Race for Chairperson: The Battle for Execution and Accountability (Part-2)

Sri City: In this second part, we look into the final two candidates—Mishka and

Anshika—Their manifestos outline structural reforms and student-driven initiatives, but how

realistic are these plans? Both promising a more accountable and engaged Student Government.

Mishka: Can she fix Krea’s Identity Crisis?

Mishka (SIASUG23-27), a double major in Economics and Politics, presents a manifesto with

structural reforms and student-centric policies. Her agenda covers everything from Student

Government (SG) transparency to financial aid, dining hall reforms, and even better medical

access for staff.

Mishka’s speech centered on the idea of defining a Krea identity—a concept she claims does not

yet exist but must be actively shaped by the student body. She frames this as an opportunity

rather than a failure, stating, “We have the power to define that. But for this, we are going to

need change. And that change has to come from us—the student body.” While this is inspiring,

the notion of building a stronger student identity is a compelling one, but beyond broad

aspirations, there is little clarity on how this will translate into actionable policy.

Her proposals for SG reform include attendance tracking for representatives to ensure

accountability and an Events Portal to streamline student opportunities. “Your concerns deserve a

system that works for you, not against you,” she stated, making it clear that inefficiency shouldn't

be tolerated... Furthermore, she advocates for improved on-campus facilities, such as better

Wi-Fi infrastructure, well-stocked health centers, and increased financial aid for students in need.

Mishka is also taking a strong stance on staff welfare, pushing for access to medical checkups

and improved work conditions. However, when asked by Leher about the already existing

sub-standard work conditions subjected to staff by the admin itself, and the lack of cooperation of admin in terms of funds, how will you convince admin for the said provision of medical

check-ups? Mishka replied,“As far as I know, they do still have access, but due to their treatment

as secondary patients, they may hesitate to go,” she acknowledged, promising a more detailed

response after further discussions.

Another critical issue she addresses is the lack of a female Resident Hall Manager, suggesting

that a campus nutritionist—who the admin has already shown interest in—could potentially fill

this role. “Many times, women are not comfortable in the RH with a male manager,” she

explains, highlighting a gap in Krea’s infrastructure that has long gone unaddressed.

She also advocates for an extension in Krea's relationship with Sri City Cultural Development

Centre to gain access to amenities and lower auto rates for students. While all of us agree

securing lower transport costs is a worthwhile initiative, there is no evidence that Sri City

authorities would be willing to intervene in private transport pricing. How would these

negotiations take place? The lack of clarity may leave voters uncertain.

Mishka then discusses her vision for campus facility improvements, specifically citing network

connectivity, waste disposal systems, and the availability of performance and storage spaces.

While the broad acknowledgments of these issues is a step in the right direction. It is a step many

have taken before only to face the same roadblock of finding funding for these initiatives,

especially in light of past administrative reluctance to allocate resources for similar concerns.

Her manifesto doesn’t shy away from controversial issues, including the problematic language in

onboarding documents that could be used against students. She plans to negotiate these clauses

with the Committee for Oversight & Governance of All Policies (COGP), ensuring that students

are protected rather than policed.

Mishka’s campaign presents an interesting vision for student agency and institutional reform,

emphasizing the need to define a collective Krea identity. Her key proposals highlight structural

changes, such as greater SG accountability, improved staff welfare, and enhanced campus

infrastructure. However, many of these including the introduction of a female RH manager and

expanded medical provisions for staff—require administrative approval, which has historically been difficult to secure. While her plans are surely compelling, the viability of these initiatives

remains uncertain.

Anshika: New initiatives or just the Chairs duty?

“A responsive SG drives progress faster. When students feel unheard, they feel frustrated.”

Anshika (SIASUG23-27) campaign hinges on this principle, positioning herself as a candidate

who listens, acts, and delivers.

A Computer Science major with a Mathematics minor takes a more methodical approach to

reform. Having worked within the SG’s Election Commission and the Ad-Hoc Committee for

Constitutional Amendments, her strategy focuses on transparency, structured collaboration, and

realistic, actionable change.

A key part of her manifesto is the expansion of the House system beyond BOLT, aiming to

enhance student engagement and unity throughout the year. However, when questioned on the

logistical feasibility of such a plan, she admitted, “It is just a plan; I do not have the logistics

figured out yet.” Instead, she wants to initiate discussions with SG and the student body to

determine interest and work out the details collectively. She emphasized that many universities

have better coordination and engagement through similar systems and believes a year-round

House structure could provide a stronger sense of unity.

This response raises some concerns—while the idea of a sustained House system sounds

promising, the absence of a structured implementation plan suggests a lack of feasibility

assessment. For one, integrating a House-based model into student life requires significant

administrative support, faculty involvement, and infrastructure that Krea currently lacks.

Additionally, sustaining engagement beyond BOLT would demand long-term incentives

(something Anshika has yet to outline) and dissect the already divided student body further as

flagged by one of the audience members’.

Her other major proposal—a structured inter-university network for liberal arts institutions to

discuss common issues—raises further questions. The constitution already assigns the responsibility of external collaboration to the Chair, meaning that forming an inter-university

network is not a new initiative but rather an extension of an existing duty. When asked about this

by Leher about how her plan differs from the current mandate, she stated:

“Last trimester, our previous SG spoke to another SG about a situation they were hoping to get

our support on, and that’s where our constitution does say it’s the Chair’s responsibility. But I do

not think it has been done so far,” referencing a past attempt by SG to collaborate with another

university while acknowledging that such efforts had been largely situational and reactive.

Instead, she envisions a structured, recurring forum where student governments can meet over

Zoom to discuss shared issues and potential solutions.

“Instead of just collaborating in situations of distress, I suggest a formal structure where

universities exchange solutions to common problems, ”she explains. This proactive approach

aims to foster solidarity before crises arise. The goal, according to her, is to establish a

formalized alliance that can offer support in times of crisis rather than relying on ad hoc

collaborations. While this idea does present a novel approach to SG networking, it is unclear

how she plans to ensure sustained participation from other universities or what concrete

mechanisms would keep such a network functional over time.

She also intends to tackle long-standing student concerns, including food quality in the dining

hall, ensuring the OHC is fully stocked with essential medical supplies, and strengthening the

university’s alumni network for better mentorship and career opportunities. Additionally, her

emphasis on transparency, while commendable, risks overcomplicating processes rather than

improving them. A ticketing system and SG website may streamline communication, but without

enforcement mechanisms to ensure follow-through, these tools could end up being redundant.

In her manifesto’s "Working Ideas" section, Anshika proposed implementing a club calendar and

improving food quality on campus. When asked about her concrete action plan for these

initiatives, she stated, "When it comes to the club calendar, [it] can [be] part of the SG website I

wanted to start." Regarding food quality, she acknowledged past improvements but emphasized

that the absence of a functioning Food Committee remains a major issue. "The most important

step, if I do get elected—[the] Food Committee does not exist, most people have resigned, and ifI get elected, I want a good Food Committee to ensure better food quality on campus, [one] who

can work with the student body and admin to ensure food quality," she explained.

Anshika’s platform is structured around governance reforms, institutional efficiency, and student

engagement. Her focus on practical solutions, including food quality improvements and a

streamlined SG website, directly addresses student concerns. However, her acknowledgment of

logistical uncertainties, particularly regarding the feasibility of a sustained House system and

structured external collaborations, suggests that these plans require further development. While

her emphasis on institutional continuity is commendable, the absence of concrete implementation

strategies may hinder the realization of her objectives.

Road Block

As the final two candidates for the Chair position concluded their campaigns, the stage is set for

a leadership that promises reform. However, a question remains—can any of these promises

materialize in the face of administrative resistance? Over the years, Student Government has

repeatedly clashed with Krea’s administration, with many ambitious initiatives either stalled or

dismissed due to various hurdles and financial constraints.

Both Mishka and Anshika have proposed structural changes that require administrative

cooperation—Mishka’s push for staff welfare improvements and a female RH manager, and

Anshika’s initiative for an inter-university network and better campus facilities.

The fundamental issue is not a lack of vision from student leaders but rather a lack of

institutional willingness to prioritize student-driven concerns. The administration’s reluctance to

engage meaningfully with SG raises doubts about whether even the most well-structured policies

can be implemented without facing significant roadblocks.

Ultimately, all candidates present compelling roadmaps for a better SG, but their success will be

dictated by their ability to navigate and challenge the systemic barriers that have long hindered

student governance at Krea.

Written By Sahana Rao