Some discussions on the death of Sahil Wakode, a student at IIT-Bombay, have linked it to the ongoing national conversation about student suicides, highlighting issues such as academic pressure, disciplinary processes, the teacher-student relationship and mental-health support on campus. Yet there is perhaps too little emphasis on what may turn out to be the key factor in this case: The allegations of caste-based harassment, which have led to the police invoking the SC/ST Act alongside the offence of abetment of suicide. The entire issue really hinges on one question: Was a crime committed? If not, this could be one more tragic episode in that broader conversation about suicides. But if so, the focus needs to shift to casteism at elite institutes. That discussion is already happening, with much acrimony, at several institutes and on social media.

If a crime was committed, who did it? Wakode’s father has made allegations not just against Suryanarayana Doolla, the professor involved in the incident in the exam hall, but also the institute’s director, Shireesh Kedare. And if a crime was committed, over what period of time did it take place? The parents have spoken of harassment that had been going on for around three months, not just the incident in the exam hall on the day of their son’s death.

Advertisement

There is little detail in the public domain so far about these allegations, only rumours, supposed leaks and commentary. The claim that the student cheated in an exam is just that — a claim. In any case, it does nothing to disprove the allegation of ongoing harassment. The prudent approach would be to wait for more facts to be established and for the police to complete their probe. At this stage, the most important thing to emphasise is the need for a fair and thorough investigation.

Three aspects of the discourse emerging around this incident deserve special attention. One, this has turned into a STEM-versus-humanities conflict due to the involvement of humanities students in the protests. Predictably, the very need to teach the humanities at a technical institute is being questioned in a puerile manner. There could be no better argument than this for the necessity of ensuring all students get a strong grounding in social and political thought.

Two, the anxiety of the meritorious. The concerns raised by some who have rallied in support of the professor — that he is being scapegoated even though he simply did his job and followed the prescribed process — are remarkably similar to the fears over the now-stayed UGC Equity Regulations, as well as the decades-old anxieties around the “misuse” of the SC/ST Act. In this case, there are two problems. First, the facts of the “cheating” incident have yet to be established; it is not known if the proper process was followed. Second, by confining their indignation to that one incident, they sidestep the allegation of ongoing harassment.

Advertisement

Finally, there is the question of the perpetrator. Previously, in the context of OBCs, I have written about the need for a reframing — from “backward” to “oppressed”. One thing this does is that it acknowledges the existence of perpetrators; “oppression” is always carried out by an “oppressor”. If this case is truly about lack of mental-health support or institutional lacunae in some broad sense, then there is no perpetrator. One may lament and call on the administration to do better, but everyone is responsible and therefore no one is accountable. Crime, on the other hand, is done by criminals, casteism by casteists. The investigation will, hopefully, establish which is the case here.