Delhi’s Ambedkar University has landed in a controversy after a PhD student last month accused a fellow scholar of caste discrimination. The complainant, who asked not to be named, lodged an FIR against the accused, for verbally abusing and humiliating her. 

On September 4, a Twitter user named Sumeet Mhaskar posted a series of tweets detailing the allegations, and urging Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the city police to help register an FIR under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. 

The next day, Mhaskar tweeted that the FIR had been filed. Mhaskar, as also a Twitter handle called Ambedkar’s Caravan, kept posting details of the case over the following days. Then, earlier this month, Mhaskar put up another series of tweets accusing the police of inefficiency and inaction.

The complainant, who is pursuing a PhD in Women’s and Gender Studies, accused the fellow scholar of “indulging in repeated insults” by commenting on her clothes and lifestyle. Most recently, she alleged, the accused passed casteist remarks against her at a public meeting which forced her to take legal action. According to her, the accused said, “Bheek mangne ki aadat tumko hogi, hume nahi (You may be used to begging, we aren’t).” 

She added, “I have also been called ‘Dalit elite’ by upper caste leftists on campus for wearing decent clothes, using lipstick and sunglasses. I have been tagged a liar. My attempts to engage in independent political activity have been blocked by calling me “Dalit elite.” They have used “Dalit elite” as an alibi to delegitimise my political intervention.”

Background

In June, the university dissolved a contract with Sulabh International, effectively laying off 52 sanitation workers on the campus. The workers launched a protest, and drew support from the Dalit Bahujan Adivasi Collective and the Progressive and Democratic Students Collective, among other student organisations. The complainant is associated with the Dalit Bahujan Adivasi Collective, while the accused is an active member of the Democratic Students Collective. 

The student groups called a public meeting on June 5 to discuss the workers’ struggle. It turned into a heated argument during which the accused allegedly passed casteist remarks against the complainant. 

On June 13, the complainant and four of her colleagues wrote to their professors and the dean of the School of Human Studies asking for a departmental meeting and a written apology from the accused. When they didn’t receive a response, the complainant wrote individually to the professors and the dean. The department allegedly took no action for three months, compelling her to approach the police. 

The allegations

The accused responded to the allegations on June 15, denying them all. On her use of the word “bheek”, she claimed it was said in the context of a slogan. “The discourse in the room was of ‘adhikar’, ‘haq’ and leadership,” she explained in a statement. It was in this context, the accused claimed, that she said, “Humara to naara bhi yahi hai, ki hum apna adhikar maangte, naahi kisi se bheek maangte.”

The complainant rejected this explanation, saying “a slogan doesn’t come out of context” and insisted that it was directed at her.

On describing the complainant as “Dalit elite”, the accused claimed she has been misquoted. Her actual statement, she said, was, “Yahan jo bhi baithe hain, wo sab elite hain (everyone sitting here is elite).” 

She says her remarks were not directed at any specific person, but referred to all students present in the room. They were meant to highlight the gap that existed between the sanitation workers and the students representing them. 

“I strongly disown that I commented on a particular individual or a particular group of only Dalit, Bahujan, Adivasi members present there,” she said. “I also disown that I said ‘elite Dalit’ anywhere in the meeting.”

However, in her initial statement as well as the FIR, the complainant maintained that the accused called her ‘Dalit elite’. She added, “Back in 2016 when we were in MPhil, I was not open about my caste identity. However, she went around talking about my caste identity to both my seniors and juniors.” 

She also accused the fellow scholar of “consistently running a campaign on the campus against me, maligning my image by saying that I misuse my caste identity. She has indulged in commenting on my parents and their profession to establish a hostile environment against me on the campus”.

The accused denied the allegation. She claimed the two of them had never interacted before the meeting in June, or even come face to face.

The response

The programme coordinator of Women and Gender Studies, Bindu KC, said the initial delay in the case was owing to the rush of the admission season, which kept the faculty occupied. 

Moreover, she added, the complainant first approached the administration with a statement rather than a complaint. “Officially, one makes a distinction between statements and complaints. I am not saying that it is correct, but it is the policy,” she said.

“After ten days, the complainant wrote an email that used the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’, ‘accused’ and asked why they we had not taken action,” the coordinator said, adding that this particular email was taken as a complaint considering the terminology used.

After receiving the complaint, Bindu said, the department sent it to the dean of student services as well as the proctor. “We did not feel confident to take a caste atrocity case because we are not entitled to take it,” she explained the decision.  

When the university reopened after the summer break, a general meeting of the faculties of the department of Women’s and Gender Studies and the Centre for Women’s Development Studies, with which the complainant’s department has an academic collaboration, was held, Bindu said. It was decided that the advice of the dean, student services, will be followed. The dean, student services, advised that a committee under the School of Human Studies dean be constituted to look into the case. He also asked for a general meeting in which the students would participate. 

The committee met on August 22 to “understand the specific issue of the complaint”. The accused presented her case at the meeting. However, the complainant did not attend it, insisting the matter needed to be heard at a departmental meeting with wider participation rather than by a committee. This department meeting was scheduled for September 4. 

Bindu, though, claimed the departmental meeting was meant to discuss the larger issues of caste and collegiality rather than the specific matter. The accused scholar echoed this view while arguing that since it was a general meeting and not related to her specific matter, she had the choice of not attending it. “Because I had been undergoing continuous harassment for three months, I chose not to attend,” she said. The meeting ended without anybody speaking. 

The university’s assistant registrar for public relations said in a statement that the complainant was “advised to approach available mechanism within the university to address her concerns”. 

“A committee was constituted at the School level to understand the issues. Another committee was constituted by the VC to address her concerns. The university liaison officer was a member of both the committees,” the statement said, pointing out that the liaison officer belongs to a Scheduled Caste. “Various steps were taken by the university at multiple levels to engage with the student and address her concerns. However, the matter is now part of a police investigation.” 

Current status

When the September 4 meeting didn’t yield a result, the complainant went to the Kashmere Gate police station to file FIR, which was registered the next day. The case is currently with the Crime Against Women cell of the police. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alka Azad, and Sub Inspector Ramesh Singh, the investigating officer, said they could not discuss the matter considering its sensitivity. No arrests have been made so far.