Police in the south Indian state of Telangana on Friday (May 3) gave a clean chit to all accused in the 2016 Rohith Vemula death case, saying that Vemula did not belong to scheduled caste and he committed suicide because he was afraid&nbsp;his real identity would be revealed.

Police said Vemula used forged documents to claim he belonged to the scheduled caste.

All accused, including then Secunderabad MP Bandaru Dattatreya, MLC N Ramchander Rao and University of Hyderabad Vice Chancellor Appa Rao, besides Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani and leaders of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, have been given a clean chit.

Telangana police submitted their observations in the closure report in the Telangana High Court, following which Vemula’s brother expressed dissatisfaction.

“Instead of investigating how my brother was targeted, harassed, and finally killed, police investigated his caste status,” he was quoted as saying.

Meanwhile, the high court has asked Rohith’s brother to approach the lower court to seek relief and file a protest petition.

<h2>Vemula’s ‘false death certificate’</h2>

The police report said that Rohith’s mother had arranged a fake SC certificate for him, because of which he was worried that his reputation might get affected if the reality came out.

“In addition to this, the deceased himself is aware that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste and that his mother got him an SC certificate.&nbsp;This could be one of the constant fears as the exposure the same would put him to loss of his academic degrees that he earned over the years and be compelled to face prosecution,” the police report said.

It also claimed that Rohith was more involved in political activities in the university and not in studies.

“If the studies of the deceased were seen, it appeared that he was involved more in student political issues in the campus rather than in his studies. He discontinued his first PhD after pursuing it for two years and he joined another PhD which also did not progress much because of non-academic activities,” the report read.

<h2>The 2016 Rohith Vemula death case</h2>

Rohith Vemula died by suicide in 2016 in a hostel room at Hyderabad Central University.&nbsp;

He, along with&nbsp;four&nbsp;students reportedly belonging to the scheduled caste, was&nbsp;protesting their expulsion from the university’s housing facility.

Following his death, massive protests erupted at the college’s campus, which forced even the union government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to issue a statement denying the allegations of discrimination against any caste.

Also read:&nbsp;<a data-ved="2ahUKEwialr7dnPKFAxWr-jgGHT9yCUMQxfQBKAB6BAgLEAE" href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/heatwave-in-india-leads-to-alarming-rise-in-fainting-episodes-more-needs-to-be-done-to-address-the-issue-716748" jsname="YKoRaf" ping="/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.wionews.com/india-news/heatwave-in-india-leads-to-alarming-rise-in-fainting-episodes-more-needs-to-be-done-to-address-the-issue-716748&amp;ved=2ahUKEwialr7dnPKFAxWr-jgGHT9yCUMQxfQBKAB6BAgLEAE">Heatwave in India leads to alarming rise in fainting episodes. More needs to be done to address the issue</a>

All five students faced allegations that they had attacked a member of the ABVP, the student wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

The university&nbsp;in&nbsp;its preliminary&nbsp;investigation&nbsp;had acquitted all of them but later reversed their decision in December.

(With inputs from agencies)

Police in the south Indian state of Telangana on Friday (May 3) gave a clean chit to all accused in the 2016 Rohith Vemula death case, saying that Vemula did not belong to scheduled caste and he committed suicide because he was afraid his real identity would be revealed.

Police in the south Indian state of Telangana on Friday (May 3) gave a clean chit to all accused in the 2016 Rohith Vemula death case, saying that Vemula did not belong to scheduled caste and he committed suicide because he was afraid his real identity would be revealed. Police said Vemula used forged documents to claim he belonged to the scheduled caste. All accused, including then Secunderabad MP Bandaru Dattatreya, MLC N Ramchander Rao and University of Hyderabad Vice Chancellor Appa Rao, besides Union Minister for Women and Child Development Smriti Irani and leaders of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, have been given a clean chit. Telangana police submitted their observations in the closure report in the Telangana High Court, following which Vemula’s brother expressed dissatisfaction. “Instead of investigating how my brother was targeted, harassed, and finally killed, police investigated his caste status,” he was quoted as saying. Meanwhile, the high court has asked Rohith’s brother to approach the lower court to seek relief and file a protest petition. Vemula’s ‘false death certificate’ The police report said that Rohith’s mother had arranged a fake SC certificate for him, because of which he was worried that his reputation might get affected if the reality came out. “In addition to this, the deceased himself is aware that he does not belong to Scheduled Caste and that his mother got him an SC certificate. This could be one of the constant fears as the exposure the same would put him to loss of his academic degrees that he earned over the years and be compelled to face prosecution,” the police report said. It also claimed that Rohith was more involved in political activities in the university and not in studies. “If the studies of the deceased were seen, it appeared that he was involved more in student political issues in the campus rather than in his studies. He discontinued his first PhD after pursuing it for two years and he joined another PhD which also did not progress much because of non-academic activities,” the report read. The 2016 Rohith Vemula death case Rohith Vemula died by suicide in 2016 in a hostel room at Hyderabad Central University. He, along with four students reportedly belonging to the scheduled caste, was protesting their expulsion from the university’s housing facility. Following his death, massive protests erupted at the college’s campus, which forced even the union government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to issue a statement denying the allegations of discrimination against any caste. Also read: Heatwave in India leads to alarming rise in fainting episodes. More needs to be done to address the issue All five students faced allegations that they had attacked a member of the ABVP, the student wing of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. The university in its preliminary investigation had acquitted all of them but later reversed their decision in December. (With inputs from agencies)

Rohith Vemula case: ‘Fake caste certificate,’ Telangana police close case, issue clean chit to accused

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.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-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
&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>

Speaking on it, Rohith&#39;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.&nbsp;

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

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;

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.

<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">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

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;

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.

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;

<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">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

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.

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;

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;

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.

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.

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

Days after an Indian judicial panel concluded that research scholar Rohith Vemula, who committed suicide in January, was not from a &quot;low caste&quot; Dalit community, a video has appeared showing Vemula saying he was in fact a Dalit.

The video appears to be shot inside a tent near the area where the student and his other colleagues had stayed after they were suspended from Hyderabad Central University in southern Hyderabad city.

He is seen describing himself as a Dalit from Guntur district of the south Indian state Andhra Pradesh and says that his mother raised him. Vemula also talked about his suspension, his studies and student&nbsp;activism in the video clip.

The research scholar&#39;s family and friends had alleged after the suicide that Vemula had been discriminated against because of his caste.

A demand for a &#39;Rohith Act&#39; to end the discrimination against students belonging to the marginalised communities in educational institutions was demanded.

The Justice Roopanwal Commission set up by India&#39;s human resource and development (HRD) ministry attributed Vemula&#39;s suicide to personal reasons. They stated that the material was not enough to establish his caste.

The commission raised questions about substantial proof that Vemula&#39;s mother, V Radhika, belonged to the &quot;Mala&quot; community.

India&#39;s then HRD minister Smriti Irani and labour minister Bandaru Dattatreya were given clean chits in the report and Hyderabad Central University was acquitted of any blame for his death.

Vemula&#39;s suicide had triggered a huge political furor with Smriti Irani coming under attack along with Bandaru Dattatreya for having written a letter related to the matter. The Commission in its report is understood to have emphasised upon proper grievance redressal mechanisms and equal opportunity cells so that unfortunate incidents like Vemula&#39;s suicide can be prevented.

(WION with inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

After a judicial probe rejected his caste status, Vemula is seen describing himself as a Dalit from Guntur district in a purported video

Days after an Indian judicial panel concluded that research scholar Rohith Vemula, who committed suicide in January, was not from a "low caste" Dalit community, a video has appeared showing Vemula saying he was in fact a Dalit. The video appears to be shot inside a tent near the area where the student and his other colleagues had stayed after they were suspended from Hyderabad Central University in southern Hyderabad city. He is seen describing himself as a Dalit from Guntur district of the south Indian state Andhra Pradesh and says that his mother raised him. Vemula also talked about his suspension, his studies and student activism in the video clip. The research scholar's family and friends had alleged after the suicide that Vemula had been discriminated against because of his caste. A demand for a 'Rohith Act' to end the discrimination against students belonging to the marginalised communities in educational institutions was demanded. The Justice Roopanwal Commission set up by India's human resource and development (HRD) ministry attributed Vemula's suicide to personal reasons. They stated that the material was not enough to establish his caste. The commission raised questions about substantial proof that Vemula's mother, V Radhika, belonged to the "Mala" community. India's then HRD minister Smriti Irani and labour minister Bandaru Dattatreya were given clean chits in the report and Hyderabad Central University was acquitted of any blame for his death. Vemula's suicide had triggered a huge political furor with Smriti Irani coming under attack along with Bandaru Dattatreya for having written a letter related to the matter. The Commission in its report is understood to have emphasised upon proper grievance redressal mechanisms and equal opportunity cells so that unfortunate incidents like Vemula's suicide can be prevented. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Video of Hyderabad scholar Rohith Vemula asserting his Dalit status surfaces

Early this year, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) of India had put together an official enquiry commission to look into the death of Rohith Vemula, a Dalit research scholar who committed suicide on January 17, 2016. The Commission was to investigate the facts and circumstances leading to the tragic event, review the grievance redressal mechanism of the Indian university where Rohith studied and arguably faced institutional discrimination. &nbsp;

In a report submitted to the government recently, the commission has come to reject Rohith&#39;s Dalit status and gave a clean chit to almost all who were initially suspected of wrongdoing. Thus, the Hyderabad Central University, Rohith&#39;s alma mater, as well as some senior leaders and ministers of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party now stand clean of any charges of discriminatory action against Rohith. These conclusions square up with the version adopted by the ruling party from the very beginning.&nbsp;

However, the findings of the official reports revelations are to be greeted with skepticism as subsequent charges have indicated that Dalit students in institutions of higher education in India, indeed, embody the vulnerability of their social group.&nbsp;

Rohith Vemula had been an active member of a Dalit student organisation that has been locked in a fierce ideological contest with the student wing of the ruling BJP party. It was reported that Vemula had been part of a scuffle involving members of the two organisations; it allegedly led to some injury of an activist from&nbsp;the rival group. The injured student lodged a complaint with the university authorities, seeking action against Vemula and some of his fellow students.&nbsp;

Counter allegations run that senior local and national leaders of the ruling party then exerted pressure on the university authorities, following which the latter had rusticated Vemula and his friends from the university hostels. The students were denied access to a number of facilities, including scholarship and library membership. The allegation is that the swift action of the university authorities was a direct consequence of the pressure from the leaders of the ruling party, which has been known to resent the politics of the Dalit student organisation of which Vemula was a very active member.&nbsp;

It is important to note that until this point, there was no official statement questioning Rohith&#39;s Dalit identity.&nbsp;

However, soon after the incident, questions were raised about Vemula&rsquo;s caste status by the authorities, presumably to nullify his claim to the Dalit status. His father had claimed that he belonged to a caste that falls under the category Other Backward Class (OBC). Incidentally, both Dalits (or Scheduled Castes) and Other Backward Classes suffer from material deprivation, but the Scheduled Castes (SC) additionally suffer from the acutely debilitating practice of untouchability. The intensity of untouchability has decreased over time but continues to be practiced in several parts of the country.&nbsp;

Citing a 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court of India, various people protested that it is a presumption to state that a son invariably inherits the caste status of his father. It was argued that in cases where the individual in question has not received the advantages conventionally associated with the &lsquo;higher&rsquo; caste of the father, the child can&#39;t be accorded the caste identity of the former. Incidentally, Rohith Vemula&rsquo;s father had left his mother soon after his birth and Vemula had grown up with his mother. He subsequently claimed her caste as his own.&nbsp;

Still later, it emerged that Rohith&#39;s&nbsp;mother had been adopted by a non-Dalit woman at a young age and was reportedly raised as a non-Dalit, although her biological parents may have belonged to a Dalit community. However, Rohith&rsquo;s mother herself chose to emphasise her own Dalit identity. Since her separation from her husband, she has purportedly lived as a Dalit. It is to be noted, however, that Rohith himself had not availed of the benefits of positive discrimination during his admission in the university. It is clear from these details that the real issue at stake was not whether Rohith was born to a Scheduled Caste but whether he was perceived by the parties involved as a Dalit.&nbsp;

It is important, therefore, to ask why and how the focus of the enquiry subsequently shifted to pinpointing Rohith Vemula&#39;s&nbsp;caste identity, and away from whether he was a victim of institutionalised discrimination by the university authorities.&nbsp;

The question assumes additional significance because the regular mechanism of authentication of an individual&rsquo;s Scheduled Caste identity had already certified that Rohith belonged to the said social group. Typically, the Collector of a district issues a certificate to the effect that an individual belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The District Collector of Guntur, from where Rohith hails, had submitted an unambiguous report that he indeed belonged to a Scheduled Caste. According to the head of National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), a statutory body entrusted with the monitoring the implementation of rights and safeguards for the SC, the opinion of the District Collector is final in these matters.&nbsp;

There is really no need to enter into a dissection here of whether such processes are error-free. It suffices to say that, the direction of the public enquiry towards ascertaining the caste identity of Vemula was&nbsp; motivated by a strategy to deflect attention from the charges of institutionalised discrimination. The discrimination issue was picked up by students from both Vemula&#39;s university and outside. The campaigners&nbsp; started demanding punishment against the vice chancellor and several leaders of the ruling party, including the then Union minister for education.&nbsp;

Other than the commission constituted by the HRD ministry, the NCSC had taken cognizance of the matter and carried out its own enquiry. In a publicly available document, the NCSC has made clear that in Vemula&#39;s &#39;perception and the perception of society at large, he lived as SC and experienced the life and age-old discriminations faced by SCs and also raised his voice against such discrimination especially in his university student life.&rsquo; The report also stated that while he lived, he was accepted as an SC by his friends, neighbours, university authorities and treated as such. On a close reading of Vemula&#39;s letter to the vice-chancellor of his university,&nbsp; written a month before his death, the report suggests that there was sufficient ground for Vemula and his fellow students to perceive the treatment meted out to them as institutionalised discrimination. It wished the ministry and the university to look into the circumstances leading to his death and take steps to prevent discrimination against SC students at academic campuses across the country.&nbsp;

Thus, the position taken by NCSC appears to contradict the recent report of the one-man enquiry commission of the HRD ministry.&nbsp;

Several questions could be raised against this context. First, it is hard to see why the government had to rush into a separate enquiry when the designated statutory body for such tasks had already taken up the matter. Second, it is even harder to see why there was a fresh need to contest the caste identity of Vemula when there was no challenge from any quarters and, especially, since he had not claimed any special benefit from the university on the basis of his caste identity. Therefore, it is possible to make a case that the posthumous enquiry of Rohith&rsquo;s Scheduled Caste identity was, at least partly, motivated by a conscious design by the ruling party.&nbsp;

At the same time, if the Government chooses to give precedence to the finding of the enquiry commission over the report of the National Commission of the Scheduled Castes, it significantly reduces the institutional legitimacy of the Commission. The recent developments make us all the more curious to see how the government acts on the case from now on.&nbsp;

Finally, the case foregrounds a somewhat unaddressed aspect of the Dalit question in the public discourse. The public discourse revolves overwhelmingly around the official policy of positive discrimination which stipulates for Scheduled Castes and other marginal communities reservations in public employment and admission in institutions of higher education. Debates often rage on whether the Dalit candidates carry sufficient &lsquo;merit&rsquo; to uphold the expected standard of the positions to which they are appointed. What goes unacknowledged in such debates is the forms in which actual discrimination is carried out against Dalits, including to those who receive the benefit of positive discrimination.&nbsp;

Such discriminations need not be limited to physical untouchability or public lynching, which also happen often enough if media reports are any indication. Such discriminations often take subtle forms, such as negative perception or prejudices that may lead to less than fair standards of assessment. Although there has been some work along these directions, they are yet to enter into the public domain with sufficient clarity or regularity. Vemula&rsquo;s death will not go in vein if questions about institutional discrimination against Dalits, especially in terms of perception and prejudices now comes to inform the public discourse in India.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It's important to ask why and how the enquiry focused on Vemula's caste identity, away from issues of institutionalised discrimination

Early this year, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) of India had put together an official enquiry commission to look into the death of Rohith Vemula, a Dalit research scholar who committed suicide on January 17, 2016. The Commission was to investigate the facts and circumstances leading to the tragic event, review the grievance redressal mechanism of the Indian university where Rohith studied and arguably faced institutional discrimination. In a report submitted to the government recently, the commission has come to reject Rohith's Dalit status and gave a clean chit to almost all who were initially suspected of wrongdoing. Thus, the Hyderabad Central University, Rohith's alma mater, as well as some senior leaders and ministers of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party now stand clean of any charges of discriminatory action against Rohith. These conclusions square up with the version adopted by the ruling party from the very beginning. However, the findings of the official reports revelations are to be greeted with skepticism as subsequent charges have indicated that Dalit students in institutions of higher education in India, indeed, embody the vulnerability of their social group. Rohith Vemula had been an active member of a Dalit student organisation that has been locked in a fierce ideological contest with the student wing of the ruling BJP party. It was reported that Vemula had been part of a scuffle involving members of the two organisations; it allegedly led to some injury of an activist from the rival group. The injured student lodged a complaint with the university authorities, seeking action against Vemula and some of his fellow students. Counter allegations run that senior local and national leaders of the ruling party then exerted pressure on the university authorities, following which the latter had rusticated Vemula and his friends from the university hostels. The students were denied access to a number of facilities, including scholarship and library membership. The allegation is that the swift action of the university authorities was a direct consequence of the pressure from the leaders of the ruling party, which has been known to resent the politics of the Dalit student organisation of which Vemula was a very active member. It is important to note that until this point, there was no official statement questioning Rohith's Dalit identity. However, soon after the incident, questions were raised about Vemula’s caste status by the authorities, presumably to nullify his claim to the Dalit status. His father had claimed that he belonged to a caste that falls under the category Other Backward Class (OBC). Incidentally, both Dalits (or Scheduled Castes) and Other Backward Classes suffer from material deprivation, but the Scheduled Castes (SC) additionally suffer from the acutely debilitating practice of untouchability. The intensity of untouchability has decreased over time but continues to be practiced in several parts of the country. Citing a 2012 ruling by the Supreme Court of India, various people protested that it is a presumption to state that a son invariably inherits the caste status of his father. It was argued that in cases where the individual in question has not received the advantages conventionally associated with the ‘higher’ caste of the father, the child can't be accorded the caste identity of the former. Incidentally, Rohith Vemula’s father had left his mother soon after his birth and Vemula had grown up with his mother. He subsequently claimed her caste as his own. Still later, it emerged that Rohith's mother had been adopted by a non-Dalit woman at a young age and was reportedly raised as a non-Dalit, although her biological parents may have belonged to a Dalit community. However, Rohith’s mother herself chose to emphasise her own Dalit identity. Since her separation from her husband, she has purportedly lived as a Dalit. It is to be noted, however, that Rohith himself had not availed of the benefits of positive discrimination during his admission in the university. It is clear from these details that the real issue at stake was not whether Rohith was born to a Scheduled Caste but whether he was perceived by the parties involved as a Dalit. It is important, therefore, to ask why and how the focus of the enquiry subsequently shifted to pinpointing Rohith Vemula's caste identity, and away from whether he was a victim of institutionalised discrimination by the university authorities. The question assumes additional significance because the regular mechanism of authentication of an individual’s Scheduled Caste identity had already certified that Rohith belonged to the said social group. Typically, the Collector of a district issues a certificate to the effect that an individual belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The District Collector of Guntur, from where Rohith hails, had submitted an unambiguous report that he indeed belonged to a Scheduled Caste. According to the head of National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), a statutory body entrusted with the monitoring the implementation of rights and safeguards for the SC, the opinion of the District Collector is final in these matters. There is really no need to enter into a dissection here of whether such processes are error-free. It suffices to say that, the direction of the public enquiry towards ascertaining the caste identity of Vemula was motivated by a strategy to deflect attention from the charges of institutionalised discrimination. The discrimination issue was picked up by students from both Vemula's university and outside. The campaigners started demanding punishment against the vice chancellor and several leaders of the ruling party, including the then Union minister for education. Other than the commission constituted by the HRD ministry, the NCSC had taken cognizance of the matter and carried out its own enquiry. In a publicly available document, the NCSC has made clear that in Vemula's 'perception and the perception of society at large, he lived as SC and experienced the life and age-old discriminations faced by SCs and also raised his voice against such discrimination especially in his university student life.’ The report also stated that while he lived, he was accepted as an SC by his friends, neighbours, university authorities and treated as such. On a close reading of Vemula's letter to the vice-chancellor of his university, written a month before his death, the report suggests that there was sufficient ground for Vemula and his fellow students to perceive the treatment meted out to them as institutionalised discrimination. It wished the ministry and the university to look into the circumstances leading to his death and take steps to prevent discrimination against SC students at academic campuses across the country. Thus, the position taken by NCSC appears to contradict the recent report of the one-man enquiry commission of the HRD ministry. Several questions could be raised against this context. First, it is hard to see why the government had to rush into a separate enquiry when the designated statutory body for such tasks had already taken up the matter. Second, it is even harder to see why there was a fresh need to contest the caste identity of Vemula when there was no challenge from any quarters and, especially, since he had not claimed any special benefit from the university on the basis of his caste identity. Therefore, it is possible to make a case that the posthumous enquiry of Rohith’s Scheduled Caste identity was, at least partly, motivated by a conscious design by the ruling party. At the same time, if the Government chooses to give precedence to the finding of the enquiry commission over the report of the National Commission of the Scheduled Castes, it significantly reduces the institutional legitimacy of the Commission. The recent developments make us all the more curious to see how the government acts on the case from now on. Finally, the case foregrounds a somewhat unaddressed aspect of the Dalit question in the public discourse. The public discourse revolves overwhelmingly around the official policy of positive discrimination which stipulates for Scheduled Castes and other marginal communities reservations in public employment and admission in institutions of higher education. Debates often rage on whether the Dalit candidates carry sufficient ‘merit’ to uphold the expected standard of the positions to which they are appointed. What goes unacknowledged in such debates is the forms in which actual discrimination is carried out against Dalits, including to those who receive the benefit of positive discrimination. Such discriminations need not be limited to physical untouchability or public lynching, which also happen often enough if media reports are any indication. Such discriminations often take subtle forms, such as negative perception or prejudices that may lead to less than fair standards of assessment. Although there has been some work along these directions, they are yet to enter into the public domain with sufficient clarity or regularity. Vemula’s death will not go in vein if questions about institutional discrimination against Dalits, especially in terms of perception and prejudices now comes to inform the public discourse in India.

Government enquiry commission questions caste of posthumous Dalit icon

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.

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.&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;

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;

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;

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.

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.

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;

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;

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.

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;

The Indian Express carried the following timeline on the case:&nbsp;

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>

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;

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

August 4:&nbsp;ABVP general secretary Krishna Chaitanya complains to vice-chancellor. Matter referred to university&rsquo;s Proctorial Board

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

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

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)

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

September 21:&nbsp;Appa Rao is appointed new V-C

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

November 27:&nbsp;EC meets again to consider sub-committee report. Resolves to suspend Prashanth, Vemula, Vijay, Chemudugunta from university hostel

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

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

January 3, 2016:&nbsp;Suspended students and members of Joint Action Committee launch protest against suspension.

On&nbsp;January 13, students close down university&rsquo;s administrative building

January 17:&nbsp;Vemula commits suicide, protests break out on campus

January 19:&nbsp;HRD Ministry despatches two-member fact-finding committee to HCU

January 22:&nbsp;Fact-finding committee submits report to HRD Ministry, slams university administration for flawed probe, says atmosphere of discrimination on campus

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

August 1:&nbsp;Roopanwal submits his report

(WION)

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

The Justice (retd) AK Roopanwal Commission, which was constituted by India&#39;s HRD Ministry to look into the circumstances leading to the death of Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad Central University, has in its report said that the research scholar did not belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. 
 
There is, however, no official confirmation on the reports being submitted to the country&#39;s University Grants Commission (UGC) so far. 
 
Top officials in the HRD Ministry did not comment on the development. 
 
HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the report had not reached him yet. 
 
The 26-year-old had committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling of a hostel room in the university based in the southern Indian state of Telangana. Vemula&#39;s suicide had triggered a huge political storm with opposition parties launching a massive attack on the Union Government over the issue. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The 26-year-old, believed to be a part of India's lowest Dalit social caste, had committed suicide in his hostel room

The Justice (retd) AK Roopanwal Commission, which was constituted by India's HRD Ministry to look into the circumstances leading to the death of Dalit scholar Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad Central University, has in its report said that the research scholar did not belong to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. There is, however, no official confirmation on the reports being submitted to the country's University Grants Commission (UGC) so far. Top officials in the HRD Ministry did not comment on the development. HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the report had not reached him yet. The 26-year-old had committed suicide by hanging himself from the ceiling of a hostel room in the university based in the southern Indian state of Telangana. Vemula's suicide had triggered a huge political storm with opposition parties launching a massive attack on the Union Government over the issue. (With inputs from agencies)

Indian student's suicide: Judicial commission report says he was not Dalit

rohith-vemula

Rohith Vemula, News on Rohith Vemula, stories on Rohith Vemula, articles on Rohith Vemula, Rohith Vemula stories at Wion, Rohith Vemula news, Rohith Vemula latest news

rohith vemula