Latest news with #RohithVemula
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Dear Editor, I Disagree: ‘Campus mothers' initiative must be seen for what it is: A displacement of responsibility
Have India's educational institutions always been sites of silent, systemic violence? Spaces meant for learning, for nurturing questions, and for producing knowledge are turning into graveyards of unrealised dreams. From student suicides to institutional apathy, from unaddressed harassment to symbolic initiatives like 'Campus Mothers', the violence remains constant, structural, and often deadly. The recent suicide of a student in Odisha who set herself on fire after being denied justice for sexual harassment, the tragic case of Darshan Solanki at IIT Bombay, and the long, painful list that includes names like Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, are not disconnected events. These are not isolated tragedies, but a reflection of systemic violence. They show how institutional spaces can push students to the brink, and then respond with symbolic gestures instead of accountability. Academic spaces continue to be shaped by patterns of violence that define the everyday lives of students. There are countless students whose names will never be known. Those who live and study within institutions that shame, isolate, and silence them. Those who endure relentless academic pressure, wait months for fellowships to be released, face discriminatory behaviour from faculty, or are punished for simply demanding dignity. Women students who are moral-policed, students from marginalised communities who are made to feel they do not belong and students struggling with mental health who are offered no support. They are made to carry these burdens quietly, as though suffering is an expected part of their education. In this context, the editorial 'Mum's not the word', (IE, June 14), argues that though the intention behind the initiative may be good, its gendered framing is problematic. However, it stops short of questioning the logic of such initiatives. The issue is not only about who is being assigned the task of care but also about what this task is meant to replace. The editorial narrows its critique to the gendered framing of the 'Campus Mothers' initiative — it fails to confront a deeper concern that such gestures of care are being used to substitute structural accountability with symbolic empathy. This initiative at IIT Kharagpur must be seen for what it is: A displacement of responsibility. The institution, in assigning women such as faculty or non-teaching staff as emotional points of contact, has not created support structures. It has rebranded care as an individual act, rather than a systemic responsibility. The burden of care is both feminised and depoliticised. It is taken away from structures with the power to change conditions. It is reinforcing a gendered logic in which women are made responsible for tending to emotional wounds, regardless of where those wounds come from. Their academic expertise, institutional authority, and professional roles are sidelined to make room for a more palatable identity: The ever-giving, ever-listening, ever-available mother. To imagine care differently, we need to turn to political frameworks that have treated it as a collective right, not a personal burden. Feminist thinkers like Kristen Ghodsee have shown how collectivised care systems, especially under socialist frameworks, allowed women greater freedom, dignity, and autonomy. Care cannot be a temporary plaster over structural wounds. Students need care. They need to be seen and heard. But modelling it into motherhood turns care into something private, emotional, and feminine, rather than collective, political, and structural. It is a redistribution of institutional neglect. The editorial recognises this. It notes that 'a more inclusive and thoughtful model that invites faculty, staff and residents of all genders to serve as trained campus mentors would reflect the span of empathy, equality, and shared responsibility'. But a truly empathetic care system hinges on listening to the student. The editorial overlooks this imperative. Student movements have already imagined what collective care can look like. Through peer support networks, anti-caste collectives, and demands for institutional changes like functioning grievance bodies, these students have built spaces of care grounded in solidarity. Student organisations and collectives are often the only ones demanding structural change. Yet, in several institutions, they are the first to be surveilled, vilified, and punished. This is part of a broader refusal to engage with dissent, to treat students as stakeholders, or to acknowledge the violence embedded in campus hierarchies. Care, if it is to be meaningful, cannot come from silencing those who resist. It must come from listening to them, learning from them and building with them. To truly reimagine care, institutions must first learn to listen. It is students who have already begun to show what solidarity, support, and resistance can look like. Institutions must follow their lead. It is through their vision that campuses can imagine something better — structures of care rooted not in symbolism, but in justice and shared responsibility. The writer is a research scholar at the Department of Political Science, AKDC, affiliated to the University of Allahabad
The Wire
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
The Rhetoric of Social Justice Ignores the Need for it
Since the general elections of 2019, national and regional parties, especially the Congress party, have increasingly woven social justice into their political narratives, promising empowerment through the constitutional ideals of inclusive governance. As Bihar gears up for its assembly elections, the discourse on social justice has again taken centre stage, often reprimanding the ruling political class for the non-implementation of social justice policies. The Union government's recent announcement to conduct a caste census signals an intent to better understand India's complex social stratification, aiming to craft targeted welfare policies for the marginalised communities, particularly the Other Backward Classes. Though the democratic discourse is infatuated with the agenda of social justice there is a visible gap between rhetoric and reality. The continued marginalisation of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes from the sphere of power and privileges, raise questions about the commitment of the state and the political elites to bring transformative change in their lives. The Indian constitution lays a robust framework for uplifting SCs and STs through three key pillars: protection from social humiliation and exploitation with provisions like the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ensuring that their social dignity and civic rights are safeguarded, equitable representation through reservations in state institutions that allows these groups to avail themselves crucial positions of power and privileges in governance, and last, advancing economic empowerment via dedicated budgetary provisions and policy initiatives. Policy measures like the special component plan for SCs and STs in the state budget were introduced to ensure financial assistance for the economic empowerment of these sections. However, implementation has been inconsistent on all three fronts, often with token value, leaving large sections of these communities outside the ambit of social justice policies. Persistent social injustices Despite substantive legal safeguards like the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, caste-based discrimination persists. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded 57,582 cases of atrocities against SCs and 10,062 against STs in 2022, reflecting deep-rooted systemic oppression and the limit of the state machinery to curb the menace. From rural areas, where Dalit people face violence for minor assertions of dignity, to urban centres, where discrimination in housing and employment is rampant, caste continues to shape access to opportunities. Such incidents are witnessed even in the arena of state institutions like universities (the institutional murder of Rohith Vemula) and legislative bodies (which see little discussion on the issues of caste-based violence). This underscores the failure of the governing classes to enforce protective measures effectively. Reservation: A partial success The reservation policy, designed to ensure SC and ST representation in state institutions, has seen uneven progress. While lower-level posts (Group C and D) in public sector units like railways and banks are often filled, senior positions remain largely inaccessible to marginalised groups even now. Especially in higher education, leadership roles such as vice-chancellors and professors are predominantly occupied by unreserved categories, highlighting structural barriers. Similarly, in the higher judiciary, SC and ST representation among judges and key functionaries is negligible, undermining the promise of equitable participation. The downsizing of public sector units has further eroded opportunities for reserved posts, exacerbating their economic exclusion. The positions of power and privileges in major state institutions are dominated by the social elites. Further, the political class and civil society have failed to engage in crucial deliberation to make private economy more inclusive with the increased participation Dalit and Adivasis. They mostly survive as the precarious labour class, distanced from the entitlements and privileges enjoyed by the middle-class. Economic marginalisation One of the major objectives of the special component plan for SCs and STs is to provide income generating assets and skill so as to enable the marginalised social groups to have a sustained economic upliftment. It intends to advance composite economic development programmes to elevate their class position. Even such a significant initiative has often been reduced to a symbolic gesture today. Exclusive funds meant for SC and ST welfare are frequently underutilised or diverted, with successive governments failing to prioritise these allocations for a substantive welfare of these groups. Under the current Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government, this trend has continued, with flagship schemes for the general welfare of all (like the Jan Dhan Yojana) overshadowing the targeted welfare schemes and policies meant for marginalised groups. There are negligible initiatives to examine the precarious economic conditions of Dalits and introduce effective public policies and schemes for their empowerment and mobility. Beyond political rhetoric of social justice As social justice becomes a rallying cry in electoral politics, its transformative potential remains limited without concrete action. The constitutional framework, though robust, requires rigorous implementation through executive accountability and policy innovation. Political parties must move beyond populist rhetoric and prioritise social justice as a core governance agenda. While the ruling dispensation under the BJP has often pledged to uphold the ideals of social justice, its decade-long tenure has seen a steady rise in caste-based violence and a dilution of policies aimed at SC and ST upliftment. Though at the symbolic level it offered prominent political gestures (like naming Draupadi Murmu the president of India), there is an absence of new initiatives to enhance their representation in public and private sectors. The growing political rhetoric on social justice shall complement with substantive executive orders and fair implementation of policies. However, the governing elites hardly felt any moral pressure to perform under constitutional directives. Further, within the democratic polity, the Dalit-Adivasi claims for social justice and inclusivity have weakened or relegated to negligible space. Their movements are quelled and not allowed to flourish. Without a popular movement and mobilisation of Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan groups, political elites would always hesitate to execute effective programmes for their welfare. The growing marginalisation of Dalits and Adivasis from the national discourse has allowed the traditional elites to dominate decision-making process and to neglect the social justice agenda. The future The national political discourse shall revolve around the welfare, security and advancement of the Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan communities, ensuring their equitable participation in positions of power and privileges. The BJP and the Congress offer a visible space to the idea of social justice in their political manifestos, but overtly hesitate to ensure its appropriate implementation. To actualise the potentials of a social justice agenda, India needs a governing class that is sensitive and committed to the welfare of the marginalised social groups in a substantive manner. Further, there is a crucial need to amplify the Dalit and Adivasi voices for social justice, enabling new movements to drive national discourse for policy reforms. Finally, the social justice discourse needs to move beyond the claim for representation in public institutions and democratic polity. It needs to examine other spheres of power and privileges (like market economy, cultural industry, sports establishments, and so on) which are overtly dominated by the conventional ruling classes. The social justice agenda needs to be applicable to a broader arena of power to make it more diverse and representative through the participation of Dalit, Adivasi and Bahujan groups. Harish S. Wankhede is Assistant Professor, Center for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Indian Express
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Student suicides in universities are often a product of institutional violence. We must take a stand
Ganesh Gaigouria and Vidyasagar Sharma The suicide and death of a 19-year-old woman student in Odisha has brought back the debates around sexual harassment and gender oppression in Indian higher education institutes. This incident adds to a series of cases, where the silencing of women, Dalits, and other marginalised communities has become a practice in these spaces. The case of Rohith Vemula, the suicide of Dr Payal Tadvi, or the rape and murder of a medical student at R G Kar Medical College reveal the repeated failure of institutions to ensure a safe space within universities. Notably, the perpetrators of such violence are, in most cases, a person in authority, be it a faculty member or someone from the dominant caste group. Against this backdrop, we must talk about a space that promotes empathy and solidarity, necessary to live a dignified life. The growing number of student suicides and sexual harassment cases across campuses exposes the deep failure of existing redressal systems in public institutions. For instance, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) appears to be a largely symbolic and dysfunctional body, often prioritising institutional interests over those of the complainants. The SC/ST cells are no better, which are constituted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) to safeguard the rights of SC/ST students in educational institutions. N Sukumar, in his book Caste Discrimination and Exclusion in Indian Universities highlighted how SC/ST cells lack autonomy, resources and accountability. Instead of being proactive and taking serious actions against perpetrators, they do nothing more than completing the bureaucratic formalities. The Odisha case illustrates such non-functionality of the ICC or any gender-based grievance redressal structures. We urgently need new institutional measures that reflect the intersectional realities of caste and gender. The demand for the Rohith Act, raised after Rohith Vemula's death, must be revisited with renewed urgency. This Act ensures legal accountability for institutions in cases of caste-based discrimination and suicide, including provisions for time-bound redressal, independent grievance committees, and legal protection for complainants. We also highlight here that the earlier GSCASH (Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment) system at JNU, which was participatory and student-inclusive, may be considered a model for creating effective redressal systems. Unlike ICC, which operates under administrative control and power hierarchies, GSCASH had autonomy and democratic representation. Beyond institutional measures, we need to reimagine educational spaces as grounded in emotional and ethical culture. Institutional measures alone cannot ensure inclusivity and justice unless we are willing to bring a radical shift in civic emotions and ethics. There needs to be a reframing of existing gender and caste sensitisation programmes within a radical perspective, which must go beyond the ritualistic 'ticking off the checkboxes'. Students from marginalised communities must be empowered to speak about their everyday suffering and trauma without the fear of retaliation. This can only happen in spaces that foster courage, solidarity, and radical empathy, not silence and alienation. The institutionalised silencing of marginalised students is embedded in the everyday socio-spatial architecture of caste, gender and systemic violence. Solidarity must become law, beyond mere expressions and feelings. Only then can we restore trust among students. Gaigouria is a Visiting Faculty at the National Law School of Indian University, Bengaluru. Sharma is a research scholar at the Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Germany
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Explained: What is the new Rohith Vemula Bill 2025 proposed in Karnataka?
The Karnataka government is set to introduce a bill named after Rohith Vemula, the Dalit PhD scholar who died by suicide in 2016, to tackle caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions. The proposed legislation, titled 'The Karnataka Rohith Vemula (Prevention of Exclusion or Injustice)(Right to Education and Dignity) Bill, 2025', is expected to be tabled in the upcoming Monsoon Session of the legislature. What is Karnataka's Rohith Vemula Bill? According to the draft, the Bill seeks to 'prevent exclusion or injustice and to safeguard the right to education and dignity for the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC) and minorities' across public, private, and deemed universities in Karnataka, The Indian Express reported. What penalties does the Bill propose? The draft legislation makes cast discrimination a non-bailable and cognisable offence. It provides for strict penalties for individuals who commit or abet acts of discrimination. -A first-time offence will attract one year of imprisonment and a ₹10,000 fine, with courts empowered to award compensation up to ₹1 lakh to the victim. -A repeat offence will invite a three-year jail term along with a ₹1 lakh fine. -Institutions found violating inclusivity provisions — such as not being open to all castes, creeds, or genders — may face similar penalties and loss of government grants or financial aid. Why is the Bill named after Rohith Vemula? Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar from the University of Hyderabad, died by suicide in January 2016, alleging caste-based discrimination in his suicide note. His death triggered national outrage and debates on the marginalisation of Dalit students in Indian universities. In April this year, Congress MP Rahul Gandhi wrote to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, urging the state to bring legislation in Vemula's name to combat caste prejudice in educational settings. The proposal was also a promise in the Congress manifesto for the Karnataka Assembly elections. What is the political controversy around the Bill? As Karnataka moves forward with the Bill, political tensions have escalated in neighbouring Telangana. Bharatiya Janata Party's Telangana president N Ramchander Rao has issued a legal notice to state Deputy Chief Minister Mallu Bhatti Vikramarka for alleging Rao's involvement in Vemula's suicide. On Tuesday, Rao demanded an unconditional apology within three days and threatened criminal proceedings and a ₹25 lakh defamation suit if the demand is not met. The notice called Vikramarka's remarks 'ex-facie defamatory' and said that Telangana Police had found no evidence of Rao's involvement, having cleared him and others in a closure report filed last year. What are the Congress and BJP saying? The Congress criticised Rao's elevation as Telangana BJP chief on July 1, calling it a reward for those who act against Dalits and Adivasis. On July 11, Deputy CM Vikramarka recalled the 2016 incident, alleging that Rao had visited the university with supporters to pressurise the administration into acting against Dalit students of the Ambedkar Students' Association. The Bharatiya Janata Party, meanwhile, is defending Rao and accusing Congress leaders of false and malicious accusations, pointing to the Telangana Police's clean chit in the case. Rao, a senior advocate and ABVP veteran, has denied all allegations. (With agency inputs)
Hans India
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
BJP chief issues legal notice to Dy CM over allegations in Rohith Vemula's death
BJP Telangana State President and senior advocate N. Ramachandra Rao has issued a legal notice to Deputy Chief Minister Bhatti Vikramarka, accusing him of making defamatory remarks regarding the suicide of Hyderabad Central University research scholar Rohith Vemula. The notice, sent on Tuesday through Advocate M. Vijayakanth on behalf of Rao, demands an unconditional public apology from the Deputy Chief Minister within three days. The alleged remarks were made by Bhatti Vikramarka during a press conference held on July 12, 2025, at the AICC headquarters in New Delhi. According to the notice, Vikramarka accused Rao of instigating a chain of events that led to the suspension and eventual suicide of Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar. The statements were widely broadcast by a Telugu television news channel and shared across social and print media platforms, resulting in what Rao described as severe reputational damage and public humiliation. The notice said that Rao, a designated Senior Advocate and former Member of the Legislative Council, emphasized his unblemished public service record spanning over four decades. The legal notice includes a detailed chronology of events related to the 2016 FIR filed against Rao and others, culminating in a final police report filed in March 2024. The report found no evidence to support the allegations, thereby clearing Rao of all charges. The notice also recalled the caste status of Rohith Vemula, stating that he was found to belong to the BC-A category, which casts doubt on the validity of his Scheduled Caste certificate—a key element in the original controversy. The notice accuses Vikramarka of making false and malicious statements with the intent to harm Rao's public and political reputation. It cites provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, including Sections 356(1), 356(2), 351(1), and 352, asserting that the Deputy CM's remarks constitute both civil and criminal defamation. Rao has warned that failure to issue a public apology within three days will result in legal proceedings. He is seeking Rs 25 crore in damages along with Rs 1 lakh towards the cost of the legal notice.
