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. )