Sukhadeo Thorat on Caste Prejudice in India’s Top Colleges and Universities

Your report about caste discrimination at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) came out in 2007. Almost two decades later, these tragic deaths have not stopped. What exactly has gone wrong?

I was Chairman of the University Grants Commission [UGC] between 2006 and 2011. In 2007, two suicides occurred at AIIMS, which comes under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The Principal Secretary of the Ministry approached me to chair a committee to find the reason for frequent suicides at AIIMS. I conducted the inquiry. It was difficult because AIIMS was not cooperating, because this was the first time this kind of inquiry was being pursued. But anyway, I collected data from half the students. There were 50 Scheduled Caste students, and I circulated a questionnaire to 25.

The report showed significant incidence of discrimination at AIIMS. Scheduled Caste students faced discrimination from high-caste students, high-caste teachers, and also high-caste administration sometimes.

Discrimination happened in the classroom, in laboratories, during examinations. They also faced discrimination in evaluation. The most important complaint was that they get lower marks in the interview while scoring reasonably well in the written examination.

Then the discrimination on campus, in the game and dining hall. And the most famous and ugly [instances] were in the hostel because hostels are allocated in a random way. Sometimes Scheduled Caste students get a room in the wing with high-caste students. There are instances of their doors being locked from outside, filthy comments written on their doors. This affected the performance of Scheduled Caste students.

Now, out of 50 students, there are those who consistently face prejudice and are intimidated, and some of them are psychologically weak and cannot take it. They are pushed to the wall and they commit suicide. This discrimination was brought out by my committee, and it came out in the newspapers. AIIMS was shocked and surprised and refused to accept the report. This was because it came [out] for the first time. That’s how it was brought out that in higher educational institutions, although populated by educated teachers and students, teachers and students carry forward their caste prejudices, which they bring from the family and society into the institutions and use it against students.

Then when I became Chairman of the Indian Council of Social Science Research, I promoted such studies. The Ministry of Education had also asked to meet me. The National Institute of Education Planning and Administration conducted a study in colleges and State universities, drawing samples from a much larger geographical area. Nidhi Sadana conducted that study. There is another study by N. Sukumar from Delhi University. These reports confirm the discrimination brought out by the AIIMS report and also enrich many more findings.

In your experience, can policy interventions stop caste discrimination, which is mostly subtle in campuses?

The discrimination on campus would not be eliminated altogether, but certainly, if we take certain policy [measures], it will be reduced substantially. Why do I say that it cannot be eliminated altogether? The reason is that whether you discriminate, don’t treat others equally, or develop antisocial attitudes instead of fraternity and brotherhood, it is determined by your moral values, taught in family and society, which are largely drawn from the caste system. And the caste system still prevails. So, as long as the moral values which decide your behaviour, the behaviour of the high caste, are not altogether eliminated, and [unless] people became very egalitarian, [caste discrimination] will not [stop].

There is a contradiction between what is laid down in law—the Constitution of equality, fraternity, freedom, liberty—and what is carried out by the student and teacher. They carry the values of inequality, non-freedom, and antisocial attitudes. It has become difficult to eliminate it altogether. If the social moral values are in conformity with the goals of equality, then it becomes very easy. But that is not the case.

Is that why a law like the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not working?

That’s the reason the Atrocities Act has limited success. But the point is that for higher educational institutions, you require a separate package of remedies. The Atrocities Act and the Untouchability (Offences) Act have [some] provisions, but they do not have enough provisions for the education sector.

There was an illusion among people that higher educational institutions, which are populated by educated people, don’t practise discrimination, but that was wrong. What we require is a law against discrimination in higher educational institutions, framed by the UGC or the ministry… which will make discrimination a criminal act, like ragging.

Then you require proper implementation of reservation policy. There is very less presence of SC/ST teachers. I think maybe 2 to 5 per cent of the teachers on campuses, engineering colleges and medical institutions, [belong to the SCs], which is far less than even the 8 to 15 per cent Scheduled Tribe teachers. Then there is a need for sensitivity programmes, workshops, conferences, discussions, and interactions with high-caste students and high-caste teachers so that they become sensitised to a greater extent. You can have a course in moral education. The US has done that. I had recommended in the AIIMS report a course on constitutional moral value education for the student. Make it compulsory for everybody so that they can be sensitised.

There is also talk about redefining the idea of merit so that discrimination over reservation policy ends. How do you look at this?

The reservation policy is criticised on the ground that it doesn’t promote as much merit and also [promotes] inefficiency…. As far as education is concerned, this argument is not correct. The concept of merit means that education leads to meritorious qualities. Education essentially means expanding your capability. That opportunity should be given to everybody. Merely having equality of admission in education is not enough. What you require is equal opportunities.

You have been educated in a village school, a public school, you are poor, you don’t have income, your parents are less educated, so you have been left behind. Then you are told that you should have merit. This is not correct. How can those privileged with education for about 2,500 [years] be compared with those who have been denied the right to education and don’t have the substantial capacity to get education?

You have to treat the unequal unequally. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are unequal compared to the high castes. There has to be a separate policy for them and separate policy for the high caste. Then, merit will come.

The other important point is that you cannot allow all positions of high grade to be monopolised by the high caste, which happens even today despite an open education system. In order to increase the entry of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes into better economic occupations, you have to give them facilities and also some concessions for employment. In employment, nobody is saying that you should take less qualified Scheduled Castes. The Constitution says reservation with a minimum qualification…. So there is no reason why efficiency will be affected.

There is a study by Ashwini Deshpande and Thomas Weisskopf, which I always quote, on the efficiency of Scheduled Caste and non-Scheduled Caste employees in railways, one of the largest sectors in India. Under reservation, they found that Scheduled Caste employees are not less efficient than high-caste employees. On the contrary, they are more efficient. The reason given by the authors is that, because it is always alleged that they are less efficient since they came through quota, they work hard. This is by whatever indicator of efficiency you take: coming on time, clearing more files, taking less leave, or whatever.

The merit and efficiency myth is created by high castes, including high-caste academicians. The reason is that education and public employment were domains of high castes for thousands of years. Education was opened to the depressed classes by the British in 1813 only. They had no education right during ancient and medieval periods.

Now, reservation is encroaching into that space. Their pain is that the entire monopoly that they had is getting reduced. More and more Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students are coming into higher educational institutions, government jobs, and as legislators in Parliament. It is the greed that [makes the high castes think] they should have it. The argument of merit and efficiency is a myth which is not founded on a solid theoretical or empirical ground.

How do you see the new equity regulations by the UGC, now stalled?

The 2012 regulations against discrimination were framed during my period [as UGC Chairman]. I think the lead was taken by Kapil Sibalji when he became Minister [of Human Resource Development] after Arjun Singh’s term. Being a lawyer, he understood the need for legal safeguards and asked UGC to prepare a regulation. I was also asked. My term was coming to an end, but I worked on it even after retirement, and the regulations were passed.

Those regulations have two to three provisions. One defines about 12 to 15 forms of discrimination which are considered to be [perpetrated] by high-caste students in educational institutions. It says there should be punishment for those who practise discrimination. The second is a sensitisation programme with workshops and lectures for high-caste teachers and students. And the third is, of course, reservation: increased participation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students.

The mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula went to the Supreme Court in 2019 because, despite this 2012 regulation, suicides continued in JNU and other places. They said that suicides are not being controlled, not being checked, and asked the UGC to do something about it. The Supreme Court called the UGC, and the UGC said they were revising the regulation.

They brought out the revisions in 2026. It has improvement in some areas, but it has a lot of limitations. One is that they have recommended an equal opportunity office and officer, an equity committee consisting of teachers, students, and others. The 2026 regulation takes out the 15 to 20 forms of discrimination and says the equity committee will define what discrimination is. This is a very immature suggestion.

The Atrocities Act previously had 27 forms of atrocities. It is 40 in the revised 2015 Atrocities Act. It is similar under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, which is called Protection of Civil Rights Act. But now they are leaving it to this equity committee with students and administrators. How will they do it? What they should do is, at the UGC level, they should identify the forms of discrimination as identified in 2012, but improve it and make inclusions.

The second limitation relates to the inclusion of institutions. Some say this will apply [only] to universities and colleges under UGC jurisdiction (it is called 2F rule). Others say all education institutions. It is not clear whether IITs and IIMs are included.

When I went to IIT Bombay after the suicide of [Darshan] Solanki and asked the Director, he said it possibly didn’t apply to them. IIT Delhi made the same argument when there was another suicide and I was invited. Because IITs are established in 1961 Act, they are not under the UGC 2F [a section under the UGC Act, 1956, that validates a college or university as a legitimate institution offering higher education degrees]. They should bring clarity on the institutions ccovered under the regulation.

The last point: the provision is that if there is a [case of ] discrimination, there should be legal punishment through a properly constituted inquiry. But international experience is that in educational institutions, you should not go directly to legal action. There is a system which is tried in many countries: confession. You confess that you have committed a mistake and issue an open apology. Open apologies have a very powerful impact. When somebody says sorry, he will not repeat it. So first that should be tried, and if that is not working, legal action is always open. You may know that after hundreds of years, the Pope expressed an apology for slavery. Our Shankaracharya does not express an apology for the act of untouchability. On the contrary, they are defending it now.

There are other limitations in the 2026 regulations, but it has certain positive aspects also. With improvements, it should be accepted. I don’t know what the UGC is doing.

There is a narrative of the completion of roster reservation by UGC. What flaws do you see there?

In higher education, when I was Chairman, there was under-reservation in Central and other universities. One of the defects we recognised was that reservation, according to the DoPT [Department of Personnel and Training] rule, is at the department level. The problem is that the concept of “department” in the university and the government is different. In the government, a department has hundreds and thousands of employees. In the university, in department of economics, department of sociology, you have 7 to 10 faculty members. To calculate 15 and 8 per cent for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively, and now 27 per cent for OBCs [Other Backward Classes] is a difficult job. You don’t get a roster point. You get it after 10 years, 5 years, or so.

As it is, State universities have stopped recruitments. They are appointing teachers on an ad hoc, temporary basis, as guest teachers for whom there is no reservation. This is a very serious crisis. So we took the decision to calculate reservation at the university level: if there are 100 teachers, we calculate 15, 8, and 27 per cent separately, that is 20 to 50 positions, and then allocate them to departments. So you are not taking the number in the department but allocating to departments especially where faculty-educated students with PhDs are available.

After five years or so, somebody from Allahabad went to the Supreme Court. The DoPD rules says that it is to be implemented at the department level, not the university level. The Supreme Court agreed… Finally, I think during the BJP rule, [Congress president] Mallikarjun Kharge and others took the lead and told the Education Minister to bring an ordinance to overrule the Supreme Court decision. The ordinance was brought out by the BJP that reservation will continue at the university level.

You have spoken about converting these suggestions into a law. Has the time come to establish an independent body to work on caste discrimination in institutions through consultations, suggestions, sensitisation programmes, and so on?

I agree. Education is a very big sector. We have thousands of universities, about 43,000 colleges, and 11,000 self-financing institutes, and importantly, we are not talking about the school sector at all.

There is massive discrimination in the school sector. There are videos and studies that show how children, Valmiki children, are required to clean toilets, clean schools. They sit separately, eat separately in midday meal schools. Scheduled Caste women are not allowed to become cooks [in schools]. We do not know the impact on students’ minds because they are not as mature.

Your point is very important. The government, the Ministry of Education, and other ministries [must] come together and set up a separate commission to deal with the problem. And not only caste, but religious discrimination, gender discrimination, disability discrimination can all be brought together because the 2006 Act includes these categories also. They should keep preparing the regulation, the Act, and monitor, implement, and study it from time to time.

In the IIT Bombay incident, there are allegations about the misuse of the Atrocities Act against Professor Suryanarayana Doolla. How do you see that?

[Sahil Wakode’s] father said that his son had shared with him that this particular professor was intimidating him, was unpleasant with him, and possibly used caste language. The Atrocities Act applies if the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste and the victimiser is high caste. Now this has not yet been proved. The matter is sub judice. It will all depend on CBI findings.

But having said this, I must say that after Solanki’s death by suicide [in 2023] at IIT Bombay, I was invited for a lecture and talked to the Director. The SC/ST cell in IIT Bombay has done most wonderful work with a couple of surveys on discrimination. And, believe me, it brings out the massive discrimination by high-caste students against Scheduled Caste students and, in some cases, by administrators and teachers also.

Discrimination is a problem not only in IIT Bombay but in many IITs. It will have an impact on Scheduled Caste students, there is no doubt about it. But in this specific case, we have to wait for the outcome of the report.