Poor academics, no proof of caste bias: IIT Bombay report on student suicide case

A day after the incident, IIT Bombay constituted a 12-member committee to investigate the circumstances leading to the death. It submitted an eight-page interim report on March 2, a copy of which has also been shared with the Central Government.

“It appears from the marks obtained in various courses that the performance of Darshan Solanki deteriorated specifically in the second half of the autumn semester. His deteriorating academic performance could have affected him seriously,” says the interim report.

Referring to Solanki’s “very poor” academic record, the report points to his interactions with friends, and says he “often expressed that he might quit the B.Tech. Program at IIT Bombay and join elsewhere in his hometown”.

“Other than the statement of Darshan’s sister, there is no specific evidence of direct caste-based discrimination faced by him during his stay at IIT Bombay,” the report states.

Solanki’s father, Rameshbhai, who received a copy of the report from IIT-Bombay, rejected its contents. “I do not accept this report. The administration has been stating this from day one. I do not believe that an internal committee which had no external members would really bring out the truth,” he told The Indian Express.

Referring to the report’s assertions about his son’s academics, Rameshbhai said, “He had failed only in one subject and that is no reason for suicide.”

Questioning the absence of an external member on the panel, IIT Kanpur alumni Dheeraj Singh, who has been working to mobilise the reserved category, said, “The IIT-Bombay’s committee comprised all internal members wherein 7 out of 12 members were professors. As expected, it has given a report where blame is put on the individual.”

The inquiry panel, with Professor Nand Kishore of IIT Bombay’s Chemistry department as convenor, states in its report that only Solanki’s sister had claimed that her brother mentioned “caste-related issues faced by some students at IIT Bombay and that he had also faced it himself”.

The report states that members of the Ambedkar Periyar Phule Study Circle and Ambedkarite Students Collective also highlighted instances of caste discrimination on campus. But, it states, “none of them had ever met” Darshan or “directly knew if DS was facing any kind of problem individually”. The report also states that Solanki’s “father and uncle said that Solanki did not mention to them about any type of discrimination faced by him”.

Saying that the committee interacted with him and Darshan’s sister Janhavi on video-call, Rameshbhai said, “Darshan did not mention any caste-related issue to me fearing that I might ask him to change the college.”

According to the interim report, Solanki’s sister did not share any particular incident with the panel to support claims of caste discrimination. Referring to an interaction between Solanki and her, the report states: “His query related to computers and other subject matters were sometimes laughed at by some students.”

According to the report, Solanki “did not show much interest in studies and preferred to stay in his hostel room most of the time”. Stating that one of his friends mentioned that Solanki had problems in understanding lectures, the report states that he “used to mention that he was not adequately prepared for the exam.” It states that Darshan asked for Hindi-help sessions in his mathematics course.

According to the report, Solanki never reached out to the SC/ST Cell or the Student Wellness Centre (SWC) regarding any caste-related issue and there was no discrimination-related content on his IIT-Bombay mail.

About Solanki’s personal relationships on campus, the report states he was perceived to be an introvert but his hostel wing-mates used to get along well with him. “It appears to the committee that DS initially might have felt aloof, probably due to various possible causes, including JEE-rank differences, computer familiarity and language barrier. The exact cause of his aloof nature is not known to the committee,” states the report.

The committee ruled out any possibility of substance abuse. Ruling out the family’s claim of foul-play, the report says another student standing near a window on the eighth floor grew suspicious of Solanki’s intention and shouted his name twice but got no response.

“The Committee has noted that Darshan was planning to go out with his wing-mates for shopping and was dressed up in the afternoon on February 12. Some money was transferred to his account by his father. The committee has no information on what happened in the time span after the telephonic call with the family and before the tragic incident. In the absence of call details, forensic analysis of the phone or laptop and post-modern report of Darshan, the committee at present cannot arrive at a final conclusion on what actually triggered him to take this extremely unfortunate step,” it states.