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
