Inclusion anyone? | S3 Ep 6

[00:00:16] Welcome to 4C Radio. We are broadcasting from the Central Campus of Christ University, Bengaluru. 4C Radio is brought to you by the Department of Media Studies, Christ University. For all those who are looking for a platform that focuses on communities, commons, climate and communication, this is the place to be. What's more, this station is run by a diverse community of students and dedicated faculty members.

[00:00:44] Tune in to experience hard-hitting interviews, fact-checks and mickbusting, on-ground stories, campus news and more. Today, student reporter Arnabi Malik explores the debate surrounding the UGC's Equity Regulations 2026,

[00:01:08] the legacy of Rohit Vemula and the question of caste discrimination in Indian higher education. There is a permanent victimhood and you cannot progress by being permanently a victim or playing the victim card. This was done for blacks. The same thing was brought for Dalits here. And you know, the question is, by making somebody the devil, it's not easy to, you know, progress.

[00:01:38] And it is a temporary type of a, what to say, I would say it's more like a drug. You know, temporarily trying to say this is the enemy, you shout at it and then you will feel good. That was Shanti Shri Dhulipudi Pandit, Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, speaking on the Sunday Guardian podcast. Her remarks triggered protests on campus. Many were detained.

[00:02:01] Students marched towards the Ministry of Education and debates that had been building inside the Indian higher education for years came sharply into public view. At the centre of those debates are a set of new rules from the University Grants Commission called the Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations 2026. Today, we look at what those regulations say, how they came to exist, who is challenging them and what they mean for students. I am Oronobi, your host.

[00:02:30] Rahul CR, who is the president of the Dr. B.R Ambedkar Student Association, recalls his early encounters with caste discrimination. My mother got transferred from Pangalore to Mysore and we were in search of a house, for a rental house in Mysore, where we were not able to find a rental house for three months just because that I belong to a scheduled caste.

[00:03:00] And at that time, we did not have this caste sensitivity. And moreover, we had got a rental house in one of a very good area nearby my school. And we had also had an agreement, a proper document agreement. And we also entered the house. And after one day, they knew that we belong to a scheduled caste.

[00:03:26] And instantly, they told us to vacate the house. We had completely, we had every documents to fight back. But the thing is, my mother was a single parent. And my sister was so young. And I was not in a position to understand what was happening. So, my mother stepped back. Nitin Raj was 22 years old.

[00:03:52] A first-year BDS student at Anjarakandi Dental College in Kunnoor, Kerala. On April 10, 2026, he died. Allegedly after he sustained caste-based harassment from faculty members. Two professors have been charged under abetment to suicide and provisions of the SCNSD Atrocities Act. Dalit organizations across Kerala called a statewide hurtal in protest. Among their demands are justice for Nitin's family, cancellation of college's affiliation,

[00:04:21] and the implementation of the Rohit Vemula Act. Ten years after Rohit's death, the pattern is brutally familiar. In January 2016, Rohit Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad, died by suicide. He was 26 years old. He had been suspended from his hostel along with four other Dalit scholars following a complaint that traced back to a political dispute.

[00:04:44] His final letter spoke about a sense of exclusion that many Dalit students had long described but rarely seen acknowledged by their institutions. The demands that followed were clear. Strong protections against caste-based discrimination on campus and eventually a central law, what campaigners called the Rohit Act. The UGC had issued an advisory framework on equal opportunities in higher educational spaces in 2012.

[00:05:10] But it carried no enforcement mechanism, no penalties, and it largely excluded OVC communities from its scope. In 2025, the Supreme Court, hearing a PIL filed by Rohit's mother, Radhika Vemula, directed the UGC to create enforceable rules. The result was equity regulations notified on January 13, 2026. Advocate Manidla V, who is a part of the campaign for the Rohit Act, elaborates on her perspective.

[00:05:37] Now, if you look at it, what is the UGC's mandate? To prevent, to, sorry, maintain standards, right? It's not a social justice body specifically. It has a very different purpose. So, if you want regulations or you want a law to sort of, you know, to hold field in this, you know, area of, like, caste discrimination and harassment,

[00:06:06] it has to be legislated properly by the parliament or the state legislature because education is also a state subject. It's on the concurrent list. Both the centre and the state will have power to do that. So, then it is specifically because it's impeding and harming education for marginalised groups. And you have to come up with the, and that is a law that would be difficult to challenge in court. Not this.

[00:06:34] This is honestly, like, I don't see anything, like, everyone tries to point at the Supreme Court. And I disagree with that personally. Because I don't think the Supreme Court has, I mean, there are some irregularities in the way it was, like, very, abruptly decided without hearing everybody is what is reported. So, they could have been more patient.

[00:06:58] But that being said, did they do something completely unexpected of a, you know, constitutional court? I wouldn't say that, like, I would say that the UGC regulations doesn't stand on the strongest constitutional grounds. Because of this connection.

[00:07:19] The fact that it is not primarily meant to, you know, especially because the UGC is an executive body. It's not legislature. So, it's making a law. It's fine. It's not like it can't. But whether it has that ability and capacity. Whether it's empowered to do that under the statute. That it's, you know, a child of. The regulations are a child of a statute. That is questionable. It's not very clear.

[00:07:48] It's a point for, you know, adjudication. Like, the question then, very technically speaking, becomes whether maintaining or whether equity in education is a part of maintaining the standard of a university. Or the technical standards of a higher education. So, what do the new regulations require?

[00:08:15] Every university must establish an equal opportunity cell. Each institution must form an equity committee with mandatory representation from scheduled caste, scheduled tribe, OBC, women, and persons with disabilities communities. Discrimination is defined broadly. It covers direct bias and more indirect or subtle forms of unfair treatment based on caste, religion, race, gender, place of birth, or disability.

[00:08:40] For the first time, OBCs are explicitly covered following a parliamentary standing committee recommendation from December 2025. Institutions that do not comply will face real penalties. They will be barred from UGC grants. That the definition is vague. I'm with them on that. The definition of caste-based discrimination is vague. Discrimination is also... There are two definitions for some reason. There is a caste-based discrimination which targets identities.

[00:09:10] And then there is a more substantive definition of discrimination, which is actually a better definition in my opinion. But it of course has its... There are going to be these conflicts of interpretation when you have these two randomly different definitions. And then you have a prohibition clause which only talks about discrimination. It doesn't talk about caste-based discrimination. So that's there.

[00:09:38] But having said that, even the enforcement mechanism is vague. Like what ultimately can an institution do? It's not a... Like it says... I mean it has some consequences. Like you know UGC, college co grant is... Like you know cut off the grants. And so on and so forth. But I'm not very sure that the enforcement is also clear cut.

[00:10:08] And also what remedies are there? What can you do? Like these are inconsequential to the student, no? Like what grant... Whether the grants get cut off and all of that. That's also a penalty, sorry. Those are penalties for non-compliance. But say for example a student goes to the committee and says I have... I'm facing so and so. I'm facing discrimination from this teacher, administrator, whatever. Student, whatever. So then... Okay.

[00:10:37] It's the relief that one... Or what the action that the committee can take is very broad. It's very vague. It's not defined. So then that's also vague, na? So if you're saying the definition is vague. So is your action. Possible action. An activist who has advocated for several social issues and is a believer of ideologies of people like Ambedkar and Phule has to say.

[00:11:03] Before these UGC guidelines, whenever they were born in 14, 15 years, what would exist was that if there was some kind of an issue that happened in the higher level education, the student would have to go to the courts, would have to go to the higher lawyer, would have to fight outside the university. And that, by the time, you know how the courts are backed up, things take a lot of time.

[00:11:25] By the time any kind of resolution, any kind of justice was meted out, these students would already be out of the university and there would be no exactly true justice provided. So that being the case, the fact that the universities themselves have a redressal system, have a grievance redressal cell, have a proper acknowledgement of these kind of wrongs. First of all, the main issue is that you must acknowledge it. Second of all, you must see how you can remove it and assure.

[00:11:54] Third of all, structurally, you must see, you must have an investigation committee, inquiry committee and a kind of a very objective, balanced, fair inquiry committee. So that the process that that is going on is a good thing. But of course, the details must be fine tuned for a more constructive UGC regulations and rules. It could be a small consequence, but a sure consequence.

[00:12:19] Instead of, you know, the punishment or the consequence need not always be big for people to be held accountable. It could be small, but sure. For small, so that the bringing in the proportionality factor would really balance things out. And when there is a harm, there should be remedy more than a punishment, especially when they can be remedied.

[00:12:48] So what happens is discrimination and harassment causes SCST people to lose opportunities. Now, criminalizing the person who's doing so, is it going to do the SCST person any good? But rather a remedial solution where, you know, the said opportunity is compensated for in some way,

[00:13:06] that would have a better, I feel it would also be a better way of holding up or, you know, oppressor caste folk accountable than threatening them with jail. Because even if you see the whole UGC protest by the Savarna folk, had this imaginary situation of, you know, we will put them in jail. I think that's a misplaced fear.

[00:13:36] And a better consequence is that you are taking our rights and opportunities from us. We are taking our rights and we are taking our rights and we are taking our rights. We are taking our rights and we are taking our rights and we are taking our rights and we are taking our rights. Pay for it. The regulations were challenged almost immediately after notification. In Uttar Pradesh, local leaders from the Bharatiya Janta Party resigned in protest, calling the rules discriminatory against upper caste communities. Several petitions were filed in courts.

[00:14:05] The Supreme Court put the regulations on hold, describing them as sweeping and saying they could have far-reaching consequences. The court asked the UGC to justify their scope. The matter is still being heard. Meanwhile, the Vice Chancellor's remarks at JNU brought the wider debate into sharper focus. She later said her comments were misread and that she had been describing what she characterized as a political posture, not making a statement about Dalit communities.

[00:14:34] For example, when you have VCs of a higher education institution make statements like, you know, oh, Dalits and Adivasis, they're just playing victim cards and, you know, they should, that's the real poison in their minds. They think of themselves as victims. So where do you, where do you go? So I don't think the UGC guidelines, it actually has a VC as the ex-officio chairman of an equity committee.

[00:15:02] So with VCs like this, VCs like this, I'm not sure how that will ensure justice for students. And there's also a very, very big power differential between the students. And see, one thing that could have, you know, managed or somehow or too little bit mitigated that power differential is when you had student representatives who were not nominated but elected from the student body.

[00:15:30] This debate is taking place against a specific set of facts. According to UGC's data, there has been 118% increase in caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions over the last few years. According to NCRB data, student suicides in India rose by 65% between 2013 and 2023. Students from SC, ST and OBC communities are disproportionately represented in that figure, particularly in residential institutions.

[00:15:59] A 2024 Parliamentary Standing Committee report noted that faculty representation from SC and ST communities remain significantly below mandated levels at many central universities and IITs. Because we have the concept called no zero mess bill and zero fees, which means that if a SC student who gets admitted to this university

[00:16:26] has the provision of not paying the fees and not paying the hostel fees until the income limit of 10 lakhs. But some of the hostels here, because it is run by the students itself, but the wardens here, even in spite of having the government orders,

[00:16:48] sometimes force the students to pay the hostel fees and also to pay the government fees. But that can only be paid once the government sends the funds to the university. They have to claim it from the university, the hostel wardens. But in spite of they claiming it from the university, they force the students to pay it,

[00:17:15] stating that we will reimburse your fees once the university gives the money to run the hostel or the college. This is nowhere written in an official order or a GO, government order, to force a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe student to pay the fees.

[00:17:38] But here, you know that what the kind of professors or the kind of the hostel wardens are the professors itself. They do not have this courtesy that this university is run by the students. It is run for the students. But they do not think about what is the psychological factors that will affect the student if he is forced to pay. Because the specialty of the farm science or the agriculture universities in Karnataka is

[00:18:08] 70 to 80 percent of the students are just first generation, the second generation education takers. They are taking their education now. Now, if you force them to pay even 3 or 4 thousand rupees, they are not able to pay because their parents are still working as farm laborers in their own land and they are landless. Many of the students are landless and many of the students are just taking their first generation education

[00:18:38] in spite of we having independence after the 80 years also. So, this is one of the most basic things because once a student is facilitated with shelter and food and that too, if he has that security, food and shelter security, he can read properly. He can pursue his education properly.

[00:19:05] Else, at every month end or every semester end, he has to struggle to pay his fees. For campaigners who have been working on these issues since 2016, the UGC regulations are a step forward but not what was originally demanded. The Rohit Act, as proposed by the campaign, would be a central law passed by the parliament, not a regulatory framework. It would specifically define caste-based institutional discrimination.

[00:19:32] It would establish accountability structures outside university administration. And because it would be a statute, it could not be stayed the way regulations can. Especially for SCSC students, the kinds of protection what the government is giving today is not enough. If there is any kinds of arrasments or any kinds of discrimination which is happening in the university, that is the conviction rates or the action taken rates are very less.

[00:20:01] So, that needs to be protected because ultimately the basic motto of the university is everybody in this space are brought in one shelter to feel that everybody are equal and every person is given the social justice of what the government has given. But it needs to be protected in the righteous way.

[00:20:31] The UGC's equity regulations, 2026, were notified in January. They were challenged within weeks. They remain on hold by the Supreme Court. The regulations were built on a decade of advocacy, two rounds of parliamentary committee recommendations and a court direction. Whether they survive legal scrutiny and in what form will shape how universities in India address discrimination in the years ahead.

[00:20:55] The Karnataka government is set to introduce the Rohit Vemula bill as announced by CM Siddharamaya while presenting the state budget of 2026-27. The state has now become the first one to officially acknowledge Rohit Vemula's death to be linked with caste-based discrimination. However, the act has not been introduced in parliament. The government has not provided a timeline. As we conclude this episode, one thing becomes clear.

[00:21:24] The journey towards truly inclusive universities is still a long one. While policies and regulations may evolve, the challenge of ensuring every student feels safe, respected and valued remains far from resolved. Thank you for listening to this podcast. As always, stay curious and tune in for more.

[00:21:54] This episode was hosted by Shinjini Chaturvedi and reportage by Arnabhi Malik. It was edited by Arnabhi Malik and Guru Aditya. And it was illustrated by Varnika Singh. Signature tune was composed by Dr. Anantu. Please write to us and follow us on X, Instagram and LinkedIn.