Debate 3: P.E.S.T vs BAP

Kaushiki Das, Election Commissioner (Overall Affairs) and Preetham Krishna, Principal Secretary to the Election Commissioner) moderated the debate between P.E.S.T (People Empowering Social Transformation) & BAP (Bharatiya Awaaz Party).

As usual, the debate kicked off with BAP and P.E.S.T.'s opening statements, respectively. The representative of the Bharatiya Awaaz Party was the first to give their opening arguments. The BAP propagates and promotes the nation's voice as ‘’everyone is a good listener but they still might be unable to hear what the opposite party is screaming out!’’ The distinction between the core ideologies of the parties was displayed from the very first moment when the representative of BAP kept on criticizing the policies of the opposition. Improving the economy by being at par with technological advancement and also keeping room for gender awareness and implementing policies for the LGBTQIA+ community. The core ideology which they follow is none as India is too diverse a country for a specific political ideology to prevail over the political parties they would be able to look at the social issues from the perspective of the audience and keep a check on the measures to be taken.

The point of information from the opposition party P.E.S.T pushed up the issue of the 2 children [policy and the inconsistency based upon the policies of BAP as if they only offer housing to families with only 2 children, more kids would also in turn be unequal in its distribution as issues which go beyond the jurisdiction of just housing would come into play. For this reason, it would have been better for BAP to provide some concessions that would not promise to the house but instead would calculate the requirements needed to take up a decision on this sensitive issue. P.E.S.T (People Empowering Social Transformation) kept their opening statements following the conclusion of the previous party. They made it essential for human interests to be kept at the forefront of social welfare and for policies to be formulated and put into place. Each ideology has its own flaws and its core ideology of inclusivity and justice for all would be the sole vision of the political party. Their stance on eradication of social evils and development would provide socio-economic prowess to the establishment of a good and efficient governance in the country. The point of information by the opposition party questioned their policy of car brands to have EVs (Electric Vehicles) in their stock mandatorily. This was reciprocated by P.E.S.T where they highlighted the need for a brighter and greener future.

The main arguments were the next one among the bullet points. Bharatiya Awaaz Party (BAP) kept criticizing the manifesto of P.E.S.T the entire time, saying that they were undertaking their functioning as a “short term piggyback ride on the substances of the society”. The point of information by the opposition also highlighted the aggressive approach alluded to in their manifesto, undertaken by BAP, displaying points where they found equal inconsistencies in the functionings of the policies in the oppositions’ manifesto. Another point of interest where P.E.S.T criticized their role in the context of woman empowerment to which BAP gave the answer to educate themselves on the manifesto of the political party and that having a 10 page manifesto always does not give the full picture.

The main arguments kept by P.E.S.T concentrated on a better policing system by giving them elements for incentives that would attract their confidence as well as reduce the bribe factor and corruption in the system. Sensitivity training in context to the Human Rights offenses being made in regards to the LGBTQIA+ community and initiating infrastructural projects allocated with more than 1 private enterprise in the process were some of the points put forward in the debate. The closing statements were given by both parties with BAP reiterating their financially intensive plans which would be connected with the economic stimulus of the nation and their revenue model in place in context to the functioning of their political parties to provide the sense of monetary inclusion required in the economy. P.E.S.T kept their closing statements forward with the establishment of skill development institutions, increased citizen representation, expert-run institutions, single window processing, and shadow committees and also criticized the 12+2 policy which could have been a grammatical error as it read 12/+2, and not 12+2.

This marked an end to the third debate and soon followed a Q/A session by different media houses where both the political parties took up questions and provided their perspectives on it. Instead of making the event successful, the political parties aimed at informing the public about their manifesto and also promoted their schemes and ideologies to garner a voter base.