Student suicides in universities are often a product of institutional violence. We must take a stand
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
29 minutes ago
- India.com
Touchdown In Jaipur: Ukraine's First Lady Refuels Diplomacy En Route To Tokyo
New Delhi: Jaipur stirred at dawn. Wrapped in a soft morning haze, Rajasthan's pink city turned briefly into a stage of diplomacy. At 6:30 am on August 3, wheels touched the tarmac as a sleek aircraft arrived with a 23-member Ukrainian delegation. First Lady Olena Zelenska stepped off. Her presence was composed and poised. Walking beside her was Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, who also serves as deputy head of the Presidential Office. Senior officials from Kyiv followed with measured steps and focused expressions. Their suits were sharp and movements purposeful. The mission continued toward Tokyo, passing through the warmth of Jaipur's still-sleeping skies, leaving behind the trace of protocol. The unscheduled stop was not for diplomacy on Indian soil. It was for fuel. However, it did not go unnoticed. The Ministry of External Affairs had cleared the protocol well in advance. On August 1, India's Foreign Ministry issued instructions to the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security to ensure full courtesies. The delegation was exempted from frisking and pre-embarkation checks. Following the official directive, Jaipur airport staff arranged VIP services for the brief halt. The visiting team included Ukraine's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Sergiy Kyslytsya and Minister for Economic Affairs Oleksii Sobolev. They exited the aircraft and spent time in the VIP lounge. Ukrainian Embassy officials from Delhi had reached Jaipur early to receive them over light refreshments and conversations. Immigration clearance was not required. Around 8:15 am, the delegation boarded the plane again and resumed their journey to Tokyo. The visit to Japan carries weight. Ukrainian officials are expected to meet their Japanese counterparts to reinforce ties. The focus is likely to fall on two priorities: increased sanctions on Russia and support for Ukraine's war-ravaged economy. India's connection to Ukraine runs deep. Back in December 1991, India was one of the first nations to recognise Ukraine's independence. Diplomatic relations followed just a month later, in January 1992. Since then, ties have expanded across trade, education and mutual cooperation. Jaipur's brief appearance in Ukraine's journey to Tokyo may not make the front pages. But on the map of international diplomacy, it marks another moment where protocols, preparation and partnerships aligned, long enough to refuel.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bullying tactics: on India pushing back against the U.S., the EU
After months of considerable forbearance, the statement by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), on Monday, pushing back against the U.S. and the European Union (EU) for 'targeting' India is significant. The statement came two hours after Mr. Trump had announced penalty tariffs against India, 'substantially' above the current 25% rate set to go into place this week, for importing, processing and selling Russian oil. A day earlier, a senior Trump aide had accused India of 'financing' Russia's war in Ukraine. And on July 18, the EU had announced sanctions on India's Vadinar refinery (partially Russian owned), and secondary sanctions that will affect Indian refiners. The MEA spokesperson said that the measures were 'unjustified and unreasonable' as the U.S. and the EU continue to trade with Russia for goods including LNG, critical minerals and nuclear fuel requirements. The statement also said that it was the U.S. that had encouraged India to keep buying Russian oil to stabilise global markets, something the Biden administration had confirmed. The government said that in comparison to the western countries, India's Russian oil purchases are a 'vital national compulsion' as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, adding that India would '... safeguard its national interests and economic security'. The MEA's statement is the first such clear response on the issue since the Ukraine conflict. Taken with Union Minister Piyush Goyal's statement last week on the U.S. announcement of 25% reciprocal tariffs on India from August 7, Monday's statement indicates New Delhi's growing frustration with the U.S.'s increasingly offensive positions against India, including on immigration, trade negotiations, Operation Sindoor and Pakistan, and India's BRICS membership. It is unclear how and to what extent the government is prepared to stand up to the bullying tactics of Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump said on Tuesday that India has not been a 'good trading partner' — a possible reference to trade talks and the failure of a mini-deal, ostensibly over India's resistance on agricultural market access, dairy products and GM foods. While it is hoped that New Delhi will continue to engage Washington and Brussels to conclude their respective trade talks, the MEA statement is meant to make a larger point. Neither the U.S. nor the EU can decide which country India will partner or trade with. That message is being underlined in visits by Security Adviser Ajit Doval and External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar to Moscow, to prepare for the Russian President's visit to India later this year. India's sovereignty is non-negotiable and its foreign policy choices cannot be manipulated by other countries, no matter how significant their own ties with India are.
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
The technocratic calculus of India's welfare state
With a billion Aadhaar enrollments, 1,206 schemes integrated into the Direct Benefit Transfer system, and 36 grievance portals across States/Union Territories, India's welfare orientation is transitioning into a technocratic calculus. The promise to deliver social welfare at scale, bypassing leaky pipelines and eliminating ghost beneficiaries, might have led to a 're-casting' that delivers 'efficiency' and 'coverage' at the cost of 'democratic norms' and 'political accountability'. An offloading Are we witnessing the emergence of a post-rights based welfare regime? Is the Indian digital welfare state headed towards a systemic impasse? What is the technocratic calculus behind all this? Recent game-theoretic work shows that technocratic rule thrives where parties are polarised. Evidently, our questions have changed. We have shifted from 'who deserves support and why?' to 'how do we minimise leakage and maximise coverage?' Our politicians across party lines have rationally offloaded hard-choices onto data-driven algorithms without questioning the complexities of constitutional values. Contextualising Habermas's 'technocratic consciousness' and Foucault's 'governmentality', India's welfare architecture is increasingly shaped by measurable, auditable, and depoliticised rationality. Schemes such as E-SHRAM and PM KISAN embody a uni-directional, innovation-led logic that is streamlined, measurable, and intolerant of ambiguity or error. Conversely, we have deliberative calls for participatory planning and local feedback embodying the long forgotten core of democratic thinking resonating Giorgio Agamben's notion of homo sacer — a life stripped of political agency. Seemingly, welfare, in the contemporary context, has ceased to exist as a site of democratic deliberations. On a microscopic level, a rights-bearing citizen has been replaced by the auditable beneficiary. Thus, it calls for an urgent need for the state to revisit (in a Rancierean sense) whether it is curating who is visible, who can complain, and whose suffering is computable. Despite claims of a 'socialistic state', we observe a decade-low decline in India's social sector spending that has dwindled to 17% in 2024-25 from the 2014-24 average of 21%. Further, there are some interesting observations beyond plain statistics. Key social sector schemes have borne the brunt of such decline where minorities, labour, employment, nutrition and social security welfare saw a significant decline from 11% (in the pre-COVID-19 phase) to 3% (in post-COVID-19 phase). Parallely, social commentators often comment the Right to Information (RTI) regime to be in 'existential crisis' and further uncovering the cloak on RTI exposes a critical issue within the institution of dysfunctional information commissions. As of June 30, 2024, the number of pending cases crossed the four lakh tally across 29 Information Commission's (ICs), and eight CIC posts were vacant (annual report of CIC, 2023-24). The Indian welfare regime must recover its capacity for reflexivity and situated knowledge, elements that are very peculiar to gram sabhas and frontline bureaucratic discretions. To draw Rancière's critique on democracy, we highlight one major impending concern, that 'democracy depends on whose suffering is rendered visible and contestable, not merely computable'. This concern is further highlighted in Justice D.Y Chandrachud's Aadhaar dissent (2018), that warned precisely against such decontextualisation of identity which served as a caution against reducing citizens to disembedded, machinic data who are devoid of care, context, or even constitutional assurance in some cases. Another instance of algorithmic insulation Another worrisome trend is the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System's flattening of the federal hierarchies into ticket-tracking systems. Although it is a novel initiative resolving tickets and routing complaints across state agencies, empirical data show that lakhs of grievances were disposed of between 2022-24. But on a closer examination it might just be centralising the visibility but not the responsibility — a form of algorithmic insulation that renders political accountability increasingly elusive. These observations are not to dismiss the value of such initiatives. Rather, they invite a deeper conversation on how welfare governance can evolve for a more resilient and responsive state. The government should now think along the lines of 'democratic antifragility' so that our systems built on perfect data and flawless infrastructure do not fail catastrophically under stress (consider Taleb's 'hyper-integrated systems'). We need to empower States to design context-sensitive regimes where federalism and welfare push for pluralism as a feature. Institutionalising community-driven impact audits (as reiterated by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty), by looping in the Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan and Gram Panchayat Development Plans should be the core target. All States must be made capable to build platform cooperatives where self-help groups act as intermediaries; functionally, lessons can be learnt from Kerala's Kudumbashree. Civil society must be incentivised to invest in grass-roots political education and legal aid clinics in order to strengthen the community accountability mechanisms. Lastly, it is time we strengthen and codify our offline fall-back mechanisms, human feedback safeguards, and statutory bias audits by embedding the 'right to explanation and appeal' — as proposed by the UN Human Rights for digital governance systems. Focus on the citizen We, as citizens of India, must realise that a welfare state stripped of democratic deliberations is a machine that works efficiently for everyone except those it is meant to help. For a Viksit Bharat we will have to reorient digitisation with democratic and anti-fragile principles so that citizens become partners in governance, and not mere entries in a ledger. Anmol Rattan Singh is the Co-founder of the PANJ Foundation, a Punjab-based policy research think tank. Agastya Shukla is a Programme Associate at the PANJ Foundation, a Punjab-based policy research think tank
