Exclusive | ‘Casteist’ remarks made at podcast interview: Ex-JNUSU president, founder of forum on Ambedkar move NCSC against JNU V-C

The remarks in question were made during a 52-minute podcast interview published on February 16, in which Pandit spoke about student protests on campus, the recent rustication of JNUSU office-bearers, the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) equity regulations, and what she described as the role of Left-wing politics at JNU. “You cannot progress by being permanently a victim or playing the victim card. This was done for the Blacks; the same thing was brought for Dalits here,” she had said.

Seeking Pandit’s removal as the V-C in his complaint submitted to the NCSC chairperson on Tuesday, Dhananjay – a PhD scholar at JNU – accused the V-C of making statements that “prima facie promote feelings of hatred and ill-will against the people belonging to the Dalit and other marginalised communities,” and sought action under Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Dhananjay argued that the comments – coming from the head of a Central university – had created a “serious detrimental impact” on Dalit students and had “clearly given rise to feelings of hatred and ill-will against students belonging from Dalit and other marginalised communities”.

“The conduct of Santishree D Pandit, being a person holding a responsible academic office, is criminal and reprehensible,” the complaint said, adding that educational institutions “ought to be sanctuaries of inclusivity, enlightenment, and constitutional morality”. Instead, it alleged, her statements had “sown division and inflicted emotional distress upon students and members of the Dalit and marginalised community”.

The complaint also claimed that following the circulation of Pandit’s remarks, “there have been incidents of harassment on students belonging from the Dalit and marginalised communities”, and that the general atmosphere on campus had become “hostile”. It further noted that Pandit had not issued any apology, which, it argued, “bolsters the fact that the statement… was a well thought statement, given to create discrimination and to promote feelings of hatred and ill-will”.

Dhananjay urged NCSC to direct an independent inquiry, and “recommend stern disciplinary and legal action, including the immediate removal of the said Vice-Chancellor from her position…”

The complaint filed by Baudh also raised similar concerns, accusing Pandit of making “demeaning and dismissive” remarks. That complaint said Pandit’s statements suggested that efforts to address caste inequities were merely claims of “victimhood” rather than “legitimate claims for equality, dignity, and constitutional safeguards”.

Baudh requested NCSC to “take cognizance of the matter and examine whether the remarks promote prejudice, incite hostility or constitute contempt or disrespect towards scheduled caste communities” and “issue a notice seeking detailed explanation from the V-C”.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Baudh, a lawyer who did his LLM from the University of Allahabad, said: “I have not yet received a response to my mail from the NCSC. I will wait for it until tomorrow, and complain on their web portal in case there is no response by then.”

Pandit and the JNU Media Cell did not respond to calls, messages and emails sent by The Indian Express. There was no response from the NCSC secretary, too, despite multiple attempts to reach him.

Responding to the controversy earlier, Pandit had told PTI that her remarks had been taken out of context. “I am a Bahujan myself, I come from an OBC background,” she had said, adding that she was referring to what she described as “woke” interpretations of history and the creation of “imaginary worlds” around permanent victimhood.

On UGC’s equity regulations, which were stayed by the Supreme Court last month, Pandit had said during the podcast interview that they had been introduced without adequate consultation. “It was done secretly. Many of us who are part of the system didn’t even know what was in it,” she said, calling the regulations unnecessary and constitutionally flawed.

She had also defended the JNU administration’s decision to rusticate five student leaders for allegedly vandalising surveillance equipment at the Ambedkar Library. “They destroyed this property, literally broke it down, sat on top of it, took pictures and they themselves put it on social media as though they have done something great,” she said, adding that the students had been charged under what she described as a “very strong Act,” apparently referring to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

The administration, she had said, had shown restraint by debarring the students for two semesters and imposing a fine of Rs 20,000. “It is taxpayers’ money. I am answerable as a Vice-Chancellor to the government, to Parliament, and to the people of India,” she had added.
On Monday, JNUSU leaders were booked on charges, including rioting and criminal conspiracy, after the university filed a complaint with the police in connection to the student protests on Sunday night against Pandit.