Developments at IIT Bombay following the death of reserved-category student Sahil Wakode deserve a calmer reading than the noise around the campus has allowed. The institute has reversed its earlier statement, acknowledging that it was inappropriate to present matters as settled before an inquiry. The students have issued a more measured statement, clarifying that their protest was not to defend cheating, but that the death raises questions beyond the exam violation. That distinction is important.
Wakode’s parents’ anguish cannot be set aside. They have repeatedly alleged caste-based harassment. The institute has maintained it had not received a complaint earlier. The police have registered a case under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the professor named has been removed from his administrative position pending inquiry. These matters require a fair and independent investigation, not competing claims. If Wakode violated exam rules, consequences were called for. But discipline must be administered fairly, transparently and without humiliation. An allegation of discrimination, meanwhile, cannot be dismissed based on the exam violation. Both questions require evidence.
The students’ latest statement offers an opening. Their demands have been placed before the institute’s director, who has acknowledged them even as calls for his resignation continue. An open house also allowed students to put their concerns directly to the administration. The task now is to turn this into real change: credible grievance mechanisms, transparent disciplinary procedures, support for students under pressure and an impartial probe of discrimination allegations.
IITs reflect a contradiction visible elsewhere in India. The country is expanding its technological and scientific capacity even as hierarchy, patriarchy, authority and exclusion continue to shape everyday life in classrooms, offices, hospitals and public institutions. Political polarisation tends to deepen these divisions. The lessons and victories of the Jantar Mantar protest must not be ignored or frittered away by the stakeholders concerned. Matters must now move from accusation to inquiry and reform.
For Wakode’s parents, nothing can undo their loss. The least the institution can offer is honesty and a process they can trust. Students, too, have a responsibility to keep raising difficult questions without politicising the search for accountability. The institution shoulders the greater responsibility: students from different backgrounds should encounter the same rules and receive the same dignity. The institution must determine whether that is happening, and where it is not, correct it.