The presidential debate in the Hyderabad University students’ union election saw vociferous sloganeering, catcalls, jeers and quarrels on Tuesday. The presidential candidates – Sreerag P of the Alliance For Social Justice (ASJ), Anju Rao G of the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and K Palsaniya of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), as well as general secretary candidates – Arif Ahammed from ASJ and Kiran Kumar from ABVP – participated in the debate.

The debate, organised by the university’s election commission, was held over three sessions. In the first session, each candidate got 10 minutes to speak, followed by candidates questioning each other in the second, and in the third, the candidates took three questions from the audience, chosen by lots. Pertinent questions were raised ranging from the erratic functioning of the cell for differently abled persons put forth by a visually challenged student, to questions on reservations, the linguistic hegemony of Hindi and nationalism.

In the general secretary debate, Arif Ahammed from ASJ put forth the need for debate within a democracy. “The deep slumber of ABVP in the issues of fee hikes and seat cuts need to be questioned,” Ahammed said. Ahammed challenged the ABVP on various issues, including the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula, Najeeb’s disappearance and Gauri Lankesh’s murder. Kiran Kumar of the ABVP called for a proper redressal of student’s issues calling the previous students’ union a failure. Kumar questioned it for not working towards the welfare of students with disability and ensured “proper implementation of K S Prasad Committee Report”.

When questioned about the lack of female representation in the ASJ panel, Ahammed said his party had given HCU its first woman president and that a mere token representation of women would not amount to change. Later, when Kumar was questioned about seat cuts in the university, he evaded the question stating he did not want to talk about that specific issue.

In the presidential debate that followed, it was Anju Rao from the NSUI, who spoke first. Beginning with 10-seconds of silence in honour of the deceased Ph. D scholar Prashanta Das, she said student politics should be based on what concerns students on a day-to-day basis. “People from different regional backgrounds in this central university do say that they don’t get the food that is considered a good diet from carrot to beef,” she said. Invoking Nehru, she said that universities stand for ideas, the search for tolerance and the search for truth. Rao promised to work for saving “HCU lands and lakes” which have been contaminated and encroached by private institutions.

Sreerag P of the ASJ began his speech remembering Rohith. “I am a little sad when I stand on this dais because I miss my friend Rohith, because he was the one who told me, when I was a newcomer in this campus in 2015, that you are a leader,” he said. He spoke of the assault on higher education by right wing forces in the form of amendment of students’ union constitutions and various proctorial notices given to students curbing the space for democratic dissent.” “We need to look at the struggles this university stand for. For you, it may be an extracurricular activity, but for us, it is a struggle, to reclaim and assert our identity,” he added. Promising to resist all kinds of seat-cuts and ensuring proper implementation of reservation policy, he spoke of proper maintenance of infrastructure and other facilities.

K Palsaniya of the ABVP, the third candidate, alleged, “Not a single issue on campus has been resolved last year.” Unlike other candidates, Palsaniya chose to speak in Hindi which prompted several students to write their questions in their native tongues, owing to which translators had to be summoned. Students also expressed their dissent with sloganeering like, ‘No Hindi’ and ‘We want translation’. “During the Rohith movement, all classes were called off. Life Sciences was the only department where classes functioned properly. This should not take place,” he added.

In the question-answer session, Rao was asked about NSUI calling her candidature a “token fight” to which she replied that the word ‘token’ was taken too literally and that she is the “alternative female voice of social justice.” When Palsaniya questioned Rao’s stance on nationalism, she replied, “We don’t use the country for elections.” However, on being asked about her opinion on the Batla House encounter, she replied that one should stick to student politics. “Congress is changing the way it functions, but these are mistakes that shouldn’t have happened,” Rao answered.

When Rao posed the question what one would have to struggle for while studying, Sreerag replied, “We struggled to get a chance to study here and while studying here, we struggle for our rights. Study and struggle are not two different things for us.” When questioned about being opportunists for the alliance with the Students Islamic Organisation (SIO), Sreerag replied, “An alliance doesn’t mean that one has to dilute the ideology. Rather, it means that one should respect each other to fight against fascist forces like ABVP.”

For Sreerag’s question what the ABVP has done for people from OBC category and their stance on reservations, Palsaniya replied, “We don’t believe in such categories.” Adding to it, he answered he is not against reservation and it is the people in the university who are dividing students into categories. Palsaniya had to face questions for speaking in Hindi as it was interpreted as being insensitive to the people from other linguistic communities. To his question, he replied it was the people who’ve divided themselves on language. He said he spoke in Hindi because he thinks in Hindi.

To summarise, the presidential debate allowed the students an opportunity to understand the candidates and if they can solve the students’ diverse struggles and problems.