On March 12, the Bombay High Court rejected the plea of dalit PhD scholar Ramadas K.S., who was suspended from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, last year over allegations of “misconduct” and “anti-national” activities. Ramadas, who was getting a government grant for his PhD, had approached the court seeking reinstatement.
Speaking to THE WEEK, Ramadas, a Central Executive Committee (CEC) member of the Students' Federation of India (SFI), said that beyond being a personal setback to him, the verdict can have far-reaching consequences for students across India, particularly those from marginalised communities and humble backgrounds. Excerpts:
Q/ Did you anticipate the High Court verdict? How will it affect your PhD?
A/ The judgment is shocking. I did not anticipate or expect such a verdict from the High Court. We had presented everything, but unfortunately, it did not go in our favour.
As an individual, this decision has almost put an end to my PhD. A two-year suspension means I have already lost 11 months. I was seeking a permanent solution, for which I pursued legal action, but in vain.
There are two other crucial aspects to this. First, I have already had academic breaks due to family and health reasons. The pandemic also brought its own set of problems. Despite all these challenges, I continued. However, losing two more years now means the most critical phase of my research is gone.
Second, my fellowship, which is essential for continuing my studies, has also been stopped. The university has taken a stance that a Scheduled Caste student availing a national fellowship from the government engaging in criticism of the BJP is considered politically motivated, and which cannot be tolerated. This has serious implications not just for me, but for several others in the future.
At the core of this issue is the alarming idea that a student availing a government fellowship cannot be critical of the government. If this logic is upheld, it means that all students receiving fellowships must remain silent, effectively killing dissent and critical thought in Indian academia.
Fellowships like JRF or NFSC are not charity; they are awarded based on merit through competitive exams. These funds are a form of remuneration for research, which contributes to the nation. If universities justify silencing students under the pretext of fellowship grants, it sets a dangerous precedent where institutional rules override constitutional rights. And the most affected will be students availing fellowships and scholarships, that is mainly SC, ST, OBC, PWD and other marginalised sections. This is unacceptable and must be opposed.
Q/ The court accepted the allegation that you used your institution’s name in a "politically motivated" protest. The order also stated that while you are free to have a political view, “so is the institute”. Do you see this verdict as a blow to political activities on campuses across India?
A/ First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not questioning the High Court itself, but I can respond to the points being discussed by the public.
To begin with, can a university have a political position? Universities are spaces where individuals, including faculty and students, may hold political opinions. But as a public institution—100 per cent government-funded—a university itself cannot align with any particular political party. It must remain autonomous in academics and independent in governance. It is funded by taxpayers, not by any political party’s headquarters.
While individuals may have their own views, the university as an institution should not engage in partisan politics. That is my clear position, and I completely disagree with that observation.
Secondly, did I use TISS or my university’s name at the Parliament march in Delhi last year, or misrepresent that I was officially representing the institute anywhere? No. A clear and categorical no. I do not admit to this because I did not do it. I have strong disagreements with the current administration, and I would never claim to represent them. That assumption is entirely incorrect.
Furthermore, I have clearly informed the institute in my responses that I attended the Parliament march, a public gathering—technically, in front of the Delhi police. I participated in my capacity as a member of the Central Executive Committee of SFI, a member of the Progressive Students' Forum (PSF), and, most importantly, as a citizen of this country. Nowhere did I claim to represent my institute.
The issue being raised is that the PSF banner was present at the protest. However, if you look at the official pamphlet of the United Students of India, which was published before the protest—and which was submitted to the court both by me and the institute—you will see that there is no mention of TISS. The official pamphlet only refers to PSF, without any connection to the university. In fact, 16 student organisations undersigned the pamphlet, and PSF was one of them.
And during the protest march there, not a single placard, poster, or banner mentioned the name of the university—neither by me nor by anyone else. If anyone wants to verify this, they can check the official pamphlet, which clearly states only "PSF". This has nothing to do with the university itself. The protest was directed at the Union government and its education policies.
Now, coming to a broader point—does naming an organisation with “TISS" automatically mean it represents the entire university? That logic is flawed. For example, my own university has "Mumbai" in its name, does that mean TISS represents the entire city? Similarly, across India, student organisations, including ABVP, exist within universities but do not represent the official stance of those institutions; these are just geographical representations.
Q/ You are a leader of SFI, an organisation affiliated to the CPI(M). You have stated that this is not just an individual issue but one that affects the entire student community in India. How are your party and the student organisation addressing this? Are there plans for a national movement?
A/ First of all, I want to clarify that SFI is not a student wing of CPI(M). While individuals from SFI may choose to join CPI(M) or any other political party, that is their personal decision. SFI, as an organisation, is independent, autonomous and was envisioned as such.
Regarding the movement, this is fundamentally a question of campus democracy and the rights of students, especially those from marginalised backgrounds, including SC, ST, OBC, and minority communities who rely on fellowships. This issue is not just about me—it has broader implications.
I understand that the movement is being taken forward nationally. A protest has been called, and on March 24, there will be another Parliament march organised by the United Students of India. This will not just be an SFI-led event but will include 16 student organisations coming together once again, I learnt.
Beyond protests by organisations and people, I am also taking the matter to the Supreme Court, hoping for a favourable verdict at the earliest.
