FPJ Analysis: IIT Delhi Reforms Critical

A committee set up in March last year by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, to suggest reforms in the face of an institutional and campus meltdown has submitted a report recommending sweeping changes to address a gamut of problems. The most important trigger for the institution of the 12-member committee, headed by Santosh Kumar Chaturvedi, a senior psychiatrist from the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, and including student representatives and former and serving faculty members, had likely been five student suicides in 2023 and 2024. A toxic culture on campus had prompted repeated demands for reforms from the institute’s student community. Among the major problems flagged as part of the committee’s remit were post-coaching burnout, a grading system that reinforced a kind of toxic competitiveness, unrealistically high academic demands, and pervasive discrimination based on caste and gender, which were at the heart of the problems that created student distress and an environment in which suicides were in danger of becoming endemic. Among the solutions apparently suggested by the committee are the publication of a non-discrimination policy that clearly defines unacceptable behaviour and remedial measures; training for all students, faculty, and staff on inclusivity, equality and respect; reduction in first-semester academic loads and the introduction of courses on life and language skills and co-curricular activities; counselling centres to reduce stigma, led by counsellors with specialised training to support students from marginalised backgrounds; a revision of the criteria for running for leadership positions; and the facilitation of teamwork and collaboration.

The submission of a comprehensive report is all very well. The question is whether there is a genuine desire and will to implement its recommendations. It has been reported that the committee submitted its report as early as August last year, but nothing seemed to transpire, with even the members of the committee being kept in the dark about follow-up measures. Responsible officers of IIT Delhi did not seem inclined to make any public comment on the situation. It is ironic that one of the problems flagged by the committee was the fact that the institute often formed committees to report on various problems but allowed their reports to gather dust. This kind of approach is hardly new or unusual. The default response to institutional problems is to respond when matters can no longer be postponed and brush them under the rug when things have quietened down. Unfortunately, in this case we are talking about the lives of students. It is incumbent on not just IIT Delhi but other institutions to create safe environments in which students find encouragement to study and grow. In this context, another evil that must be rooted out is that of psychopathic ragging.