSG. Nath replied, saying they are “not claiming affiliation to larger ideological bindings’ and want to avoid “schematizing” the AUSG and restricting “other voices,” particularly right-wing students. 

A student asked both sets of candidates if they had a vision for the eventual formation of a student union, to which Husain responded they would not “defunct the AUSG” in any capacity. However, they do plan to govern in an ideologically pro-union way. The other set of candidates declined to comment. Another audience member, saying that they are on the Autism spectrum, asked about solutions towards accommodations for students with neurodivergence, to which the USF candidates reiterated collaborations with the Office of Learning Support.   

Voting took place from 5th May to 6th May. Results of the election will be declared on Wednesday, 7th May. 

The Writers are Co Editors-in-Chief of The Edict for the academic year 2025-26.

 (Edited by Anamta Husain and Somansh Sarangi)