Teesta Setalvad speaks with Ebin Basil and Mohammad Athnan about the struggle to regain their university and an elected students’ union after two decades.

The conversation also confronts the stigma and demonisation Jamia and its students have faced, part of a right wing agenda to obliterate the institution’s emergence from India’s struggle for freedom.

The post 20 Years Without a Union, 18 Days of Hunger Strike: Jamia Students Script a Win | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kumar, an alumnus of HCU, said that in the absence of concrete action, he would be compelled to take the matter to the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Union Ministry of Education, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) and other statutory authorities. He also said he would raise the university’s failure to take substantive action despite his multiple official complaints of class, caste and racial discrimination. He has attached a copy of the 16 April email as evidence.

Chronology of Events 

As reported by the Siasat Daily and other online media outlets like Maktoob Media reported that, a former student of the University of Hyderabad has lodged a formal complaint against Dr Vijay Ramdas Mandala, Associate Professor in the university’s Department of History, over an email in which the professor called him a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and described students from Bihar and Jharkhand as “third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots”.

Subodh Kumar, an alumnus of the university (MA History, 2017-19) and currently a PhD candidate at the University of Nottingham, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor, the university’s RC Cell and the University of Hyderabad Students’ Union on October 31, 2026, demanding institutional and disciplinary proceedings against the professor.

According to the complaint, Kumar and other alumni of the university were working with Dr Mandala earlier this year on an edited book volume. When one of the contributors communicated British university regulations for fieldwork in India to the professor, he “for reasons incomprehensible” resorted to “wanton abuse of students from marginalised backgrounds” in an email dated April 16, 2026, Kumar said.

The email in question

An email, sent from Dr Mandala’s account and signed “Dr. Vijaya Ramadas M., PhD (History), The University of Manchester, U.K., Associate Professor, Department of History, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad”, is addressed to one of the contributors. “The recent German PhD who comes from an untouchable Dalit background also said to me the same thing about his collection of archives in India,” the professor wrote, before telling the recipient that they were from “a high-risk country, specifically a civilizationally, politically, and economically backward state like Jharkhand.”

“A large chunk of the Indian population is from non-Aryan and non-wealthy backgrounds, including backward states like Bihar and Jharkhand, which resemble some countries in Africa on the political map of India and across the globe. This also happened to another Dalit untouchable idiot at Nottingham, who is working part-time in a hotel in England after his post-UK PhD,” the email read.

“Perhaps these students who come from poverty-ridden backgrounds develop such Pakistani-centric thinking (not knowing that one cannot emulate class, one should be born in a high class and culture) in a country known as Mini-Pakistan – England among India’s rich and high middle-class circles,” he wrote.

The professor went on to claim that “Europeans are, by all means, inferior to the Indo-Aryans in India”, and described the United Kingdom as “a global laughing stock” where “ethnic minorities such as Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans own the decision-making” and which “is no longer an Anglo-Saxon country.” Refusing to accept the recipient’s chapter submission, he wrote: “At Indian Business School, I do alert all the faculty across India not to entertain you, anti-Indian (typical of Pakis in England) across the leadership spectrum.”

“A cunning fox, after going anywhere, would remain a traitor to its home country, as it cannot be a tiger or lion in a trillion years, but would live on with its low-level roots and working-class upbringing,” the email said.  The email ended: “I am terminating further communication with you, but also will not provide academic support from third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth. Best wishes, Vijay.”

There is more. On April 27, 2026, Dr Mandala wrote separately to Kumar, saying he would not accept his chapter submission “as I have enough authors for my ongoing book project” and advising him to submit it to a peer-reviewed academic journal. “Also, do not include my name in any future academic references or in any communications of any kind henceforth,” the professor wrote. The email carried a disclaimer stating that it “does not represent the University of Hyderabad or any student community, but the views of an individual in a personal capacity.”

Meanwhile, the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) has flagged the alleged “casteist, classist and discriminatory remarks” of an associate professor against a former student of University of Hyderabad. SFI’s United Kingdom unit and HCU unit have both released statements condemning remarks by Dr Vijaya Ramadas Mandala, Associate Professor at HCU’s Department of History. Both have cited this email that was allegedly shared by the professor to a former student. SFI UK stated that Mandala called one of his students a “Dalit untouchable idiot” and demeaned students from marginalised backgrounds coming to the UK to pursue higher education, claiming that they lack class and culture. He also said that he “will not provide academic support for third-rate, poverty-ridden idiots from Bihar and Jharkhand henceforth,” the statement read.

According to the SFI unit at HCU, the incident was triggered over revisions to a book chapter when the student cited ethical constraints in anonymising individuals in his research.

“These remarks expose a deeply entrenched casteist and classist mindset that determines who deserves dignity, recognition and opportunities within academic institutions. Targeting a student because of his Dalit identity, regional background and economic circumstances is an attack on the very principles of equality and social justice that public universities are expected to uphold,” they stated in an Instagram post.

“The repeated deaths of marginalised students on university campuses have exposed the devastating consequences of caste discrimination, institutional apathy and the absence of effective grievance-redressal mechanisms. Behind these tragedies lie structures of everyday humiliation, unequal treatment, academic gatekeeping and the denial of dignity. It is precisely in this context that the remarks made by Dr Ramadas must be understood.” they added.

Mandala allegedly dismissed the remarks as a momentary flare-up of emotion when confronted by the university administration and the department, SFI UK said. The union added that the students had earlier received academic guidance and recommendation letters from Mandala while collaborating with him on academic publications, and abuse began only when they disagreed with him.

“Students depend on senior academics for references, research guidance and publication opportunities, and it is this dependence that makes such abuse an instrument of control,” they added.

“Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan students across Indian and UK universities continue to face casteism, gatekeeping and institutional indifference. Caste also follows Indian students abroad while remaining absent from the protected characteristics of the UK’s Equality Act 2010,” the statement read. SFI UK has demanded the dismissal of Mandala from all positions at the University of Hyderabad following a transparent inquiry with public findings and the registration of a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

They have also called upon the academic community in the UK to withhold collaboration with Mandala until these demands are met and upon publishers to review any contracts with him.

Meanwhile, Ajith, a PhD student at the university who is also associated with SFI, told Siasat.com that the student who received the email is currently doing a PhD in UK.

He had received a letter of recommendation from Mandala which helped him in his admission. Mandala later approached the student to contribute a chapter for a book he was editing but the student declined citing UK guidelines

.“The student would have to go through bureaucratic hurdles to contribute the chapter and delay his own PhD. It is very difficult to get an extension there so he politely declined the offer. However, the professor got offended and sent the abusive email.” Ajith said. He alleged that the university department also quietly brushed off the matter and said that they were closing it after receiving an apology from Mandala

“Matter will resolve”

Kumar first complained to the Head of the Department of History, but said he received only a formal apology, along with an explanation that the email was “only a momentary flare-up of emotions”.

On May 10, 2026, Head of the Department Prof. Y. Swarupa R. Shankar wrote to Kumar that she had spoken to the faculty member, who “agreed not to intervene with your fellowship and recommendation letter” and “also gave an apology letter.” “Hence, the matter will resolve and there will not be any problem from the faculty in your research and career. The department will be in your support,” she wrote.

Kumar rejected this. “The matter cannot be considered resolved merely based on an apology or an assurance of non-interference,” he replied on 13 May. He said he had submitted an official complaint concerning serious instances of racism, classism and caste-based discrimination, and that a junior colleague had independently lodged a separate complaint about related conduct.

“In a university that has previously witnessed the tragic death of Rohith Vemula, which brought national attention to the realities of caste discrimination within academic spaces, such matters cannot and should not be treated lightly or resolved informally,” Kumar wrote. “The University must demonstrate through its actions that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated.”

He sought proceedings within a week. According to his latest complaint, his follow-up complaints to the Head of the Department demanding stricter disciplinary action received no further response.

Related:

ABVP fails to a win single seat in first election since Rohith Vemula’s death in University of Hyderabad

Muslim visitors denied entry into Hyderabad University campus, security officials defend action

Victory for now, but the Resistance Continues: Hyderabad Central University (HCU)

The post University of Hyderabad professor calls alumnus ‘Dalit untouchable idiot’; complainant rejects department’s bid to close matter with apology appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Jamia’s hunger strike is far from over. Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan will continue their fast as students reject all three points in the administration’s October 26 order. They allege they were pressured into signing an agreement at 3 am. No firm election date, no clear assurance on revoking ALL suspensions, and a demand for public apology. “We protested peacefully, in a Gandhian way. Why should we apologise?” students ask. After 14 days of struggle, the standoff continues.

The two from left are Rehan and Ebin – who will continue their hunger strike while Jasim and Faizan will have to discontinue because of their medical conditions.
#JamiaMilliaIslamia

@santwana99
@NewIndianXpress

— Ifrah Mufti (@ifrahmufti) October 26, 2026

Delhi: Some students at Jamia Millia Islamia continue their hunger strike despite an agreement signed with the university administration overnight. The protesting students allege that some were persuaded to sign the agreement and say their original demands remain unmet. Those opposed to the agreement continue their protest

— IANS (@ians_india) October 26, 2026

Delhi: Security personnel have been deployed outside Jamia Millia Islamia as some students continue their hunger strike despite an agreement being signed between the university administration and students overnight. Protesters allege that some students were persuaded to sign the agreement and say their original demands remain unmet. Students opposing the agreement have continued their protest

— IANS (@ians_india) October 26, 2026

The order, issued by the Office of the Registrar, came after nearly a fortnight of sustained protests, hunger strikes, police deployment, detentions and mounting pressure from students and supporters across university campuses. A day before, the students were also alleged assaulted by police officers. Yet, instead of bringing the agitation to a close, its conditional terms have deepened the impasse.

Office of the Chief Public Relations Officer, JMI https://t.co/S0ydd6j8xo

— Jamia Millia Islamia (NAAC A++ Grade Central Univ) (@jmiu_official) October 26, 2026

According to the notice, the university has agreed to hold elections 15 days after the constitution is approved, revoked suspension and show-cause notices issued during the protest, and promised an inquiry into the conduct of security personnel. However, the order also requires protesting students to publicly apologise for alleged defamatory remarks and actions against the administration and remove related social media posts. For the protesting students, the central problem remains unresolved: the administration has offered no definite deadline for drafting and approving the constitution, leaving the election schedule contingent on a process with no specified completion date.

In view of the same, Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan would continue their hunger strike after students rejected all three points in the October 26 order. The students alleged that they had been pressured into signing an agreement at around 3 am, with the university’s conditions failing to provide the assurances they had sought. The demand for the resignation of Vice-Chancellor Mazhar Asif and Chief Proctor has also not been addressed. While two hunger strikers are continuing their fast, Jasim Khan and Faizan are expected to discontinue theirs because of their medical conditions, according to the account shared by Mufti.

The administration’s order thus offers a partial response to the agitation while leaving crucial questions about accountability, disciplinary action and the timeline for restoring elected student representation unanswered.

A campus increasingly marked by restrictions

The announcement followed two weeks of escalating tension on campus, with the administration and security personnel repeatedly attempting to contain the agitation. As reported by The Indian Express, Sunday, October 25, saw more than 500 students gather in support of the protest amid a heavy security deployment. Students alleged that access to the protest site, the library and the canteen had been restricted, while university gates were closed and students were prevented from entering the campus. Security personnel from the Delhi Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force and Indo-Tibetan Border Police were deployed in and around the university.

The BJP govt, Delhi Police & Jamia admin are working tirelessly & brutally to break JMI’s resolve.

Yesterday students were attacked, today ID card carrying students were prevented from entering their own campus and detained.

The only people working harder are Godi media dalaals!

But students of JMI remain unshaken!
Salute and congratulations to them!

Video: aisa_jamia (Instagram)

— Neha (@neha_aisa) October 25, 2026

Jamia staff vandalise protest site in bid to evacuate hunger strikers; students form human chain to shield them

Watch: https://t.co/PITELTAcKb

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 24, 2026

The administration had shifted classes online on October 24, citing the prevailing situation and the need to ensure students’ safety. The move came amid allegations that protesters were being prevented from accessing campus facilities and that security personnel had attempted to dismantle their protest arrangements.

On Saturday, students alleged that a university delegation had attempted to dismantle their tents and take hunger strikers to hospital against their wishes. The five students on hunger strike subsequently moved into the Department of Political Science and locked themselves inside to prevent their removal.

The tensions intensified further on October 25, when students attempting to reach the protest site reportedly climbed campus walls, some of which were topped with metal spikes and rods. Students continued to organise marches and raise slogans despite the restrictions. The agitation also drew attention to allegations that access to food and water had been obstructed. By the time the administration issued its order on Monday, concerns about the physical condition of the hunger strikers had become increasingly urgent. Jasim Khan’s health deteriorated during the protest, and he was taken to hospital on the 14th night before returning to campus in the early hours of Monday, according to accounts of the agitation.

JUST IN | Students attempt to climb the gates to enter Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) as authorities restrict entry to the campus on Sunday, October 25, 2026. Heavy CRPF and police deployment and barricading are in place outside Gate No. 7, while students continue their protest inside the campus.

~@Shrimansi12 reports
Visuals: @Shrimansi12

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) October 25, 2026

When the entire nation is sleeping,Jamia is awake. Jamia is awake as the pressure mounts on admin to declare the students’ union elections which has been stopped from 2006! https://t.co/BsiaFLYDAF

— SFI Delhi (@SfiDelhi) October 25, 2026

Students also alleged that they were dragged by police.

Students Dragged, Gate Closed, Inside Jamia Student Protest.

@_main_niraj @Shayan_Ash

Watch Full Ground Report on The Red Mike’s YouTube channel. https://t.co/g0LvOdKehX

— The Red Mike (@TheRedMike) October 25, 2026

Jamia #Protest: Admin has welded shut the main gate (Gate No. 7), which hostel residents use to enter the university.

This comes as students continue a hunger strike, demanding a firm date for the resumption of student polls. #Jamia https://t.co/qxo1zNaU4M

— Vishu Adhana (@vishu_reports) October 26, 2026

Delhi Police detained female students protesting outside Gate No. 7 of Jamia Millia Islamia amid ongoing demonstrations demanding the restoration of the students’ union. Visuals from the protest show police personnel removing demonstrators from the site. The detention comes as students continue their sit-in and hunger strike, now in its 14th day, pressing the university administration to restore elected student representation.

— Millat Times English (@Millat_English) October 25, 2026

A clash was reported at Jamia Millia Islamia as university staff allegedly moved to dismantle the students’ protest site. The students, on a sit-in and hunger strike demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU), allege they were assaulted by a university official.

— FOEJ Media (@FoejMedia) October 24, 2026

A promise of elections without a deadline

Jamia students began their agitation on October 11, with the hunger strike commencing on October 12, demanding the restoration of the Jamia Millia Islamia Students’ Union (JMISU), a definite election schedule and the withdrawal of disciplinary action against protesters. They also called for the removal of the university’s Chief Proctor and Security Advisor, citing the treatment of students during the agitation.

The union has remained defunct since 2006, with the last elections held in 2005. Nearly two decades without an elected students’ body have left successive batches of students without a formal representative platform to raise campus-wide grievances.

As The Indian Express reported on October 26, students had repeatedly rejected the administration’s position that a new constitution must first be drafted before elections can be scheduled. They argued that the constitution-drafting process should not become an indefinite obstacle to restoring the union and had sought elections by November 30.

The university, meanwhile, maintained that the process required the drafting of a constitution, preparation of electoral rolls and the subsequent announcement of an election date. An official told The Indian Express that the process could not be rushed after a gap of almost 20 years, particularly in view of the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations and changes in applicable University Grants Commission regulations.

The students, however, maintained that the administration had not offered a concrete, time-bound commitment. They cited the Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in University of Kerala v. Council of Principals, Colleges, Kerala and the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations in support of their demand for a clear electoral roadmap.

The October 26 order has not resolved this dispute. By tying the election date to the approval of the constitution, without specifying when that approval must take place, the administration has left the most important deadline dependent on its own future decisions.

Detailed report may be read here.

Disciplinary action and apology demand fuel discontent

The order also addresses disciplinary action initiated during the agitation, but students have questioned the scope of the relief offered. While suspension and show-cause notices issued during the protest are to be revoked, protesters have pointed out that the order does not clearly guarantee the unconditional withdrawal of all disciplinary measures, including rustication and campus bans.

Ebin Basil, a third-year law student who has been among the hunger strikers, told The Indian Express that the order failed to address the position of students who had been rusticated or barred from campus. He also questioned the demand that protesters publicly apologise for their criticism of the administration. The apology clause has emerged as another major point of contention. The university has required students to issue a public apology at a press conference for alleged defamatory statements, actions or social media posts directed against the administration. The posts are to be removed immediately, with compliance monitored by the university.

Students have rejected this condition, arguing that their agitation was a peaceful campaign for democratic representation and accountability. Their refusal to apologise reflects a broader disagreement over the administration’s handling of dissent and its attempt to make the withdrawal of the protest conditional on public expressions of contrition.

The university has also directed that the agitation be called off immediately. But the continued hunger strike by Ebin and Rehan demonstrates that the written order has not secured the consent of all the protesters.

Protest draws political support, detentions and an FIR

The Jamia agitation has expanded beyond the immediate question of student elections, drawing support from political representatives, former students and university communities across the country.

Congress MP Imran Masood was detained by Delhi Police after visiting the protesting students, while Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Nadvi alleged that police had pushed and manhandled him before detaining him as he travelled to meet the protesters. Nadvi was subsequently released.

The university also lodged a complaint against Congress MPs Imran Masood and Imran Pratapgarhi over their entry into the campus, leading to an FIR over allegations of trespass and related conduct, as reported by The Indian Express and other media outlets. The MPs had visited amid the ongoing agitation and demands for the restoration of the union and withdrawal of disciplinary action.

The struggle continues

The university’s October 26 order marks a significant development after 14 days of sustained agitation, but it does not signal the end of the confrontation. The absence of a fixed deadline for approving the union constitution, uncertainty over the full withdrawal of disciplinary action and the demand for a public apology remain central points of disagreement.

The administration has asked the students to end their protest and warned of legal action if they fail to vacate the protest site. According to Moneycontrol, the Registrar said the university would issue a formal notice giving protesters 30 minutes after 9 am to disperse, citing the undertaking signed by the students.

But Ebin Basil and Rehan Khan have continued their hunger strike, refusing to accept an order they believe falls short of their demands. Their position underscores the gap between the administration’s announcement and the protesters’ insistence on clear, enforceable commitments.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

The post Jamia students reject conditional election assurance, two continue hunger strike appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision follows discussions between student representatives and a university-appointed committee, which also yielded assurances on the withdrawal of FIRs against students, a review of contentious provisions of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual and the withdrawal of proctorial enquiries initiated during earlier campus protests. Hindustan Times reported that the university has also agreed to constitute committees with JNUSU representation to review the disciplinary provisions, examine the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) and address hostel reservation issues. The developments mark a breakthrough in the prolonged standoff, with further discussions also covering hostel infrastructure, library timings and the opening of a canteen at the Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG).

At the heart of the confrontation is the suspension and rustication of elected representatives of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), alongside the administration’s continued enforcement of the Chief Proctor’s Office (CPO) Manual, which students argue imposes punitive restrictions on protests and collective gatherings. The dispute also raises questions about the university’s response to students exercising their right to protest, particularly when disciplinary action has excluded elected representatives from the institution they are mandated to represent.

The Hindu reported that CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas had sought intervention from President Droupadi Murmu and Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi as the hunger strike has reached a critical point amid concerns about the deteriorating health of participants. Brittas, a former JNU student, has called for the revocation of the rustication orders and an expedited resolution of the students’ grievances.

Rustication of elected representatives lies at the centre of the dispute

JNUSU president Aditi Mishra, vice-president Gopika Babau and other students have participated in the indefinite hunger strike. As reported by Outlook, JNUSU joint secretary Danish Ali said the union, along with former president Nitish Kumar, was rusticated in February 2026 following protests against the installation of facial recognition technology (FRT) at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Central Library. Ali said the union and Nitish were rusticated for a year and fined ₹20,000 each, while eight other students were fined ₹19,000 each for their alleged presence at the protest.

The university had earlier suspended five students and declared them “out of bounds” in connection with the alleged vandalism of the facial recognition technology gates in November 2025. The administration has maintained that public property worth ₹20 lakh was damaged.

However, the continuing exclusion of elected student representatives has become a central concern in the present agitation. In his letter to President Murmu, Brittas argued that keeping elected representatives off campus directly affects the functioning of the students’ union and weakens the mechanism through which students collectively articulate their grievances.

The issue goes beyond the individual penalties imposed on the students. When elected representatives are barred from the university, their ability to represent constituents, participate in campus discussions and negotiate with the administration is significantly curtailed. Disciplinary action against individual students can therefore have consequences for the wider student body, particularly when it affects the functioning of an elected representative institution. JNUSU has maintained that its office-bearers represent a student constituency of approximately 9,000. Its demand for the revocation of the rustication orders is therefore tied to the question of whether students can meaningfully exercise their collective voice through an elected union.

CPO Manual and the shrinking space for campus dissent

The students’ have called for the withdrawal of objectionable provisions of the CPO Manual, alleging that its disciplinary framework enables the administration to impose substantial penalties and restrict assemblies and protests. The agitation follows a university general body meeting (UGBM) on October 3, which reportedly passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of the manual. The students have argued that its provisions undermine legitimate democratic expression by exposing those who protest to punitive action.

Brittas raised similar concerns in his letters to the President and the Union Education Minister. As reported by The Hindu, he warned that disproportionate disciplinary measures could deter students from raising legitimate grievances for fear of punishment. He also invoked JNU’s foundational commitments to social justice, secularism and a democratic way of life, as reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru University Act, 1966.

President Droupadi Murmu, as Visitor of the university, has been asked to intervene under Section 8 of the Act. Brittas has urged her to facilitate the withdrawal of the rustication orders, address the disputed provisions of the CPO Manual and ensure that the outstanding grievances are resolved.

Students dispute the administration’s account of medical care

The disagreement has also extended to the provision of medical assistance to students participating in the hunger strike. In a statement reported by the Press Trust of India (PTI), Vice-Chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit said that a committee headed by Professor Vivek Kumar, Dean of the School of Social Sciences, had held discussions with protesters on October 9 and October 14. The first meeting reportedly lasted more than four hours. According to the administration, two groups subsequently ended their hunger strikes after receiving assurances, while discussions with other protesters continued.

The administration has also maintained that the university’s Chief Medical Officer has monitored the health of hunger strikers and that medical check-ups have been conducted twice daily. It said medical assistance was extended to rusticated students on humanitarian grounds.

JNUSU, however, has disputed this account. In its statement, the union alleged that its rusticated office-bearers were denied medical check-ups during the first six days of the protest and that their vital signs were monitored through a private laboratory instead. The allegations directly contradict the administration’s claim that medical care was provided to rusticated students from the beginning of the agitation.

The union has also questioned the Vice-Chancellor’s visit to the hunger strike site at approximately 9 am on October 16. It alleged that the visit, which took place without prior intimation, risked creating the impression that only a small number of students were participating. The administration, meanwhile, stated that a representative had visited the site at approximately 8.50 am but found no students sleeping there.

A wider charter of demands remains unresolved

The agitation encompasses a broader set of concerns about the university’s academic environment, infrastructure and institutional accountability. Students have demanded the restoration of the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH), which was replaced by an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). As reported by Outlook, a student identified as Dhananjay argued that GSCASH offered a more inclusive platform, while students were in the minority under the ICC structure.

The demand places the question of gender justice alongside the wider dispute over student participation in university governance. The charter also includes a demand for an Equal Opportunity Cell under the proposed Rohith Vemula Act, an inquiry into alleged recruitment irregularities, improvements to deteriorating campus infrastructure and the reinstatement of the JNU Entrance Examination (JNUEE) in place of the Common University Entrance Test (CUET). Students have also opposed the introduction of recorded video lectures through the Siddhanta Foundation, alleging that the arrangement undermines the quality of teaching and the possibility of holistic academic development.

Related:

Books Under Siege: Bengal’s Left bookstalls, the Calcutta High Court’s intervention and the warning from Hitler’s Germany

Seeking justice for Ankita Bhandari, parents detained in pre-dawn crackdown at India Gate

Mumbai Police detain Ambedkarite leaders demanding justice for Sahil Wakode; IIT Bombay refuses to hear delegation

Calcutta High Court says political dissent must not be stifled, directs police to protect CPI(M) bookstall near Durga Puja Pandal

Jamia’s Missing Students’ Union: Two decades without elections, and a protest met with rustication

The post JNU revokes rustication of five students after hunger strike, agrees to withdraw FIRs and review CPO manual appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the SM Joshi Bridge protest, six people were reported to be on hunger strike for four days. The agitation has been centred on the demand for the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar amid allegations of irregularities in the recruitment process, including the alleged leak of the Drug Inspector examination held earlier this year. The Indian Express reported that the protest had drawn large numbers of students, with political leaders continuing to visit the site.

Pawar has made it clear that the protesters do not intend to move. “We will continue our agitation at the same location until the resignation of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar,” the group said, according to Hindustan Times. Pawar has maintained that the protesters had obtained permission from the Pune police commissioner to hold the agitation at the site and therefore would not shift.

The continuing protest comes even as police presence around the site has increased. Earlier, Pune Police Commissioner Amitesh Kumar had described the agitation as “illegal” and said notices had been issued to more than 70 protesters, coaching classes and Telegram channels. Police said the demonstrations were causing inconvenience to commuters and warned that action could follow.

Court recognises that students have serious grievances

The Bombay High Court’s intervention on Wednesday did not, however, dismiss the substance of the students’ complaints. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna observed that students in Pune are not ordinarily inclined to abandon their studies and take to the streets. If they are protesting, the court said, it indicates that their grievances are serious.

“Pune is an education hub of the State and students coming to this city for education are genuinely interested in their studies and they aren’t into getting down on streets for their demands, but if they are agitating it means there are some serious grievances, such students cannot be termed as anti-social,” the bench observed, according to LiveLaw.

The judges also rejected the suggestion that protesting students should be treated as anti-social elements, stressing that students have a right to agitate when they believe an examination has been compromised.

“They are students and not anti-socials…That’s how it should be…. The moment one exam is over and they realise there was some hanky panky in the process, students have every right to agitate… You have already indicated that 70,000 posts have been shown as vacant… A detailed enquiry to be carried out. Consider the fact that all the parents in the country are in crisis,” the bench observed, reported LiveLaw.

The court simultaneously directed the State to address the larger crisis of confidence surrounding MPSC recruitment. It noted that more than 70,000 vacancies were at stake and said examinations must be conducted impartially and without malpractice. The Maharashtra government has been directed to place on record, in detail, its proposed recruitment process and the number of vacancies in different departments. The State has three weeks to furnish the information.

The protests are not about one demand

The Pune agitation has developed into three separate protests, reflecting disagreements among aspirants over the MPSC examination pattern as well as the functioning of the Commission. The Pawar-led protest at SM Joshi Bridge is focused primarily on the removal of MPSC chairman Vivek Bhimanwar.

At Lal Bahadur Shastri Road near Ahilya Abhyasika, another group led by Nitin Andhale is demanding a return to the objective examination pattern.

At Alka Chowk, students had been demanding continuation of the descriptive pattern, arguing that aspirants had spent years preparing according to the existing format and would be severely affected by another sudden change. That protest was withdrawn after the High Court hearing. Free Press Journal reported that the group decided to respect the court’s appeal and return to their preparation.

Despite these differences, the question of accountability within the MPSC has emerged as a common thread running through the protests. The agitation at SM Joshi Bridge has continued to insist that the alleged irregularities cannot simply be treated as an administrative dispute.

‘Restore the trust’ is now before the court

The High Court’s remarks have placed the State in a difficult position. The government has urged students to return to their studies, while the court itself has asked them to avoid public roads and seek permission for any further protest. But at the same time, the bench has expressly recognised that the students’ distrust cannot be brushed aside.

“It is before the court now… We will make a request to the students to go back to the classes. We are not going to leave it conveniently. The trust just be restored. Exams must be conducted in a fair manner. So far as Commission is concerned, you (State) know how the chairman can be inducted and removed. We will ensure the response has to be there by the State. We want the backlog vacancies to be cleared first.. Those interested in studies should have a fair chance to appear in the exams… They’ve come with a clean hand with 70k vacancies… See the plight of the parents, those who’ve sent their kids to Pune. These children are innocent. We will look into how the State is dealing with this. Just a request to the students to come join the faculties. Or their career will be changed. Entire orientation will be changed. They shouldn’t indulge in such things. We shall ensure as a guardian,” the bench said, while issuing notice to the State, reported LiveLaw.

The judges also asked the State to ensure that the substantial backlog of vacancies is addressed, pointing to the thousands of young people whose careers depend upon a functioning and credible recruitment system. The court’s intervention therefore goes beyond the immediate issue of traffic disruption. It has effectively placed the credibility of the MPSC recruitment process itself under scrutiny.

Residents raise concerns over road blockages

The petition before the court was prompted by complaints from residents about traffic congestion and difficulties caused by the protests, particularly in Pune’s congested Peth areas, where coaching classes, libraries and accommodation for competitive-examination aspirants are concentrated. Residents told the media that repeated road blockages had forced them to take alternative routes and had made evening traffic particularly difficult.

Uma Joshi, a resident, said that travelling from the Ganjave Chowk area had become difficult because of the need to take alternative routes and increasing congestion.

Another resident, Sushant Fadake, said the repeated protests had compounded existing difficulties in the crowded area.

The court consequently made clear that the students’ grievances could not justify indefinite disruption of public roads. It asked protesters who wished to continue their agitation to obtain the necessary permission and choose an alternative location where public movement would not be obstructed.

“Public inconvenience shouldn’t happen. So far your concern is concerned, we’ll ensure recruitment drive is taken care of. And the malfunction details will come as to what has been done. We’ll examine it all on the next day. Till then, we make a request to all the agitating parties to withdraw the protest and join the faculty. Now the matter is before the court,” the bench assured, as reported by LiveLaw.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

‘Free the Temple’, ‘Defend the Faith’, ‘Take Up Weapons’: How festivals became vehicles for anti-Muslim hate in September

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai

Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post ‘Serious Grievances’: Bombay HC backs students’ concerns, MPSC protests continue in Pune appeared first on SabrangIndia.

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं तेव्हा…
#TribalStudents #TribalProtest #MumbaiProtest @ShahidReports https://t.co/c8qElBftET

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 6, 2026

आंदोलन करणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना पोलिसांनी काँग्रेस कार्यालयातून ताब्यात घेतलं?
#TribalStudents #AdivasiStudents #AdivasiProtest https://t.co/ylGy3lj9as

— BBC News Marathi (@bbcnewsmarathi) October 5, 2026

STORY | Police detain tribal students protesting in Mumbai, drive them out of city

Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

READ: https://t.co/nMiY0GayvP

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) October 6, 2026

Tribal students who walked and travelled by bus to Mumbai to demand scholarships, basic amenities and the tribal development minister’s resignation were threatened and detained by police at 3 am, the Congress alleged.

Watch: https://t.co/xxTCpLxNVA

— Maktoob (@MaktoobMedia) October 5, 2026

#Mumbai: Police on Tuesday detained tribal students who had marched from Nashik to press for better hostel facilities and an inquiry into deaths at ashram schools, bundling them into buses outside the Maharashtra #Congress headquarters and driving them out of the city.

https://t.co/VwFQsnEV02

— Deccan Chronicle (@DeccanChronicle) October 6, 2026

According to Hindustan Times, police personnel deployed outside Tilak Bhavan stopped the students from leaving on Tuesday morning before private buses were brought in and the protesters were made to board them. The students continued raising slogans against the Maharashtra government as they were transported out of Mumbai. NSUI state president Sagar Salunke said the students were taken to different locations, including Jalgaon, Nandurbar and Nashik. The Indian Express also reported videos of the operation showing police personnel pushing protesters towards buses, including a woman carrying an infant.

The students had begun their September 28 march from Nashik to Mumbai, after weeks of agitation over conditions in tribal schools and hostels. Their demands include an independent inquiry into deaths at state-run ashram schools, compensation of ₹1 crore each to the families of three girls who died after alleged snakebite at an ashram school in Japtalai, Gadchiroli, ₹50 lakh compensation for those injured, an inquiry into alleged irregularities in the distribution of grants, action against responsible officials and the resignation of Tribal Development Minister Ashok Uike. They have also raised concerns over scholarships, food, sanitation, hostel facilities and basic amenities.

The students had sought permission to protest at Azad Maidan. After that request was rejected, they sought to meet Maharashtra Governor Jishnu Dev Varma and submit a memorandum. Instead, they found themselves confined to the Congress office and subjected to police action for the second day in a row. On Monday, police had already forcefully moved students out of Tilak Bhavan and taken them towards Kopri in Thane after shifting them between vehicles and stopping at multiple locations. On Tuesday, the operation took place at the Congress headquarters itself.

Maharashtra Congress president Harshvardhan Sapkal condemned the action, saying the government had denied Adivasi students even the basic democratic right to protest and meet the Governor. Congress leaders also alleged that police behaved abusively towards women students and used force to break up the protest. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh had earlier described the Maharashtra government as “Adivasi-virodhi” over the police action.

The police, meanwhile, have denied that students were arrested from Tilak Bhavan. As reported by The Indian Express, police said those attempting to proceed towards Lok Bhavan were detained from different locations and that legal action was being taken. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis has also claimed that the students’ demands have been accepted, alleging that the continuing agitation was being driven by some NSUI office-bearers rather than the students themselves.

But the students themselves have rejected any suggestion that the issue is over. Before being driven out of Mumbai, they announced that they would return on October 25 and resume their protest at Azad Maidan.

The episode exposes the stark gap between the government’s claim that the students’ demands have been resolved and the reality of students having to march hundreds of kilometres to Mumbai, seek a hearing from the state’s highest authorities, and then face police action instead of an open response to their grievances. Their demands concern not abstract policy questions, but the safety, dignity and lives of Adivasi students in institutions run by the state.

The government may claim the demands have been accepted. The students’ continued resistance, and their determination to return, suggest otherwise.

Related:

From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post Police detain Adivasi students for second day, force them out of Mumbai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The students travelled to Mumbai by bus and on foot after seeking permission to protest at Azad Maidan. According to the Times of India, the students said they had received no response to their request for permission and, having nowhere to stay in Mumbai, were accommodated overnight at the Maharashtra Congress headquarters, Tilak Bhavan, in Dadar.

The Congress alleged that police action began around midnight, with personnel entering or attempting to enter Tilak Bhavan and threatening students with detention and police cases. Maharashtra Congress president Harshvardhan Sapkal claimed that students, including women, were taken into custody and that police also detained NSUI functionaries. The report by Hindustan Times provided that the party further alleged that students were stopped around 3 a.m., photographed and that a bus carrying protesters was taken into custody.

The reported police action has drawn strong criticism from Congress leaders. Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh called the Maharashtra government “Adivasi-virodhi”, while Sapkal warned that Congress leaders would gherao Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ official residence, Varsha, if the detained students and party workers were not released. Leader of Opposition and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi also criticised the government over the treatment of the protesting students.

महाराष्ट्र के छात्र फडणवीस सरकार की शिक्षा व्यवस्था और अन्याय से त्रस्त हैं।

आदिवासी छात्र अपनी माँगें लेकर मुंबई पहुँचे – कुछ बस से, और कुछ पैदल चलकर।

उनकी माँगें क्या हैं? आदिवासी आश्रमशालाओं और छात्रावासों में बुनियादी सुविधाएँ। छात्रवृत्ति। वही चीज़ें जो किसी भी बच्चे का हक़ हैं।

मुंबई में रुकने की जगह नहीं थी, तो कांग्रेस ने उन्हें तिलक भवन में ठहराया। और आज सुबह होने से पहले – पुलिस कांग्रेस कार्यालय के अंदर घुसी और इन बच्चों को उठाकर ले गई। आज़ाद मैदान पर प्रदर्शन शुरू होने से पहले ही। जो बच्चे नासिक से पैदल चलकर आए, उनको ये जवाब मिला।

उधर पुणे में MPSC के अभ्यर्थी सत्याग्रह पर बैठे हैं। ये माँगें नई नहीं हैं – मैंने मुख्यमंत्री फडणवीस से इन पर बात की थी। तब कुछ नहीं हुआ। इसीलिए आज ये बच्चे सड़क पर हैं।

मैं और कांग्रेस पार्टी महाराष्ट्र के छात्रों के साथ खड़े हैं। हम एक इंच भी पीछे नहीं हटेंगे।

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) October 5, 2026

आदिवासी बांधवांनी आपल्या न्याय्य हक्कांसाठी आंदोलन करणे हा गुन्हा आहे का? सरकार नेमके स्वतःला काय समजते?

आपल्या न्याय्य मागण्यांसाठी नाशिकहून पायी मुंबईपर्यंत आलेले आदिवासी विद्यार्थी, महाराष्ट्र प्रदेश काँग्रेस कमिटीच्या टिळक भवन या मुख्यालयात मुक्कामी थांबले होते. मात्र मध्यरात्रीपासून पोलीस बेकायदेशीर रित्या, टिळक भवनमध्ये घुसून या विद्यार्थ्यांवर दबाव निर्माण करत आहेत, त्यांना धमकावत आहेत आणि चुकीच्या पद्धतीने अटकेची कारवाई केली जात आहे.

हे अत्यंत गंभीर आणि निषेधार्ह आहे.

आपल्या हक्कांसाठी शांततेच्या मार्गाने आवाज उठवणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांशी सरकारने संवाद साधला पाहिजे. त्यांच्या समस्या ऐकल्या पाहिजेत. त्याऐवजी त्यांना पोलीस बळाच्या जोरावर दडपण्याचा प्रयत्न कशासाठी?

लोकशाहीत प्रश्न विचारणे गुन्हा नाही. न्याय मागणे गुन्हा नाही. आंदोलन करणे गुन्हा नाही.

महाराष्ट्र हा कायद्याचा, लोकशाहीचा आणि सामाजिक न्यायाचा सन्मान करणारा प्रदेश आहे. त्या महाराष्ट्रात न्याय मागणाऱ्या आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांशी संवाद करण्याऐवजी, सरकार त्यांना बेड्या ठोकत आहे.

सरकारच्या या दडपशाहीच्या भूमिकेचा आम्ही तीव्र निषेध करतो. आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांच्या लढ्यात आम्ही ठामपणे त्यांच्या पाठीशी आहोत.

— Balasaheb Thorat (@bb_thorat) October 5, 2026

सुलतान फडणवीसांच्या पोलिसांना महाराष्ट्र काँग्रेसच्या मुख्यालयात घुसण्याचा अधिकार कोणी दिला?

आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांचा आवाज दाबण्यासाठी आता काँग्रेसच्या टिळक भवनपर्यंत फडणवीसांचे शेकडो पोलीस फौजफाट्यासह पोहोचले आहेत. विद्यार्थ्यांना अटक करण्यासाठी राजकीय पक्षाच्या कार्यालयात घुसणं ही केवळ पोलिसी कारवाई नाही, तर लोकशाहीच्या मर्यादांवरच प्रश्नचिन्ह आहे.

फडणवीसजी, आज सत्ता तुमची असेल; पण महाराष्ट्र तुमची खासगी जहागीर नाही! विरोधकांचा आवाज आणि विद्यार्थ्यांचा संघर्ष पोलीस बळाने दाबता येणार नाही.

टिळक भवनमध्ये घुसलेल्या पोलिसांनी लक्षात ठेवावं, काँग्रेस कार्यकर्ते आणि स्वाभिमानी आदिवासी विद्यार्थी घाबरणार नाहीत, झुकणार नाहीत!

— Maharashtra Congress (@INCMaharashtra) October 5, 2026

नाशिकहून पायी मोर्चा काढून मुंबईत आलेले आदिवासी विद्यार्थी टिळक भवन येथे मुक्कामी थांबले असताना, मध्यरात्रीपासून पोलीस बळाचा वापर करून कार्यालयात जबरदस्तीने घुसत आहेत. विद्यार्थ्यांशी अरेरावी करत त्यांना धमकावून ताब्यात घेण्याचा प्रयत्न सुरू आहे.

पोलिसांनी बेकायदेशीरपणे आमच्या कार्यालयात घुसून आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांना धमकावणे आणि जबरदस्तीने ताब्यात घेण्याचे प्रयत्न तातडीने थांबवावेत.

कायदा आणि सुव्यवस्था राखण्याची जबाबदारी असलेल्या पोलिसांकडूनच कायद्याचे उल्लंघन होत असेल, तर ही गंभीर बाब आहे.

आदिवासी विद्यार्थ्यांचा आवाज दडपण्याचा हा प्रयत्न आम्ही कदापि यशस्वी होऊ देणार नाही. विद्यार्थ्यांच्या न्याय्य हक्कांसाठी काँग्रेस पक्ष ठामपणे त्यांच्या पाठीशी उभा आहे.

@MumbaiPolice @CMOMaharashtra @Dev_Fadnavis

— Harshwardhan Sapkal (@INCHarshsapkal) October 5, 2026

The allegations have been disputed by the Mumbai Police. As reported by Times of India, DCP Manish Kalwaniya said that no one was arrested from Tilak Bhavan and that protesters who were planning to march towards Lok Bhavan, the Governor’s official residence, were detained from different locations. Police said legal action was being taken against those participating in the proposed march.

The confrontation comes against the backdrop of a larger dispute over the safety, dignity and living conditions of students in Maharashtra’s tribal residential education system. The students’ demands extend beyond scholarships to basic facilities, food, sanitation, medical care and accountability for deaths and injuries in hostels and ashram schools. After weeks of protest in Nashik, their decision to march to Mumbai was an attempt to press the state government directly on these unresolved grievances.

There were also accusations of women protestors being detained and denied access to food or washrooms, and being driven around the city with no breaks.

On the night of Oct 4–5, Adivasi student protesters with NSUI were picked up by Mumbai Police without notice or warrant and allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment. Yes, they had no permission to protest at Azad Maidan. But neither did the “Cockroach Janta Party”, who got VIP treatment and full media glare.
Why the differential treatment for Marathi-speaking Adivasi students protesting for months against brutal conditions in tribal welfare department schools?
Is the BJP scared of the Congress?
#AdivasiStudents #Mumbai #AzadMaidan #Maharashtra #StudentProtests #TribalRights #NSUI

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) October 5, 2026

The contrast with the treatment of the Cockroach Janta Party’s protest just days earlier is striking. On October 2, the CJP went ahead with a large gathering at Mumbai’s Shivaji Park despite Mumbai Police having denied permission. Hundreds, and according to reports thousands, gathered at the venue, even as police deployed around 500 personnel. The protest proceeded, with participants publicly demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The police subsequently registered an FIR against the organisers and 400–500 unidentified persons, but there were no reports of a comparable midnight operation to prevent protesters from assembling in the first place.

The Adivasi students, by contrast, were stopped before they could reach their proposed protest site. Having marched from Nashik to Mumbai to raise demands concerning scholarships, hostel conditions, food, safety and accountability for deaths in tribal institutions, they were detained from different locations, while Congress alleged that police entered party offices where students had taken shelter. Mumbai Police has disputed the allegation of arrests from the Congress office and said those planning to march towards Lok Bhavan were detained.

The difference raises an uncomfortable question about how the right to protest is being enforced in Maharashtra: why was a large, unauthorised political protest allowed to proceed and dealt with through a subsequent FIR, while Adivasi students who had travelled hundreds of kilometres to press demands over basic educational and living conditions faced preventive detention before their protest could even begin? The contrast is particularly stark when the students’ demands concern their fundamental access to dignity, education and safe living conditions.

Related:

Youth Congress escalates fight against CEC Gyanesh Kumar as SIR controversy fuels nationwide protests

Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions

‘Solidarity Is Not a Crime’: Mumbai activists protest alleged police harassment over Palestine event

The post From Nashik to Mumbai: Adivasi students’ protest meets police detentions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We were disheartened to see media outlets amplify his post without context or critique, so we have unpacked his argument in depth here. His post is merely an illustrative case. In our time in so-called elite institutions, we have seen many professors share similar attitudes, and this analysis draws on that lived experience of the system as much as on his words. With this critique of a public argument, we hope to prompt reflection on the individual and institutional biases that harm students from marginalised groups in elite institutions.

I am disturbed to see Prof. Suryanarayana Doola being vilified over the recent controversy at IIT Bombay. I know Surya personally. He is one of the finest faculty members I have known in the IIT system, and a gentleman of the highest integrity. Whatever concerns have been raised… pic.twitter.com/PwlAWQWvW9

— V. Ramgopal Rao, Ph.D. (@ramgopal_rao) September 23, 2026

This post is veiled but vile. It is hard to spot unless one recognises casteism not merely in visceral acts but as structural and systemic, deeply embedded in elite institutions as much as in society at large. The post invokes casteist prejudices within the reader without saying the quiet part aloud, leaving room for deniability. The argument leans on this prejudice so heavily that it doesn’t even bother hiding its own contradictions. 

He says “With students coming through an intensive coaching culture, and classrooms bringing together students whose JEE Advanced ranks range from single digits to five digits (in the same class -for example CSE in IIT Delhi), we now have highly heterogeneous classrooms across the IIT system. Language also further adds to the challenge.

The question to ask therefore is, with such heterogeneity, can we expect every student to learn at the same pace?”

He invokes two kinds of heterogeneity, ability and background, and seamlessly equates them, which is itself casteist. He further laments that a teacher cannot teach effectively to such a heterogenous class properly. 

What heterogeneity in ability could he possibly be referring to at IITs, which are defined above all, by their exclusivity? IIT intake is about 1% of those who appear for the JEE, and JEE aspirants themselves are only about a tenth of those who sit the Class 12 boards. 

The question to ask, therefore, is this: what does it say about your competence as a teacher if you cannot cater to the brightest 1% of the country, by your own institute’s standard? Why shouldn’t we question the merit of a teacher who makes excuses about supposed heterogeneity in the country’s most exclusive and selective classrooms?

JEE Advanced is scored out of 360 marks, yet those few hundred points are stretched into ranks running into the tens of thousands. A difference of a handful of marks, often within the margin of error of any exam, can separate ranks by hundreds or thousands of places. 

As Pierre Bourdieu argued, competitive exams do not measure pre-existing differences in ability so much as manufacture them, forcing a largely undifferentiated pool into an ordinal hierarchy where marginal, often arbitrary gaps in marks are treated as real, stable differences in ‘ability’.

The heterogeneity in ability that the professor describes is not a fact, but an artifact manufactured by the ranking system. When educators talk about ability solely in terms of these ranks, as if they were an absolute, hierarchical measure of ability across the cohort, this serves a narrative that justifies discrimination and shields educators from scrutiny.

He claims, “We now have highly heterogenous classrooms across the IIT system.” What does he mean by “now”? Does he mean after the implementation of reservations? He never says so outright, but he implies it to any reader who already carries that prejudice.

He says “There is nothing wrong with opening the doors of our best institutions to students from different backgrounds. The question is whether we have addressed this heterogeneity in our teaching-learning methods.”

This statement, by itself, is a valid goal if the question is an invitation to introspect whether the pedagogy in IIT classrooms is sensitive to the diversity of students in it. 

However, he follows it up with, “A faculty member cannot pitch every class at several levels at once. Move too slowly, and some students lose interest. Move too quickly, and others are left behind.”, where he is talking about heterogeneity in learning achievement levels or ability. 

He seamlessly jumps from heterogeneity in (caste) backgrounds to heterogeneity in ability, equating the two. This sleight of hand lets him imply, to a prejudiced audience, that students who enter through reservation lack ability, without saying it openly.

He contradicts himself: he says those with lower JEE Advanced ranks cannot learn at the same pace as top rankers yet also claims that even top rankers struggle because coaching trained them for familiar questions and not independent thinking.

If JEE rank is such an accurate arbiter of merit and ranks people by ability so precisely that a difference of a few thousand ranks makes them incompatible in ability to share a classroom, and by those very standards, the toppers are struggling too. 

The top rankers struggle and the bottom rankers struggle, In other words, the ‘less meritorious’ struggle and the ‘more meritorious’ struggle. Perhaps, then, the problem is not the students. Perhaps it is the teaching.

If you reject that explanation, the alternative is that the JEE selection system itself is biased toward coachability rather than independent thinking, so much so that even top rankers struggle once they enter college. The skills required to win a filtering system are not directly relevant to college, nor is rank an absolute arbiter of merit. That would mean the system was never a ‘pure selector’ of ability whose function is ‘compromised’ by reservation; it did not select for merit in the first place. 

Despite this glaring contradiction and the casteism underlying it, people still fail to consider the obvious possibility that the teacher is incompetent, or the system is. This lazy, contradictory narrative stokes anti-reservation prejudice only because a prejudiced reader is blind to the holes in it.

He assumes throughout that the teacher is competent, and that the only real difficulty is the heterogeneity in ability among students. What about the heterogeneity in the ability of teachers? Or is that assumed not to exist, because of the lack of heterogeneity in the backgrounds of IIT faculty, by his logic? 

In reality, many professors at elite institutes like IITs are not selected for their ability to teach, but for their research record. Many take pride in identifying primarily as researchers and openly detest teaching. Not every good researcher is a good teacher. But because teaching is systematically undervalued, the hierarchy between research and teaching lets the system excuse its own failure to prioritise teaching skills in the selection and appointment of these faculty. Teaching skill includes sensitivity to students, something fundamentally incompatible with the meritocratic logic that reduces them to their ranks. 

Hence, unless these issues are addressed, extending the programme from four to five years only prolongs students’ time under a system that fails them.

Notably, Prof. Rao, who now defends a colleague accused of casteism by a deceased student’s parents, chaired the 2020 committee that recommended IITs be exempt from reservation in faculty recruitment.

“A public campaign against an individual serves no one” he says. Except, that’s precisely what IIT Bombay and the media did to Sahil, and he shows no comparable concern for that trial of a student who can no longer defend himself.

Any real solution to the crisis of student deaths in elite institutions like IITs must begin with confronting and dismantling the prejudices that kill. Diversifying the faculty by effectively implementing reservation norms is one concrete way forward. It further requires faculty and institutions to introspect on their biases and unlearn them, with a commitment to equality, and to recognise that equality is not at odds with excellence but a condition of it. 

(Authors: Sulochana R is a research scholar in Science Education in Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education, TIFR Mumbai; Pranav Jeevan P holds a PhD in Artificial Intelligence from IIT Bombay. He has earlier studied quantum computing in IIT Madras and Robotics at IIT Kanpur.)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths

Mumbai Dharna for Darshan Solanki makes calls for law against caste discrimination

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses

The Anatomy of Humiliation: Defining caste violence in the Constitutional era

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

The post Unpacking a Coded Defence: What an IIT Professor’s post reveals about attitudes in elite institutions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Teesta Setalvad speaks with Saurav Das about youth activism, intergenerational solidarity, “School Thik Karo”, social audits of government schools, police accountability and the right to protest.

They discuss the Supreme Court’s intervention on protest-related FIRs, the violence faced by protesters, and why citizens must keep questioning institutions meant to serve them.

And then, humour: why satire, irreverence and a refusal to be solemn became part of the movement itself.

A conversation about young citizens, public institutions and the courage to ask questions.

The post This Regime Is Anti-Fun; Humour Can Strip Its Legitimacy | Saurav Das | Teesta Setalvad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The circumstances immediately preceding his death have become a central part of the investigation. Doolla was reportedly the invigilator during Wakode’s examination and, according to the institute’s initial account (later regretfully denied by IIT Mumbai), Wakode had been found using a mobile phone and had uploaded the examination question paper to ChatGPT to obtain answers. IIT Bombay initially stated that no disciplinary action had been initiated against him and that he had been counselled by the concerned faculty members.

But that account quickly became contested. Students and Wakode’s family alleged that the incident involved threats of disciplinary action and suspension and that Wakode had been humiliated. The Indian Express has since reported that Crime Branch investigators are examining CCTV footage from the examination hall showing Doolla approaching Wakode and asking him to leave the hall. The footage is now part of an investigation that is attempting to reconstruct what happened between the examination and Wakode’s death.

What remains equally important is what happened before September 18. Wakode’s family has alleged that the examination incident was not an isolated interaction but occurred against the backdrop of months of caste-based and mental harassment. Those allegations have not been established, and the Crime Branch investigation must determine whether they are supported by witness statements, communications, institutional records and other evidence. But the absence of a prior formal complaint cannot, by itself, be treated as proof that discrimination did not occur.

Breaking: IITB accepts that cheating allegation against Sahil Wakode are not proven, backtracks earlier letter

This is what we have been saying

Cheating allegation are not proven. IIT already backtracking

Prof Dulla should be arrested and investigated properly… https://t.co/BHjmciyQNv

— Ravi Ratan (@scribe_it) September 21, 2026

IIT Bombay has now suspended Professor Suryanarayana Doolla and also apologized over the matter.

The professor had falsely accused Sahil Wakode of using ChatGPT to cheat, an allegation that seriously damaged his academic career. pic.twitter.com/oQUlAb8WrM

— The Dalit Voice (@ambedkariteIND) September 21, 2026

Four suicides in one year at IIT Bombay. This is not a tragedy. This is institutional failure. This is institutional murder.

SFI stands with the students of IIT Bombay demanding action, accountability and transparency. pic.twitter.com/wSz7CastFD

— SFI (@SFI_CEC) September 20, 2026

It was never about cheating.

People justifying cheating leading to student ending his life in another pathetic view I came across.

I wish none of this happens to their kids. https://t.co/TaP02RiYKP

— Ratna Singh (@whattalawyer) September 21, 2026

अब तो IIT Bombay ने भी बिना किसी जांच के साहिल पर चीटिंग के आरोप लगाने पर माफीनामा जारी कर दिया है।

पहले साहिल को आत्महत्या पर मजबूर किया गया और अब उसके सांस्थानिक हत्या को जायज भी ठहराया जा रहा है! शर्मनाक है! https://t.co/e5cg5jPdNB pic.twitter.com/pjkLlCT16B

— Priyanka Bharti (@priyanka2bharti) September 21, 2026

The apology came only after the institution had already framed the story

The most troubling aspect of IIT Bombay’s handling of the matter may be the speed with which the institution initially presented a particular account of Wakode’s final hours. Its first public communication foregrounded the alleged use of a phone during the examination and the uploading of the question paper on ChatGPT. That communication effectively placed an allegation of academic misconduct at the centre of the public narrative before the circumstances surrounding the death had been independently established.

On September 21, however, IIT Bombay apologised and acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to set out or characterise details relating to the events preceding Wakode’s death before they had been established through the appropriate investigative process. The Times of India reported that the institute apologised for its earlier communication concerning the examination incident, while The Indian Express reported that students had specifically demanded an apology over what they described as the “defamation” of Wakode.

That reversal matters as the question was not whether academic misconduct should be taken seriously. It should. The question is whether, when a student dies hours after an interaction with institutional authority, the first responsibility of the institution should be to establish facts carefully rather than to publicly foreground an allegation that potentially shifts attention towards the student’s conduct.

The institute itself has now acknowledged that the circumstances had not yet been duly established. That acknowledgment should also invite scrutiny of how institutions speak about students after their deaths, particularly when those students belong to communities that have historically experienced discrimination within educational institutions.

Doolla has been removed as Dean. But only as Dean

IIT Bombay has temporarily relieved Professor Suryanarayana Doolla of his duties as Dean of Administrative Affairs pending an investigation. But, as The New Indian Express reported, Doolla continues to remain a professor in the Energy Science and Engineering department. The Times of India similarly reported that the action was limited to his administrative responsibilities and that he would continue as a professor.

This distinction is important because students had demanded that Doolla be removed from his academic duties as well. Their concern was not necessarily a demand that the professor be treated as guilty before investigation, but that a person named in an FIR concerning the death of a student should not continue exercising academic authority over students while the circumstances are being investigated.

The institute has justified his removal from the administrative post as a step intended to ensure an independent and unbiased investigation. That is understandable as an institutional measure. But it also leaves an obvious question: if independence from administrative authority is necessary for the inquiry, what safeguards are in place to ensure that students who may have information relevant to the investigation do not feel vulnerable when the professor continues to teach and exercise academic authority?

The FIR is not the investigation. But neither is institutional denial

The FIR records allegations made by Wakode’s family. The Crime Branch investigation must determine what happened, whether there was sustained harassment, whether caste-based discrimination occurred, whether any conduct contributed to Wakode’s distress, and whether any institutional response failed him. At the same time, IIT Bombay’s statement that no complaint had previously been made to its SC/ST cell or administration cannot settle the question either. The Indian Express reported that the institute relied on the absence of any such formal complaint when responding to the family’s allegations.

Caste discrimination does not necessarily announce itself through a formal written complaint. Students may hesitate to complain against professors who control grades, academic progression, recommendations or other aspects of university life. The possibility of retaliation, stigma or simply the belief that an institution will not act can itself become a barrier to reporting. That is precisely why an investigation into allegations of discrimination cannot be reduced to a search for whether a complaint was filed in the correct institutional forum.

What exactly is IIT Bombay defending?

The response from sections of the IIT Bombay faculty has introduced another dimension to the controversy. The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay publicly expressed solidarity with Doolla, saying that he had been discharging his duties according to institute-approved academic procedures and that the faculty was distressed by what it described as the tarnishing of his reputation. The Indian Express reported that faculty members gathered in support of Doolla after he was removed as Dean, while faculty bodies at other IITs also expressed support for him.

There is nothing inherently improper about insisting upon due process or resisting a presumption of guilt. But due process cannot mean that institutional solidarity with a faculty member becomes a substitute for investigating allegations made by a student’s family. The two principles can coexist. Doolla is entitled to a fair investigation and should not be declared guilty merely because he has been named in an FIR. At the same time, Wakode’s family is entitled to have allegations of caste-based harassment and institutional failure investigated seriously, independently and without the investigation being overshadowed by a defence of the professor’s professional reputation.

The concern becomes particularly acute when the institution itself had initially issued a public account that it later apologised for.

This is not the first IIT Bombay student death to raise questions about caste

The most difficult part of the present controversy is that IIT Bombay cannot claim to be encountering these questions for the first time. In February 2023, Dalit student Darshan Solanki died by suicide at IIT Bombay. His death generated allegations of caste discrimination and intense campus debate over whether students from marginalised communities were adequately protected within the institution.

Three years later, Solanki’s father, Ramesh Solanki, has returned to the IIT Bombay campus in connection with protests following Wakode’s death. The Indian Express reported that parents of previous IIT Bombay suicide victims joined the protests and raised concerns about transparency, accountability, discrimination and the treatment of students from reserved communities. Ramesh Solanki reportedly continues to question aspects of the investigation into his son’s death.

The significance of Darshan Solanki therefore cannot simply be historical. His death forms part of the institutional memory against which the present case is unfolding. The question now is not only what happened to Sahil Wakode. It is also what IIT Bombay learnt from Darshan Solanki’s death, what institutional mechanisms were changed afterwards, and whether those mechanisms could identify and address the forms of exclusion that students may experience without ever making a formal complaint.

And then there are the other deaths

Wakode’s death has also occurred amid wider concerns over student suicides at IIT Bombay. Reports have referred to other student deaths this year, adding to the sense among students and parents that the problem cannot be treated as a single tragic incident. Moneycontrol, reporting on the aftermath of Wakode’s death, noted that the episode had once again brought student suicides at premier engineering institutions into focus. The protests at IIT Bombay have consequently expanded beyond the circumstances of one student’s death to include demands relating to mental-health support, institutional accountability and student welfare.

This is important because individualising every death can prevent institutions from examining common structural conditions. If students repeatedly experience academic pressure, fear of disciplinary action, inadequate grievance mechanisms, social isolation or discrimination, then treating each death as an entirely separate personal tragedy leaves the institutional environment itself largely unexamined.

The 18 demands show how much larger the crisis has become

The student protests have made clear that the controversy is no longer limited to the question of what happened inside one examination hall. According to The Indian Express, students placed an 18-point charter before the IIT Bombay administration. Their demands included an independent inquiry, changes to student welfare mechanisms, student representation on committees, a formal mechanism for complaints against professors, greater accountability of institutional authorities and stronger mental-health support, including access to psychiatric care.

These demands matter because they reveal what students themselves see as the larger problem. They are not asking only for an answer about September 18. They are questioning how decisions affecting students are made, who exercises authority over them, what happens when a student has a complaint against a professor, and whether students have any meaningful role in institutions that make decisions about their academic and personal lives.

An institution can have rules on paper and still leave students without meaningful protection if those rules are difficult to invoke against powerful members of the faculty.

The protests have also brought the role of IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare under scrutiny. Students demanded his resignation as part of their broader charter. Reports also emerged suggesting that he had agreed to resign, although IIT Bombay subsequently denied that he had stepped down.

A campus divided between solidarity and accountability

The response to the protests has also raised questions about how dissent is being handled around the campus. The Indian Express reported that police detained activists from different organisations who were protesting outside the IIT Bombay campus. Ramesh Solanki, whose son Darshan died in 2023, was among those participating in the protest and seeking accountability over the earlier case.

The present situation has produced an uncomfortable divide. Faculty groups have rallied around Doolla and emphasised academic integrity and due process. Students have demanded accountability and institutional reform. Wakode’s family has alleged caste-based harassment. The police are investigating. IIT Bombay has apologised for its initial public account while simultaneously maintaining that the circumstances remain under investigation.

The question IIT Bombay must now answer

The academic misconduct allegation has also become central to the public discussion. But academic integrity and caste discrimination are not mutually exclusive questions. Even if the investigation establishes that Wakode violated examination rules, that would not automatically disprove allegations that he may have experienced caste-based discrimination or harassment. Conversely, allegations of caste discrimination cannot be used to establish that an examination rule was not violated.

The two questions require separate examination. The tragedy is that IIT Bombay’s initial public statement blurred those questions by placing the examination incident at the centre of its account of Wakode’s death. Its subsequent apology acknowledged that the circumstances preceding his death should not have been characterised before they were established through investigation.

The most important question is not whether IIT Bombay can defend its procedures. It is whether those procedures are capable of protecting students when the person they may need protection from is someone who exercises institutional authority over them.

Detailed reports on Darshan Solanki suicide case may be read here, here, here, here and here.

Related:

Mumbai Dharna for Darshan Solanki makes calls for law against caste discrimination

The Normalisation of Suicide at IITs: Institutional blindness and failure

A Long Battle, A Swift Stay: The Fight for Equitable Campuses

The Anatomy of Humiliation: Defining caste violence in the Constitutional era

Another student lost to suicide at IIT-Delhi

IIT Kanpur: Third incident of suicide in five weeks, a 29-year-old PhD scholar found dead in her dorm room

Another student, belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, dies by suicide in IIT

Crucial evidence overlooked by IIT Committee, internal survey by SC/ST Cell contradicts report findings

The post Three years after Darshan Solanki, Sahil Wakode’s death shows IIT Bombay still has no answer on caste, power and student deaths appeared first on SabrangIndia.