A raft of unfortunate suicides by students from marginalised communities in elite institutions over the past year, including the latest incident at IIT-Delhi, has underlined a failure by the authorities in developing an appropriate policy to deal with the discrimination and humiliation faced by pupils from the Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) groups. This laxity is both systemic and long-standing, spanning several administrations, prompting the Supreme Court to now wade into the matter.
On July 6, the top court started hearing a petition by the mothers of Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide at the University of Hyderabad (HT Archive)
On July 6, the top court started hearing a petition by the mothers of Rohith Vemula, who died by suicide at the University of Hyderabad in 2016 after months of alleged caste discrimination, and Darshan Solanki, whose death earlier this year at IIT-Bombay sparked protests. The top court asked the University Grants Commission (UGC) to detail the steps taken to deal with caste discrimination on campuses and gave it four weeks to respond. UGC, in turn, defended itself by citing the presence of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012, which aimed to check caste discrimination in educational institutions.
The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 identifies about 35 behaviours of “high caste” students, teachers and administrators as discriminatory and requires universities and colleges to set up an equal opportunity cell and institute an anti-discrimination officer. But the 2012 regulation has not been implemented by a majority of the educational institutions as they weren’t made mandatory, and some are not even aware of it.
The question is this: Why is it that despite scores of tragic suicides, many by SC/ST students, the authorities appear reluctant to act? The authorities took great urgency to deal with the appalling problem of ragging, which has been largely curbed in higher education institutions over the past decade due to proactive action by university authorities and strict implementation by the police. In the case of discrimination, however, that sensitivity appears to be lacking, as is the positive willingness to do so.
There are three main steps that need to be taken to minimise the menace of caste discrimination in education institutes, if not eliminate them altogether.
First, draft an act that will treat caste discrimination on campuses as a criminal offence, followed by a teaching course to sensitise the students in universities and colleges on the problem of discrimination and inequality. Accompanying these should be remedial academic assistance programmes, equal opportunity cells, and anti-discrimination offices as required under the 2012 regulation. These should be made mandatory, and not optional.
The act should make the 35 actions already listed in the 2012 regulation — this includes breaching the reservation policy, treating SC/ST candidates unfavourably during admission tests, verbally mentioning the castes and communities of marginalised candidates in class, making derogatory remarks about some groups, or segregating marginalised community students in hostels, messes and playgrounds — a criminal offence and bring them under the ambit of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015. Second, the compulsory teaching course should educate and sensitise students about the problem of discrimination and inequality in Indian society. Orthodox values, contradictory to the provision of non-discrimination in the Constitution and laws, continue to shape the behaviour of our children in their formative years through socialisation in the family and society, and are reflected in their behaviour towards SC/ST communities on campuses. It is urged that children unlearn these undemocratic values. This sensitisation can achieve what mere enforcement of the law cannot. BR Ambedkar, too, was aware of the limitation of the law and the need for sensitisation. “Law can punish a single solitary recalcitrant criminal. It can never operate against a whole body of people who are determined to defy it. Social conscience is the only safeguard of rights. If social conscience is such that it recognises the rights which the law chooses to enact, the rights will be safe and secure,” he said.
Bringing students face-to-face in the classroom and initiating open discussions can enable them to minimise stereotypes and learn to respect each other’s differences.
Third, institute remedial academic assistance to the students who lag behind. The policy of remedial coaching is not new, but is unfortunately not taken seriously by education institutions. To make it more effective, UGC should pass regulations to make the programme compulsory to improve a student’s grasp of English and core subjects. This will assist students in improving academic performance and dealing with psychological pressure. And finally, the updated regulation should include a provision for the establishment of equal opportunity cells and anti-discrimination officers who can implement the regulation. These offices, too, exist, but are only half-heartedly implemented by institutions. It is high time the government take immediate steps to assure the Supreme Court, and work to forestall the unfortunate deaths of young minds who have worked their way through impossible odds, and deserve in their universities, a nurturing and supportive space.
Sukhadeo Thorat is former chairman, UGC. The views expressed are personal
E-Paper
