Race for Chairperson: The Battle for Execution and Accountability

(Part - 1)

Sri City: On February 27th, all five chair candidates stepped up, each with their own take on

what the role should be and how to address the issues that matter most to students at Krea. In this

first part, we take a closer look at three candidates— Aarav, Arnav, and Trishna —each with a

distinct approach to leadership. But as the election is unfolding, their promises are being put to

the test —not just on paper but in their ability to turn these ideas into something real.

Aarav’s Bid for Chairperson : Holding Power Accountable

Aarav (SIASUG22-26), a third-year computer science major, is no stranger when it comes to

navigating admin matters or negotiating with the SG. Armed with a considerably detailed seven

page manifesto stating that over the past 3 years —

“[He has] been holding the people in charge accountable in [his] minimal capacity as a lone student,”; Aarav has gone on to make several promises and planned proposals to the entire student body. Of them, some of his listed and major goals include — transparency through a public complaint tracker, accountability via a fourth-year advisory board, more frequent emergency updates, clearly defined UWC roles, structured committee guidelines, improved study space allocation, revamping the convenience store with essential supplies, investigating staff treatment and advocating fair policies, a

centralized information hub for students, and a dynamic web platform to enhance event visibility

and attendance.

With regard to accountability, one of the plans that he illustrates in his manifesto is an advisory

body made of active fourth years that will hold the student government accountable. The reason

for this? “Students have low trust in the SG”, and for Aarav this is “a downward spiral and

needs to be stopped”.

However, such a proposal comes with its logistical constraints and concerns, as pointed out by

two members of the student body after the speech. How much say would this advisory board have? What would the structure entail? What is the guarantee that fourth years, a demographic

which is usually pretty inactive in town halls and SG matters, would even actively engage with

this? These were the questions that were raised.

“This is just an idea and I have to talk to lots of people before I completely know what this would

look like,” Aarav admitted. But while there is room to structurally flesh it out, the plan that

Aarav has for the advisory board, if successful, seems to be quite needed and important. This

would include monthly/periodical check ups that would go over not only what the SG could or

couldn’t do but also how and what could be done better. Addressing the question of low

participation from the fourth years next, Aarav again agreed that this is a justified and real

concern. But if they [fourth years] do choose to participate, “they would be doing it for the

betterment of the university” — no less and no more.

Another such plan that relies heavily on student participation is that of investigating staff

mistreatment. Both in his manifesto and the speech, Aarav lists instances of severe

mismanagement and misuse of power by the admin when it comes to the working staff. The plan

chalked out in the manifesto is to “consult with OSL and try to conduct a discrete investigation

in such a way that does not harm the staff at Krea”

When asked by Leher that how exactly he plans to involve OSL, an administrative body, and

carry out a “discrete” investigation at the same time; all while keeping in mind staff safety and

job security — he answered that he has already been in talks with the admin (mainly OSL) and

they do actively want these kind of investigations to happen. Student support and student

evidence are the two pillars of this plan and “the only way that they [the admin] can do this”.

“I have gotten this information directly from the admin,” Aarav claims.

At the crux of it, much of Aarav’s proposals rests on reciprocal faith, support, and responsibility

from members of the student body. But given past histories and consequent disappointments that

a number of us have been witness to, whether his ambitious plans do see the light of Krea’s

sweltering days still remain to be seen.

Arnav’s Transparency Pitch: A Redefinition of the IC’s Role or a Redundancy?

Arnav (SIASUG23-27), a second-year Politics and Economics student, sets ambitious goals but

offers a manifesto short on clarity. He, like the other running candidates, is also well experienced

in representative roles, having held the position of MOF in his 1st year, a part of the Constitution

Amendments AdHoc, and the UWC representative for Campus Facilities Provider in both of his

1st & 2nd years. While he promises some ambitious proposals in his manifesto, like improving

transparency between the administration and the student body, redefining University-Wide

Committee roles for greater accountability, advocating for better healthcare services on campus,

addressing campus safety concerns – including sexual safety measures – enhancing food quality

oversight, implementing Cross Access, strengthening SIAS-IFMR relations through

collaborative events, and pushing for sustainability initiatives like vermicomposting and

recycling drives, his plans remain largely broad and lack clear execution strategies.

This concern was also reflected by one of the members of the student body who pointed out that

while Arnav’s manifesto does have the problems that this university is facing comprehensively

chalked out, – like inactivity of the UWC-s, infrastructural problems and mismanagement in the

OHC, and not having contraceptives on campus — “it lacks a how context to it”. In other words,

how and what is he proposing to solve these issues? This audience member further questioned

Arnav if he could pick any 3 points from his manifesto and “let us [the student body] know any

ideas or processes [he] ha[s] in mind to get these done”.

Talking about the UWC issue first, Arnav is of the opinion that while people do get elected for

this position, “there is [still] no work and the policies on the website are very vague”. His aim is

to work on redefining these policies so that channels and processes of communications become

much smoother. The working plan? “Having conversations with the OSL, the administration”,

planning relevant constitutional amendments, and working with the student body to make the

roles of the UWC-s a more practical and active one.

On the topic of making contraceptives available on campus, as outlined in his manifesto, Arnav did not really present a concrete actionable plan to the student body, offering only a reassuring statement that “normal [contraceptives] should be available” and emphasizing the importance of consensual, safe sex. Later, when questioned by Leher about his choice of the word “discreet” in his proposal to make contraceptives available on campus — wording that seemingly contradicts the goal of normalizing safe sex — he answered that it doesn’t have to be too discrete. “You can tell everyone that [contraceptives] are available but you can have a separate section for them,” he suggested.

With concerns regarding food safety and implementing cross-access on campus, both of which

are listed as areas of focus in his manifesto, his answers were again given in a similar vein of

tentativeness. “I’ll be very honest I don’t have an idea [as to] how to make them responsible for

it, how to make them accountable for their actions”, he admitted, but also assured the student

body that he is passionate about working on these ideas and plans on doing so.

Another important initiative that Arnav lists in his first point of key focus in the manifesto is that

he is “committed to ensuring that all decisions and updates from the administration are shared

properly and openly” and that the “SG should keep the student body aware of all the requests

and emails to the administration, so that [they] can be a part of the process and stay updated.”

When Leher questioned him as to how this is different from what the Information Coordinators

already do, he answered that “the IC-s also work under the Chairs and the IC-s’ role is not

particularly the Student Government’ s role.” In Arnav’s opinion, the IC’s role is to be there as

the representative of the student body and minute the meetings — “[t]hey’re not part of any

process or decision making process. They are just there to minute everything,” he says. Arnav

further claims that to go after the OSL or the administration to get the relevant information is the

Chair's job, while the IC-s’ are just responsible for circulating that information.

At the bottom of it all, Arnav’s vision does present a keen awareness of campus issues, but the

responses reveal a pattern of vagueness that certainly raises doubts about execution. While he

emphasizes transparency and accountability, his proposals often lack the structural clarity needed

to effect this change. This contradiction becomes evident in his stance on the Information

Coordinators — an existing Student Government body — whose role he describes in a way thatquestions their relevance rather than integrating them into his vision for administrative

transparency. His broader plans seem to remain more aspirational than actionable. Whether his

tenure, if elected, would bring tangible reforms or get lost in a cycle of well-intended but

unfulfilled promises is a question the student body will have to weigh carefully.

Trishna: Candidacy Overview from Experience to Execution

Trishna (SIASUG23-27), a second-year psychology and literature student, is well acquainted

with the workings of student government. Having served as the Ministry of Learning

representative for the past six months, she has actively engaged with both the student body and

administration to address campus concerns. In her bid for chairperson, she presents herself as

someone who has "been thinking about these issues for a really long time" and now seeks a

formal position to implement meaningful changes.

Among her key proposals, Trishna emphasizes ensuring administrative accountability,

particularly in matters of food hygiene and quality. She cites the administration's commitment to

achieving 100% compliance with food safety standards by March 31st, asserting, "If these

standards are not met, I will push for an immediate meeting with the new student government

and food committee to hold them accountable." Beyond compliance, she advocates for

improvements in nutrition and food quality, pledging to request monthly student updates on these

efforts. While the commitment to oversight is commendable, the extent of her leverage over

administrative decisions remains ambiguous.

Another significant aspect of her agenda is the expansion of work-study opportunities. Citing a

recent conversation with Amanjit, Trishna notes that the work-study budget is set to increase

next year, and she proposes expanding roles within our administrative offices. "Having held

these positions myself, I know firsthand how valuable and beneficial they can be to the students,"

she states, positioning this initiative as a mutually beneficial arrangement that enhances both

workflow efficiency and student financial support.She also addresses campus engagement, particularly in collaboration with Sri City programs.

Acknowledging that "comfortable access to these spaces is essential for our well-being," she

commits to working with Lieutenant Commander Avinash and Mishra to facilitate

student-oriented activities around campus. Additionally, she touches upon ongoing health

concerns, recognises student persistence to be a cause of the replacement of the female doctor at

OHC and pledges to push for faster implementation of PRACTO and other medical facilities.

Trishna’s proposals are ambitious, but the feasibility of several points remains open to scrutiny.

During the Q&A session, Leher raised concerns regarding engagement in sexual harassment

prevention discussions. Given historically low turnout rates, how does she plan to ensure active

student participation? She acknowledges this challenge, stating, "I want to start with very less

hope, because I have particularly been on the side where I've come to something and people

have not shown up and things have gotten canceled. I think starting with even a few people,

because I do know at least 5 to 10 people would be very, very interested in talking about these

things...It's just that a lot of people just need that extra push to show up for these things, because

I know that a lot of people here do care about these issues.” She then suggests disseminating

discussion/event summaries to the wider student body as a means to gradually foster a culture of

open dialogue. However, whether this approach will be sufficient to change campus culture

remains to be seen.

Another notable exchange occurred regarding her proposal to enhance the event sign-in system

through biometric authentication. When questioned by Leher about its effectiveness, pointing out

that most instances of sexual assault occur within the campus community, not from outsiders.

Trishna clarifies that her intent is not to replace volunteer oversight but to supplement it: "The

biometric will just give us a better estimate of the exact time that the person has entered and

left." While this may aid in tracking movements, concerns remain about whether this truly

enhances security or merely reinforces surveillance without addressing the core issue.

Ultimately, Trishna’s campaign rests on a mix of administrative negotiations and student

engagement. She asserts, "I would love to discuss these ideas with you before we decide a plan ofaction," positioning herself as an adaptable leader open to dialogue, but as with many student

government promises so far, the real test lies in execution. Whether her plans materialize or fall

victim to Krea’s inertia and student disinterest is something only time will tell.

Look forward to part 2 of the Chair speeches, covering the other 2 candidates!

(Written By Srijani Mukhopadhyay and Moksha Munoth)