Suicide in IIT Mumbai - Justice should not become a matter of label we carry

When did justice become a matter of which label you carry?

The tragic death of Sahil Wakode at IIT Bombay has understandably raised difficult questions. His family has alleged caste-based harassment, the Institute had denied all such allegations of discrimination, an FIR has been registered, and the matter is now being investigated. These allegations must be investigated fairly, impartially and thoroughly. If there was caste-based abuse or harassment, those responsible must face the law. On the same wavelength, if nothing of that sort has happened, those who created all these slur and allegations should be taken to task. 

However, there is another conversation we need to have—and conveniently, quite often, it is often avoided, by the media, by the press, by the authorities, by the Government and by the common people too!

A person's caste, religion, community, language or social category cannot automatically make that person a victim, just as it cannot automatically make another person guilty.

Prejudice, in the guise of social justice, should never be allowed to take over. This takes the entire affair in a totally different direction.

If a student violates an examination rule, the violation has to be examined on its facts. If proved wrong, punishment should be handed over. If a professor enforces that rule, he is doing his duty and we cannot blame him/ her for that. That action should not automatically be interpreted through the lens of caste. At the same time, if a professor abuses authority or discriminates against a student, that too must be investigated and acted upon.

The principle should be simple: same facts, same scrutiny, same standards. We cannot have different scales based on our convenience. 

We need to be particularly careful with laws and protections created to protect vulnerable communities. They are necessary precisely because genuine discrimination exists in pockets. However, the credibility of any protective law depends upon people believing that it is invoked on the basis of evidence and applied through due process and not through simple allegations. Even the Supreme Court had acknowledge that such laws are misused to a great extent - around 5000-odd cases out of the total cases were found to be misused ones in one year by the SC. 

Misuse—or even the perception of misuse—does not weaken the need for such laws. It makes it even more important that genuine cases are investigated rigorously and that false or unsubstantiated allegations are not treated as established facts.

And this principle should apply equally to everyone. We can always have debates on the following that can go endless. In today's world, none has the political will to bring a fair end to such debates. Media, sensation, vote-bank - too many factors influence them. 

• Reservation can be debated (need to be debated)
• Examination rules can be debated
• Disciplinary procedures can be debated (today, it is the need of the hour)
• The implementation of protective laws can be debated

We should also remember that cheating is cheating; Discrimination is discrimination; abuse of privileges and authority is an abuse. None of these should acquire a different meaning because of the caste, religion, language, gender or social identity of the person involved.

Perhaps, the biggest problem is our tendency to look at every incident through a prejudiced lens.

• SC/ST → victim
• Minority → victim
• Professor → privileged
• Institution → guilty
• Student → innocent

Why do we need these assumptions at all? Let evidence establish who did what. And there is a deeper lesson here.

A 20- or 22-year-old making a serious mistake should face consequences; (when you can make mistakes, be ready to face its consequences also) — but should also know that one mistake does not define an entire life. The Institute involved in this episode had clarified that no disciplinary action had been initiated against the student who did that mistake and that he had been counselled and assured that the incident would not adversely affect his academic career.

We need to teach our children two things simultaneously:

1. Doing wrong is unacceptable.
2. But doing something wrong does not make you a bad human being.

Accountability and compassion are not opposites.

Perhaps what India needs most is not another political argument about who is the victim and who is the villain. It needs a change in the mindset. Let us stop viewing every incident through the lens of caste, religion, creed or language.

Let us ask:

• What happened?
• What does the evidence show?
• Who is responsible?
• What does the law require?

And then—regardless of who is involved—let the same standards apply.

Justice should not depend on the label you carry. It should depend on the facts. That is how we protect both the rights of the genuinely vulnerable and the rights of everyone else. And perhaps that is the only way to ensure that the protections created for genuine victims remain credible, respected and effective when they are truly needed.

Picture Courtesy: ChatGPT based on the inputs provided by me.