I don’t remember when I started praying and keeping my Rozas ( the fast during Ramzan). Every child starts aping their parents and I guess I used to do the same. During Ramzan as kids we had the half ticket concept, either fast for half a day “aadhe din ka roza” or the more popular was “aadhe mooh ka roza”: we were allowed to eat using one side of the mouth. The right side of the mouth was the favorite side to chew among us, kids.

We lived in a joint family and there were siblings and cousins of similar ages.

Even our pet parrot Mitthu used to ape the rituals of the home, he was taught to say “Nabiji Rozi bhejo” (Prophet Ji send us bounty). Often, we got confused on whether it was “Dada Abba” (Grandfather) praying or our Mitthu, he used to make gibberish-like sounds which resembled, in sound, the tilawat (Quran recital). Many a time we got up in the night wondering what was wrong with Dada Abba, why is he praying so loud at this hour, and found Mitthu happily busy with his tilawat.

We lived in the Rourkela Steel City. In Odisha, it was very cosmopolitan with neighbours from all over India. Many of my non-Muslim neighbors used to join us during Iftar (breaking the fast during Ramzan) and similarly we used join in the feasts after their Pooja(s) and Havan(s) (Hindu prayers).

I remember my first Roza, a serious Roza of not eating the entire day, it was one of the biggest achievements of my life; I wanted to prove that even I was grown up, I could achieve this; I was about 6 years old.

My mom dissuaded me initially saying it is not a compulsory ritual for children, but I did not think I was a child and insisted on keeping the Roza. Getting up during Sehri was an adventure, the most exciting part of keeping Roza, (Sehri was at about 4am in the morning) and the excitement lay in eating the last meal before fasting.

There was a Durga Pooja Pandal near our house, and those days the artisans used to make large installations of the Durga goddess on the site itself. Their work used to begin 2-3 months in advance. I was completely fascinated by the making of those elaborate Durga Pooja installations. Sometimes I used to spend entire day admiring the process and Amma (Mom) used send someone to call me for lunch.

When I insisted on keeping my first Roza, Amma knew I would not feel hungry if I was at the Pandal; so she asked my elder brother to drop me off at the Pandal in the morning. There I spent the entire day, at the Durga Pooja Pandal, chatting with the artisans, playing with their clay. Amma was right, I did not feel thirsty or hungry, did not even realize it was my first Roza, it was almost evening when my brother came to call me home, for Iftar.

After 40 years of my first Roza, when I look around at our mohallas and cities, society at large, I see a huge difference. Practising the faith was easy and relaxed, there was little conflict, parents had no problem sending Muslim children to play at the Pooja Pandal, non-Muslims never had any issue with Muslim festivals. There was no television and no religious preachers entered our lives. Our faiths and religious sentiments were not so fragile that we needed religious fatwas.

With the increasing influence of Arabian practices on Indian Islam, (an Arabisation, a sort of purification of Islam started taking place) and many Indian practices have started changing. “Khuda Hafiz” has become “Allah Hafiz” because Khuda is a Persian word. Ramzan is becoming Ramadan, because in Arabic it is pronounced with a “d”, not a “z”. And visiting Durga Pooja Pandal has become Shirk (the sin of practicing idolatry or polytheism).

I see similar changes in Hindu society, where people are going back to the so called “Vedic Era” and becoming more intolerant towards each other.

Ramzan Mubarak,
Khuda Hafiz.

The post My First Roza was in a Durga Pooja Pandal: Amir Rizvi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“We’d like some senior officer to remain present here and explain,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed, making it clear that the police would be required to answer the allegations. After Jaising informed the Court that advance notice had been given to the Solicitor General, the Chief Justice indicated that the petition would be listed on Thursday alongside the matter concerning the alleged police action.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also mentioned a contempt petition filed by the Freedom Speech Collective, alleging that the police had assaulted journalists in violation of the Supreme Court’s October 10 order protecting media personnel covering the protests from harassment. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh mentioned a similar petition.

The NWMI’s petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, brings a distinct constitutional question before the Court: whether journalists can be physically restrained, detained or removed while documenting the exercise of State power, without a specific legal basis and without demonstrable necessity. It argues that the issue extends beyond the treatment of individual reporters to the institutional freedom of the press and the public’s right to receive information about events unfolding in public spaces.

A fresh petition following repeated allegations of police action against journalists

The petition, filed on October 12, places the alleged incidents within a sequence of protests, police restrictions and judicial interventions in Delhi during October 2026. It records allegations of journalists being detained despite displaying press identification, physically dragged or pushed, transported away from reporting locations and, in some instances, prevented from documenting police action.

The immediate context includes demonstrations concerning the Chief Election Commissioner and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. According to the petition, restrictions imposed around the protests affected journalists’ access to the sites, their ability to observe police operations and their capacity to transmit contemporaneous reports, photographs and recordings.

The petition refers to reports concerning journalists associated with Scroll, Newslaundry, Reuters, Business Standard, BOOMLive, The Quint, The News Minute, The Indian Express and other media organisations. It also recounts allegations that journalists were detained at locations removed from the protest site, notwithstanding their professional identification, and that some were transported to police facilities before being released.

These accounts form the factual basis of the petitioner’s case; they are allegations and reported incidents that require examination and verification. The constitutional question raised, however, is not confined to whether a particular detention was justified. It concerns the standards that must govern police conduct towards journalists when public-order measures are being implemented and the press is attempting to document those very measures.

The petition argues that the distinction between a protester and a journalist cannot be erased merely because both are present in the same public space. A journalist’s proximity to a demonstration may be necessary to observe, record and verify events. Treating that proximity as sufficient grounds for detention or forcible removal, it contends, risks converting the act of reporting into a basis for coercive State action.

Women journalists and the question of bodily integrity

The petition places particular emphasis on allegations involving women journalists, including physical handling, dragging, detention and confinement while they were performing their professional duties. It refers to complaints made by three women journalists alleging sexual harassment by Delhi Police personnel during demonstrations near Jantar Mantar on October 3. According to the petition, Delhi Police acknowledged receipt of the complaints and referred them to the Crime Branch for inquiry. The National Human Rights Commission subsequently took suo-motu cognisance of the reported allegations and sought a detailed report from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.

The NWMI argues that these incidents must be considered alongside subsequent reports of women journalists being physically handled or detained while covering protests on October 10 and 11. It contends that the treatment of women journalists raises concerns not only about press freedom but also about bodily integrity, dignity, personal liberty and their equal ability to participate in the profession.

The petition’s emphasis on women journalists is not merely a request for a gender-specific administrative precaution. It places their safety within the constitutional framework of equality and dignity. Physical coercion, intimidation or arbitrary confinement, the petitioner argues, can impair a journalist’s ability to work on equal terms and create a particular chilling effect on women reporting from public spaces.

The reliefs sought therefore extend beyond a general prohibition on interference with journalists. NWMI seeks specific safeguards against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal of women journalists engaged in bona fide newsgathering, including where their presence at or proximity to a protest is the only apparent basis for the action.

Supreme Court’s earlier direction and allegations of continued interference

A central feature of the petition is the Supreme Court’s order dated October 11, passed in connected proceedings concerning restrictions and alleged illegal detentions during the protests. According to NWMI, the Court recorded an assurance from the Solicitor General that journalists, lawyers and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.

Paragraph 16(f) of the order states: “Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”

The petition argues that this direction must operate as an effective safeguard on the ground, rather than remain confined to an assurance given before the Court. It alleges that journalists continued to face detention, coercive removal and obstruction despite the direction, including incidents in which reporters displayed press identification but were nevertheless placed in police vehicles or taken away from reporting locations.

The petitioner’s case is that the continuation of such incidents exposes the limits of a general judicial direction when it is not accompanied by a clear operational framework. Without defined procedures, accountability mechanisms and preservation of evidence, the petition contends, compliance may depend on the discretion of individual officers rather than an enforceable institutional obligation.

This is also the basis on which NWMI distinguishes its petition from the existing proceedings concerning restrictions on transport, alleged illegal detention and contempt. It argues that those proceedings do not comprehensively settle the standards governing police interaction with journalists or provide forward-looking safeguards against a recurrence of the alleged conduct.

The petition consequently asks the Court to move beyond reiterating the general principle that journalists must not be obstructed and to establish a framework that specifies how that protection is to be implemented, monitored and enforced.

Article 19(1)(a): Press freedom begins before publication

The principal constitutional argument concerns Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. NWMI contends that this freedom cannot be confined to the final act of publishing a report. It must also protect the processes through which information is obtained, observed, documented, verified and communicated.

The argument is significant because reporting on protests and police action depends upon access to the places where events unfold. If journalists are prevented from witnessing detentions, dispersals or crowd-control operations, their ability to report on the exercise of public power is impaired before a story can even be written or published. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s press-freedom jurisprudence, including Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, Sakal Papers v. Union of India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India and Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal. It also invokes Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh in support of its broader constitutional submissions.

Drawing on this line of authority, NWMI argues that freedom of the press encompasses the ability to gather and disseminate information concerning matters of public importance, alongside the public’s corresponding interest in receiving that information. The petition’s central proposition is that a journalist cannot report what the State prevents her from witnessing. Where police action obstructs newsgathering, the resulting injury is not limited to the reporter’s professional inconvenience; it may also deprive the public of information necessary to scrutinise the conduct of public authorities.

The petitioner accordingly argues that observation cannot be equated with participation. The mere presence of a journalist near protesters, possession of recording equipment, questioning of officials or documentation of police action cannot, by itself, justify detention or forcible removal.

Articles 14 and 21: Arbitrariness, liberty and dignity

NWMI also invokes Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. Under Article 14, the petition challenges the alleged indiscriminate treatment of journalists and protesters as interchangeable categories, without an individualised assessment of the circumstances or the legal basis for restricting a journalist’s movement. It contends that coercive action unsupported by a specific legal justification, recorded necessity or proportionate response is arbitrary and constitutionally impermissible.

The Article 21 challenge addresses the consequences of physical handling, assault, intimidation, detention and confinement. The petition argues that these actions implicate bodily integrity, dignity and personal liberty, particularly where women journalists are concerned.

Article 19(1)(d), which protects the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, forms another part of the challenge. NWMI contends that transporting journalists away from reporting locations or preventing them from accessing public spaces can interfere with their freedom of movement as well as their ability to carry out professional duties.

Read together, the four constitutional guarantees form the foundation of the petition’s case: police action against journalists must have a lawful basis, must not be arbitrary or disproportionate, and must not needlessly impair their ability to report on matters of public importance. The petition does not claim that journalists are exempt from generally applicable laws or lawful crowd-control measures. Rather, it seeks to prevent their professional activity from being treated, without more, as grounds for coercive action.

An independent inquiry and preservation of police records

Among the petition’s most consequential prayers is a request for an independent, time-bound mechanism to investigate allegations of detention, physical violence, injury, coercive removal, intimidation and obstruction of journalists. NWMI seeks identification of the personnel involved, examination of individual and supervisory responsibility, and recommendations for disciplinary or other action in accordance with law. It also asks that the mechanism consider appropriate compensation and remedial measures.

The petition stresses that an inquiry cannot be effective if the evidence necessary to reconstruct the incidents is not preserved. It seeks strict and demonstrable compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 11 direction, including preservation and disclosure of records relating to incidents involving journalists from October 10 onwards.

The records specifically identified include CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, police videography, wireless communications, duty rosters, deployment records, vehicle logs, detention records and medical records. The requested disclosure is intended to establish not merely whether a journalist was detained or injured, but also the circumstances in which the action occurred: who authorised it, which personnel participated, what directions were issued, what legal grounds were recorded, where the journalist was taken and whether any recording equipment or journalistic data was interfered with.

This demand for evidence preservation is central to the petition’s accountability argument. Where the alleged wrongdoers are public officials acting during crowd-control operations, an inquiry that does not independently establish the chain of events and responsibility may leave critical questions unanswered. NWMI therefore seeks a process capable of examining both the conduct of individual officers and the supervisory structure within which the alleged actions occurred.

Binding guidelines sought for police interaction with journalists

The petition asks the Supreme Court to frame, or direct the framing of, binding guidelines governing the interaction between police and media professionals during protests, public assemblies, crowd-control operations and other events of public importance. The proposed framework is intended to address the practical circumstances in which journalists encounter police personnel and to reduce the scope for arbitrary decisions at the scene.

Among the safeguards sought are:

• Identification of police personnel: Visible identification to enable officers involved in an incident to be identified and held accountable.
• Recognition of journalists: Recognition of press credentials without making formal accreditation the sole test of whether a person is engaged in bona fide journalistic activity.
• Standards governing force: Clear thresholds regulating the use of force against journalists performing professional duties.
• Recorded reasons for detention or removal: A requirement that coercive action be supported by specific, recorded and proportionate grounds.
• Access to assistance: Immediate access to legal counsel and the journalist’s editorial organisation.
• Medical assistance: Appropriate medical attention where injury or physical force is involved.
• Protection of equipment and data: Safeguards against interference with journalistic devices, recordings and other professional material.
• Evidence preservation: Retention of contemporaneous records necessary to investigate complaints and establish responsibility.
• Gender-specific safeguards: Protection of women journalists against arbitrary physical handling, intimidation, detention and forcible removal while engaged in bona fide newsgathering.

The petition also seeks interim protection pending its final disposal, asking the Court to ensure that journalists are not assaulted, threatened, detained, transported, removed or otherwise obstructed except under authority of law and on a specific, recorded and proportionate basis.

The proposed safeguards would, if granted, address both immediate protection and the institutional procedures governing police conduct. They would also provide a framework against which future allegations could be assessed.

The constitutional question before the Court

The proceedings raise a question that extends beyond the immediate allegations arising from the Delhi protests: what practical protection does press freedom provide when journalists are attempting to document the actions of the authorities themselves?

The power to regulate assemblies and maintain public order does not, by itself, resolve the distinct question of how journalists may be treated while reporting on those measures. The NWMI petition argues that the exercise of such powers must remain subject to constitutional standards and that restrictions on journalists cannot rest merely on their presence near a protest or their attempt to record events.

Its demand is therefore both preventive and remedial. The petitioner seeks investigation into the incidents already reported, preservation of evidence, identification of those responsible and a binding framework intended to prevent similar allegations from recurring.

Detailed reports on the anti-EC protest may be read here, here and here.

Related:

Caged in Police Vans, Beaten in Custody, Journalists Attacked: Delhi’s crackdown on anti-CEC protests draws UN condemnation

Vote for Democracy seeks answers from ECI and TCS on ECI’s electoral database access and security

Barricades and detentions fail to stop Delhi protesters marching against CEC

Protest Denied, Dissent Policed: India’s crackdown on those challenging the Election Commission

Bihar adds 14 lakh voters after SIR, questions remain over those excluded from 2025 assembly polls

Why Majoritarianism today is the single most acute threat to democracy

The post Supreme Court seeks senior Delhi Police officer’s presence over alleged assault on women journalists; NWMI seeks binding safeguards 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.

The Open letter may be read below:

To

The Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal Lok Bhavan, Kolkata

Your Excellency,

We are senior academics from various institutions in West Bengal and elsewhere in India. We are writing to express our deep concern about the West Bengal Universities and Colleges (Administration and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The bill was passed in the Assembly on 10 September 2026. It would allow transfer of academic and non-academic staff between various state universities.

The reasons for our concern are both academic and procedural. The crucial academic issues are as follows:

1. Each university is a distinct organic entity with its own rationale, structure and programmes of It appoints its faculty in accord with these factors. To move staff from one institution to another would impair the structural balance of both institutions and hamper their teaching and research programmes. Such programmes cannot be readily revised or interchanged.
2. Taught courses and research orientation programmes are planned by and for particular teachers and would be impeded if they were transferred. Research work would be no less affected. A university has specialized faculty who attract fresh researchers in that field. Laboratory and library facilities are developed to provide for those special If those faculty members are transferred, young research students would be left without resort. The material resources would lie unused or underused, while the human resources – i.e., the relevant faculty – would be underemployed at a new institution.
3. Major research funding is invariably linked to the assurance of expert faculty members as Principal Investigators. No funder would agree to fund a project without this assurance. Interdisciplinary and multi-institutional projects would be especially On the other hand, the presence of core senior faculty in the field ensures a succession of projects, creating a node of research excellence. This is the case with many of our older universities. Transfer of faculty would impair the working of these research nodes.
4. At this point of time, even those older universities are impoverished of resources, material and human. Hundreds of posts are lying This is a particularly bad moment to deplete them of their remaining faculty.
5. We are anxious that the new universities should be developed productively, but this cannot be done by sporadic transfer of faculty from elsewhere. At present, all or most of the new universities are grossly lacking in staff, infrastructure and facilities. Some of them have no full-time teachers at all. These needs must be met with due planning and sufficient funding, with extensive recruitment of permanent staff at all Unless this is done, a handful of teachers brought in on transfer would be left to operate in a vacuum.
6. A more fundamental issue must also be Any such move would spell the end of academic autonomy. All the universities would be brought under centralized administrative control. They could no longer develop freely, each according to its bent. Academic productivity would suffer seriously if university faculty felt they could no longer control their own affairs. This is an intangible factor, but its importance cannot be overstated. We would particularly request you to consider this earnest appeal, made based on our lifetime’s experience.

Needless to say, there would also be endless procedural problems in coordinating the different terms of employment at various universities. Above all, there is the fundamental issue of whether faculty originally appointed to non-transferable posts could be subjected to this radical change in their terms of employment. We are not expanding on these legal and administrative issues as we wish to stress the dire academic consequences of the change.

In short, it is our strong opinion that this change, if implemented, would severely affect the functioning of the older and more established universities without material benefit to the new ones. We earnestly appeal to you to consider our arguments and refrain from giving your consent to the bill.

Yours faithfully

(Names in alphabetical order)

Amita Chatterjee, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University, and former Vice-Chancellor, Presidency University

Amitava Raychaudhuri, former Palit Professor of Physics, University of Calcutta and former Director, Harish-Chandra Research Institute (DAE), Prayagraj

Anup Sinha, former Professor of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta

Anupam Basu, Raja Ramanna Professor, Jadavpur University; former Professor of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur; former Director, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur

Ashok Ranjan Thakur, former Vice-Chancellor, West Bengal State University and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology

Partha Chatterjee, former Director, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta

Partha P. Majumdar, Emeritus Professor, Indian Statistical Institute, and former National Science Chair

Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, former Vice-Chancellor, Rabindra Bharati University

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Professor Emeritus, former Director and Distinguished Professor, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research

Samaresh Bhattacharya, Former Professor, Department of Chemistry, Jadavpur University and recipient of Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar prize

Sobhanlal Datta Gupta, former S.N. Banerjee Professor of Political Science, University of Calcutta

Siddhartha Datta, former Professor of Chemical Engineering and former Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Jadavpur University

Sukanta Chaudhuri, Professor Emeritus, Jadavpur University Supriya Chaudhuri, Professor Emerita, Jadavpur University

Related:

May-June 2026: Youth Congress nationwide protests challenge education system collapse under Modi government, media gives cold shoulder?

I AM MALALA! Afghanistan or Ahmedabad why are fundamentalists wary of the right to education?

Galgotias University’s AI Expo Debacle: What it says about Contemporary Indian Education & Public Culture

The post Refrain consent to WB University & Colleges Amendment Bill, 2026, will affect autonomy & functioning: Academic to Governor appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Pooja Mathur set the tone at the meeting held by the Press Club of India, the Delhi Union of Journalists and the Network of Women in Media to protest attacks on women journalists.

Mathur spoke boldly of how she has been targetted by the UP government for her coverage of the bulldozing of a Saharanpur masjid on Sept. 6. Mathur said she was the first to report the demolition on her YouTube channel Red Chili Live. She interviewed the Imam of the mosque and took a video of the rubble. After that she received messages demanding that she delete the videos, followed by threats when she refused. An FIR has been filed against her.

Mathur said courageously, “I was doing my job. I àm not afraid. I will not cry, I will make them cry.” She also pointed out that women journalists like her are the voice and the inspiration of countless other women who dare not step out of home and raise their own voices against oppression.  Mathur also said to the big gathering present, “Do not dismiss us as mere Youtubers. We are serious journalists, we are qualified, we do our research before we go online.”

Divya Srivastava spoke of how she was targetted after she dared to speak at a ‘press conference’ held by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Sept 12. The CM spoke but took no questions. When Divya loudly called him out, asking him to hear her question, he simply walked away. This smàll incident was blown out of proportion with some fellow journalists warning her to go into hiding as she would now be under fire. She was trolled heavily, with threats, abuse and allegations that she had been sent by a rival political party to ask questions.

“Why should I hide, journalism is not a crime,” Mathur said.

She said her job at a channel was now insecure as the channel owners were afraid of the backlash.

Bindu Romi Gujjar and Monika Singh, both independent journalists based in Delhi, were among the first to reach Balaghat in Madhya Pradesh after several Baiga tribal children died of disease in August 2026. They interviewed parents and relatives of the children.

Gujjar described the trauma of witnessing funeral rites. She said there was only one primary health centre for 25 villages and the nearest hospital is 130 km away. No ambulance is available. She said that the deaths were caused by malaria, a treatable disease. She asked why no malaria vaccines are provided in malaria prone areas. Singh described conditions in the government hospital where three or four children were lying in each bed. The journalists’ documentation of 30 deaths, backed by Aadhar cards and other evidence, embarrassed the local administration which claimed there were only eight deaths. The reporters were shadowed for several days and threatened. The Superintendent of Police wanted them to meet him. They did not go. Two policemen came to their hotel room at 2 a.m. at night, she said. They began to fear for their lives. Eventually they left the hotel in the night and returned to Delhi.

Singh spoke of the conditions in the Baiga villages where there are no facilities, not even clean drinking water. She spoke of the hospital which the District Magistrate, she said, visited several days after the first deaths. She claimed that 34 children were discharged the day before his visit, more beds were supplied, bed linen changed and the entire hospital disinfected. She said the journalists were accused of being Muslim and a doctor at the hospital openly displayed bias.

On Sept 6 the social media accounts of Bindu Gurjar, Lok Singh and Monika were suspended. Monika’s account is still suspended. “We are independent journalists,” she said, “how will we earn and continue to work if accounts are suspended?”

Impassioned testimonies came from Shaheen Khan and Nafeesa Khan of 4 PM News, who were picked up by Saket police on Sept 3, 2026, while standing on the roadside to report the visit of Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Minister Rekha Gupta to Max Hospital to inaugurate a new wing. Nafeesa described in detail their detention at Saket police station and the trauma of being beaten with fists and a lathi by a woman inspector. She said she began to fear for her life after the inspector learnt they were Muslim and began to beat them more viciously. The SHO, she said, had ordered the beating and other police personnel were complicit.

Shaheen said that after the incident became public senior policemen later apologised and admitted there had been a mistake. However, she said, the FIR eventually registered names of only two police personnel, although they have filed a complaint against several personnel. She urged journalists to take up the issue and ensure justice.

The meeting was also addressed by PCI President Sangeeta Baruah Pisharoty, Secretary General Afzal Imam, DUJ President Sujata Madhok, Divya Arya of the Network of Women Journalists in India, journalist Khushbu Akhtar and Caravan Editor Hartosh Singh Bal who expressed solidarity with the media women and applauded them for their courage in speaking out.

Sabrangindia was among the first to interview both Shaheen and Nafeesa Khan. The interview may be watched here. 

Details of these testimonies by women journalists were released by the Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) in a statement, by the organisation’s president, Sujata Madhok and its general secretary, A.M. Jigeesh.

Related:

Press bodies condemn alleged assault on women journalists at Saket Police Station, seek inquiry and action

Two women journalists allege police assault after questioning Delhi CM, say attack intensified after police heard they were Muslim

Two Delhi-based women journalists arrested by Assam police on request from Tripura cops 

The post Women journalists who were attacked prevented from reporting, protest attacks appeared first on SabrangIndia.