#RohithVemula: Anatomy of a Tragedy

An altercation between two ideologically-opposed student organisations at the University of Hyderabad (UoH), namely the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA), would have ended without much ado after mediation and warnings to both sides. Instead, it snowballed into a tragedy resulting in the death of Dalit PhD scholar Rohith Vemula on January 17, 2016. One year on, a fact-finding inquiry by an independent panel of academics covering the events that led to Vemula’s death and subsequent protests till March 2016, holds the University administration responsible and calls upon Vice Chancellor Appa Rao Podile to step down for poorly handling students’ protests and the resulting crisis.          

Suvrat Raju from the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, Prajval Shastri and Ravinder Banyal from the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bengaluru, visited UoH on July 18 and 19, 2016. They released their report on January 2, 2017.

“It is clear that the University administration failed to discharge its responsibilities in a non-partisan manner, and failed to protect academic freedom on campus. [They] succumbed to pressure 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,” the report concludes.

The academics note, “We feel that, as the head of the University administration, Prof. Appa Rao should accept responsibility for these failures… [He] should carefully consider whether his continued presence is helpful for the University. [He] has turned into a polarizing figure, and his mere presence as vice chancellor has led to a constant conflict, which has disrupted the academic 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.”

Spat over Facebook post

In the five months prior to Vemula’s suicide, there was relentless pressure on Dalit students in the form of inquiries, suspensions, arrests and protests from within the University as well in the form of letters from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and BJP leaders demanding explanations about an internal dispute among students.

It all began on August 3, 2015, when ABVP leader and PhD student Susheel Kumar wrote a Facebook post, “ASA Goons are talking about hooliganism feeling funny.” It was a reaction to ASA’s protest at UoH against the disruption of a screening of Muzaffarnagar Baaqi Hai in Delhi University by the Delhi-unit of the ABVP.

Taking objection, 30 ASA members, as per the report, surrounded Susheel Kumar at his hostel room the same night. The police and University security also arrived on the scene. ASA students made Kumar write an apology letter with the disclaimer that he was writing “in full conscious and without any force.”

The probe team deems ASA’s action “somewhat excessive.” It agrees with ABVP students, not named in the report, that ASA should have dealt with it on social media instead of physically gathering.

Responding to the charge of excess, post-doctoral fellow Sunkanna Velpula, one of the ASA students to be suspended, who famously refused to take PhD degree from vice-chancellor Rao last year, said, before going to Kumar, ASA informed the Dean of Students’ Welfare owing to which the University security was present when ASA confronted Kumar. The police also arrived after Kumar called them.

“He wrote the apology in the presence of security personnel and security cameras outside his hostel building. ASA’s reaction has a history. This 24-year-old student organisation has been protesting caste discrimination and building confidence among Dalit students over the years. Political criticism is fine, but we don’t want any voice that leads to suppression of Dalits,” Velpula, a senior ASA leader told Newslaundry.          

After this night of altercation, Kumar launched a sustained campaign against ASA “using political forces outside the University,” the report says. He filed an FIR while his mother N Vinaya, affiliated with the BJP, lodged a writ-petition in the High Court asking the court to direct the University to take action against ASA.               

From police investigation and testimonies of students, including Kumar’s friends, the academic panel did not find truth in Kumar’s allegations of being beaten.

The affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, filed before the Hyderabad High Court on October 3, 2015, stated that as per medical evidence Kumar’s injuries were “simple.” He was hospitalised after the confrontation, where he was treated for appendicitis. However, his ailment was a pre-existing condition and “not due to the result of any assault”. “No such alleged incident (of beating) whatsoever has happened in their (policemen at spot) presence. Hence the allegation is absolutely false, baseless and the same is denied,” the affidavit concludes.      

Of suspensions and inquiries 

Meanwhile, the first proctorial inquiry into the August 3, 2015, incident let off both ASA students and Kumar with a strong warning (report dated August 12, 2015). ASA students thought the matter had settled, but fast-paced developments taking place at UoH fomented a crisis to the point of no return.

Even as the police investigation was underway, Kumar approached Union Minister of State for Labour and Employment Bandaru Dattatreya. On August 10, the local BJP unit wrote to Dattatreya asking among other things, “Why is it made to perceive on campus that it is shameful to be Hindu and Indian in Indian Universities?” Then, on August 17, Dattatreya wrote to MHRD describing UoH as a “den of casteist extremist and anti-national politics.”

The report observes, “Mr. Dattatreya’s actions constitute a disturbing and illegitimate attempt by a minister to violate the autonomy of a Central University.”

“Under mounting political pressure”, UoH held a second proctorial inquiry. Reversing its earlier decision, the second inquiry ordered suspension of ASA students, but after protests the then vice-chancellor RP Sharma kept the suspension in abeyance, subject to a fresh inquiry. When Rao took over as VC in September 2015, instead of holding a fresh inquiry, he appointed a subcommittee of the executive council to examine existing evidence. The subcommittee disregarded police and medical evidence and decided to punish ASA students.

The turning point came when Rao passed a final suspension order on December 16, preventing five Dalit students, including Vemula, from entering their “hostels, administrative building and other common places.” The suspended scholars erected a ‘velivada’ (Dalit ghetto) on the campus.

The report sides with ASA’s view that the language of exclusion in the term “other common places” in an order meant for Dalit students was casteist and deems it “mischievous”.

Between Rao’s arrival in September 2015 and his suspension order of December 2015, the MHRD wrote five letters to UoH asking about “anti-national activities” on campus and the “violent attack” on Kumar.

Rao’s “insensitive” order disregarded the vulnerabilities of Dalit students coming from economically weaker background. “The University hostel provides sustainable accommodation for students…It is unfortunate that the University did not take this into account while deciding on this form of punishment,” the reports observes.

Some faculty members notably Prof. Sreepati Ramudu highlighted to the panel the vulnerabilities of suspended students – Rohith used to send money home and could not tell his mother about what happened. Another student Sheshaiah Chemudugunta was an orphan with limited means, whose father had died in caste riots.

Others like Prof. Krishnaveni Mishra pointed out that the punishments were given just before vacation in December 2015, but students decided to sleep in the open till January 2016. Prof. BP Sanjay, pro-vice chancellor, felt Rao had walked into a tense situation, caste played no role in the punishment and students were unwilling to enter into a dialogue.

On December 18, 2015, a distressed Vemula wrote to Rao saying, “Simply serve 10 mg of Sodium Azide to all the Dalit students at the time of admission with directions to use when they feel like reading Ambedkar” and “supply a nice rope to the rooms of all Dalit students from your companion, the great Chief Warden…I request your highness to make preparations for the facility EUTHANASIA for students like me.”

The panel opines that Rao “in remarkable display of callousness” did not act on this letter. He told students to end their agitation, but no one from the administration came to the ‘velivada’ until Rohith’s suicide on January 17, 2016.

Protests and arrests

Protests erupted in UoH with students organising themselves under a Joint Action Committee for Social Justice (JAC). On January 24, Rao went on indefinite leave. The same day UoH revoked suspension of four students suspended with Vemula. After two VCs in between, Rao returned on March 22, 2016, triggering a second crisis.

His supporters on campus went to his residence to meet him, whereas students demanding justice for Vemula too gathered there for protests. There are varying accounts about whether or not the students indulged in vandalism. Prof. Mishra told the panel she saw some students vandalising fixtures and furniture at Rao’s house. She also said protestors threw stones and a policeman was injured. However, the police did not establish the identity of those who threw stones and arrested people arbitrarily. Prof. Tathagata Sengupta and Prof Ratnam who were trying to control the situation were arrested. Later, UoH suspended them citing service rules. Their suspension was later revoked.

By evening, the police used forced to clear protestors from the premises. They dragged and hurled them in police vans. Cases were filed against the agitators.

“We find this incident of police violence extremely disturbing. Although the administration denied that it gave any directions to the police to take these actions, we find this somewhat disingenuous. It is well known that the police does not enter and take action inside a University campus without the permission of the vice chancellor. Moreover, while the police arrived in the morning, the police-violence occurred in the evening,” the report states.

In Prof. Ratnam’s account, when he was taken in the van, the police asked him why he was teaching “lessons from Pakistan” and said his “mother had come from Pakistan.” In Prof. Sengupta’s account, the police told him he could be “encountered” and that his “rights had been suspended.”

History of discrimination

The fallout of events at UoH can be read in the backdrop Rao’s conflict with students way back in 2002 as well as opinions of students and teachers about caste discrimination on campus. Prof. Ratnam, the warden, had then opposed Rao, then chief warden, over an issue of mess bills. He was identified as “pro-Dalit” and assigned the charge of sanitation and cleaning, perceived to be a caste-based insult.

Students cited the case of Senthil Kumar, a PhD scholar, and student Madari Venkatesh who committed suicide in 2008 and 2013 respectively after allegedly facing discrimination. They spoke of a broader perception that Dalit students were not meritorious and recalled several instances.

ABVP students said ASA was casteist as it asked about people’s caste and sub-caste. They denied the existence of caste discrimination, but said Dalit students faced financial and other problems.

Media

The University faulted the media for biased coverage. Prof. Mishra said the media “created a false dichotomy and was one of the primary culprits responsible for the current vitiated atmosphere.”

ASA’s Velpula said the ‘Justice for Rohith’ movement which gathered nationwide momentum could not shake Rao or the government. “After the protests, a consciousness was growing in the University administration, but Rao’s return derailed that change.”

UoH ABVP president Karan Palsaniya said Vemula should not be considered a benchmark for change. “The University has seen 27-28 suicides, one even after Vemula, across caste. There are long-term serious issues. The University should make efforts to address student issues and instil positivity. A student’s life is full of pressures. We have to come out of caste identity and politics. The first identity should only be of a student.”

Based on its inquiry, the academic panel has suggested measures such as proper implementation of the reservation policy, extension for degrees, and other sensitisation efforts.

With his last words, Vemula sparked an awakening across campuses setting the wheels of change in motion. His life of struggle and tragic end holds a mirror to universities across the country, showing their ugly casteist face, hidden in layers of academic aura. Institutions of higher learning have to step up to the aspirations of Dalit and other marginalised students, a large section of whom are still first generation learners. They also have to abandon orthodox high-handed ways and engage with students’ demands with a hands-on approach. A politicised mass of students are asking at every protest, “Tum kitne Rohith maroge, har ghar se Rohith niklega [How many Rohiths will you kill. There will be a Rohith in every home].” Academia is answerable to them.