Home Blog Page 25

Tamil Nadu BJP leader Ananthan Ayyasamy backs IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayana Doolla, opposes SC/ST Act misuse; receives overwhelming support online

The suicide of an IIT Bombay student who was caught cheating in an exam by Professor Suryanarayana Doolla has divided people. The leftist-Marxist cabal is giving the tragedy a caste discrimination spin, and others are rallying behind Professor Doolla. In this vein, Tamil Nadu BJP leader Ananthan Ayyasamy has strongly opposed invoking the SC/ST Act against the IIT Bombay professor who caught Sahil Wakode using a mobile and an AI chatbot to solve the question paper.

In an X post published on 20th September, TenSemi CEO and BJP Tenkasi district president Ananthan Ayyasamy said that he strongly opposes the charges against Professor Suryanarayan Doolla under the SC/ST Act. Ayyasamy stated that he hails from the Scheduled Caste community, Devendra Kula Vellalar (DKV).

Sharing his journey from grappling with rural poverty to reaching NIT, working at Intel and then rising to prominence in the tech field in the US, Ayyasamy thanked broad-minded people from many communities for their support.

“I strongly oppose the charges against Prof. Suryanarayana Doolla of IIT Bombay under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. My background: I belong to the Devendra Kula Vellalar (DKV) community, classified as SC. I grew up in deep rural poverty and witnessed the suffering of my people first-hand. I was educated thanks to broad-minded people from many communities. I studied Electronics at NIT Tiruchirappalli, worked at C-DOT Bengaluru, and then at Intel in India and the US, where I rose to Engineering Director and Senior Silicon Architect, responsible for high-speed interconnects vital to modern CPUs and GPUs. I hold multiple patents in this field,” the TenSemi CEO wrote.

Explaining the motive behind sharing snippets of his career trajectory, Ananthan Ayyasamy said that his community, DKV, has taken a voluntary stand not to file cases against anyone under the SC/ST Act. The BJP leader said that this stand was taken in view of the rampant weaponisation of the SC/ST Act and how it then deepens enmity among different caste groups.

“I share this to make clear that I know what it means to come from an SC community and rise through hard work and commitment. Our DKV community has taken a principled, voluntary stand not to file SC/ST cases against anyone. We have seen how cases under this Act are weaponised, and how that deepens enmity on the ground. On that basis, I oppose the misuse of this Act in this case. The case against Prof. Doolla must be withdrawn. This matters for the future of SC/ST students and for our nation. Jai Hind,” Ayyasamy added.

The BJP leader’s post received overwhelming support online.

One X user replied, “Thanks you sir @AnanthAyyasamy for calling out the use of this draconian law. We need leaders like you who think about the country more than votes. I request you that if you can reach out to @narendramodi, @AmitShah And convey them that this act , is a dead wood and should be thrown in dustbin as this has become a means to extort innocent people.Please do this at the earliest or the country is doomed as merit will not complain it will silently die or move out of this country.”

Another one wrote, “At least someone from BJP has broken Silence against the Misuse of DRACONIAN SC ST ACT. Please arrange a Protest against this Misuse of Good ACT so your own Leadership can change the Laws to Only compensate after the Allegations are Proven to be True. I’m sure that will definitely decrease the False Cases filed.”

One X user responded, “Hope more individuals like you from SC/ST come forward & raise their voice against misuse of Atrocities Act. This Act is increasingly invoked by them against GC as a shield from accountability— it’s like legally carrying a gun, ready to use when the law catches up with them.”

Meanwhile, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu also joined Ayyasamy in criticising the invocation of the SC/ST Act against IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayan Doolla.

“I deeply respect Ananthan’s principled stand in this matter. Prof Suryanarayana Doolla should not be subject to this,” Vembu wrote.

Sahil Wakode’s suicide and the caste discrimination spin

Sahil Wakode, a 2nd-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, took his own life on Friday (18th September) after being caught red-handed by Professor Suryanarayana Doolla. He later committed suicide in his hostel room.

Thereafter, protests emerged on the campus of the institute, demanding action against the esteemed faculty member. A day later, on Saturday (19th September), Sahil’s parents alleged that Professor Doolla had been mentally harassing and using casteist slurs against their son for 3 months at the behest of IIT Bombay’s Director Shireesh Kedare.

Notably, not a single complaint was ever filed against Professor Doolla or Shireesh Kedare either with the administration or the SC/ST cell of IIT Bombay during Sahil’s tenure at the institute.

Meanwhile, Professor Doolla has received broader support, with many describing the SC/ST Act charges against him as vengeance for his decision to call out Wakode for using a mobile phone for cheating.

Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay extends support to Professor Suryanarayan Doolla

A day after Suryanarayana Doolla was accused of ‘caste discrimination’ by the parents of the student who was caught cheating in an exam, the Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay has extended support to the Professor.

In a statement on Sunday (21st September), it said, “The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay mourns the loss of life of a student of our institute, and offers deepest condolences to his family. We strongly express our solidarity with our colleague Prof. Suryanarayana Doolla, who was discharging his duties in line with the institute’s Senate-approved academic policy currently in force.”

IIT Bombay students and alumni extend support to Professor

After Professor Doolla was booked in a dubious ‘caste discrimination’ case, students and alumni who were mentored by the IIT-Bombay faculty member have extended support to him.

In a statement signed by 22 students and alumni and shared with OpIndia, they hailed Doolla’s integrity and said that the professor never demonstrated caste biases against any of his students.

KPSC Chairman Shivashankarappa Sahukar under scanner: Fake income certificate, paper leaks, bribes and manipulation of recruitment exams

0

Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Chairman Shivashankarappa S Sahukar has been at the centre of a series of recruitment controversies involving manipulation of examinations, misuse of authority and corruption. Sahukar was first suspended by Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot in July 2026 over allegations linked to the recruitment of his daughter, Suma Sahukar, to a government post under the OBC quota. The Karnataka High Court later quashed the suspension on constitutional grounds, after which the Governor suspended Sahukar again on 25th August following a recommendation from the state Cabinet.

The controversy has since widened. The Karnataka Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is investigating multiple allegations against the KPSC, including the manipulation of recruitment examinations and the leakage of question papers. Sahukar himself has been questioned by the CID in connection with the recruitment of 400 veterinary officers. On 7th September, the Karnataka High Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea after the CID placed before the court material alleging links between Sahukar, his son and an accused middleman.

Why was Sahukar suspended?

The first major controversy involving Sahukar centred on the recruitment of his daughter, 28-year-old Suma Sahukar, as an Industrial Extension Officer in the Karnataka Industries and Commerce Department.

According to an FIR filed by the KPSC, recruitment for 50 Industrial Extension Officer posts was announced in March 2024. Suma applied under the OBC 3B category, appeared for the examination in July 2025 and was selected in January 2026. During document verification, she submitted an income certificate showing her family’s annual income as only ₹40,000. Police registered a case alleging forgery and fraud over the certificate.

The income figure became a major point of controversy because Suma’s father was a senior KPSC official. Records cited in the case showed that Sahukar became a KPSC member in 2019 with a monthly salary of around ₹2.05 lakh and became chairman in 2021 with a monthly salary of around ₹2.25 lakh. KPSC records later showed his gross monthly salary as chairman was around ₹3.60 lakh in 2023. The figures were therefore vastly different from the ₹40,000 annual family income declared in the certificate.

The Karnataka High Court, while hearing a petition relating to the case, observed that the allegations, if established, could affect the credibility of a constitutional institution responsible for recruitment to government posts. In another hearing, the court described the declaration as an “eyewash” and “fraud”.

Suma was granted anticipatory bail on 24th July. The Governor’s first suspension of Sahukar was subsequently challenged in the High Court. The court quashed that order on 19th August, but restricted Sahukar from taking decisions concerning the proceedings related to his daughters. The Governor later issued a fresh suspension order on 25th August based on the state Cabinet’s recommendation.

Veterinary recruitment brings a bigger controversy

The second and more serious case concerns the recruitment of 400 veterinary officers by the KPSC.

A complaint filed in July revealed that 29 candidates who were selected in the recruitment process had received unfair assistance, including access to the question paper before the examination. One of the beneficiaries was also described as a relative of the KPSC chairman. The matter led to a CID investigation into the recruitment process.

According to the CID’s investigation presented before the Karnataka High Court, some candidates paid between ₹40 lakh and ₹80 lakh to middlemen. They were taken to hotels and resorts before the examination, where they were provided leaked examination material and coached on how to answer the paper. Investigators also examined internet calls involving candidates, middlemen and KPSC officials on the days of the examination.

The case also involves IAS officer Gyanendra Kumar Gangwar, who served as KPSC’s controller of examinations. Gangwar has been arrested in connection with the paper leak. The Enforcement Directorate has also taken up the money-laundering aspect of the case.

On 7th September, the CID told the High Court that Sahukar and his son were in frequent contact with Kannale through encrypted internet calls. The court rejected Sahukar’s anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case warranting investigation. The rejection of bail, however, is not a finding of guilt; the allegations remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.

The police have also identified candidates who made payments to facilitate cheating. A 10th September report said investigators had identified 12 aspirants who paid money in connection with the veterinary recruitment, with payments of up to ₹80 lakh traced through bank transactions.

The High Court, while hearing a petition filed by an affected candidate, described the allegations as a possible “systematic assault upon the constitutional mandate governing public employment” if they were ultimately proved.

A wider pattern of manipulation inside KPSC

The controversies surrounding Sahukar have also brought attention to allegations that go beyond the two cases directly linked to him.

A report by The Indian Express, based on interviews with former KPSC members, officials and candidates and a review of complaints, FIRs and court documents, reported several methods of manipulating recruitment over the years. These included withholding marks, approaching high-scoring candidates for bribes, manipulating interview panels, altering tabulation records, tampering with answer sheets and leaking question papers. The allegations are being investigated or are part of cases before the courts.

One allegation concerns the withholding of examination marks. According to officials cited in the investigation, marks of candidates could be kept from being published after an examination. This information could then be used to identify candidates who had performed well and approach them individually with demands for money in exchange for assurances of selection.

A former KPSC member described the system by saying, “When some (KPSC) secretaries insisted on making the marks public, the chairman and his supporters resisted hard.” The claim was that releasing marks immediately would make it harder to identify and target candidates who were already in a strong position to qualify.

A former senior official also pointed towards the importance of the Controller of Examinations’ office. The official said, “The Controller is supposed to function independently, and only his or her office would know the marks of individual candidates and also have the addresses and contact details of each candidate.” According to the official, compromising this system would allow those involved to identify candidates and contact them for bribe demands.

Allegations of manipulated interviews

Another method involved the interview stage of recruitment.

A note prepared by then KPSC secretary Vikas Suralkar in September 2023 raised concerns about the way interview panels evaluated candidates. Under the system, KPSC members could be part of interview panels along with outside experts.

According to former officials cited by The Indian Express, records from at least two recruitment exercises showed a sharp difference between the rankings given by outside experts and those given by KPSC members. Candidates rated highly by experts were placed much lower by members, while candidates given lower rankings by experts received better rankings from members.

One former official described the pattern as a “V-curve”, saying the contrast between the assessments was difficult to explain as random variation. The allegations have added to concerns about whether interviews could be used to alter the final ranking of candidates.

The role of interviews has also changed over the years. The weightage of the Personality Test was reduced from 200 marks to 50 marks in 2020 and then to 25 marks in 2022. 

Questions over tabulation and OMR sheets

Former KPSC officials also revealed that manipulation could occur even after candidates had completed their examinations.

According to the investigation, some former officials said that marks were changed at the tabulation stage, a process they said could be difficult to detect later. They also complained of possible tampering with OMR answer sheets after the July 2023 recruitment examination for Assistant Executive Engineers.

One former official claimed that although the OMR process was supposed to be recorded on camera, “in some cases, they even manipulated camera angles”. Questions were also raised over the lack of public disclosure of vendors involved in examination-related work. These remain allegations and are among the broader irregularities being examined.

BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal has sought a CBI investigation into the allegations concerning Suma’s recruitment and the veterinary examination. The KPSC cases therefore extend beyond one chairman or two recruitment exercises. For thousands of aspirants who spend years preparing for government examinations, the central issue is whether selection is based on merit and transparent procedures. 

Who is Pulkit Mani? The comedian who mimicked PM Modi alongside Rahul Gandhi at Indore event and built a career around provocative comedy

A major political storm has recently put stand-up comedian Pulkit Mani right in the centre of a controversy and consequent backlash. This happened after Pulkit Mani shared the stage with Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi during the ‘Chhatron Ki Goonj’ programme in Indore. During this event on Saturday, 19th September, the self-styled comedian performed a political satire act in which he mimicked Prime Minister Narendra Modi right alongside Rahul Gandhi.

Mani’s act featured several elements mocking the Prime Minister, including his familiar “my friend” phrase, his diplomatic hugs, his specific way of speaking with foreign leaders, and even his playful coin tricks with children, while Rahul Gandhi played along on stage. The act also made references to Modi’s foreign policy and his deceased mother. 

During their mock exchange, Mani said, “My friend, how are you?” to which Rahul replied, “I’m fine, how are you, Modi ji?” Mani then answered back, “Great harassment,” and kept repeating the phrase “my friend” while heavily exaggerating Modi’s mannerisms. Rahul smiled and said, “Very nice to meet you,” before asking Mani to “tell me more.”

The performance took a sharper turn when the comedian referred to the prime minister helping an elderly woman, saying, “Maa ko kursi do, maa,” while laughing and impersonating Modi, followed by the phrase, “Setting, my friend.” The act also touched upon Galgotias University and the controversy surrounding a Chinese humanoid robot showcased by the university at the India Global AI Summit. Adding physical props to his routine, Mani mimicked a coin trick that Modi had performed during an interaction with children, placing a coin right on his forehead to loud cheers from the live audience.

Who is Pulkit Mani?

Pulkit Mani is a stand-up comedian who often makes vulgar gestures and relies on shock value to make people around him laugh. He picks up the latest trending political topics to trigger reactions and create vulgarity around them just to gain views and online attention. 

On Instagram, he is widely known by the handle @hunnywhoisfunny, where he built fame through his senseless comedy videos and content heavy on political satire blended with vulgarity. His videos lean heavily on weird and objectionable impressions of political personalities and public figures to drive his digital content.

A history of controversial comedy

This intense backlash in Indore is not the first time Pulkit Mani has done such controversial comedy. He has a history of making provocative remarks against Hindu gods and pujaris. In one viral video, he can be heard saying lines like, “Bhagwan, agar main tujhse kuch magu… toh main bhakt kaisa?” and “Aur agar mujhe tujhse kuch mangna hi pade… toh tu bhagwan kaisa? Bhai, agar mandir se daan peti hata di jaye… toh naraj kaun hoga? Bhagwan ya pujari?”

Beyond religious satire, he frequently picks topics related to pornography for his routines. In one viral clip, he describes different categories in Hindi, saying, “there is something called hardcore porn,” followed by, “Then comes soft core, Ullu… Alt Balaji… but making porn is just not our cup of tea, brother.” He goes on to joke, “Brother, Indian porn is just unwatchable. For one, everyone in it looks just like me. Now, if you tell me to watch the women, I am talking about them too. If I actually wanted to watch Indian porn, why wouldn’t I just stand here naked myself?” Right after saying this, Mani puts on a golden mask and starts making utterly derogatory gestures on the stage. 

In another controversial video shared from his Instagram account, he made sexually suggestive remarks linking PM Narendra Modi and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. 

He also targeted Meloni in a separate video when she was formerly Italian farmer leader Ettore Prandini by again drawing inappropriate ties to PM Modi.

Career overshadowed by provocative comedy

Looking closely at his trajectory, it becomes clear that Pulkit Mani’s entire career is heavily surrounded by vulgarity, pornography-laced comedy, and the mocking of Hindu deities. Instead of relying on clean or clever writing, his brand has consistently gravitated toward sensationalism, objectionable political mimicry, and crude language to stay relevant on social media platforms.

Underground claims and show cancellations

Following the massive backlash and political uproar stemming from the Indore event, Mani took to his Instagram account to share a cryptic story that simply read, “Ab underground hone ka samay aa gaya hai”. 

Alongside this digital retreat, he also officially announced the cancellation of his upcoming live show in Noida due to the mounting pressure and safety concerns. Taking to Instagram to address his followers, Mani wrote that the show had been called off because of “unforeseen circumstances,” while offering an apology to the audience for the sudden inconvenience and thanking them for their understanding and continued support.

“I regret to inform you that my Noida show has been cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances. I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused and appreciate your understanding and support,” Mani wrote in his post.

The Indore event and Mani’s have since become a political controversy. BJP leaders criticised Gandhi and the Congress over the comedian’s act, particularly the reference involving Modi’s mother.

Sahil Wakode suicide: How IIT Bombay Humanities professors Suryakant Waghmore, Anupam Guha and others are turning the institution into a caste politics hub

The suicide of a second-year B. Tech student at IIT Bombay on 18th September 2026 has stirred outrage and handed those who thrive on playing caste politics an unmissable opportunity to turn the deceased Sahil Wakode into another ideologically useful Rohith Vemula.

Caught using ChatGPT on his phone to solve a question paper, Sahil Wakode committed suicide hours later; IIT Bombay professor booked under SC/ST Act FIR

The 20-year-old student from a Scheduled Caste family in Yavatmal was found dead in Hostel 4 on the evening of 18th September, hours after he was caught using a mobile phone and an AI chatbot for cheating during an exam.

Wakode’s parents have alleged caste discrimination; leftist student bodies are demanding IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare’s resignation. The protesting students are also demanding police action against Professor Suryanarayan Doolla and others for allegedly abetting the student’s suicide through caste discrimination.

The IIT Bombay Professor Suryanarayan Doolla, on invigilator duty, caught Sahil Wakode using the generative AI tool ChatGPT on his phone during the examination to solve the question paper. According to the administration, he had uploaded the question paper to ChatGPT to get answers. After being caught, he was asked to leave the examination hall, and hours later he was found dead in his hostel room.

The parents of the student told the police that he had earlier informed them that he was facing discrimination and difficulties on the campus. The father mentioned in his complaint that Professor Doolla had been subjecting his son to caste discrimination for the past three months, on the instructions of IIT-Bombay Director, Professor Shireesh B Kedare.

The varsity administration denied subjecting Sahil Wakode or any student to caste discrimination and that Wakode’s suicide was triggered by any caste bias-related incident. The SC/ST Students and Staff Cell of the institute also said that no complaint relating to caste-based discrimination was filed by the student.

IIT Bombay administration stated that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against Sahil Wakode. The instructor, faculty advisor and Head of Department to Wakode counselled and assured him that this episode will in no manner wreck his academic record.

However, Professor Doolla and others have been booked under the sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in addition to the charges relating to abetment of suicide (BNS Section 108).  

Catching a student using a mobile phone during an examination for cheating, even if handled with supposed clumsiness, is not by itself a caste atrocity. The police are probing the deceased student’s family’s claim that he was subjected to caste-based discrimination or mockery earlier. However, the registration of an FIR under the stringent SC/ST Act turns an uninvestigated allegation into a criminal case overnight because that is how this legislation is structured. Perhaps, the SC/ST Act’s arrest-before-investigation provision is one of the key drivers of this law’s rampant misuse.

As soon as an alleged ‘caste discrimination’ claim emerged in the suicide of the IIT Bombay student, the political-ideological machinery that thrives on caste politics swung into action. A narrative is being woven that in recent years, a significant number of students from SC and ST communities have committed suicide over on-campus caste discrimination, while the majority of faculty members across India’s top educational institutions are ‘Savarn’ (general category). This apocryphal narrative is gaining traction even as government data shows that the majority of students dying by suicide across IITs, NITs, and IIMs were from the general category.

Leftists wove a caste discrimination narrative after IIT Bombay student Darshan Solanki’s death despite no evidence, and went dead silent after the abettor turned out to be a Muslim

This, however, is not the first time that a student’s death has been given a caste discrimination spin even before a police probe. On 12th February 2023, an IIT Bombay student named Darshan Solanki took his own life. He was a Hindu Dalit who hailed from Ahmedabad city in Gujarat.

He jumped to his death from the 7th floor of his hostel building. It had only been a day since the semester exams ended. Solanki had even called his mother before committing suicide and discussed plans about having a family get-together on 14th February that year.

Soon after the incident, speculations began about the cause of Darshan Solanki’s untimely death. A notorious organisation on campus named ‘Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle (APPSC)’ alleged that the victim took his own life due to ‘caste discrimination.’

Caste-baiters and leftist propaganda outlets like Newslaundry exploited Solanki’s death for their own ‘caste discrimination’ agenda even as the institute’s administration ruled out caste discrimination allegations. The whole leftist coterie went silent as soon as the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the Mumbai Police arrested a 19-year-old batchmate of Darshan Solanki named Arman Iqbal Khatri and found a suicide note, in which the deceased Hindu Dalit blamed his Muslim batchmate for his decision to end his life.

Going by the precedent set by the 2016 Rohith Vemula suicide case, the left liberal coterie is not going to let Wakode’s suicide go unused for their political attacks against the BJP government and the sinister ‘Manuvad/Brahminvad se Azadi’ agenda, claim that Professor Doolla is pro-BJP, Sanghi, and hold seminars, protests, and years later, maybe a ‘secular’ I.N.D.I. Alliance member party enact on-campus anti-caste discrimination law in Wakode’s name.

Beyond pushing back against the predictable playbook, there is a serious need to understand how India’s top institutions known for their educational excellence are falling into the grip of dubious caste activists masquerading as ultra-intellectual professors.

IIT Bombay and beyond: How India’s technical institutes are becoming a hub of far-left activism and Hinduphobia

To a great extent, the popular imagination that the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) are temples of technical excellence—producing engineers, scientists, and innovators who have powered India’s progress- is true. IITs are, in fact, seen as high-pressure merit factories.

However, beyond the chimaera of unparalleled STEM success and fetishisation of academic excellence. India’s top educational institutions are undergoing an unannounced leftist takeover.

This takeover, or, to keep it less alarming, assertion, is three-layered.

First, there are active student collectives rooted in Leftist-Marxist ideology that are determined that some IITs and other top institutes are ‘pro-Savarn’, faculties are mostly dominated by ‘Sanghi Savarns’, failures are the result of ‘caste-based humiliation ‘, and suicide is ‘murder’. They play judge, jury, and executioner, based on the religious and caste identity of the deceased.

The second layer comprises the left-liberal media. The Wire, Newslaundry, Scroll, and numerous self-styled ‘Ambedkarite’ YouTubers portray incidents such as the suicide of Rohith Vemula or Sahil Wakode as proof that Indian educational institutions are a hub of caste-based biases, harassment and discrimination regardless of the evidence to back their claim.

The third layer is less talked about but much more concerning: humanities and policy faculty. Though left-liberal ideological biases are not exclusive to humanities faculty only, or that all professors in these departments are leftists, those with such biases treat caste as the root cause of most, if not every campus conflict.

The humanities and policy centres in technical institutes are small in headcount; however, they punch above their weight and exploit the unmatched national prestige of IITs for intellectualising their caste propaganda and disseminating it as universal truth.

This dissemination of caste atrocity or Hinduphobic propaganda is interesting. For example, a professor writes that vegetarian mess tables are ‘purity-pollution’ or that Article 370 abrogation was ‘constitutionally illegitimate’, ideologically aligned student groups then cite faculty, the faculty cite the group’s ‘surveys’, and leftist media cites both, creating a citation loop lending each other ‘intellectual credence’.

While the Leftist-Marxist rot is infecting several Indian higher education institutions, since IIT Bombay is at the centre of the issue, let’s take a look at the problematic shenanigans of some of its professors.

Suryakant Waghmore: The IIT Bombay Sociology professor who believes Indian vegetarianism is ‘social illness’

Suryakant Waghmore is a professor of Sociology in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Bombay. BA from Karnataka University, MA in Community Development from TISS, PhD from Edinburgh as a Commonwealth Scholar, Suryakant Waghmore’s research work focuses mainly on Dalit politics, caste and violence, ‘Hinduism’ civility and exclusion.

Source: Website of IIT Bombay Humanities and Social Sciences  Department

Professor Waghmore earlier wrote that Indian vegetarianism is more about caste hierarchy than animal ethics. During the 2023 IITB mess-table dispute, he called “Bhartiya vegetarianism of purity and segregation” a “social illness”. Waghmore equated assertive vegetarian students to militants.

Source: Website of IIT Bombay Humanities and Social Sciences  Department

Unsurprisingly, Professor Waghmore’s social justice activism, as is the case with most self-declared Ambedkarites, is all about Brahmin bashing and vilification. As reflected in one of his X posts, wherein he wrote that Hindus, particularly Brahmins, facing racism in the US are not facing Hinduphobia but their ‘Karma’.

“A true Brahmin should not cross the seas as per Manu and Dharmasutras. Brahmins experiencing racism in the US is not Hinduphobia… it’s karma?” he wrote.

Waghmore has expressed his disdain for the RSS, as exemplified by this post, in which he wrote, “One key lesson .. there’s nothing essentially south about ‘south India’ .. sublated-Hinduism of RSS has reached Kerala too. This forward and backward moment is here to stay. More reason for us to stay alert and take nothing for granted.”

In another post, Waghmore suggested that Hinduism lacks ‘civility’.

This taxpayer-funded academic has consistently been peddling anti-Hindu propaganda with an intellectual outlook.

In June 2025, a show-cause notice was issued to Suryakant Waghmore after a Times of India op-ed he authored triggered backlash. The article, headlined “Mumbai’s Big Cash Polls”, was a politically charged one, published without the prior institutional clearance, in violation of Schedule B, Paragraph 5(ii) of the institute’s code of conduct.

Waghmore has also taken delight in ‘gaumutra’ jibes at his critics.

Anupam Guha: Another ‘gem’ of IIT Bombay

Such is the ideological dominance left liberals have in Indian academia that India’s premier technical institutes and STEM education is increasingly being sidelined in favour of humanities and political activism. In fact, a closer look at the IITs, IIMs and even top private universities reveals how India’s educational institutions are turning into playgrounds for radical leftist ideologues.

Anupam Guha, an Assistant Professor at the Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies at IIT Bombay, is more of a political activist than a professor imparting education pertaining to his officially assigned focus areas, including Artificial Intelligence, AI policy, and the future of labour.

While Guha talks about dissent and glorifies dissenters, he can’t stand dissent against himself, and thus keeps his social media posts protected.

Earlier, Anupam Guha lauded MIT student Megha Vemuri for using her graduation ceremony to launch a vitriolic anti-Israel tirade. Rather than maintaining the intellectual neutrality expected of a taxpayer-funded educator, Guha glorified her act as brave and exemplary, admitting he lacked the “courage” to do something similar in his youth.

Back in 2019, Guha publicly endorsed an article branding the abrogation of Article 370—an act passed by the Indian Parliament and upheld by the Supreme Court—as “constitutionally illegitimate”.

Expressing his radical views on capitalism, as exemplified by his remarks during the violent Sterlite Copper Plant protests a few years back. The IIT Bombay assistant professor wrote, “capitalism cannot function without state terrorism,” and referred to the deceased as “martyrs.”

Anupam Guha, the IIT Bombay assistant professor, was also at the forefront of urging people hit the streets against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in January 2020. Despite being on a government payroll, Guha used his platform to fan unrest, often amplifying separatist voices and questioning India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. Guha incited people against a legislation passed in the Parliament, which simply offered expedited citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring Islamic countries. 

In one of his posts, Guha denounced the term “Tukde Tukde Gang”—a colloquial phrase used to describe secessionist and anti-national elements—as an act of “stochastic terrorism,” and suggested that those using the phrase should face prosecution. This is not the language of an academic, but of a political ideologue engaged in narrative warfare against the Indian state.

Guha, however, is not a closet communist; rather, he has openly boasted of his political ideological alignment.

In an October 2024 post, Guha wrote that he has been a communist for over 15 years.

Meet Palestine and Hamas-loving IIT Bombay professor Sharmishtha Saha

Back in November 2023, just weeks after the Palestinian Islamic terror group Hamas carried out a massacre of innocent Israeli civilians, an IIT Bombay professor, Sharmishtha Saha, spoke in support of the terrorist outfit during a virtual lecture.

The professor at the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) department of IIT Bombay invited guest speaker Sudhanva Deshpande to address the event for an academic course, namely ‘HS 835 Performance Theory & Praxis’.

Deshpande openly lionised Palestinian terrorists Zakaria Zubeidi and Ghassan Kanafani and glorified Hamas’s violent jihad against Jews.

“He not only admitted to having met Palestinian terrorist Zubeidi in 2015 but also defended and glorified violence and armed rebellion. Zubeidi is a known figure associated with the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an organisation designated as a terrorist entity by various governments and international organisations, including the United States, the European Union and Israel,” a complaint filed by IIT Bombay students back then, stated.

This episode was part of the same pattern, wherein HSS classrooms in technical institutions are weaponised as platforms for radical politics and glorification of violence. These professors are not some secret cell or workers of political parties but those enjoying the tag of intellectuals and the accompanying respect.

Dubious individuals secured key positions in IIT Bombay, targeted OpIndia with trashy study

IITs are taxpayer-funded institutions meant to impart technical education free from any political influence or biases; however, India’s premier institutes are being exploited for leftist ideological agendas.

The Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies at IIT Bombay commissioned a research paper titled “Delving deeper into OpIndia.com’s representation of Hindus and Muslims.” The paper analysed 54,580 articles published by OpIndia from 12 December 2014 to 15 May 2023, and unsurprisingly concluded that the portal “fosters anti-Muslim narratives” while positively portraying Hindus.

Among the authors of this piece of propaganda packaged as ‘academic research’ is Shinjinee Majumder, a staff member at the controversial and far-left portal Alt News, which often pushes Islamist narratives and does selective and politically convenient ‘fact-checking’.

Such studies churned out by entities running on taxpayer money are essentially sophisticated and intellectualised partisan political hit jobs. These entities are becoming echo chambers of leftist political activism, vilifying India’s political right-wing, Hindutva, and by extension, Hinduism. While most people are still debating why IITs and IIMs even have humanities departments, these departments are lending scholarly credence to themes that undermine the Indian state’s foundations.

IIT Gandhinagar: Another premier technical institute undergoing ideological takeover by Leftist-Marxists

An interesting example of this can be found in the case of IIT Gandhinagar, where the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) department received flak in 2025 for seemingly promoting Islamic theology under academic pretences. PhD topics included titles such as:

  • “Fishing With Faith: Islam, Indigenous Knowledge, and Ecological Sustainability in Lakshadweep”
  • “Robes of Authority: Sunni Ulama, Sartorial Tradition, and Embodied Piety in Malabar”
  • “From Gods to Jinn: Ontological Rewriting and the Islamization of Spirits in Kerala”
  • “Beyond Cultural Brokers: Speech Mediation and Ritual Efficacy in Mosque Speeches in Kozhikode”

There was no critical or comparative lens or any critical inquiry; rather, the study was designed to romanticise and propagate Islamic dogmas. It is alarming that a premier government-funded technical institute is serving as a platform for theological glorification under the garb of social science research.

When the issue came out in public, an email sent by Professor Nishant Choksi went viral, in which he threatened students with disciplinary action and penalties for revealing thesis projects and student information. Professor Choksi was also in the news for his association with Adilok NGO, which is said to have a religious agenda.

Later, OpIndia reported how some teachers are associated with controversial NGOs working in tribal areas, while others are active on social media and are propagating leftist ideology. 

It was reported last year that while Islamic dogmas were being romanticised, Hindu students were being threatened against leaking internal communications and discouraged from condemning terror attacks targeting Hindus, particularly the Pahalgam attack, wherein Hindus were singled out and shot dead by Pakistan-backed Islamic terrorists.

However, just seven days after Hamas—a designated Palestinian terrorist outfit—massacred civilians in Israel on 7th October 2023, IIT Gandhinagar reportedly held a “Sham-e-Azadi” candlelight march to express solidarity with Palestine.

Like IIT Bombay, IIT Gandhinagar has also employed several controversial professors. One such professor is Amit Arora of the Department of Material Science. In some of his posts, the professor expressed support for the terrorist organisation Hamas and Umar Khalid, an accused under the UAPA in connection with anti-Hindu Delhi riots. Arora also made some political posts mocking the policies of the Modi government. Following backlash over his social media posts, Arora deleted his account.

On May 27, 2020, Arora posted some comments on the Ram Temple on X. A few months before that, the Supreme Court had passed the verdict in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir dispute, and the formation of the Ram Mandir trust was underway.

Amit Arora wrote in his post, “Ram Lalla is in the child who is trying to wake up his mother’s corpse lying on the platform. As long as there is even one such child, Ram Lalla will never come to your temple. Go and build a temple.”

Arora’s post reflected typical leftist mindset which always portrays Hindus as inferior by linking any social or economic problem to their temples or Gods. Such things can be in the context of religion or sect, but the leftist minds always target Hindus.

On April 2, 2025, Professor Arora commented on a post made by a leftist account on X questioning why “Sanghis” have started using the name “Bharat” in their conversations instead of “India”. “What is the sudden onset of Sanghis using the name Bharat while conversing about in English about India? What are they trying to do? Trying to fool everyone to make them believe that Bharat is a different developed version of India?” the post read.

Professor Arora has also reposted Ravish Kumar’s posts. He reposted a post of Twitter troll Arpit Sharma, who wrote in support of Umar Khalid that if his name was Umesh or Umang, he would have been out of jail by now.

Caste discrimination, Hindutva, Palestine, ‘syncretic culture’, vegetarianism and such charged and divisive themes are gradually defining IITs and IIMs while these premier institutes were meant to be temples of educational excellence not political propaganda.

How rampant misogyny has been the hallmark of Congress events where Rahul Gandhi preaches about ‘smashing patriarchy’

Congress politician and the Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, once again offered a platform for mockery and misogyny during a ‘Chhatron Ki Goonj’ event in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, on Saturday (September 19, 2026).

During the event, Gandhi gave the stage to stand-up ‘comedian’ Pulkit Mani, who performed a short comic act full of derogatory gestures and insults directed at Prime Minister Modi and an elderly woman (whom he provided a seat during his 2024 rally).

During the unfunny comic act, Mani mimicked and mocked PM Modi and his late mother as Rahul Gandhi smiled and played along. A video from Gandhi’s latest Chhatron Ki Goonj event went viral on social media, attracting widespread criticism.

The video shows Mani mocking PM Modi’s gesture of warmly greeting people with a handshake and a hug. He then goes on to display a distasteful mimicry of PM Modi’s way of speaking and also dragged the woman into the cheap act.

Gandhi was visibly cheerful throughout the entire act and even joined the comic, carrying a wide smile.

While political barbs are common in the political sphere, Gandhi, in his frenzy to attack PM Modi, often crosses the line of decency and civility. Be it his press interactions or public events, facts or logical arguments never make their way into Gandhi’s addresses, which are full of propaganda, lies, personal attacks, and below-the-belt remarks targeting PM Modi. Using misogynistic remarks about an elderly woman or PM Modi’s female counterparts or colleagues is a new addition to the book of cheap tactics.

Rahul Gandhi’s repeated display of misogyny

The visuals at the Chhatron Ki Goonj event in Indore were disgusting but familiar. This is not the first time that misogyny has taken the centre stage at an event of the Congress Party. Similar visuals emerged during the Rachnatmak Congress National Convention held in New Delhi on August 13, 2026.

At the event, Rahul Gandhi and senior Congress leader Sandeep Dikshit together took the country’s political discourse to a new low by dragging a female foreign head of state into their personal attacks directed at PM Modi. While criticising PM Modi and his foreign policy in his usual overtly performative manner, Gandhi normalised sexism and misogyny.

He hugged veteran politician Sandeep Dikshit to mock PM Modi’s way of greeting his foreign counterparts, which was followed by a highly misogynistic remark by Dixit against Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. In a tacky political gimmick, Gandhi hugged Dixit to take a dig at PM Modi, and the latter went along with a sly remark, “Did you hug me thinking I am Meloni?” Both Gandhi and Dixit laughed off the sickening display of misogyny, and Gandhi carried on with his rant against PM Modi.

In the desperation to settle political scores with PM Modi, Gandhi did not even care how such misogynistic remarks coming from the Leader of the Opposition could have harmed the country’s image globally. This was not a one-off incident, where comments undermining women’s dignity were made by Congress leaders. What transpired at the Congress events in New Delhi and Indore is a symptom of the deep-rooted culture of misogyny and sexism thriving within the Congress Party. Rahul Gandhi’s acceptance and encouragement of misogynistic comments at the Congress events is proof of how misogyny and disrespect towards women are normalised within his organisation.

This behaviour does not help Rahul Gandhi; rather, it reinforces and strengthens his image of a non-serious and part-time politician, which is possibly the reason behind his party’s repeated electoral failures. His public events have more entertainment value than substance. Failing to counter PM Modi on the political front with facts and sound arguments, Gandhi has now come down to putting on such farcical shows where he acts like a disgruntled child rather than a serious politician seeking people’s trust.

Congress politicians and their contempt for women

The public display of misogyny is not limited to the male politicians of the party; its female politicians are equal contributors to it. Ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Congress national spokesperson and former journalist, Supriya Shrinate, made sexist slurs at BJP MP and actor Kangana Ranaut in an Instagram post that was later deleted.

Shrinate posted a picture of Ranaut in which she was scantily dressed and captioned it, “Kya bhav chal raha hai Mandi me koi batayega? (Will someone tell me what the rate system in Mandi is?” The post unleashed a barrage of sexual innuendos and abusive comments at the actor-politician, who was declared the BJP’s candidate from the Mandi Lok Sabha constituency. After facing massive backlash for the reprehensible post, Shrinate issued a clarification claiming that someone who had access to her Instagram account made the post, adding that the person responsible for making the post will be held accountable.

Congress’s culture of misogyny was also exposed when former Congress member Priyanka Chaturvedi left the party after party workers who misbehaved with her were reinstated in the organisation. Chaturvedi, who was also the party’s foremost spokesperson, publicly expressed dissatisfaction over the reinstatement of the Congress workers and subsequently resigned from the primary membership of the party.

The failure of Congress’ top leadership, who chant slogans like ‘Ladki Hoon Lad Sakti Hoon’ and call for ‘smashing patriarchy’, to at least condemn such incidents, speaks volumes about the party’s anti-women mindset. Clearly, as a classic case of birds of a feather flocking together, the party is made up of people with misogynistic mindsets.

The above-mentioned incidents demonstrate how Rahul Gandhi and his party have normalised insults and derogatory remarks targeting women. The Congress Party has been trying to project itself as the champion of women’s rights; however, its manufactured image and carefully crafted narrative lay exposed when the masks put on by its leaders fall off in events like the Chhatron Ki Goonj event in Indore.

Gandhinagar court sends The Wire columnist Ravi Nair to jail for missing hearing; Gujarat HC issues notice: Here’s what happened

A Gandhinagar court in Gujarat sent OCCRP partner journalist and columnist Ravi Nair to jail on 17th September for missing a hearing in the criminal defamation case filed by the Adani Group.

Later, on Saturday (19th September), the Gujarat High Court issued a notice on a plea moved by Ravi Nair. Justice M K Thakker posted the matter for hearing on 21st September after the Gujarat High Court Chief Justice passed an order noting the ‘urgency’ of the case.

Ravi Nair was taken into custody and sent to jail on 17th September after a Gandhinagar court issued a non-bailable warrant against him on 3rd September in connection with his petition against his conviction and one-year simple imprisonment in a criminal defamation case against the Adani Group.

In his plea, Nair contended that the warrant against him was issued without prior summons or notice. Nair argued that he regularly attended the court hearings. However, the leftist propagandist was absent on 3rd September, prompting the court to issue a non-bailable arrest warrant after dismissing his application for exemption from personal appearance.

“On the very first occasion on which an application for exemption from his personal appearance came to be declined, without any prior notice to him and without the intermediate step of a bailable warrant being resorted to, the said warrant being returnable on the next date of hearing, namely 17.09.2026… However, surprisingly, the petitioner came to be sent to judicial custody in violation of law and procedure, although no application for cancellation of bail granted to him had been preferred by any party and no notice whatsoever on that aspect had been issued to him,” Nair’s petition reads.

Conviction of Ravi Nair in Adani defamation case

In early February 2026, a magistrate court in Gujarat’s Gandhinagar district convicted Ravi Nair in a criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The court sentenced Nair to one year’s simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5,000. The verdict was delivered by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mansa taluka. The case was filed against Nair in September 2021 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case arose from a complaint by Adani Enterprises, the flagship firm of the Adani Group, in 2021, which accused Ravi Nair of posting and circulating a series of tweets from his handle @t_d_h_nair, and articles published on the anti-Adani website “Adani Watch”, that the company said were false, malicious and damaging to its reputation. According to the company, the posts were aimed at eroding public trust and shaking investor confidence in the conglomerate.

According to the prosecution, the tweets in question were published between October 2020 and July 2021 from Nair’s social media handle on Twitter (now X) and a website. The court held that the publications went beyond fair comment or permissible criticism and amounted to categorical assertions accusing the company of corruption, manipulation of laws, misuse of government agencies and undue political patronage.

The court noted that the imputations were presented as statements of fact rather than opinion. Furthermore, when such posts were circulated through social media platforms with wide reach, they were capable of damaging the company’s reputation among investors, regulators, business partners and right-thinking members of society.

From ‘no loss of reputation to Adani Enterprises’, ‘territorial jurisdiction’, ‘only a Director of the company could maintain the complaint’, to ‘questionable admissibility of electronic proof’, the court rejected the defence’s arguments.

The court noted that despite the fact that the tweets and articles in question pertain to different events and were published over a period of time, they “consistently target the complainant company and its group by alleging unethical conduct, manipulation of laws, misuse of governmental machinery, environmental violations, and financial impropriety.”

Noting the nature of the offence, the court declined to grant the benefit of probation and stated that such relief is meant for cases arising from ignorance or momentary lapse, not calculated intent. 

“In these circumstances, the ingredients of the offence of defamation, as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 500 thereof, stand duly proved. The accused Mr Ravı Naır, is held to be guilty of the offence under Section 499, punishable under Section 500 of the IPC,” the court ruled.

The court had also stated that, given the fact that the accused claimed to be a journalist, he “cannot be heard to plead ignorance of the impact, reach, and consequences of statements published through digital platforms.”

Unsurprisingly, Ravi Nair was hailed a hero back then, and continues to enjoy the ‘solidarity’ of the leftist ecosystem.

Ravi Nair, the notorious propagandist who mistakes leftist ideological activism for journalism

Leftist propagandist Ravi Nair is no stranger to controversies and court cases. Nair has a track record of consistently peddling malicious propaganda against his perceived ideological adversaries, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP, and businessmen like Gautam Adani.

In September this year, a Delhi court ordered him to remove unsubstantiated and defamatory content (based on the lies of Hindenburg Research), which he published to tarnish the reputation of businessman Gautam Adani.

Earlier in February 2025, Ravi Nair peddled lies about the Adani Group in the British newspaper ‘The Guardian.’

In October 2025, Nair wrote an article for the Washington Post, in which he alleged that the Government of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) had indicated plans for around $3.9 billion in investment in Adani Group companies.

Later, a complaint was filed by the Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ), which alleged that false and fabricated information and documents were used in the report and related social media posts. Following this, an FIR was registered against Ravi Nair. In mid-August 2026, the Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR against Nair.

Back in 2022, Ravi Nair ended up exposing his dumbness while pretending to be an intellectual with a deep understanding of economics. The Wire columnist compared the Indian rupee with the currency of Afghanistan.

Earlier, it was reported that an Australian NGO-backed portal, ‘Adani Watch’, retweets almost all misleading articles by Ravi Nair. The ‘journalist’ is known for deriding Hindu sentiments and using Hinduphobic tropes regularly.

Nair earlier amplified lies about the Statue of Unity and called for its demolition. He was also caught spreading lies about the Rafale Deal and thwarting India’s defence procurement, although the manoeuvres of Ravi Nair and the extended left-liberal cabal remained unsuccessful.

As IIT-B suicide case is given a ‘caste spin’, read how the govt data about student deaths in top institutes exposes the one-sided narrative of Ambedkarites

The death of a second-year student at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay has triggered massive late-night student protests on campus. The student, Sahil Wakode, committed suicide hours after he was caught using a mobile phone to solve a question paper and get answers via ChatGPT during an examination. Professor Suryanarayan Doolla, who was on invigilation duty, asked Sahil to leave the examination hall, and hours later, Sahil was found dead in his hostel room.

Following the incident, Sahil’s parents alleged that he was subjected to relentless caste discrimination by the IIT Bombay administration. Based on the father’s complaint, an FIR was lodged by the Mumbai Police on Saturday, 19th September, naming Professor Suryanarayan Doolla and others under charges of abetment of suicide alongside sections of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The parents claimed that Sahil had earlier informed them about facing discrimination and difficulties on campus. In his complaint, the father stated that Professor Doolla had been targeting his son with casteist remarks for three months on the instructions of IIT Bombay Director, Professor Shireesh B Kedare. The father stated in his complaint, “He had come to the college on his own merit, and everything went fine in the First Year. Things changed in the Second Year when the Director, Shireesh B Kedare, instructed faculty member Suryanarayan Doolla to do caste-based discrimination… Doolla was passing casteist remarks for the past three months and had threatened to implicate him in a wrong manner before the incident took place.” 

In response, Director Kedare firmly denied the allegations, stating that no caste discrimination exists on the IIT Bombay campus and that student caste data is completely hidden and unavailable to anyone. The institute’s SC/ST Students and Staff Cell also confirmed that no formal complaint of caste-based discrimination had ever been filed by the student.

As news of the incident spread, social media platforms saw an aggressive wave of reactions, particularly from Ambedkarite groups and online commentators, who claimed that General category students and faculty regularly abuse ‘marginalised students’ on premier campuses, driving them to suicide.

A reality check from Parliament: Ministry of Education data on student suicides

The persistent claims made on social media often stand in stark contrast to official government data. To provide clarity and a reality check against these sweeping narratives, the Ministry of Education presented comprehensive data in the Lok Sabha, replying to Unstarred Question No. 4233 on 27th March, 2023. 

The government revealed that 61 students had died by suicide across IITs, NITs, and IIMs during the preceding five years (2018-2023), which included 33 deaths in IITs, 24 in NITs, and 4 in IIMs. A closer look at the caste-based breakup of these 61 deaths dismantles the idea that suicides are exclusive to any single community.

Out of the total 61 deaths, General-category students accounted for 30 cases (17 in IITs, 10 in NITs, and 3 in IIMs). On the other hand, OBC students accounted for 18 deaths, SC students accounted for 10, ST students accounted for 2, and the remaining 1 was recorded under the EWS category. 

Source: Ministry of Education

Put simply, the combined total for OBC, SC, and ST students stood at 30, exactly matching the 30 deaths recorded among General-category students. While this data does not rule out the possibility of discrimination playing a role in individual tragic cases, it firmly exposes the false claim that General-category students do not face similar mental health pressures or tragedies in premier institutions.

Rising SC/ST representation and the shaping of campus narratives

Alongside these suicide statistics, the central government has highlighted significant structural progress regarding the representation of marginalised communities in higher education.

The Modi Government not only presented transparency through parliamentary data on student suicides, but SC/ST representation has also risen substantially over the last decade. In IITs, representation has grown by roughly 60-70%, while in IIMs, it has surged by more than 100% over ten years. Furthermore, in response to UNSTARRED QUESTION No. 347 presented on 2nd February, 2026, the Ministry of Education detailed the steady growth of SC/ST student enrollment across central universities, IITs, IIMs, and IISc since 2014 based on the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) data comparing 2014-15 with 2022-23.

In IITs, SC enrolment increased from 10,392 to 18,076, while ST enrolment rose from 4,546 to 7,408. In IIMs, SC enrolment increased from 983 to 2,537 and ST enrolment from 410 to 942.

Source: Ministry of Education

In Central Universities, SC enrolment grew from 71,621 in 2014-15 to 89,182 in 2022-23, while ST enrolment rose from 25,964 to 32,801.

Social media outcry and the usual Ambedkarite narrative

One Ambedkarite wrote, “All the accused should be immediately arrested, and the Director should resign. These Savarna casteist faculty have been abusing students on campuses. They want to gatekeep these spaces from marginalised communities; Savarnas occupy more than 90% of faculty positions.”

Another user, @AmbedkarCircle_, posted about the massive late-night student protests on campus following the tragic death, emphasising parental allegations of institutional harassment and torture.

Other online voices used the tragedy to aggressively push for reservation mandates in faculty positions, arguing that while IIT Bombay students are smart enough to understand reservation, the faculty steps in to discriminate based on caste, making reservations in faculty positions an absolute necessity. 

As is often the case, these online segments quickly shifted to their usual narrative, arguing that only SC/ST students commit suicide due to caste discrimination by General Category (GC) students and faculty, while expressing animosity and questioning why General Category students do not face similar outcomes. They continually challenge why unreserved students supposedly do not commit suicide in elite institutes like IITs and IIMs, pushing a rigid narrative that ignores broader empirical realities.

From cheating case to caste-discrimination narrative

These steadily increasing numbers of SC/ST student enrollments strongly indicate that powerful narratives of systemic exclusion are frequently woven around routine or distinct crisis cases without looking at the actual facts. 

In Sahil’s case, what initially appeared to be a straightforward situation of a student taking a drastic step out of panic and fear after being caught cheating during an exam was swiftly transformed into an institutional caste battle. The faculty member who caught him was booked under the stringent SC/ST Atrocities Act simply because the mechanism exists to easily spin a narrative. 

Sahil’s father claimed that “under instructions from the IIT Director”, faculty member Suryanarayan Doolla had been targeting his son with casteist slurs for a long time, an explosive revelation that conveniently surfaced only after the tragedy took place, demonstrating how quickly complex personal tragedies can be reframed to fit pre-existing political narratives.

The case also fuels demand for UGC equity regulations

The Sahil Wakode case has also been used by Ambedkarite voices on social media to demand the immediate implementation of the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) new regulations on equity in higher education institutions. One user, @ambedkariteIND, wrote, “Another Dalit student has committed suicide due to caste-based harassment and public humiliation by a professor. The incident took place at IIT Bombay. The ‘Dronacharya’ figure is still active, which is why UGC regulations must be implemented immediately.”

Another user wrote, “Another Dalit student dies at IIT Bombay. The parents allege caste discrimination; a case of abetment to suicide has been registered, with action under the SC/ST Act. How long will casteism continue to claim Dalit students’ lives? UGC regulations must be implemented immediately.”

Similar demands were made by several Ambedkarite users, who argued that stronger institutional mechanisms were needed to deal with allegations of caste-based discrimination. 

The social media push by Ambedkarite groups centred heavily around enforcing the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations of 2026, which were notified on 13th January. However, these draconian guidelines faced a major roadblock on 29th January, when the Supreme Court, in a hearing before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, put a firm stay on their implementation. The apex court ruled that the 2026 UGC Regulations were vague, susceptible to widespread misuse, and critically lacked essential safeguards, directing the statutory body to continue enforcing the balanced 2012 regulations on caste-based discrimination until further orders.

A close examination of the framework highlights stark differences between the two sets of rules, particularly regarding how discrimination and protected groups are defined. The older 2012 UGC Regulations applied broadly to all higher educational institutions, emphasising the protection and equality of all sections of society without limiting the definition of discrimination solely to specific caste groups. 

While they prohibited discrimination against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), such as breaching reservation policies or withholding documents, they maintained a holistic focus on safeguarding all students regardless of creed, religion, language, gender, or disability. 

The 2026 UGC guidelines explicitly left out General Category students entirely. They redefined “caste-based discrimination” restrictively to protect only members of SCs, STs, and Other Backwards Classes (OBCs), with OBCs being a newly added protected category absent from the 2012 rules. 

Precedent of manufactured caste narratives: The Rohith Vemula case

This instance of immediately framing a tragic suicide through the lens of caste discrimination is not an isolated phenomenon, as several past cases followed a remarkably similar pattern before official investigations revealed a different reality. A prime example is the 2016 death of Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, which was instantly converted into a nationwide political symbol of institutional caste oppression. However, in May 2024, the Telangana Police filed a comprehensive closure report before the Telangana High Court, completely dismantling the prevailing narrative. The police report concluded that Rohith Vemula did not belong to the Scheduled Caste category and that the SC certificates obtained by him and his family were forged.

According to the police findings, Vemula died by suicide out of constant fear that his real caste identity, belonging to the OBC Vaddera category, matching findings from the earlier judicial report by ex-Allahabad High Court judge AK Roopanwal, would be discovered, resulting in the loss of his academic degrees earned over the years and subsequent criminal prosecution. 

The report explicitly noted that “the deceased himself is aware that his mother got him SC certificate… this could be one of the constant fears as the exposure of the same would put him to loss of his academic degrees.” Despite his emotive final suicide note blaming authorities for caste bias, official investigations proved that his personal academic identity fears and worldly troubles drove the tragedy, rather than systemic caste persecution.

The Payal Tadvi case: Ragging incident was shown as caste discrimination

Similarly, the 2019 suicide of Payal Tadvi, a second-year gynaecology student at TN Topiwala National Medical College and BYL Nair Hospital, was fiercely amplified to build a heavy caste-based discrimination narrative. Tadvi, who belonged to the Tadvi Bhil Muslim community and secured admission through the ST reserved quota, died by suicide on 22nd May, 2019, after facing severe harassment from three senior colleagues. 

While her mother filed an immediate police complaint accusing the seniors of caste-based slurs and discrimination, a state-appointed four-member inquiry committee submitted a 16-page report presenting a more nuanced reality. The committee established that while Dr Tadvi was undeniably subjected to severe ragging and public shaming by the three accused senior doctors (Dr Bhakti Mehare, Dr Ankita Khandelwal, and Dr. Hema Ahuja), the extensive inquiry and statements from 32 witnesses found no conclusive evidence to substantiate claims of caste-based discrimination. 

Mobile numbers, details of lakhs left exposed on Chhatron Ki Goonj website of Rahul Gandhi

In June this year, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi launched a campaign named “Chhatron Ki Goonj” (echoes of students) purportedly to raise issues of students, such as paper leaks, higher cost of education, lack of opportunities, etc. Congress has since organized many events by this name where Rahul Gandhi interacts with students, listens to their grievances, and promises to fix them all, if Congress wins elections.

In order to attend such events, or to become part of this “student’s movement” as the Congress party wants to call it, young students from schools and colleges are supposed to register on a website. The website hosting the registration form for Chhatron Ki Goonj is incidentally Rahul Gandhi’s personal website hosted at the URL rahulgandhi.in

Back in June, Rahul Gandhi himself had exhorted students to register on the website:

He had even posted a video appeal after the first Chhatron Ki Goonj event in Kota, Rajasthan, asking students to share more ideas. He showed a QR code in the video, which took the students to the same Chhatron Ki Goonj registration form hosted on his personal website.

It is fair to say that Rahul Gandhi personally drove thousands of students to his personal website where they were supposed to provide their names, mobile numbers, gender, and other personal data in order to register for the Chhatron Ki Goonj events, or merely to show support for Rahul Gandhi’s ideas and leadership.

Now it seems that whoever trusted Rahul Gandhi’s words were exposed to potential data leak, where scammers and hackers could misuse their personal data to target them. This could include sending suspicious links to hack social media accounts, or to defraud them into paying some money, or to do worse things like cyberbullying or extracting ransom via stunts like digital arrests.

Ironically whenever any student, including minors, landed on the website promoted by Rahul Gandhi to register themselves, they were assured with a message saying their number was not up for sale i.e. the information provided by them will be safe and secure from scammers or telemarketers:

Screenshot of Chhatron Ki Goonj section on Rahul Gandhi’s personal website

However, truth can be far from that as revealed by a developer, researcher and security expert named Shashi, who put out a detailed blog post on various vulnerabilities on websites run by the Congress party.

Websites of Rahul Gandhi, Mahila Congress involved in leak

Shashi says that he could observe at least 1,56,439 records that are potentially exposed to misuse on Rahul Gandhi’s personal website at the time of writing his blog post, and of almost 6 lakh others on Mahila Congress website earlier.

These records could have been obtained by anyone who had understanding and knowledge of how cybersecurity works. Essentially one did not need to “hack” into Rahul Gandhi’s website to obtain these records. No brute-force entry or breaking of passwords was needed, one could get these numbers and data just by observing the publicly available codes, scripts, API calls, and some guesswork.

Such security vulnerabilities were not limited to the Chhatron Ki Goonj Rahul Gandhi’s website alone, the expert says that he found serious vulnerabilities on other Congress-affiliated platforms as well, most notably the Mahila Congress website i.e. Congress was not compromising personal data of just students, but also of women who chose to trust them with their data.

It should be noted that there are thousands of active groups and individuals, known as underground data brokers or dump sellers, who keep trawling the internet to look for websites that have such vulnerabilities in their database. They take a dump (copy) of all such data and then put on dark web for sale, which is then used by other cybercriminals to target the affected individuals whose data was leaked.

A website or platform with weak data protection is expected to alert their users for any possible breach, so that affected users can take steps to secure themselves, such as changing their passwords on other websites if they were having a common password, or to delete other public data.

However, Congress did not do any of these despite being suggested to do so by security expert Shashi, who has given a detailed account of how he found out these security vulnerabilities on Congress websites. In his blog post, the security expert has given a detailed timeline for sake of transparency on how his first reaction was to alert the Congress party about the potential breach.

Congress party did not take complaints of data leak seriously

These vulnerabilities, rather poor cybersecurity protocols employed by the Congress party, were spotted more than a month ago by the security expert who wrote to the party functionaries alerting them about the same. He pointed out to them that many of these vulnerabilities were critical in nature and they should fix it as soon as possible.

However, no one officially associated with the Congress party bothered to acknowledge the problem to him or in public, though the vendors handling the websites informed the security expert that party authorities had been apprised of the situation.

After waiting for more than a week, the security expert then wrote to CERT-In i.e. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, which is the national nodal agency for responding to computer security incidents as and when they occur. CERT-In is a functional organization of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of the Government of India (MeitY). CERT-In team immediately responded and asked for further information. After undertaking basic due diligence in such cases, CERT-In then proceeds to inform the affected party.

Possibly after being nudged by CERT-In, the Congress party finally acted and a member of their tech team reached out to the security expert on X (formerly Twitter). Most pages of the Congress party collecting information and donation were immediately disabled after this, which shows that the party accepted that there indeed was a major issue with the way they were handling personal data of users.

After a few days, the Congress party told the security expert that they have fixed all issues, though the security expert says that CERT-In has not yet provided any communication about formal closure. OpIndia has reached out to MeitY to inquire if a communication or report about closure of an issue is indeed part of their standard operating procedure or CERT-In only alerts the affected parties.

Poor cybersecurity protocols employed by the Congress party

How seriously Congress took the private data of their members and supporters, especially of women and students, can be known by the fact that following vulnerabilities were spotted by the security expert:

  • You didn’t necessarily need possession of someone’s phone to obtain the OTP to login to Mahila Congress website. Instead of looking at any SMS, the person needed to look into API response visible through browser developer tools. A ‘master OTP’ was also present in the code, visible to people familiar with how web applications work.
  • Without logging in, you could get details like address, age, gender etc. of a user, presumably Mahila Congress member, if you entered a mobile number.
  • Again, without logging in, especially on Mahila Congress website, a user could map which Mahila Congress volunteer was ‘recruited’ by which another volunteer. A scammer could then impersonate the ‘recruiter’ to send messages to scam the unsuspecting Mahila Congress member.
  • Profile pictures were easily accessible and were not stored behind a login protected layer.
  • On Rahul Gandhi’s website, you didn’t even need an account, password, cookie, token or API key to query registration records. This is where Rahul Gandhi had been asking lakhs of students to submit their personal data.

Despite such serious flaw in data privacy and cybersecurity employed by them, Congress party and Rahul Gandhi have failed to publicly acknowledge their mistake that can potentially be exploited by scammers and cybercriminals. A public acknowledgement and apology could have alerted the women and students to take steps to secure their private data – any public or private organization has this social responsibility towards their users.

This is also not for the first time that the Congress party has been found irresponsible in handling personal data of their supporters and members. In the year 2021, Congress party had announced making an online army of over 5 lakhs volunteers on social media, and the website launched for that purpose too had suffered leak of personal data and breach of security.

It is ironic that through his Chhatron Ki Goonj campaign, Rahul Gandhi is attacking Prime Minister Narendra Modi for playing with the future of students, but his own website is endangering the present of the same students, especially those who chose to trust Rahul Gandhi with their personal data.

As Rahul Gandhi cries foul over the arrest of Congress candidate from Nandigram, read how he is involved in multiple pending murder cases

Following the arrest of Congress candidate Milan Pradhan on Friday (September 18, 2026), Rahul Gandhi accused the ruling BJP of a “political vendetta”. Gandhi, who accused the BJP of ‘symbol chori’ a day ago, has levelled another unfounded allegation against the party because of a valid legal action against his party’s candidate.

Pradhan was selected by the Congress Party to contest the Nandigram Assembly bypoll scheduled for October 6, 2026. Interestingly, the former West Bengal Chief Minister and TMC supremo, Mamata Banerjee, extended support to him on behalf of her faction of the party during a press conference at her Kalighat residence on Friday.

However, hours after Banerjee announced her support for Pradhan, he was arrested by the police in connection with four criminal cases pending against him. After Pradhan’s arrest, Gandhi took the opportunity to attack the state’s BJP government and allege foul play. Gandhi claimed the BJP got Pradhan arrested to win the Nandigram seat without a fight.

“The arrest of Congress candidate Milan Pradhan for the Nandigram by-election is no coincidence—it is political revenge, the murder of democracy. The BJP has no faith in fair elections—that’s why it wants to cling to power sometimes through vote theft, sometimes through stealing governments, and sometimes through stealing parties. They don’t want to contest elections; they want to end the electoral fight altogether. The Congress will neither fear nor bow down. We will fight—and we will win,” Gandhi posted on X on Friday.

“Political vendetta” or legal action?

What Gandhi described as a “political vendetta” was actually a valid and legal action against the Congress candidate, who has multiple criminal cases pending against him. Pradhan’s arrest was carried out in execution of a pending arrest warrant issued in connection with a 2007 murder case in Nandigram.

OpIndia accessed four pending arrest warrants issued against Pradhan in different criminal cases. Three of these arrest warrants were issued in 2021 while one was issued in 2023.

All four pending arrest warrants relate to criminal cases registered against Pradhan in 2007, three of which include murder charges. Case No. 44/07 was registered in July 2007 at Kesuri Police Station in the Paschim Medinipur district of West Bengal, involving charges under Sections 148 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 25/35 of the Arms Act. An arrest warrant was issued against Milan Pradhan in connection with the case on May 15, 2021.

The remaining three cases, involving murder charges, were filed at Nandigram Police Station. The details of the three cases are as follows:

Case No. 75/07 was lodged against Milan Pradhan under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 302 and 506 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act. An arrest warrant was issued against him in connection with the case on October 16, 2023.

Case No. 221/07 was filed against him under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 364, 302, and 201 of the IPC. On March 15, 2021, an arrest warrant was issued against Milan Pradhan in connection with the case.

The last one, Case No. 188/07, was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, and 302 of the IPC, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. An arrest warrant was issued against him in connection with the case on March 15, 2021.

Rahul Gandhi’s distortion tactics

Clearly, all the criminal cases were filed, and the arrest warrants were issued against Milan Pradhan well before the BJP came to power in the state. All of these arrest warrants had been pending for years without execution. The law enforcement authorities executed the pending arrest warrants after TMC’s rival faction, the Democratic Trinamool Congress (DTC) led by Ritabrata Banerjee, lodged a complaint against Pradhan seeking the execution of the warrants.

The rebuttal of Gandhi’s bogus allegations against the BJP came from Ritabrata Banerjee himself, who announced that the DTC filed a complaint against the Congress candidate. “We, the Democratic Trinamool Congress, have lodged a complaint against Milan Pradhan, who has three murder cases pending against him. During elections, it’s mandatory to execute the warrant. The State Cong Leadership probably has not intimated the actual details to Sri @RahulGandhi,” Banerjee wrote in response to Gandhi’s allegation.

The facts completely expose the lie peddled by Rahul Gandhi in an attempt to malign the BJP government in West Bengal. This is not the first time Rahul Gandhi has distorted facts to attack the BJP. This is the tactic he usually adopts, especially when elections are approaching, to influence voters’ opinion against the BJP.

Tata Sons’ chairman battle explodes: Why Tata Trusts say N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment is ‘legally void’

0

The Tata Group, India’s largest conglomerate, is in a major soup as Tata Sons and its controlling charity arm, Tata Trusts, have locked horns over the reappointment of its sitting chairman, Natarajan Chandrasekaran. The internal tussle of the conglomerate came into the public eye on Thursday (September 17, 2026) after the Tata Trusts declared the reappointment of Chandrasekaran by the board of Tata Sons a “legal nullity”.

Chandrasekaran has been heading the conglomerate since February 2017, when he succeeded Ratan Tata as its interim chairman. His tenure as the chairman ends on February 20, 2027. On August 12, 2026, he reportedly wrote a letter to the Directors expressing his decision not to offer himself for reappointment.

However, weeks later, on Thursday, he was reappointed for another term of five years by the board of Tata Sons, despite Noel Tata, Chairman of Tata Trusts, which holds a 66% stake in Tata Sons, voting against his reappointment. The Tata Sons Board relied on a July 28, 2025, unanimous resolution by Tata Trusts, which expressed their appreciation of Chandrasekaran’s work as the chairman. The resolution reportedly proposed Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as Executive Chairman for a further term of five years. Later in September 2025, the board agreed in principle to re-appoint Mr Chandrasekaran as Executive Chairman for a further term of five years.

The same day, the board voted on the resolution. Noel Tata, who is a leading member of the conglomerate’s founding family, released a statement, saying that the resolution for the re-appointment of 63-year-old Chandrasekaran as Tata Sons’ chairman is illegal.

What Tata Trusts said

In its statement, the Trust argued that Chandrasekaran himself decided not to seek re-appointment as the chairman and that his decision was accepted and attained finality. It added that the decision was “freely taken” by Chandrasekaran, without any external pressure. “That was his own decision. It was freely taken and clearly expressed. It was not sought from him by this Board, it was not the subject of any resolution of this Board, and it was not the outcome of any process of review,” Noel Tata said in the statement.

He further said that the decision was made public without first informing the company’s stakeholders or holding any deliberations with them. Noel Tata contended that once the decision was made public, certain consequences followed, which cannot now be undone as the shareholders have accepted the decision and proceeded on it.

“I raise it because a communication of that character, once public, has consequences which this Board cannot afterwards undo. The Group’s employees, its lenders, its counterparties and the market have all proceeded upon it. So, has the majority shareholder. The page has turned,” Noel Tata said.

He added that Chandrasekaran’s reappointment nullifies his own decision and also the further process that followed it. The statement mentioned that the day after Chandrasekaran announced his decision not to seek reappointment, the Trust accepted his decision and advised Tata Sons to initiate the process of constituting a Selection Committee for the appointment of his successor in compliance with the Company’s Articles of Association.

The claim of ‘illegality’ of the reappointment

Tata Trusts is a group of multiple charitable and philanthropic trusts, which collectively hold a 66% stake in Tata Sons. The Sir Ratan Tata Trust (SRTT) and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust (SDTT) are two principal trusts within the group. Under Tata Sons’ Articles of Association (AoA), the two principal trusts can jointly nominate one-third of the holding company’s directors as long as they collectively hold at least 40% of its ordinary share capital. The directors nominated by the trusts hold affirmative voting rights on certain reserved matters, which amounts to an effective veto over key strategic decisions.

The AoA also states that any matter requiring the board’s approval must receive the affirmative vote of a majority of directors nominated by the Tata Trusts. This effectively means that a majority vote on any such decision must include the affirmative votes of both trust-nominated directors to meet the requirement under the AoA.

Currently, the board of Tata Sons has six directors, comprising two directors nominated by the Tata Trusts, namely Venu Srinivasan and Noel Tata. In the board meeting where the resolution for the reappointment of Chandrasekaran was considered, only five directors, including two nominee directors, were present. However, the nominee directors did not cast a unanimous vote on the resolution. While Noel Tata voted against the reappointment, Venu Srinivasan voted in favour.

The Tata Trusts’ claim of illegality stems from this conflicting voting by the nominee directors. According to the Trusts, the diverging voting by nominee directors on the resolution failed to meet the requirement under the AoA. Therefore, the resolution failed. “Given that Mr Noel Tata, being one of the Trust nominee directors, voted against the proposal, it was rendered legally void and without any basis,” the Trusts said.

To support his argument, Noel Tata also presented a legal opinion from Justice Dr DY Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India, regarding the correctness of the Trusts’ position. The Trusts said that the board of Tata Sons failed to take notice of the legal opinion.

On the other hand, the board’s view is that the voting by the board directors was a deadlock of 2:2, which was broken by the casting vote of the chairman, who voted in favour of the reappointment. So, according to the board, the resolution was valid.

Behind the scenes of the tussle

A look at the events preceding the board’s decision for the reappointment of Chandrasekaran indicates Noel Tata’s lack of trust in Chandrasekaran’s leadership and his concerns regarding the performance of major Tata businesses, Tata Group’s future strategy and the future of Tata Sons’ ownership or listing structure.

About seven months ago, in February 2026, the proposal for Chandrasekaran’s reappointment was taken up for the board’s approval. However, the proposal was deferred due to lack of unanimity. At the meeting, Noe Tata had reportedly raised concerns about the financial performance of Air India and BigBasket, both of which were making losses. He asked for course correction and sought clarity on the company’s five-year strategy.

Tata also wanted to know whether the exit of the Shapoorji Pallonji (SP) Group, which has a stake in Tata Sons, was possible without forcing Tata Sons to become a publicly listed company. Besides, Tata also wanted to know whether Chandrasekaran supported or opposed listing Tata Sons on the stock market.

Another legal complication

The above-mentioned technicalities in the reappointment of Chandrasekaran are not the only hurdle before Tata Sons in the appointment of its chairman. Another legal complication makes the task even more challenging for the company. The chairman of Tata Sons is selected by a five-member Selection Committee, which includes a member jointly nominated by the Sir Ratan Tata Trust and the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust. The decision regarding the nomination of Selection Committee members is taken by the trustees of the two trusts in the meetings of their respective boards.

Now, that is where the hurdle lies. The Sir Ratan Tata Trust is barred from holding board meetings since May 15, 2026, amid a dispute regarding the composition of their trustees. Consequently, it cannot hold a meeting with the Sir Dorabji Tata Trust to nominate a member to the Selection Committee.

Now that the reappointment of Chandrasekaran has been challenged by the Tata Trusts and the constitution of the Selection Committee faces a technical roadblock in the current circumstances, the appointment of chairman for Tata Sons has effectively been put in limbo.