Disclaimer: The post is not biased by the influence of any party/group. It is intended solely for expressing my views and not ridicule either the candidates or the people associated with them.
Background: For the benefit of non BITSians. The student elections for President of Student Council was embroiled in a lot of controversy. It was also a first of many sorts. Rachit Chadra, perhaps the most decorated student on campus contested much against conventional norms. The nomination of the second candidate, Nitesh Kumar Singh was withdrawn two days before elections in ambiguous circumstances by the watchdog ,Electon Commission. No explanations were given to the students and decisions were taken hastily by the EC without accepting an appeal by Nitesh.It was alleged that this was done to ensure the victory of Rachit Chandra keeping in mind his credentials.The BITSian junta felt disillusioned at being imposed a candidated upon it and doubted the credibility of the Election procedures. To voice this ,it voted in majority for NONE thus calling for re elections.
First off, it is undeniable that the controversy surrounding the elections has created excitement quite unparalled in the past three years. With rumors flying thick and fast, there was always something to fodder wing gossips. Opinions often swelled into emotional outbursts.
On Rachits campaign-
Pros
1. Obviously, his exposure and knowledge would have contributed immensely to widening the ambitions of the SU.
2. His manifesto points, though not populist like Nitesh's, were spot on. The extension in timings of the SAC would have gone a big way in promoting sport on campus. The ISO accredition was a novel idea and inspite of the difficulties in getting, it must be sougt to propel OASIS into getting bigger sponsorships and consequently better organization. Discount on Laptops is quite common in other colleges..BITSians needed someone to take the trouble of starting it here.
3. He recovered well from his Audi Debate disaster to give an emotional speech in SAC, quoting Obama for making a "positive difference".
Cons
1. His performance in the Audi Debate was disappointing. He needs to do something about his throat..makes you think hes gonna cough every time he speaks.
2.His campaign managers never quite manged to recover from the Audi Deabte debacle. Far from influencing people with his manifesto points and ambitions for BITS, they said HE DESERVED to win. They failed to realise that credentials can only go so far as to make people listen to you. Beyond that it is your ability to convince them of your candidature.
3. On the eve of the elections, Gtalk status messages were swarming with people voicing their support for NONE. Again his campaign team blundered in asking people to vote because BITS needed a president for its upcoming cultural and sports fest. It took away all attention from Rachit himself and made him appear desperate and sensing defeat. Not a message you wanna give voters, however bleak the circumstances.
4. Lastly, his blog ,post elections was the nadir of his campaign. Instead of walking away gracefully, his cries and complaints about the decision of the junta, made him appear vulnerable and removed from reality. He failed to realise that it was victory for NONE(and the rights of the junta) and not really a defeat for him.
Nitesh
Pros
1. His experience of two years in the Student Union made him a good and informed candidate.
2.He did not buckle under the credentials of Rachit and used whatever opportunities came to his benefit.
3.He reached out to the voters, gave excellent interviews....in short everything right.
Cons
1. His campaign team comprised of people who had contacts but not the sense to influence them. They faulted time and again by anti campaigning. The campaigning and charachter assasination charges during the ban period, though not proved, were true and reflected poorly on Nitesh.
2. His manifesto points were aimed more at getting vote banks than the actual benefit of BITSians. Regional night and all are good for entertainment but his horizons as a prez candidate should have been much wider.
3. His vote banks were confined in pockets and he ignored Meera Bhavan inmates, which might have spelt disaster had he been allowed to contest.
