The sequence of events that has unfolded in the aftermath of an IIT Bombay student’s death by suicide is a script that the nation has become eerily familiar with — the loss of a young life, pointing of fingers, a probing committee, protesting students, and the institute distancing itself from the alleged perpetrator. In this case, an investigation is underway, and the professor in question has been booked on charges of caste discrimination and abetment of suicide. Meanwhile, a statement from student representatives has clarified that their protests were an attempt to seek “meaningful and strong institutional reforms”.
India’s premier institutions, along with universities from other Asian nations (China, Korea, etc.), are part of a cohort of higher education institutes (HEIs) perceived as brutally competitive. The first step is a rigorous funnel that filters applicants through their scores in highly competitive entrance exams, thus designed to keep applicants out rather than in. The ones who make it through face a rigid system that places emphasis on foundational learning and bell-curve grading, leaving less room for inquiry and collaboration. While this is well-known, incidents such as these have risen — 45 students died by suicide across all IITs between 2020 and 2025, with the majority belonging to marginalised groups, according to media reports.
This places such institutions not merely in a precarious position, but an existentialist one. Are they really aware of what happens within their walls? Circulars issued by student welfare or administrative affairs would suggest they are — ironically, the now-suspended professor at the centre of this imbroglio, during his tenure as dean of student affairs, sent an email prohibiting students from asking about their classmates’ GATE/JEE scores and anything else that would reveal their caste, stating that “asking the question can often have an adverse impact on the other student”.
Next, if institutional awareness exists, is enough being done to aid students? Not quite, according to former Supreme Court Justice S Ravindra Bhat, the chairman of a National Task Force (NTF) set up by the apex court to investigate students’ mental health in HEIs. He has described the situation as “deeply troubling” to the media earlier. Aqsa Sheikh, a doctor and member of the NTF, told Al-Jazeera that while there were counsellors on campus, students under severe stress were “unlikely to seek help on their own”, and that active institutional intervention was required.
Student protests often reflect systemic, related problems. Only two months ago, they took to the streets and secured Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation as education minister over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test paper leak, among other concerns. These events, therefore, cannot be viewed as isolated, but clear symptoms of a system that has been rotting for a while. The issues plaguing Indian education are manifold, but facts presented by the NTF should lead us to critical questions.
Its interim report states that while “there are no ready-made answers to the complex aspects of a student’s campus life”, institutional restructuring, a “venue for students to voice their concerns”, and functional redress mechanisms, among others, “can contribute to overall student well-being”.
On the other side, faculty members felt frustrated and weighed down by expectations of mentoring students outside the classroom, “given their already excessive workload” and that they “were not trained…to offer such support to students”. Attempts to support students were met with administrative backlash, reprimands, and at times worse consequences.
Outside the campus, while the employability of graduates has increased from 46% in 2020 to 56.4% in 2026, a NITI Aayog paper last month said that 80% students from HEIs cite the lack of practical experience and industry exposure as a major gap in their degrees. It also highlighted that the curricula are not sufficiently aligned with changing industry requirements.
So we have a scenario where the students are not satisfied, the teachers are burnt out, and the system itself acknowledges a mismatch between classroom learning and workplace skills. Also, those who manage to reach a top-tier institute are faced with a unique set of challenges.
Who, then, does the system serve? And until when will we play whack-a-mole every time tragedies like these happen?