<p>Nearly two years after Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula committed suicide, his mother Radhika Vemula on Tuesday accepted an ex-gratia of Rs 8 lakh offered by the Hyderabad University.</p>

<p>The amount was offered days after Rohith died but his family had then refused to accept the compensation.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Radhika Vemula, mother of Rohith Vemula accepted a compensation of Rs 8 Lakhs from the University of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Hyderabad?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Hyderabad</a>, saying her lawyers had advised her to take it</p>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/966118892337795073?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 21, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>Speaking on it, Rohith&#39;s mother said the decision was taken following the advice of their legal and social supporters.</p>

<p>Vemula was found hanging from a ceiling fan in a hostel room on January 17, 2016. He was allegedly upset over disciplinary action taken against him by the university.</p>

<p>His suicide triggered a huge political furore with the then HRD Minister, Smriti Irani, coming under attack along with Labour Minister Bandaru Dattatreya for having written a letter related to the matter.&nbsp;</p>


His family had earlier refused to accept the compensation

Nearly two years after Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula committed suicide, his mother Radhika Vemula on Tuesday accepted an ex-gratia of Rs 8 lakh offered by the Hyderabad University. The amount was offered days after Rohith died but his family had then refused to accept the compensation. Radhika Vemula, mother of Rohith Vemula accepted a compensation of Rs 8 Lakhs from the University of #Hyderabad, saying her lawyers had advised her to take it — ANI (@ANI) February 21, 2018 × Speaking on it, Rohith's mother said the decision was taken following the advice of their legal and social supporters. Vemula was found hanging from a ceiling fan in a hostel room on January 17, 2016. He was allegedly upset over disciplinary action taken against him by the university. His suicide triggered a huge political furore with the then HRD Minister, Smriti Irani, coming under attack along with Labour Minister Bandaru Dattatreya for having written a letter related to the matter.

Rohith Vemula's mother accepts Rs 8 lakh compensation from University of Hyderabad

<p>Recent incidents of violence by the student wing of Bharatiya Janata Party&ndash; Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad&ndash; to silence freedom of speech in Ramjas College, Delhi University, indicates the recursivity of intolerance that began with Hyderabad Central University and JNU, in the last couple of years. Several print and audiovisual media have chosen to call the incidents of 21st and 22nd February as &lsquo;clashes&rsquo; between two student organisations, but it is difficult to imagine how such &lsquo;clashes&rsquo; resulted in beating up of a university professor and several college professors, when they were present in solidarity, to a call for protest against violence.&nbsp;</p>

<p>There is hardly any ambiguity in the unprovoked violence perpetrated by the defenders of intolerant nationalism, for whom uttering rape-threats to women protesters is as equally permissible as uttering glory for the mother nation. The politics of violence&ndash; using violence as a means to an end&ndash; has, consequently, become political violence&ndash; when violence becomes part of the expressed ideology of a political organisation. Without going into the debate on &lsquo;just&rsquo; violence and &lsquo;unjust&rsquo; violence, we can safely assume that the resistance to violence has to ascertain, as its first responsibility, refusal to fear such violence. The larger student movement in India, at this point of time, is thus poised at a critical juncture.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The politics of violence&ndash; using violence as a means to an end&ndash; has, consequently, become political violence&ndash; when violence becomes part of the expressed ideology of a political organisation.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The politics of violence? using violence as a means to an end? has, consequently, become political violence? when violence becomes part of the expressed ideology of a political organisation." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>We may take heart in the fact that in the last five years, students have led several mobilisations around citizens&rsquo; issues. It usually ranges from violence against women, caste atrocities, right to education, to one of the most important concerns in the contemporary times&ndash; the right to free speech and freedom of expression. Beginning with the mobilisations against Delhi Gang Rape in 2012, students from many university campuses across the country started with demanding accountability from the established political order. Use of social media along with large masses of protesting bodies on the street, shouting sarcastic slogans along with hand-painted cartoons on placards, chanting emotional appeals for freedom along with creating new heroes and a new iconography&ndash; all of them have been hallmarks of contemporary student and youth mobilisations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In reply, diktats have been handed down by different agencies of the state, especially the law enforcement and bureaucracy. The diktats have frequently been implemented through violence&ndash; from denial of legitimate demands and violation of constitutional rights, to water cannons and lathi charges.</p>

<p>We must also remember that in all these forms of violence, student and youth wings of the party in power have repeatedly colluded with the bureaucracy and the law enforcement agencies, in the name of defending nationalism. Quite clearly, the boundaries have been drawn by an intolerant definition of nationalism that refuses to understand diversity within the nation. &nbsp;They have been making efforts to forcibly silence what the larger student population has been articulating through debates and dissent.&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The vulnerability of students and youth is defined by social scientists as &lsquo;precarity&rsquo;. The complexity of &lsquo;precariousness&rsquo; of this global generation is circumscribed by the economic and social policies of the countries they inhabit, as well as the cultural environment in which they exist.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The vulnerability of students and youth is defined by social scientists as ?precarity?. The complexity of ?precariousness? of this global generation is circumscribed by the economic and social policies of the countries they inhabit, as well as the cultural environment in which they exist." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>A large section of university and college teachers have stood in the past couple of years in support of students&rsquo; resistance against forced silence. Violence meted out to those teachers are also intensifying at various levels: from covert and overt bureaucratic intimidation like serving notices for ostensibly violating university rules, suspension from service on trumped-up charges to beating them up in public spaces like law courts and streets. It is, therefore, extremely vital for people who exist at the receiving end of acts and threats of violence, to understand the larger context within which the student and youth of contemporary India is placed.</p>

<p>Social scientists have argued that the post 2010 mobilisations across the world &ndash; some of them in Tunisia, Egypt, Paris, New York, Belgium, Poland, and Germany &ndash; are revolts of the &lsquo;precarious generation&rsquo;. Having grown up in a neoliberal environment of income insecurity, the contemporary generation of college and university students has little expectation from the state-sponsored safety nets. There is almost no assurance of work or public services and the chances have now worsened with the global financial crisis.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The vulnerability of students and youth is defined by social scientists as &lsquo;precarity&rsquo;. The complexity of &lsquo;precariousness&rsquo; of this global generation is circumscribed by the economic and social policies of the countries they inhabit, as well as the cultural environment in which they exist. In India, with a decline in agriculture and high levels of farmers&rsquo; suicide--the vulnerability of the urban migrant labour, which is often largely a young male population--and the politicisation of caste or class configurations in urban pockets of metropolises, have contributed to this &lsquo;precariousness&rsquo; experienced by different sections of the youth.&nbsp;</p>

<p>After 17th January 2016 when Rohith Vemula, a PhD student in Hyderabad Central University committed suicide owing to repeated harassment by the university authority, the nature of political violence has taken a new turn. The scope and character of the youth mobilisation widened as Vemula&rsquo;s poignant suicide note struck a somber, deeper note of sorrow alongside anger and anxiety. The disappearance of Najib, a student of JNU, under suspicious circumstances has now intensified the &lsquo;precariousness&rsquo; of university students. University campuses across India are slow-burning with anxiety and desperation, as significant cuts in funding the public university system in the last five years has begun to affect the future of the aspiring youth.</p>

<p>Education, especially higher education, had been an accepted mode of upward mobility in India for a long time. The implementation of corrective policies in the university system and the required rigorous follow up, have suffered a great deal due to the confusing orders emerging from the governing bodies of public universities. If India wants to stand behind its new generation of political activists, who are battling to save basic democratic values, she must understand how and why they have been pushed into such precarious conditions of existence, she must recognise that glory and threats of rape cannot be uttered in the same breath.</p>


Resistance to violence has to ascertain, as its first responsibility, refusal to fear such violence

Recent incidents of violence by the student wing of Bharatiya Janata Party– Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad– to silence freedom of speech in Ramjas College, Delhi University, indicates the recursivity of intolerance that began with Hyderabad Central University and JNU, in the last couple of years. Several print and audiovisual media have chosen to call the incidents of 21st and 22nd February as ‘clashes’ between two student organisations, but it is difficult to imagine how such ‘clashes’ resulted in beating up of a university professor and several college professors, when they were present in solidarity, to a call for protest against violence. There is hardly any ambiguity in the unprovoked violence perpetrated by the defenders of intolerant nationalism, for whom uttering rape-threats to women protesters is as equally permissible as uttering glory for the mother nation. The politics of violence– using violence as a means to an end– has, consequently, become political violence– when violence becomes part of the expressed ideology of a political organisation. Without going into the debate on ‘just’ violence and ‘unjust’ violence, we can safely assume that the resistance to violence has to ascertain, as its first responsibility, refusal to fear such violence. The larger student movement in India, at this point of time, is thus poised at a critical juncture. The politics of violence– using violence as a means to an end– has, consequently, become political violence– when violence becomes part of the expressed ideology of a political organisation. × We may take heart in the fact that in the last five years, students have led several mobilisations around citizens’ issues. It usually ranges from violence against women, caste atrocities, right to education, to one of the most important concerns in the contemporary times– the right to free speech and freedom of expression. Beginning with the mobilisations against Delhi Gang Rape in 2012, students from many university campuses across the country started with demanding accountability from the established political order. Use of social media along with large masses of protesting bodies on the street, shouting sarcastic slogans along with hand-painted cartoons on placards, chanting emotional appeals for freedom along with creating new heroes and a new iconography– all of them have been hallmarks of contemporary student and youth mobilisations. In reply, diktats have been handed down by different agencies of the state, especially the law enforcement and bureaucracy. The diktats have frequently been implemented through violence– from denial of legitimate demands and violation of constitutional rights, to water cannons and lathi charges. We must also remember that in all these forms of violence, student and youth wings of the party in power have repeatedly colluded with the bureaucracy and the law enforcement agencies, in the name of defending nationalism. Quite clearly, the boundaries have been drawn by an intolerant definition of nationalism that refuses to understand diversity within the nation. They have been making efforts to forcibly silence what the larger student population has been articulating through debates and dissent. The vulnerability of students and youth is defined by social scientists as ‘precarity’. The complexity of ‘precariousness’ of this global generation is circumscribed by the economic and social policies of the countries they inhabit, as well as the cultural environment in which they exist. × A large section of university and college teachers have stood in the past couple of years in support of students’ resistance against forced silence. Violence meted out to those teachers are also intensifying at various levels: from covert and overt bureaucratic intimidation like serving notices for ostensibly violating university rules, suspension from service on trumped-up charges to beating them up in public spaces like law courts and streets. It is, therefore, extremely vital for people who exist at the receiving end of acts and threats of violence, to understand the larger context within which the student and youth of contemporary India is placed. Social scientists have argued that the post 2010 mobilisations across the world – some of them in Tunisia, Egypt, Paris, New York, Belgium, Poland, and Germany – are revolts of the ‘precarious generation’. Having grown up in a neoliberal environment of income insecurity, the contemporary generation of college and university students has little expectation from the state-sponsored safety nets. There is almost no assurance of work or public services and the chances have now worsened with the global financial crisis. The vulnerability of students and youth is defined by social scientists as ‘precarity’. The complexity of ‘precariousness’ of this global generation is circumscribed by the economic and social policies of the countries they inhabit, as well as the cultural environment in which they exist. In India, with a decline in agriculture and high levels of farmers’ suicide--the vulnerability of the urban migrant labour, which is often largely a young male population--and the politicisation of caste or class configurations in urban pockets of metropolises, have contributed to this ‘precariousness’ experienced by different sections of the youth. After 17th January 2016 when Rohith Vemula, a PhD student in Hyderabad Central University committed suicide owing to repeated harassment by the university authority, the nature of political violence has taken a new turn. The scope and character of the youth mobilisation widened as Vemula’s poignant suicide note struck a somber, deeper note of sorrow alongside anger and anxiety. The disappearance of Najib, a student of JNU, under suspicious circumstances has now intensified the ‘precariousness’ of university students. University campuses across India are slow-burning with anxiety and desperation, as significant cuts in funding the public university system in the last five years has begun to affect the future of the aspiring youth. Education, especially higher education, had been an accepted mode of upward mobility in India for a long time. The implementation of corrective policies in the university system and the required rigorous follow up, have suffered a great deal due to the confusing orders emerging from the governing bodies of public universities. If India wants to stand behind its new generation of political activists, who are battling to save basic democratic values, she must understand how and why they have been pushed into such precarious conditions of existence, she must recognise that glory and threats of rape cannot be uttered in the same breath.

Ramjas College and beyond: Precarious lives and structures of violence

<p>According to the 41-page report submitted to India&#39;s human resource ministry by former Allahabad High Court judge A K Roopanwal in August, PhD scholar Rohith Vemula committed suicide out of frustration, The Indian Express reported.</p>

<p>The one-man judicial commission set up to inquire into the suicide of the Hyderabad Central University student exonerates university officials and politicians of any blame. Vemula committed suicide on 17 January 2016, one month after he was expelled from university hostel.</p>

<p>Protests broke out across the country following his suicide which was attributed to caste-based discrimination and political interference in the university.&nbsp;The report of the&nbsp;judicial commission has used the testimonies of&nbsp;university teachers,&nbsp;officers,&nbsp;staff members,&nbsp;five university students, and members of the joint action committee that was at the helm of campus protests.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The judicial commission challenged Vemula&#39;s Dalit status by disputing his mother&#39;s caste. It concluded that Vemula&#39;s mother, V Radhika, &quot;branded&quot; herself as a Dalit &quot;to take benefit of Scheduled Caste&quot; and obtained the Caste Certificate from a corporator she was in cohabitation with for one and a half years. Since Radhika raised her two sons alone, Vemula&#39;s caste certificate depends upon whether his mother belongs to the Mala caste. The commission noted that his caste certificate was issued without proper inquiry. Radhika had identified herself as belonging to the Vaddera community elsewhere, which is Backward and not Scheduled Caste.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Building up on the same the report says, &quot;The evidence on record shows that she belongs to Vaddera Community and, therefore, the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Rohith Vemula cannot be said to be a genuine one and he was not a Scheduled Caste person.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The commission rejected claims of discrimination and political interference leading to Vemula&#39;s expulsion from the university hostel. Vemula and four other students were expelled from the hostel owing to a disciplinary case. It drew attention to the fact that the interim report of the nine-member proctorial board was submitted on August 12, 2015, while the Union Minister Bandaru Dattatreya wrote to Smriti Irani, the Union HRD Minister on&nbsp;August 17.</p>

<p>The board wanted a strong warning to be issued to all the students involved in the case, including Susheel Kumar of ABVP, the student wing of India&#39;s ruling Bhartiya Janta Party.</p>

<p>The report says,&nbsp;&ldquo;Moreover this cannot be believed that the report which was prepared by nine persons could be obtained by pressure. How nine persons could be influenced by anybody, political or non-political when none of them was directly under the control of anybody?&rdquo;</p>

<p>Absolving the BJP ministers and councillors, the commission concluded,&nbsp;&ldquo;Being the public representative, Shri Ramachandra Rao, MLC, took the issue up with the university authorities, Shri Bandaru Dattatreya, Minister of State for Labour and Employment wrote the letter to Smt. Smriti Irani, HRD Minister as the MP of Secunderabad Constituency and the letter written by HRD Minister was just to pursue the matter with the university authorities on the letter of Shri Bandaru Dattatreya.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The report goes on to say,&nbsp;&ldquo;His suicide note is on the record which shows that Rohith Vemula had his own problems and not happy with the worldly affairs.&rdquo; Vemula had written a letter&nbsp;to vice-chancellor Appa Rao Podile on December 18, 2015 alleging discrimination and famously demanded cyanide and rope for Dalit students.</p>

<p>The commission, however, did not find this letter relevant to his suicide a month later. The report says,&nbsp;&ldquo;But I feel that in view of the suicide note the anger shown in this letter cannot be the reason for suicide. It is because of the fact that the suicide was committed after about one month and by this time the expulsion from the hostel had been challenged in the High Court. He did not mention anything in his suicide note which were mentioned in the above mentioned letter. This shows that if there was any anger that did not continue by the date of suicide otherwise something regarding the anger shown in the letter would have been indicated in the suicide note.&rdquo;&nbsp;</p>

<p>The Indian Express carried the following timeline on the case:&nbsp;</p>

<p>July 30, 2015:&nbsp;Funeral prayer organised by Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) on University of Hyderabad campus to protest hanging of&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://indianexpress.com/tag/yakub-memon/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1475830274125000&amp;usg=AFQjCNHT5ASVwDammrW7LwMRoijIEvRuUw" href="http://indianexpress.com/tag/yakub-memon/" target="_blank">Yakub Memon</a></p>

<p>August 3:&nbsp;In response, ABVP student leader Susheel Kumar put up&nbsp;<a data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&amp;q=http://indianexpress.com/tag/facebook/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1475830274125000&amp;usg=AFQjCNGGFGgdbuOAYw80pi-m4o0PANP4jg" href="http://indianexpress.com/tag/facebook/" target="_blank">Facebook</a>&nbsp;post: &lsquo;ASA goons are talking about hooliganism &mdash; feeling funny&rsquo;</p>

<p>August 3-4&nbsp;night:&nbsp;Some ASA members visit Kumar&rsquo;s room, ask him to apologise and delete the post. He uploads apology letter but alleges he was roughed up by ASA members, files FIR</p>

<p>August 4:&nbsp;ABVP general secretary Krishna Chaitanya complains to vice-chancellor. Matter referred to university&rsquo;s Proctorial Board</p>

<p>August 12:&nbsp;Board submits interim report recommending that a strong warning be issued to Kumar and also to Rohith Vemula, D Prashanth, Vincent, P Vijay, Sunkanna and Seshu Chemudugunta for forcing Kumar to apologise</p>

<p>August 17:&nbsp;MoS Bandaru Dattatreya writes to then HRD Minister Smriti Irani, calling HCU a den of &ldquo;anti-national&rdquo; activities and complaining about the incident. Letter forwarded by HRD Ministry to university for comments. Ministry sends five reminders till January 2016</p>

<p>August 31:&nbsp;Proctorial Board submits final report. Recommends suspension of Prashanth, Vemula, Vijay, Chemudugunta from university for ongoing semester. Recommendation approved by university&rsquo;s Executive Council (EC)</p>

<p>September 10:&nbsp;Students protest against decision. EC, under chairmanship of then in-charge V-C R P Sharma, holds meeting and withdraws suspension with an understanding that a larger committee will investigate the matter afresh</p>

<p>September 21:&nbsp;Appa Rao is appointed new V-C</p>

<p>November 24:&nbsp;EC&rsquo;s sub-committee, tasked to look into Proctorial Board&rsquo;s recommendations, submits report, agrees with Board&rsquo;s findings</p>

<p>November 27:&nbsp;EC meets again to consider sub-committee report. Resolves to suspend Prashanth, Vemula, Vijay, Chemudugunta from university hostel</p>

<p>December 18:&nbsp;Vemula writes to V-C complaining about caste discrimination in university. Around the same time, Chief Warden communicates EC decision to students, asking them to vacate hostel</p>

<p>Meanwhile, expelled students approach High Court against suspension. Court orders that their petition will be heard along with petition filed by Kumar&rsquo;s mother. Matter listed for hearing on January 19, 2016</p>

<p>January 3, 2016:&nbsp;Suspended students and members of Joint Action Committee launch protest against suspension.</p>

<p>On&nbsp;January 13, students close down university&rsquo;s administrative building</p>

<p>January 17:&nbsp;Vemula commits suicide, protests break out on campus</p>

<p>January 19:&nbsp;HRD Ministry despatches two-member fact-finding committee to HCU</p>

<p>January 22:&nbsp;Fact-finding committee submits report to HRD Ministry, slams university administration for flawed probe, says atmosphere of discrimination on campus</p>

<p>January 28:&nbsp;HRD Ministry sets up one-man judicial commission headed by retired Allahabad High Court judge A K Roopanwal to probe circumstances that led to Vemula&rsquo;s death</p>

<p>August 1:&nbsp;Roopanwal submits his report</p>

<p>(WION)</p>


Protests had broken out across the country after his suicide early this year was blamed on caste-based discrimination

According to the 41-page report submitted to India's human resource ministry by former Allahabad High Court judge A K Roopanwal in August, PhD scholar Rohith Vemula committed suicide out of frustration, The Indian Express reported. The one-man judicial commission set up to inquire into the suicide of the Hyderabad Central University student exonerates university officials and politicians of any blame. Vemula committed suicide on 17 January 2016, one month after he was expelled from university hostel. Protests broke out across the country following his suicide which was attributed to caste-based discrimination and political interference in the university. The report of the judicial commission has used the testimonies of university teachers, officers, staff members, five university students, and members of the joint action committee that was at the helm of campus protests. The judicial commission challenged Vemula's Dalit status by disputing his mother's caste. It concluded that Vemula's mother, V Radhika, "branded" herself as a Dalit "to take benefit of Scheduled Caste" and obtained the Caste Certificate from a corporator she was in cohabitation with for one and a half years. Since Radhika raised her two sons alone, Vemula's caste certificate depends upon whether his mother belongs to the Mala caste. The commission noted that his caste certificate was issued without proper inquiry. Radhika had identified herself as belonging to the Vaddera community elsewhere, which is Backward and not Scheduled Caste. Building up on the same the report says, "The evidence on record shows that she belongs to Vaddera Community and, therefore, the Scheduled Caste certificate issued to Rohith Vemula cannot be said to be a genuine one and he was not a Scheduled Caste person.” The commission rejected claims of discrimination and political interference leading to Vemula's expulsion from the university hostel. Vemula and four other students were expelled from the hostel owing to a disciplinary case. It drew attention to the fact that the interim report of the nine-member proctorial board was submitted on August 12, 2015, while the Union Minister Bandaru Dattatreya wrote to Smriti Irani, the Union HRD Minister on August 17. The board wanted a strong warning to be issued to all the students involved in the case, including Susheel Kumar of ABVP, the student wing of India's ruling Bhartiya Janta Party. The report says, “Moreover this cannot be believed that the report which was prepared by nine persons could be obtained by pressure. How nine persons could be influenced by anybody, political or non-political when none of them was directly under the control of anybody?” Absolving the BJP ministers and councillors, the commission concluded, “Being the public representative, Shri Ramachandra Rao, MLC, took the issue up with the university authorities, Shri Bandaru Dattatreya, Minister of State for Labour and Employment wrote the letter to Smt. Smriti Irani, HRD Minister as the MP of Secunderabad Constituency and the letter written by HRD Minister was just to pursue the matter with the university authorities on the letter of Shri Bandaru Dattatreya.” The report goes on to say, “His suicide note is on the record which shows that Rohith Vemula had his own problems and not happy with the worldly affairs.” Vemula had written a letter to vice-chancellor Appa Rao Podile on December 18, 2015 alleging discrimination and famously demanded cyanide and rope for Dalit students. The commission, however, did not find this letter relevant to his suicide a month later. The report says, “But I feel that in view of the suicide note the anger shown in this letter cannot be the reason for suicide. It is because of the fact that the suicide was committed after about one month and by this time the expulsion from the hostel had been challenged in the High Court. He did not mention anything in his suicide note which were mentioned in the above mentioned letter. This shows that if there was any anger that did not continue by the date of suicide otherwise something regarding the anger shown in the letter would have been indicated in the suicide note.” The Indian Express carried the following timeline on the case: July 30, 2015: Funeral prayer organised by Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) on University of Hyderabad campus to protest hanging of Yakub Memon August 3: In response, ABVP student leader Susheel Kumar put up Facebook post: ‘ASA goons are talking about hooliganism — feeling funny’ August 3-4 night: Some ASA members visit Kumar’s room, ask him to apologise and delete the post. He uploads apology letter but alleges he was roughed up by ASA members, files FIR August 4: ABVP general secretary Krishna Chaitanya complains to vice-chancellor. Matter referred to university’s Proctorial Board August 12: Board submits interim report recommending that a strong warning be issued to Kumar and also to Rohith Vemula, D Prashanth, Vincent, P Vijay, Sunkanna and Seshu Chemudugunta for forcing Kumar to apologise August 17: MoS Bandaru Dattatreya writes to then HRD Minister Smriti Irani, calling HCU a den of “anti-national” activities and complaining about the incident. Letter forwarded by HRD Ministry to university for comments. Ministry sends five reminders till January 2016 August 31: Proctorial Board submits final report. Recommends suspension of Prashanth, Vemula, Vijay, Chemudugunta from university for ongoing semester. Recommendation approved by university’s Executive Council (EC) September 10: Students protest against decision. EC, under chairmanship of then in-charge V-C R P Sharma, holds meeting and withdraws suspension with an understanding that a larger committee will investigate the matter afresh September 21: Appa Rao is appointed new V-C November 24: EC’s sub-committee, tasked to look into Proctorial Board’s recommendations, submits report, agrees with Board’s findings November 27: EC meets again to consider sub-committee report. Resolves to suspend Prashanth, Vemula, Vijay, Chemudugunta from university hostel December 18: Vemula writes to V-C complaining about caste discrimination in university. Around the same time, Chief Warden communicates EC decision to students, asking them to vacate hostel Meanwhile, expelled students approach High Court against suspension. Court orders that their petition will be heard along with petition filed by Kumar’s mother. Matter listed for hearing on January 19, 2016 January 3, 2016: Suspended students and members of Joint Action Committee launch protest against suspension. On January 13, students close down university’s administrative building January 17: Vemula commits suicide, protests break out on campus January 19: HRD Ministry despatches two-member fact-finding committee to HCU January 22: Fact-finding committee submits report to HRD Ministry, slams university administration for flawed probe, says atmosphere of discrimination on campus January 28: HRD Ministry sets up one-man judicial commission headed by retired Allahabad High Court judge A K Roopanwal to probe circumstances that led to Vemula’s death August 1: Roopanwal submits his report (WION)

Indian scholar Vemula ended life out of frustration: Report