Senthilkumar Solidarity Committee Report

The suicide earlier this year of Senthilkumar, a dalit PhD student at the University of Hyderabad, has once again exposed the murky realities of caste discrimination in our universities.The debate on reservations in higher education has centred around the question of who “deserves” reservations, while the brahminical ordering of institutions of higher education has received only sporadic attention.1 Senthil’s suicide has re-affirmed the fact that the dominant academic culture works relentlessly to subvert the logic of reservations. The body of Senthilkumar was discovered in his room at the New Research Scholars Hostel on February 24, 2008. Since then, the attitude of the university has been one of denial and cover-up. The

initial claims were that Senthil had died of “cardiac arrest”. Even after newspaper reports suggested a case of suicide,2 the university did not take any action, and continued to feign ignorance. While the post-mortem report ascertaining the cause of death as “poisoning” is dated February 28, it was not made public until April. A dalit student agitation demanded an enquiry as well as compensation for the family – the minimum an academic institution is expected to do in the circumstances. To this the registrar’s response was that “there was no such provision in the University guidelines”. In an open letter to the vice chancellor,the SC/ST Joint Action Committee (JAC: comprising students, faculty and staff association members) on campus demanded that the rules regarding the fellowships for students be modified, in order to “provide a much broader philosophical premise for the grant of scholarship” and that the procedure for allotting guides to PhD students be made transparent. They also demanded a judicial enquiry;there was no response to this. Instead, an internal fact-finding committee was appointed in mid-March, only after intervention from D Ravikumar, the well known dalit intellectual and a member of the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly. The committee comprised only faculty members of the university; the JAC refused to depose before it. The report submitted by this committee was again withheld until an application under the RTI Act (from the JAC) forced the university to make it available, finally, on April 28. In what follows, we draw from this report, newspaper coverage and personal discussions to demonstrate the reason for all these evasions and denial – Senthil was yet another victim of the entrenched realities of caste discrimination that pervade academic spaces and practices in the university. Senthil Senthilkumar was the first to enter higher education not only from his family, but the entire Panniandi community. His parents survive on pig-rearing in Salem district of Tamil Nadu. He had finished an MPhil in Physics from Pondicherry University before financial constraints forced him to interrupt his education. He enrolled with the School of Physics at the University of
Hyderabad in 2007. This arduous journey into higher education could only have been made by a person of exceptional ability and determination. Senthil was the only student from the batch of 2007 who was yet to be assigned a supervisor. He failed in one of the four papers required in coursework and in the first supplementary exam. He had the provision of writing another exam in March and clearing his backlog. The non-NET fellowship (awarded to students at the University of Hyderabad) was his only source of survival as a student.It was also an important means of supporting the family. As the JAC also pointed out in their letter, according to new university guidelines, the fellowships for PhD students are not linked to “performance” in coursework. However, the School of Physics acted in contravention to this and Senthil’s fellowship was stopped, his name put up on the notice-board, citing his failure in coursework as the reason.The rule connecting fellowship with “performance” in coursework clearly has a punitive logic. In this logic, the fellowship becomes a tool of punishment in the hands of the authorities against students, rather than a means to support their education. It is well known that the demands of higher education make the fellowship absolutely crucial for dalit students, and withholding it amounts to wilfully denying them a place in the university, in the first instance. As Senthil’s case shows, the denial of the fellowship can have even more serious consequences. After protests by a dalit student, a deans’ committee meeting was held and
this rule was changed, a week before Senthil’s death. Incredibly enough, the decision was not communicated to Senthil or announced, unlike the very public withdrawal of the fellowship. The report records that the loss of the fellowship was a source of intense anxiety for Senthil in the period leading up to his suicide; it was
undoubtedly one of the reasons that drove him to it.

The report’s account of the School of Physics reads like a modern-day manual on practising caste discrimination. In 2006, it became the only school in the faculty of Sciences to introduce coursework. Incidentally, this was also the year that the Rajiv Gandhi Fellowships for SC/ST students in higher education were instituted. At every step of the way, the school seems to have experimented with ways of ejecting “unwanted” students out of academics. One example is the criteria for clearing the coursework; the rules were suddenly changed so that even if a student scored the required 50 per cent to pass in a course, the = doctoral committee would be the final arbiter of his/her grade. The students were not informed of this change, resulting in many of them failing or getting a “pass” in courses they assumed they had cleared. Another example is the distinction between the “faculty adviser” and the “supervisor”. The practice of allotting an adviser for the initial stage of research is not the same as appointing a supervisor who guides the student’s research. According to Vipin Srivastava, the dean, School of Physics, it was understood that the adviser would eventually become the supervisor. The students however insisted that th  advisors made it “amply clear” to them “that they should not assume that they would be their eventual supervisors”. The report records that this creates “uncertainty in the minds of students…compounded when [they] see some of their colleagues being already treated as full-time research scholars and permitted to use the labs of their faculty advisers.” One might think that the rules being arbitrary for all students, the most one can accuse the school of is lack of “transparency” and “communication”. Therefore, the rules and procedures must be made “transparent”. This is also the report’s “finding” and its “recommendation”. But what are we to make of the following two statements? “…it is a fact that most of the students affected by the inconsistencies and ambiguities in procedures were SC/ST students” (p 4). Even more significantly, “[A]ll the Physics students that this Committee could meet have reported their sense that the School was acting against the interests of the SC/ST students” (p 4). It also tells us that out of four SC/ST students in the batch, two dropped out because they did not find supervisors, and one has now committed suicide.

The report categorically states, “Senthil was aware of all the problems being faced by other SC students in the School. He was not only beginning to believe that the SC/ST students were ‘being targeted’ in the School  but was also getting anxious about it. He spoke to friends about the case of one of his friends, who, in spit  of being a CSIR fellowship-holder and clearing all four papers in one attempt  ailed to pass the comprehensive viva examination. Such instances led him to think that the School had too many ‘obstacles’ for someone wanting to do a PhD in Physics” (p 5). When reports of Senthil’s death first came out, Srivastava told a newspaper “we did make personal recommendations with the academic council to not include students who are not up to the mark”. The report of the fact-finding committee has established that the “mark” this school seems to require is the mark of caste. The “arbitrariness” in the procedures of the school, then, is quite systematic; it seems designed to push out those dalit students who have managed to gain entry in spite of this special requirement. These are students who have battled such odds at every step to come to the department, and whose success is a testimony to their ability and their immense value to the academic community. The practices of the School of Physics then amount to upholding the caste-order at huge costs to science and higher education, and the nation at large. Elite Institutions The University of Hyderabad is no stranger to allegations of caste-based discrimination, that have also been the centre of many a political agitation. The rustication of 10 dalit students in 2002 – withou  an inquiry or any investigation – is only the most recent instance that comes to mind. But this is the first time that an official acknowledgement has come from the university, in spite of the vice chancellor, Syed Hasnain’s claim that the committee has not found “evidence” of discrimination.  The years following the Mandal agitation have given us the vocabulary to speak about caste in its new realised forms in modern institutions. While this new language has to some extent transformed the discussion in the humanities and socia  science disciplines, the “pure sciences” have been completely fenced  off from a social audit in the name of “objectivity” and “national progress”. It is significant that the latest round of agitation against reservations has been spearheaded by medical professionals, engineers and the IT sector. These disciplines have been at the forefront of pitting “merit” against “politics”, where one lies in the domain of truth and objectivity, while the other is merely a politician’s whim. The survival of these disciplines is linked to the prestige attached to them by virtue of their exclusivity. In this scheme of things Science is important inasmuch as the “masses” cannot approach it – it is an exclusivedomain, and zealously guarded as such Those who manage to get in in spite of these stringent gate-keeping mechanisms are made to pay a heavy price for their ability. A dalit research scholar committed suicide at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore last year, and no investigation was held. The Thorat Committee Report on AIIMS has documented the widespread manifestations of caste prejudice at that premier institution, where right from the ragging of students, to hostel accommodation, extracurricular activities, grades and classroom practices, all aspects of life bear the stamp of caste bias. How many more dropouts, humiliations and deaths will we need before recognising that institutions must be held accountable and the guilty punished? Senthilkumar’s suicide lies at the intersection of the academic malpractices of the School of Physics, the exclusivity of the “pure sciences”, the re-formed untouchability practised in university spaces and the threat to the status quo posed by reservation. Each of these questions has to be addressed if higher education is to be enabling and not merely accessible, for the large numbers of students who struggle to gain entry into it, only to be met with indifference, or downright hostility and humiliation. Reservations may provide access, but as Senthil’s death shows, the battle for democratising our institutions – and a genuinely progress-oriented science – is of a different order altogether.
Notes
1 The Thorat Committee Report on AIIMS,
which has been conveniently forgotten in the
euphoria surrounding Venugopal’s reinstatement
as director.
2 TOI, February 26, 2008.

Senthilkumar’s Suicide,University of Hyderabad(HCU)

PhD scholar found dead in hostel room

(Source : TOT,25th February 2008)
Hyderabad: A research scholar of the University of Hyderabad was found dead under suspicious circumstances in his hostel room on Sunday. Senthil Kumar, a PhD student from Tamil Nadu enrolled for physics in 2007, was lying naked on the floor of his room in the New Research Scholar hostel with bruises on his hands, face and neck, the police said.
Senthil’s death sent shockwaves among students. Student organisations alleged Senthil, a Dalit who was admitted on a reserved seat, was under pressure as he was not assigned a guide even after a year of study. The university, however, ruled out any harassment on the basis of his caste. “We had gone to his room first on Sunday morning, but he did not open the door. We assumed he might be sleeping. But when he did not open the door in the afternoon we became suspicious,’’ his classmate told TOI. He saw Senthil lying on the floor face down through the window. On breaking the door, we found him dead. TNN

THORAT COMMITTEE REPORT Caste Discrimination in AIIMS

Economic and Political Weekly June 2, 2007

Thorat Committee Report

The country’s premier medical college, the All-India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi was
and continues to be the centre of aggressive anti-reservation
agitations that began in early 2006. Following harassment from
upper caste student groups, the scheduled caste/scheduled
tribe (SC/ST) students moved out of their randomly allotted
hostel rooms to live in clusters among themselves. When the
complaints by these students were reported in the media, the
government appointed a committee headed by University
Grants Commission chairperson, Sukhdeo Thorat to investigate
and report on the matter.
The struggle that SC/ST students face to enter premier
institutions of higher learning seems mild compared to what
they have to put up with later. On top of coping with academic
challenges (especially if they are the first among their families
to make it to these higher echelons of learning) and a totally
unfamiliar environment, many dalit students have to deal with
the hostility that comes with being a “reserved category student”.
At present there are 55 undergraduate medical students in
the reserved category out of a total of 250 undergraduate
students and the committee interacted with 25 of them. It began
with a very telling experience. Despite requests to display notices
about the committee’s meetings, no notices were displayed
at prominent places. As a grant-in-aid institution, the AIIMS
is expected to comply with all the directives of the government
and provide for the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards to
the weaker sections. Despite this, there is no grievance redressal
mechanism to deal with complaints of non-compliance of
constitutional protection or a special cell to help SC/ST students
cope with academic, financial and language difficulties.
Educational institutions, notes the committee, are required
to undertake remedial coaching for the SC/ST students for
enhancement of their language skills and also other “catching
up programmes”. AIIMS has not done so despite 84 per cent
of the SC/ST students saying they need such coaching. Again,
the faculty here would have a dominant role to play in the
students’ progress, not merely via classroom teaching but also
through personal interaction. The examination system in AIIMS
has a 50 per cent internal assessment component. Most of the
students complained that teachers were inaccessible and plain
indifferent towards them. About 85 per cent of them said they
do not get as much time with the examiners as their highercaste counterparts do. Nearly 76 per cent reported that the
examiner wanted to know their caste background; about 84
per cent said their caste background was solicited either directly
or indirectly.
The committee found that over a period of time around 29
SC/ST students have moved from their allotted rooms to be
closer to other SC/ST students. The one-month of ragging
to which the authorities turn a blind eye is sheer hell for these
students since they are publicly subjected to caste-based
questions, taunts and jeering. Many of the students said they
moved because their rooms would be locked from outside
repeatedly while they were in, vulgar abuse would be scrawled
on the doors and it would be made clear that this would stop
only if they moved to floors where other SC/ST students
stayed. They also faced social isolation, refusal to share books
and notes and objections to sharing seats in class. While the
general messes are open to them, they find it difficult to access
the private messes. Again, “casteist” attitudes lead to low
participation of these students in cultural events like ‘Pulse’
and sports activities. In short, every aspect of academic life
that makes it an enjoyable experience and helps to balance
the stress of rigorous studies is fraught with more stress and
conflict for the SC/ST students.

Nor is the situation better as far as the junior residents
(postgraduate students) are concerned. The committee has
quoted case histories to show that those who supported the
pro-quota movement actively had to suffer for it. It also notes
that the AIIMS follows a reservation policy in the selection
of junior residents, which is unique, not sanctioned by the
constitution or the directives of the central government. As far
as the SC/ST faculty are concerned, their written complaints to
the committee are of a serious nature, ranging from non-filling
of reserved posts to denial of opportunities to develop better
skills and gain further experience. In the selection of senior
residents and faculty, the post-based roster system is not followed,
the liaison office does not deal with their appointments
and has not submitted any reports to the government about
the institute’s compliance with reservation policy/rules regarding
such appointments, as is required by law. Consequently,
the reservation policy for students, resident doctors and faculty
is dealt with by the administration in an ad hoc manner.
The committee has recommended that AIIMS should initiate
a dialogue between the faculty and the SC/ST students, take
steps to ensure greater interaction between all categories of
students, undertake remedial coaching and also deal with the
complaints of the faculty. It has also suggested that the AIIMS
set up a joint committee of students, residents and faculty to
study the social divide on campus. According to the committee,
“the AIIMS authority has not recognised the gravity of the
social divide that has emerged over a period of time. Neither

did it develop any mechanism to check this tendency of caste

divide.” Even more serious, a number of representations from

the SC/ST students were simply ignored by the authorities.
Ensuring admission to institutions of higher learning for the
socially discriminated is meaningless if even premier colleges
funded by the government do not take even the most basic
steps to make this access meaningful

MPs allege caste-based discrimination at AIIMS

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 1658 hours IST

New Delhi, March 21: Parliamentarians on Wednesday staged a demonstration at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) alleging caste-based discrimination against medicos at the institute.

The premier healthcare institute had been rocked with student protests a few months back after a group of medicos claimed that some of them were failed in examinations because they belonged to a different caste.”Students are failed on caste basis. They face discrimination from day one. We have written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, met the health minister and raised questions in Parliament,” said Rajya Sabha member Nirmala Deshpande.

Deshpande, who was leading a group of five MPs in the protest at AIIMS, Ajay Singh, a final year student belonging to the Scheduled Caste was allegedly discriminated against and failed in the examination.

She claimed that the AIIMS governing body had ordered a re-test under a different set of examiners, which was flouted and the same examiners failed Ajay Singh for a second time.

EVEN IF I NEVER BECOME A DOCTOR, I WILL NOT GIVE UP THIS FIGHT

( http://www.tehelka.com )

I was in Class viii when I first heard about AIIMS, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. My mother was a nurse, and the doctor she worked with in Etah, my hometown, had a nephew at AIIMS. He visited Etah once, and my mother was very keen that I meet him. “You need to read a lot if you want to go to AIIMS,” he said. That’s when I told myself I’d study there somehow, someday.

The harassment peaked during the anti-reservation protests of 2006. They were always trying to start fights so they could bash us up. Derogatory remarks were common: ‘Yeh chamar log kya karenge?’

My father, who drives an autorickshaw, wouldn’t have been able to send me to Delhi for coaching had it not been for my Physics teacher who helped me get a concession on the fees. I got into AIIMS with 66.16 percent, the same as the “General” cut-off that year. Nirpat Singh, the autodriver, and Munni Devi , the nurse, were very proud of their son. It was a big moment for all of us when we entered the campus of India’s premier medical sciences college.

As soon as my parents left, I was summoned by my neighbour, a senior, who asked me to introduce myself. Among other things, I told him I had stood first on the Scheduled Caste list. The next moment I found myself outside the room, on the ground; he had pushed me out. That was just the first day. The next time he tried to insult me, I told him I’d complain. While he never spoke to me as long as he was on campus, he told his friends about the incident and they boycotted me too.

Ever since, I have been reminded of my “low” status every moment I have been here. I was the only “Category” student in my wing. One day, I found this on my door: “Nobody likes you here. F**k off.” On another day: “Everybody can use the carom board, but not Room No 45.” People would bang and kick at my door at all hours, disappearing by the time I opened it. They tried their best to make me leave, but I told myself I wouldn’t, no matter what. I gradually isolated myself from them, and started interacting only with others from the “Category”.

I had been to school at the Navodaya Vidyalaya for seven years, and I knew about casteism from my experience there, but it was nothing compared to AIIMS. In school, I used to think I wouldn’t have to go through the same humiliations if I were at a big institution. I came to the biggest of them all, but in vain. At least we would eat together at Navodaya.

It is true that not all General Category students are casteist, but caste cuts through everything at AIIMS. They won’t talk to us. We have no representation in the students’ union this year. They won’t let us play cricket; in a basket ball match, they won’t pass us the ball once. The hatred was out in the open in 2003, during Pulse (AIIMS’ annual medical college festival). They beat up a Dalit student so badly that it was a miracle he survived. We went to complain, but the administration was ready only to dismiss both parties: those who attacked and those who were attacked. Having been beaten up, he didn’t want to go through that, so he withdrew.

The harassment reached a high during the anti-reservation protests of 2006. There were more than a thousand outsiders staying on campus during those days. They slept in our hostels and ate in our messes. Derogatory remarks were common: “Yeh chamar log kya karenge?” They were always trying to start fights so they could bash us up. They even made plans to beat up a few resident doctors. There was no point complaining. Nobody was willing to listen. The media chose to portray last year’s events as if everyone at AIIMS — scs, sts and obcs included — was against reservation. “Category” juniors were dragged out during ragging and forced to participate in the protests; in many of these, they came under baton charges from the police. I could see them going through trauma; I took the initiative and told the director that ragging was being prolonged even after the stipulated time. Nothing happened. They also beat up our gym secretary, a “Category” student. That got all of us very upset. Pushed to the wall, we decided to submit a memorandum. The director, Dr P. Venugopal, promised to act within 24 hours — and he did. All the people we named were informed, and all of them came to each one of us and threatened us with dire consequences if we did not withdraw the complaint. We didn’t; instead we wrote another, this time to the President of AIIMS. There was no response. Then we went to the media.

We were accused of obstructing Pulse 2006. They did that to malign us and turn student sentiment against us. We put up posters clarifying our stand — we had nothing against Pulse, we just wanted the harassment stopped. During Pulse, a cd was circulated with a film showing the burning of books written by Babasaheb Ambedkar. I called a press conference against the film; I didn’t get much support. An enquiry committee was appointed, and they asked me why I was out to tarnish AIIMS’ reputation. I told them I had no choice when no help was forthcoming.

Never before had a “Category” student raised his voice this way.

They decided to teach me a lesson, and send out a message to all the “Category” students of the campus. They failed me in my final professional exam, which was in December. If I fail three times, I will be disqualified. My re-examination was video-recorded — though it is unheard-of, I wouldn’t have had any problem had they informed me beforehand. I wrote another complaint to the director about this illegal recording. A day before the results were due, my result was leaked. Posters were pasted all over campus declaring that the student who had complained and called the press conference had failed. I filed a police complaint. We held a series of protests, as a result of which the Centre formed a committee headed by the University Grants Commission chairman Sukhdeo Thorat, to look into the matter. The AIIMS director did not even allocate it a room, and the hearings happened off-campus. I gathered everyone and we went to depose in groups.

I knew I would fail when the only question I was asked on my viva was: “What is your involvement with the Thorat report?” Six or seven students had scored lower in the internal marks than I — all passed, I did not. I was failed in medicine in my re-professional exam by one-and-a-half marks. We later got to know that the faculty association had passed a resolution two days before the vivas that no one would take my re-examination viva. And the director still hasn’t accepted the governing body’s order to grant me re-examination with a new set of examiners.

All this is being done to scare my juniors. My case will be an example, since I am in my final year.

I had an opportunity recently for an internship at the University of Penn-sylvania. AIIMS couldn’t do anything about it, so they got in touch with their seniors there, who, as I have heard, assured them they would “set me right”.

If I am not destined to be a doctor, I won’t be. But I will not give up this fight. Even if I never become a doctor, I have a great satisfaction already. No voices were heard in the past. Now people are willing to come to protest. There are 45 “Category” boys at AIIMS, and whenever there is a protest, at least 40 of them turn up.

Though my father is an auto driver, people respect him in my hometown. My parents have taught me to safeguard my dignity at all costs, and that’s what I am doing now. Though it was not easy, I don’t feel it has been all that tough either.

As told to Praveen Donthi

Jun 02 , 2007

(AJAY KUMAR SINGH Born in 1982. Grew up in Etah in Uttar Pradesh. Gained admission in 2002 at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Is in his MBBS final year )

SC/ST students at AIIMS face discrimination

Posted online: Sunday, May 06, 2007 at 1353 hours IST

(http://www.expressindia.com)

New Delhi, May 6: SC/ST students at AIIMS face discrimination at all levels right from consultation with teachers, during examinations and even in hostels, a committee probing discrimination at the institute said slamming authorities for not recognising the gravity of the social divide.

The committee, headed by UGC Chairman Prof S K Thorat, in its report said their is sufficient evidence to support the view that AIIMS administration headed by the Director P Venugopal played a proactive role in the organization of the anti-quota agitation last year.

The report, which was submitted to Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss, said SC/ST students face discrimination at all level right from consultation with teachers, in the classroom, during examination and even in hostel.

Saying that AIIMS should address the issue immediately, it held that “the consequences of the social exclusion for SC/ST are far more serious as this has developed in to psychological problems and a sense of insecurity among them”.

The IISc suicides: Where is the scientific temper? by Anita Ratnam

Suicides by two research scholars in a short span of three months at the Indian Institute of Science,(IISc) Bangalore is sure to once again highlight the academic pressures at this premier institute. Yet to assume that these tragic deaths were due to the stress of a rigorous research programme could amount to missing the core problem. While academic performance related stress might be a reality at IISC, both Ajay’s suicide on August 27 and Chaitra’s suicide on November 19 point to other causes not directly connected to academics.

In Ajay’s case specifically, though the Institute has tried to project his inability to cope with the course as the cause of his suicide, his brilliant academic record, his diary and the voices emerging from dalit students’ networks, indicate that caste related harassment was one of the factors that led to his death. Is it possible that a dalit student in IISc today actually encounters stigma and hostility from colleagues and teachers?

The facts are that every educational or other modern institution in our country is a microcosm of larger Indian society where caste lines are reproduced. IISc is no exception. In fact, given the historical advantage that upper castes have enjoyed in terms of access to quality higher education especially in the sciences, their over representation among students and faculty in institutes like IISC is no accident. Their domination in terms of numbers, suggests that upper caste attitudes as well as pre-conceptions and myths about inferior intellectual abilities of scheduled castes, pervade these institutions. Such a setting could be tremendously intimidating for young dalit students. They have to cope with the various pressures that most students face including homesickness, tensions in the teacher-student relationships and the sense of alienation in a English speaking setting .In addition they also deal with an additional dimension of subtle or overt caste prejudice alongside expectations from dalit families who are the first generation in such institutes.

In a study by the Centre for Study of Violence and Reconciliation in 2003, Shobna Sonpar who has looked at the various dimensions of casteism in IIT Delhi, highlights the sense of being “academically ‘outcaste’, inferior and ‘not entitled’ to these highly coveted seats.”‘ She also elaborates on how academic stigma inside IIT reasonated with the caste stigma that they have carried throughout their lives to the extent that even minor incidents (not necessarily caste-related) triggered overwhelming feelings of shame and anger. The report describes how these students have coped with a sense of being ignored or looked down upon by lying low and remaining at the margins of institutional life and by associating mainly with others from similar backgrounds. In such a context, any attempt at understanding Ajay’s death needs to take into account all these above nuances.

In the case of Chaitra, what comes across is that her being 32 years old and unmarried was a source of great stress for her family who were pressurising her to “see” boys they had lined up for her. Whether Chaitra was averse to getting married in the near future or wanted to marry someone her parents could disapprove of is not yet clear. Yet, the immediate trigger for her suicide was the fact that parents were arranging her marriage. The manner of her suicide, by consuming poison just before boarding the bus to her hometown, suggests she simply did not want to reach home alive.

Here again the gender bias in our society, the non acceptance of the un-married woman and the lack of autonomy young people have in choosing when and whom to marry form the backdrop for this tragedy.

That a young woman scientist being trained in Nano-Materials Engineering should find it so difficult to assert herself in the face of societal pressure says a lot about our families and our educational institutions. It also implies that even high level of science education does not equip one to deal with such a strain. It’s a cruel irony that despite Chaitra having spent 3-4 years in IISc, instances of women successfully defying such familial pressure, had not become part of her worldview.

In both instances, the disturbing issue is that neither the campus composition nor the campus culture at IISC could provide a counter point or role models or a platform to help these two brilliant young people to confront the oppression they were facing. Is this unique to IISc or is this the scenario in our institutes of higher education? Do scientists and science Institutes in India extend their scientific temper to questioning social mores, structures and traditions?

Surely, the very essence of science has been the exploration of reason and the rejection of blind beliefs in the name of tradition, culture and religion. And that is what one expects from the scientific community. Yet we find religious fundamentalism, cultural dogma, astrology, Vedic creationism and obscurantism among our scientific community even today. Rocket scientists performing Poojas for the safe launch of rockets and a DNA scientist attempting to prove that his tribal wife had a different DNA from his caste are only some of the outrageous incidents that hide a larger malaise. Of late, attempts by Hindutva forces to portray the Vedas as science have come to the fore once again blurring the lines between what is scientific and what is sacred. The marginalisation of women and the exclusion of dalits could therefore be given scientific sanctity!

Thanks to Meera Nanda and others who have been writing about the philosophy and sociology of science, we are now more aware that science in India is worshipped as a tool of progress and production, but not used to challenge prejudice or create a more rational or just society.

Attempts have been made at IISC to set up counselling systems for students in distress due to academic strain. The question here is, will these be gender blind and caste blind or will these counselling mechanisms be sensitive to the role that caste, gender, language, religion and class play in student’s stress levels? Is IISc ready to address fundamentals in terms of the sociology of the Institute and the institutionalised hegemonies of caste and gender that are operating insidiously? So far there seems to be a total denial on this score and a tendency to place blame wholly on individuals. In fact denial of oppression is the worst form of subjugation as it takes away any avenues to even name what is happening, let alone provide spaces to deal with it.

More recently special attempts have been made at IISC to recruit and fill at least the “reserved quota” posts and student seats. Will this really make a difference? Shobna Sonpar’s study about IIT Delhi and the Thorat Committee Study at AIIMS reveal that faculty and students from socially advantaged backgrounds carry an exaggerated sense of their entitlement to study/work at IIT/AIIMS claiming superior intellectual ability. They also carry a sense of disentitlement towards SC/ST students whom they feel do not deserve these seats. Filling up vacancies through Special Drives would amount to merely cosmetic changes, if these students and staff are not going to feel any sense of belonging and inclusion in these institutions. And more tragedies like Ajay and Chaitra could be lurking beneath the surface.

( Anita is Founder Director of Samvada Youth Resource Centres and the Chairperson of the National Youth Foundation. She has been involved in working with young people and initiating them into activism since 1984. Her work includes innovative research, designing and facilitating workshops and writing on a variety of social issues. )