The tragic suicide of Sahil Wakode, a 20-year-old student at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT Bombay), has rapidly transformed into a focal point for self-styled ‘social justice activists’ looking to sharpen their caste politics and advance a wider leftist ideological campaign. Rather than allowing a calm and fair assessment of the incident, the institutional atmosphere has turned deeply contentious.

The dispute intensified after a First Information Report (FIR) under the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered against Professor Suryanarayana Doolla. Doolla had caught Wakode cheating during an examination on 18th September. When the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum stepped forward on 21st September to defend Doolla’s conduct, Suryakant Waghmore, a leftist Professor of Sociology within the same institute, launched an aggressive offensive against the forum and his fellow colleagues.

To fully understand how this conflict developed, it is vital to trace the events in chronological order, examining how a routine case of exam invigilation spiraled into severe criminal charges and an internal faculty confrontation.

The Incident and its Immediate Aftermath: 18th to 19th September

The chain of events began on Friday, 18th September 2026. Sahil Wakode, a second-year BTech student at IIT Bombay, was appearing for his mid-semester examination held between 11:00 and 13:00. Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, acting as the course instructor, was invigilating the exam hall. During the session, Professor Doolla caught Wakode red-handed in the unauthorized possession and active use of a smartphone to cheat. Adhering to established campus regulations, the professor intervened, reprimanded the student, and reported the malpractice to the competent institute authorities.

Tragically, later that day, Sahil Wakode returned to his hostel room and committed suicide.

Following the news of the death, protests erupted across the campus, with student factions demanding immediate administrative and police action against the faculty member. The narrative took a sharp turn the following day, Saturday, 19th September. Sahil Wakode’s parents formally came forward to allege that Professor Doolla had been subjecting their son to mental harassment and casteist slurs for three months. Furthermore, they claimed that this harassment was orchestrated at the behest of IIT Bombay Director Shireesh Kedare.

Despite these grave accusations, institutional records show that throughout Sahil Wakode’s entire stay at IIT Bombay, not a single formal complaint had ever been lodged against either Professor Doolla or Director Shireesh Kedare, whether through the central administration or via the institute's dedicated SC/ST cell.

This absence of prior complaints was corroborated by those closest to the deceased student. Sahil’s close friend, Yatish Kumar, publicly stated that he had never witnessed anything indicating caste discrimination. Kumar recalled spending time with Wakode just four or five days before the fateful mid-semester exam, noting that he appeared to be his usual cheerful self—“fun,” “cool,” and happy.

Addressing the media, Kumar remarked:

“I don’t think casteism was an issue. I mean I have never experienced it.”

While Kumar clarified that they belonged to different academic departments and that he did not possess complete details about every aspect of Wakode’s daily affairs, his account challenged the narrative of ongoing systemic persecution.

Meanwhile, Sahil’s father, Ravindra Wakode, put forth a key demand: the immediate disbursal of financial relief under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Under statutory amendments instituted in 2016 by the Modi government, the compensation framework is structured to provide prompt state relief: between 25% to 50% of the prescribed amount is cleared directly by the District Collector within seven days of the FIR registration; a secondary installment of 25% is released once the formal chargesheet is filed before the court; and the remaining balance is paid out upon final conviction. The compensation slab itself ranges from ₹1 lakh for verbal offenses, such as caste-based slurs, up to ₹8.25 lakh for heinous crimes like murder or gang rape.

The Institutional Stand and Administrative Fallout: 20th to 21st September

With the FIR registered under the SC/ST Act, Professor Doolla found substantial support among colleagues, students, and alumni, who viewed the criminal charges as retaliatory retribution for his enforcement of academic discipline.

On 20th September, the IIT Bombay Faculty Forum officially broke its silence, releasing a formal resolution signed by Forum President Rajkumar S. Pant. The forum expressed both sorrow over the student's demise and firm backing for the invigilating professor:

“The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay mourns the loss of life of a student of our institute, and offers deepest condolences to his family. We strongly express our solidarity with our colleague Prof. Suryanarayana Doolla, who was discharging his duties in line with the institute’s Senate approved academic policy currently in force.”

Detailing the exact chronological facts of the exam hall encounter, the statement continued:

“Prof. Doolla, the course instructor, was invigilating in the midsemester examination from 11-00 to 13-00 on Friday 18th September 2026, when he observed that a student was indulging in an academic malpractice, viz., unauthorized possession and use of a smartphone during the exam. As part of the institute approved procedure, he reported the incident to institute authorities for further action in the matter.”

The resolution also voiced serious alarm regarding the campaign to vilify the academic, stating:

“The Faculty Forum of IIT Bombay is absolutely distressed with the tarnishing of the reputation of our colleague Prof. Suryanarayana Doolla, who was merely discharging his academic duties, and following the institute approved procedures.”

Reinforcing the Faculty Forum’s position, an independent public statement signed by 22 current IIT Bombay students and alumni was released to the media. The signatories affirmed Professor Doolla’s personal and professional integrity, explicitly noting that he had never exhibited any caste prejudices toward students throughout his tenure.

Despite the support from peers and students, the IIT Bombay administration intervened on 21st September. Having initially backed the professor, the administration abruptly suspended Professor Doolla from his administrative role as Dean with immediate effect. This administrative censure, handed down amidst an ongoing police inquiry and without proven findings, provoked an immediate protest by the Faculty Forum. For many within the faculty, stripping an instructor of his deanship based purely on unverified allegations served as an arbitrary administrative penalty that worsened the public damage to his reputation.

Internal Revolt: Suryakant Waghmore’s Legal Threats and Public Retaliation

It was in the wake of the administration’s 21st September action that Professor Suryant Waghmore, a faculty member in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, openly rebelled against his peers.

Rejecting the Faculty Forum’s defense of Doolla, Waghmore fired off an email directly to Forum President Rajkumar Pant. In the communication, Waghmore disputed the legal standing of the representative body, accusing it of bias and a lack of empathy toward the deceased student. He then posted a screenshot of this email onto his public X handle, accompanied by the dismissive caption:

“Not me!!”

The full text of Waghmore’s internal email to Pant read:

“Last I heard, faculty forum is not a legal body. Please stop sending mass emails before you clarify, your legal status. A faculty colleague can be suspended till the investigation committee submits its report. We have had such precedence and the faculty forum should not pick sides in a biased way. This shows total lack of sympathy towards the student who has lost his life and all those who are grieving.”

He concluded the message with an explicit legal ultimatum:

“If I receive any more emails from FF, in this regard, I will have to pursue legal action against you.”

Waghmore’s actions did not stop at threatening legal consequences against his colleagues. When the Faculty Forum organized a campus protest against the summary suspension of Professor Doolla’s deanship, Waghmore took to X to criticize the demonstration, appearing to declare Doolla guilty before the conclusion of any formal inquiry:

“deanship is taken and they are protesting. Is deanship birth right? What kind of dean speaks to students with such insensitivity? All that the leadership advised us yesterday was the need for faculty to be sensitive to student needs & here we go they are united against what?”

While administrative posts like a deanship are not an inherent entitlement, the sudden stripping of the role under external pressure—before the police or internal committees have substantiated any wrongdoing—functions as a premature sanction that severely undermines the presumption of innocence. Yet Waghmore’s public rhetoric made it clear that he had little interest in procedural fairness for a colleague who was enforcing basic anti-cheating regulations.

Ideological Foundations and Academic Record

Waghmore's confrontation with his colleagues is part of a broader ideological track record. While the Indian Institutes of Technology are globally celebrated as centers of technical excellence—nurturing the engineers, scientists, and inventors driving the nation's modernization—leftist-Marxist currents have established footholds across these premier campuses through specialized humanities departments.

Professor Suryakant Waghmore exemplifies this ideological environment. Stationed in IIT Bombay’s Department of Humanities and Social Sciences as a Professor of Sociology, his academic pedigree includes a Bachelor of Arts from Karnataka University, a Master of Arts in Community Development from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), and a doctorate from the University of Edinburgh completed as a Commonwealth Scholar. His research work is primarily centered on themes of Dalit politics, caste conflicts, violence, Hinduism, civility, and social exclusion.

Over the years, Waghmore’s public commentary and scholarly writings have routinely focused on questioning traditional Hindu cultural practices:

The Dietary Hierarchy Argument: Waghmore has argued that Indian vegetarianism is an expression of caste hierarchy rather than animal welfare. During the 2023 IIT Bombay hostel dining hall controversy regarding separate dining tables, he labeled the concept of traditional vegetarian purity a "social illness"* and likened assertive vegetarian students to militants.
Critique of Hinduism and Civility: He has asserted in his analytical commentary that Hinduism fundamentally lacks innate "civility."*

• The US Discrimination Debate: In his social media commentary, Waghmore has directed sharp critiques toward the Brahmin community. Addressing reports of racism encountered by Indian professionals in the West, he published an X post dismissing the notion of Hinduphobia, writing:

“A true Brahmin should not cross the seas as per Manu and Dharmasutras. Brahmins experiencing racism in the US is not Hinduphobia… it’s karma?”

Dietary Assertions and Rhetorical Jibes: The taxpayer-funded academic has publicly boasted about being a self-described Hindu who consumes beef, while regularly employing derogatory "gaumutra"* remarks against his ideological critics on digital platforms.
Institutional Code Violations: In June 2025, IIT Bombay authorities served Waghmore with an official show-cause notice over an unauthorized op-ed in The Times of India titled "Mumbai’s Big Cash Polls."* The commentary was deemed explicitly partisan and was published without mandatory prior institutional review, directly violating Schedule B, Paragraph 5(ii) of the institute's service code of conduct.
Media Contributions: He has regularly contributed ideological essays to alternative left platforms, including his author portfolios on portals like Scroll and The Wire*, tailoring his anti-establishment political stances into sociological prose.

Intolerance for Differing Perspectives: The Confrontation with Political Voices

This ideological posture explains Waghmore's hostile response to anyone who breaks rank regarding the incident. Left-wing figures who often preach tolerance, freedom of speech, and open dissent can prove remarkably hostile when an ally expresses an independent perspective.

This intolerance surfaced when Dr. Shama Mohamed, a national spokesperson for the Indian National Congress, publicly defended Professor Doolla’s actions during the exam. Mohamed took a clear, pragmatic stance on social media, refusing to frame the enforcement of academic rules as a caste atrocity:

“In this suicide, I stand with Professor Doolla. If a student is caught cheating, it is normal to admonish him & ask him to leave the room. If the student was harassed due to his caste, he should have complained to the SC/ST department. When we were kids – we were admonished by teachers, parents for our wrongdoings but our generation was mentally strong. I would request colleges to have mental health therapists for the wellbeing of the students.”

Mohamed’s refusal to endorse the prevailing left-caste narrative provoked immediate pushback from Waghmore. Rather than engaging with the merits of her argument, he addressed Congress Party President Mallikarjun Kharge directly on X, demanding that the party chief either resign from the organization or forcibly muzzle his spokesperson:

“Hello Mr. @kharge Please leave congress and find a better party.. if not get this post deleted.”

Manufactured Narratives Versus Factual Realities

As law enforcement continues its statutory investigation into the circumstances surrounding the mid-semester exam, no empirical evidence has emerged to show that Professor Suryanarayana Doolla engaged in caste discrimination, targeted bias, or systematic harassment against Sahil Wakode.

Instead, the documentation indicates an instructor carrying out standard Senate-approved invigilation protocols when confronted with a student using a smartphone during a test. Yet, propelled by academics like Suryakant Waghmore and coordinated activist groups, the tragedy has been pulled into an ideological fight designed to turn Sahil Wakode into a campus martyr, casting aside standard institutional discipline, professional solidarity, and factual accuracy.