*A Fact-Finding Report on the Events at the*
*University of Hyderabad*
*Suvrat Raju,**a **Prajval Shastri**b **and Ravinder Banyal**b*
aInternational Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of
Fundamental Research,
Shivakote, Bengaluru 560089.
bIndian Institute of Astrophysics, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560034.y
*Executive summary*
We provide a summary of our _ndings below. We elaborate on these
conclusions in
the main text of the report. In the summary below, we have provided links
to the
section in the main text where each conclusion is elaborated.
1. The sequence of events at the University of Hyderabad was triggered by a
con-
ict between student members of the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA)
and Mr. Susheel Kumar, a leader of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad
(ABVP) on the night of 3 August 2015. This was a minor conict and indeed
the _rst report of the University's proctorial board recommended that both
parties be let o_ with a warning. In our opinion, the matter should have
been
allowed to rest there. (See section 4.1.)
2. We understand that Mr. Susheel Kumar approached Mr. Bandaru Dattatreya
| the Union Minister of Labour and Employment | and other members of
the BJP to demand that the University take stricter action against the ASA
students. Mr. Dattatreya decided to intervene in the matter by complaining
about the ASA to the Ministry of Human Resource Development. Mr. Datta-
treya's actions constitute a disturbing and illegitimate attempt by a
minister
to violate the autonomy of a Central University. (See section 4.2.)
3. The University initially succumbed to this pressure by suspending the ASA
students, but when this decision was protested, it decided to place this
punish-
ment in abeyance. Eventually, the vice chancellor changed, and in December
2015, the new vice chancellor, Prof. Appa Rao Podile, decided to suspend the
ASA students from the hostel but not from academic activities. It is hard to
avoid the conclusion that Prof. Appa Rao's actions were inuenced by external
factors, including tremendous pressure from the Ministry of Human Resource
Development. The Ministry escalated a minor incident by writing _ve letters
in quick succession to the University. The Ministry's actions also
constitute a
serious breach of the University's autonomy. (See section 4.2.)
4. The suspension order issued by Prof. Appa Rao was insensitive and and
con-
tained a phrase banning the ASA students from \common places in groups".
{ 4 {
The students felt that this phrase was casteist and insulting. Moreover,
when
Mr. Rohith Vemula wrote a distressed letter to the vice chancellor that
should
have set o_ the alarm bells, Prof. Appa Rao failed to take any action, and
did
not even coordinate with the PhD advisors of the suspended students. (See
section 4.2.)
5. Mr. Rohith Vemula committed suicide on 17 January 2016. This led to large
scale protests in the University, and a shut down of all academic
activities. Prof.
Appa Rao proceeded on inde_nite leave, and after a brief period in which
Prof.
Vipin Srivastava took over, Prof. Periasamy started functioning as the
acting
vice chancellor. (See section 4.3.)
6. On 22 March 2016, Prof. Appa Rao returned to the University without any
prior warning leading to spontaneous protests by some students. In the morn-
ing, a group of agitated students vandalized his house and was involved in a
conict with non-teaching sta_ members. However, the situation subsequently
settled down for several hours. In the evening, when the situation was
entirely
peaceful, and several hours after the tension in the morning, the police
decided
to evacuate the protesters from the vice chancellor's compound by force.
There
is absolutely no doubt that, in this process, the police used excessive
force. The
video evidence of police chasing down and beating students is chilling. We
do
not understand how these events could have happened without at least the
tacit
approval of the University administration, which should be held to account
for
this violence against its students and faculty. Several students, and two
faculty
members were also arrested in this process. (See section 4.4.)
7. It is clear that the police violated the fundamental rights of the
arrested
protesters. Their families and friends were not even told of their
whereabouts
for more than 24 hours. Some of those who were arrested told us that the
police intimidated them, and even told them that their fundamental rights
had
been suspended. (See section 4.5.)
8. In June 2016, well after these events, the administration suspended the
two
faculty members who had been arrested. The administration argues that it
was simply going by the letter of the service rules. However, this does not
explain why it took three months for the administration to wake up to the
presence of this rule. Moreover, after widespread protests, the
administration
quickly rescinded the suspension using discretionary powers that it could
have
called upon to not suspend the professors in the _rst place. This strongly
suggests that the suspensions were an attempt to intimidate the dissenting
faculty, from which the administration backed down when it was confronted
with opposition. (See section 4.6.)
{ 5 {
9. The central question, which underpins this entire conict, has to do with
the
implementation of the reservation policy in Indian Universities. Although
the
University of Hyderabad is a diverse institution that has successfully
imple-
mented the letter of the reservation policy, it is clear that this has not
been
enough to stop discrimination on the campus. This is because it is
insu_cient
for an institution to just assemble a diverse body of students, faculty and
sta_.
The institution must also ensure that it does not become a microcosm of
society
at large that reects dominant social prejudices. We found scant evidence for
such an e_ort at the University of Hyderabad. The University does not have
adequate sensitization programs for its administrators, faculty members and
students; nor does it have forums for dialogue and discussion among its mem-
bers, or meaningful complaint mechanisms against discriminatory behaviour.
In its most pernicious form, discrimination at academic institutions is not
ex-
plicit but rather disguised as a concern for \merit". The issue of \merit"
also
relates to the interplay between caste and other forms of marginalization in
society. At the moment, Dalit students, who may also come from economically
weaker backgrounds, and may have less exposure to English, are thrown into
the mix with other students who have had many more privileges in their early
education. But the system makes no allowances for students from di_erent
backgrounds. In this setup, even talented students _nd it di_cult to adjust,
and in our opinion this is part of the reason that the University has seen
so
many suicides of minority students.
10. In view of our conclusions above, we would like to put forward the
following
suggestions. (See section 5.) We do not have any formal relation with the
Uni-
versity of Hyderabad; but we are well-wishers of the University and members
of the broader academic community. So we hope that these suggestions will be
considered seriously by the University community in keeping with the demo-
cratic principle of accountability that is necessary to strengthen the
legitimacy
of public institutions.
(a) It is clear that the University administration failed to discharge its
re-
sponsibilities in a non-partisan manner, and failed to protect academic
freedom on campus. Instead of amicably resolving the dispute between
the ASA and the ABVP students, the administration succumbed to pres-
sure from the BJP and the central government and took ill-advised and
one-sided decisions that led to prolonged agitations and disquiet among
a large section of students. Prof. Appa Rao himself failed to act on Mr.
Rohith Vemula's letter in December 2015, displaying an alarming lack of
empathy. Furthermore, the administration failed to prevent the brutal
assault by the police on dissenting students on 22 March 2016. We feel
{ 6 {
that, as the head of the University administration, Prof. Appa Rao should
accept responsibility for these failures.
We wish to emphasize that this issue is not about individuals. Any admin-
istrative post in an academic institution is about serving the community.
In fact, sincere academics are commonly wary of administrative positions,
since they are a distraction from academic work. Therefore it makes sense
for an academic to continue in an administrative post only to the extent
that he or she is able to contribute constructively to the institution. As
such, Prof. Appa Rao should carefully consider whether his continued
presence is helpful for the University. As far as we can see, Prof. Appa
Rao has turned into a polarizing _gure, and his mere presence as vice
chancellor has led to a constant conict, which has disrupted the aca-
demic activities of the University. So, we hope that Prof. Appa Rao will
heed his own conscience and decide to step down from his position as vice
chancellor for the larger good of the University.
(b) We strongly urge the University to take up the matter of the violation
of
the civil rights of the dissenting students and faculty on 22 March. We
urge the administration to pursue the matter, either with the police ad-
ministration, or through the courts, and ensure that action is taken against
the errant police o_cers who attacked and threatened the protesters.
(c) The suspension of the two faculty members, Prof. Tathagata Sengupta
and Prof. K.Y. Ratnam, on the pretext that they violated a clause in
the government's \Civil Service Conduct Rules" should lead to a broader
debate in the academic community on these rules. The Civil Service Rules
are an anachronistic set of rules, designed for the government bureaucracy
and ill-suited for members of academic institutions. As a coordinated
exercise, sta_ at Universities and research institutions should formulate
an alternative set of guidelines that would be better suited for academic
employees and would ensure the protection of academic freedom.
(d) The University does have an anti-discrimination o_cer, as per the
relevant
UGC regulations. But it would be very useful for the University to create
a larger, more accessible and more powerful anti-discrimination cell that
goes beyond the minimal protection mandated by the UGC. This anti-
discrimination cell should have representatives from students, faculty, the
administration, and the non-teaching sta_ and also some members from
outside the University. Contact details for members of the cell should be
available easily, and the cell should have the powers to investigate and act
quickly on any complaint of discrimination that it receives.
(e) We are aware that discrimination is a complex and multidimensional prob-
lem and it cannot be addressed at a purely administrative level. Moreover,
{ 7 {
powerful political forces have a vested interest in the status quo and this
is the reason that reforms like the reservation policy are not implemented
whole-heartedly. This also means that meaningful progress on this front
will require sustained and broad-based e_orts.
Nevertheless, the academic community must explore possible paths for-
ward. In this context, we feel that some simple reforms in the structure
of courses may help to ameliorate at least some of the problems that we
witnessed at the University of Hyderabad.
For example, we feel that one helpful reform would to be to introduce a
more exible curriculum. It may be possible to have a three year M.Sc.
degree, with foundational courses in the _rst year. The length of the PhD
can be extended similarly from _ve years to seven years, with foundational
course work in the _rst few years. It is important that these foundational
courses be part of the course-structure for all students | not just students
who are admitted through a quota. But the structure should be exible
enough to allow students who are better prepared to skip some or all of
these foundational courses by giving \drop tests". Such systems already
exist in some of the country's research institutions and they can also be
implemented in the Universities.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"humanrights movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanrights-movement.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
