We feel greatly saddened to report the unfortunate suicide committed by one of our research students, Mr. Rohit Vemula, working for Ph.D. in Centre for Knowledge Culture and Innovation Studies, under the School of Social Sciences. Mr. Vemula was one of the five boys who were asked to vacate the hostel on account of an incident that occurred during the intervening night of 3rd and 4th August 2015. Incidentally, all five of them are Dalit students. It all happened when there was an alleged attack by a group of students in one of the hostels, on a student by name, Mr. Susheel Kumar, School of Humanities.
Mr. Susheel Kumar, the then President of the ABVP Unit on the campus, was allegedly attacked by a group of students belonging to the Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) during that intervening night. The Proctorial Board of the University had inquired into the matter and submitted an interim report before talking to the victim and a final report after talking to the victim. When the Executive council (EC) approved the punishment to expel the five students (including Mr. Rohit Vemula who committed suicide), the ASA students did not allow the University administration to function for two days consecutively forcing the then in-charge Vice-Chancellor, Prof. R.P. Sharma, to withdraw the order; however, with a condition that the matter will be looked into afresh.
Accordingly, a committee was constituted by Prof. Sharma but the committee replied back, after Prof. Appa Rao took over the charge as the Vice-Chancellor at the end of September 2015, indicating that the recommendations of the statutory bodies like Proctorial Board and Executive Council cannot be reviewed by such a committee.
Meanwhile, Mr. Susheel Kumar’s (victim) mother filed a case in the High Court and the Court was repeatedly asking the University Legal Counsel to inform the action taken on the recommendations of the Proctorial Board. In the middle of November 2015, the High Court had ordered the University Legal Counsel to submit the action taken report with a few days’ deadline. Otherwise, the Judge was taking the matter seriously. The University had a meeting of the Deans and Administrative Officers of the University in which the Controller of Examinations, Chief Warden and Dean of Students’ Welfare (DSW) were also a part. It was decided that in the given circumstances, an EC Sub-committee headed by the Seniormost Professor on EC as Chairperson will examine the matter and submit recommendations. Since none of the EC members was from Dalit community, we had requested the Dean of Students’ Welfare (Prof. P. Prakash Babu) to be part of the EC Sub-committee. He is also a Statutory Officer of the University. We had also asked the Chief Proctor and others to give inputs to the committee. The committee had very short time as the deadline was approaching fast.
The EC Sub-committee, after fairly long deliberations and after consulting the University security and local Police Officers, upheld the recommendations of the Proctorial Board and recommended to the EC that the said five students be awarded punishment as recommended earlier. At the full EC meeting that was held on 27 November 2015, the VC proposed to the EC to be a bit lenient because the recommended punishment will deprive the students of the scholarships to continue Ph.D. after the one semester expulsion recommended by the Proctorial Board. As the Chairman of the EC, the VC had taken the DSW into confidence, and reduced the scale of punishment to benefit the students. The full EC agreed to the VC’s proposal to be lenient but as a regular practice followed in the University for several years, it was indicated that these students will be permitted in the respective Schools/Departments/Centres, Library and Academic meetings but not in the hostel, administration and other public places on the campus as part of groups. The decision of the EC was submitted in writing to the University Legal Counsel. It was communicated to the students, after the said EC minutes were approved by the members. First, the minutes were posted on the University website and later the formal orders were issued to the students concerned.
The Chief Warden communicated the same to the students around 20th December 2015 and asked the students to vacate the hostel. He had double-locked the rooms wherever required and submitted a report to the University. The DSW was in touch with the students. Subsequently, on behalf of the students, there was a group of students who met the VC and demanded revocation of hostel suspension as they felt it was a “social boycott”. They were linking this punishment to the letter from the Hon’ble Minister, Sri Bandaru Dattatreya (enquiring about the August 3/4, 2015 night incident) forwarded by the MHRD. It was adequately explained to the students that the letter received from MHRD or the Minister’s letter had no influence whatsoever on the said EC decision. Later, the five students expelled from the hostel, moved the Hon’ble High Court seeking stay on the hostel suspension. The Hon’ble High Court Judge observed that this petition be heard together with the one which was already in front of the Court on the same matter (filed by Susheel’s mother) and posted it for January 19, 2016. We understood the matter, therefore, as sub judice. Further, it was felt that the earlier decision of the EC in September 2015 was already reviewed by the EC on a letter given by the students. Hence, the decision of the EC, this time as Appellate Authority, can only be reviewed by the
Court was our opinion and maintained the same in our discussions with the students. All the five students suspended from the hostels were eligible for fellowships. Two of them get regular JRF/SRF with HRA eligibility and the other three were getting non-NET fellowship. In fact, one Mr. Sunkanna, School of Humanities, among these five students, has even submitted his thesis after August 2015. On Jan 03, 2016, the students decided to protest as “Sleep in Open” at the Shopping Complex of the University. The students erected a small tent and started sleeping at Shopping Complex in the University. Three of them were found sleeping at Shopping Complex.
The DSW was regularly discussing with these students and counselling them to have
patience to know the Court’s decision in this regard. Meanwhile, a student JAC, including
the Students’ Union represented by SFI, was building pressure on the University. On 13th
January 2016, when the regular VC was away, the members of the JAC closed down the
administration building and did not allow the employees to enter it. They demanded that the regular VC should come, revoke suspension and then only they will agree. The VC advanced his return journey and reached the campus on January 13th night (cancelling appointments in Delhi) and called for a meeting of EC members, senior Deans and DSW on 14th January 2016 morning on the course of action to be taken. It was decided that there will be an oral appeal, followed by a written appeal to the students to allow the administration to function. However, in the event the students did not listen, the University would take the help from the police to allow the University to function. However, the class work was not affected on 13th and 14th January 2016.
On January 14th morning, by 12.20 pm or so, they allowed the employees to get in after we issued a written appeal and sent our Security Officer to the local Police Station seeking formal help. Subsequently, the VC talked to the representatives of the JAC along with the President of the Students’ Union for about 2 hours and explained the position. It was repeatedly appealed to the JAC members that they should wait for the Court’s decision on a matter that was sub judice. The expelled students were not part of this JAC. The expelled students continued to sleep in the tent.
On Sunday morning, January 17, 2016, it was realized that the JAC erected a tent and was planning to announce some form of hunger strike. The VC, Registrar, DSW and other senior faculty members discussed the matter and were planning to speak to the students once again to avoid the hunger strike.
All of a sudden at 7 pm on 17th January 2016, the sad news broke out and the campus was disturbed. The suicide note left behind the deceased had no mention about this hostel expulsion. The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area suggested that the Chief Proctor, DSW and the VC should move out of the campus with family.
The rest of the events on the campus in this regard have been reported regularly by the print and electronic media on 18th and 19th January 2016.
The matter was to come up on 19th January 2016 in the High Court and somehow it did not come up today. At present, we do not know when the matter will come up next.
Further, the MHRD has sent a two-member Fact Finding Committee to the University to interact with the stakeholders and report back to the Ministry. The committee has started its interactions on the campus.
This University had earlier resolved critical issues and this issue also needs to be resolved through discussions with University Administration. The Vice-Chancellor has, therefore, appealed to everyone in the University to allow regular class work to be taken up immediately especially when there is a tight academic schedule to complete in the shortened semester. The senior teachers in the University are willing to pave way for discussions on matters concerning this incident with the University Administration.
Mr. Susheel Kumar, the then President of the ABVP Unit on the campus, was allegedly attacked by a group of students belonging to the Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) during that intervening night. The Proctorial Board of the University had inquired into the matter and submitted an interim report before talking to the victim and a final report after talking to the victim. When the Executive council (EC) approved the punishment to expel the five students (including Mr. Rohit Vemula who committed suicide), the ASA students did not allow the University administration to function for two days consecutively forcing the then in-charge Vice-Chancellor, Prof. R.P. Sharma, to withdraw the order; however, with a condition that the matter will be looked into afresh.
Accordingly, a committee was constituted by Prof. Sharma but the committee replied back, after Prof. Appa Rao took over the charge as the Vice-Chancellor at the end of September 2015, indicating that the recommendations of the statutory bodies like Proctorial Board and Executive Council cannot be reviewed by such a committee.
Meanwhile, Mr. Susheel Kumar’s (victim) mother filed a case in the High Court and the Court was repeatedly asking the University Legal Counsel to inform the action taken on the recommendations of the Proctorial Board. In the middle of November 2015, the High Court had ordered the University Legal Counsel to submit the action taken report with a few days’ deadline. Otherwise, the Judge was taking the matter seriously. The University had a meeting of the Deans and Administrative Officers of the University in which the Controller of Examinations, Chief Warden and Dean of Students’ Welfare (DSW) were also a part. It was decided that in the given circumstances, an EC Sub-committee headed by the Seniormost Professor on EC as Chairperson will examine the matter and submit recommendations. Since none of the EC members was from Dalit community, we had requested the Dean of Students’ Welfare (Prof. P. Prakash Babu) to be part of the EC Sub-committee. He is also a Statutory Officer of the University. We had also asked the Chief Proctor and others to give inputs to the committee. The committee had very short time as the deadline was approaching fast.
The EC Sub-committee, after fairly long deliberations and after consulting the University security and local Police Officers, upheld the recommendations of the Proctorial Board and recommended to the EC that the said five students be awarded punishment as recommended earlier. At the full EC meeting that was held on 27 November 2015, the VC proposed to the EC to be a bit lenient because the recommended punishment will deprive the students of the scholarships to continue Ph.D. after the one semester expulsion recommended by the Proctorial Board. As the Chairman of the EC, the VC had taken the DSW into confidence, and reduced the scale of punishment to benefit the students. The full EC agreed to the VC’s proposal to be lenient but as a regular practice followed in the University for several years, it was indicated that these students will be permitted in the respective Schools/Departments/Centres, Library and Academic meetings but not in the hostel, administration and other public places on the campus as part of groups. The decision of the EC was submitted in writing to the University Legal Counsel. It was communicated to the students, after the said EC minutes were approved by the members. First, the minutes were posted on the University website and later the formal orders were issued to the students concerned.
The Chief Warden communicated the same to the students around 20th December 2015 and asked the students to vacate the hostel. He had double-locked the rooms wherever required and submitted a report to the University. The DSW was in touch with the students. Subsequently, on behalf of the students, there was a group of students who met the VC and demanded revocation of hostel suspension as they felt it was a “social boycott”. They were linking this punishment to the letter from the Hon’ble Minister, Sri Bandaru Dattatreya (enquiring about the August 3/4, 2015 night incident) forwarded by the MHRD. It was adequately explained to the students that the letter received from MHRD or the Minister’s letter had no influence whatsoever on the said EC decision. Later, the five students expelled from the hostel, moved the Hon’ble High Court seeking stay on the hostel suspension. The Hon’ble High Court Judge observed that this petition be heard together with the one which was already in front of the Court on the same matter (filed by Susheel’s mother) and posted it for January 19, 2016. We understood the matter, therefore, as sub judice. Further, it was felt that the earlier decision of the EC in September 2015 was already reviewed by the EC on a letter given by the students. Hence, the decision of the EC, this time as Appellate Authority, can only be reviewed by the
Court was our opinion and maintained the same in our discussions with the students. All the five students suspended from the hostels were eligible for fellowships. Two of them get regular JRF/SRF with HRA eligibility and the other three were getting non-NET fellowship. In fact, one Mr. Sunkanna, School of Humanities, among these five students, has even submitted his thesis after August 2015. On Jan 03, 2016, the students decided to protest as “Sleep in Open” at the Shopping Complex of the University. The students erected a small tent and started sleeping at Shopping Complex in the University. Three of them were found sleeping at Shopping Complex.
The DSW was regularly discussing with these students and counselling them to have
patience to know the Court’s decision in this regard. Meanwhile, a student JAC, including
the Students’ Union represented by SFI, was building pressure on the University. On 13th
January 2016, when the regular VC was away, the members of the JAC closed down the
administration building and did not allow the employees to enter it. They demanded that the regular VC should come, revoke suspension and then only they will agree. The VC advanced his return journey and reached the campus on January 13th night (cancelling appointments in Delhi) and called for a meeting of EC members, senior Deans and DSW on 14th January 2016 morning on the course of action to be taken. It was decided that there will be an oral appeal, followed by a written appeal to the students to allow the administration to function. However, in the event the students did not listen, the University would take the help from the police to allow the University to function. However, the class work was not affected on 13th and 14th January 2016.
On January 14th morning, by 12.20 pm or so, they allowed the employees to get in after we issued a written appeal and sent our Security Officer to the local Police Station seeking formal help. Subsequently, the VC talked to the representatives of the JAC along with the President of the Students’ Union for about 2 hours and explained the position. It was repeatedly appealed to the JAC members that they should wait for the Court’s decision on a matter that was sub judice. The expelled students were not part of this JAC. The expelled students continued to sleep in the tent.
On Sunday morning, January 17, 2016, it was realized that the JAC erected a tent and was planning to announce some form of hunger strike. The VC, Registrar, DSW and other senior faculty members discussed the matter and were planning to speak to the students once again to avoid the hunger strike.
All of a sudden at 7 pm on 17th January 2016, the sad news broke out and the campus was disturbed. The suicide note left behind the deceased had no mention about this hostel expulsion. The Deputy Commissioner of Police of the area suggested that the Chief Proctor, DSW and the VC should move out of the campus with family.
The rest of the events on the campus in this regard have been reported regularly by the print and electronic media on 18th and 19th January 2016.
The matter was to come up on 19th January 2016 in the High Court and somehow it did not come up today. At present, we do not know when the matter will come up next.
Further, the MHRD has sent a two-member Fact Finding Committee to the University to interact with the stakeholders and report back to the Ministry. The committee has started its interactions on the campus.
This University had earlier resolved critical issues and this issue also needs to be resolved through discussions with University Administration. The Vice-Chancellor has, therefore, appealed to everyone in the University to allow regular class work to be taken up immediately especially when there is a tight academic schedule to complete in the shortened semester. The senior teachers in the University are willing to pave way for discussions on matters concerning this incident with the University Administration.
No comments:
Post a Comment