Everyone knows how it goes; no one can do anything about it.
How mental health committees work in IIT Delhi.
Open house: a setting where anyone can come, speak, or present anything relevant to the context. Although, there are some caveats. The term will be used frequently below.
Trigger warning: Mention of self-harm, systematic abuse, recurring topics.
The 2023 open house event was planned for November 4th after 3 years.
The main aim of this event is to showcase projects and research to an outside audience and external connections. There are juries and judges and some prizes. It used to be a very prominent and mentally tolling event, as very few in-house projects and research are actually genuine due to the involvement of faculty. Theoretically, every student has to do a mandatory project or research at least once in a four-year cycle. This would make the event last for weeks, not mere hours. Working with a faculty is the last thing a student would want after getting discriminated against and harassed for years. There is no real choice to avoid the bad actors, your degree is leveraged repeatedly to make sure you don’t dare to complain at any moment. Any kind of external help or support is like a lifeline to a student. Even inside the campus, whenever a new support channel is put forward, affected students look to utilize it in an attempt to solve their issues. But then, the real details are revealed and the farce comes forward. It has been sufficiently made clear that there will be no cause eradication, only damage control. There is never an acceptance, let alone address the fact that a large number of students are deliberately wronged. The worst affected students are either sidelined, oppressed, or forced to take desperate actions.
On October 31st, 2023. a guy went home to Delhi to commit suicide. Since it was an outside ordeal, it was not a big deal. A regular condolence meeting was enough. Reach out to Counselling as the director wrote at the end of the usual mail template. The same was written in the September mail. At that time, the guy hanged himself in the hostel. It was a big deal. There was an open-house meeting (anyone can speak or come) there. The students submitted a long list of demands—very clear mentions of what was going on. Earlier, in cases that get a bit far, faculty usually blame the student and the probable personal state and conditions for demise. The students did not accept it this time and asked to initiate an institute-level investigation. They asked to analyze the current trend (very clear to everyone on campus) and even asked to monitor faculty behavior. This was against the institute's core principles where students were monitored and kept in check to prevent action on faculty. It was probably laughed at during the internal meetings because everyone there, except the director, was core faculty. These are the people who treat students with low grades as animals on campus. The students demanded action on those too. None of it was denied on paper. They even demanded one day off to digest the ugly realities at present. It didn’t happen, rather they were encouraged to have open conversations in class. For context: they were supposed to talk to the same faculty members who were probably harassing them, or harassed in the past. They were forced to have only the option of asking the respective faculties why they treated them badly. (The answer is: because they can). Of course, most of them would have just skipped. Those low on attendance plus victims of the wrongdoings got the shortest end of the stick. They had to stay uncomfortably in front of the culprits, during traumatic times, pretending to be fine all the time. (In most cases, it’s not all the time of a class—just a monologue on the podium and then parting wishes.) Ironically Teachers Day (Sept 5) had to be canceled. Long motivational messages followed the coming days along with the exam schedule. Of course, committees were also claimed to be formed. There was even a paid study by the psychology faculty to quiz students on non-academic fun stuff. I recognized one faculty from my psychology course. It sounded too shady. Later, the Student Grievance Redressal Committee was formed for all students to come forward(as a dare). (Note: this committee has been there forever, or at least 5 years.) How these committees operate is mentioned in my very old report (and this was prepared to address the grievance against them). This was the usual close of the loop for yet another death case. The game theory society was probably laughing at those who saw any hope. The head of my department even ranted in the mail about the attendance in September. The redundancy was ironic, as visible in the theme of the coming mental health day(Oct 10)—Mental Health is a Universal Human Right. Let’s do the monthly desktop meditation! It was too savage. If it weren’t for the death on Oct 31st, it would have been smooth sailing.
Surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) there was another open-house event—anyone could speak or come to this event, however, they needed permission to enter if they were outside the campus (people like me). It was organized by the Diversity and Inclusion Office. The objective was to build an accepting culture on campus. (Harassment based on mental health is covered under this, but only theoretically on mail.) I would have gone to that event. It was canceled because of the suicide (but not the open house event involving projects and funds). And that was all that happened. Since the tragedy was outside the campus, nothing new was proposed. An internal complaint committee update came the next month, but it was specifically for sexual harassment.
After the tragedy on campus in February of 2024, another committee formation was set in motion at IIT Delhi. This was claimed differently.
The suicide was very prominently confirmed on the spot and it was just before a public event (Open House 2024). This was the fourth public case in a one-year duration. The last ones were handled poorly and not buried as effectively (yet) as usual. Because of that, minor investigations finally happened. Now that so many realities were public on campus (and some outside) another set of committee-formations was inevitable. However, there was still a very long procession before this working group was formed. The email trails depicted parts available for public display. There were surveys and meetings where students were given hope. There was distribution to a large number of contacts for students to reach out to. (And, they do reach out, it just doesn’t end well.) It was actually unbelievably convincing to read these emails and reach out(which I did). The treatment I got (mentioned later in this document) would almost seem made up in comparison. Unfortunately, that is the whole point of these far-fetched claims of support—to make real events deniable, and later untrue for anyone outside the campus.
Similar to the last one, the open house event was scheduled for the end of Feb. Due to recent tragic events, it was postponed a week. There were other events and external guests, like Bill Gates, but those were on their original dates—outside of the students’ mess. Priority one was to keep engaged with the students, to avoid any potential tragic events in the week. Multiple intense meetings took place in-between and another set of demands were made. The formation of an external group of people was claimed this time. This was supposed to get a thorough look at institutional processes and the environment. (It is well established now that there is something very wrong with the way processes were carried out.) Hope was provided (on paper) to the students to come out and shed light on what was going the tragic way. After the event on the 22nd, I mailed the Dean of Students about the committee, hoping to take action against previous directors and faculty. I mentioned briefly the treatment I received after I decided to file my complaints, seeking help for the various wrongings committed, akin to the students’ demands. I received the acknowledgments and greetings from the office the same day. Then I added:
Thank you for your response. I think I need to inform you I did not attend the open house as I do not stay on campus. I was forced out by Mr.Rao the same day he promised to entertain my complaint in person. So, unfortunately, I am not part of your community.
I mentioned the reason for connecting with these external members. I was
hoping to contact them directly as they won't be able to help me as a
part of a closed-door committee. For them, there will be a conflict of
interest as they wouldn't be allowed to take action against those who
are potentially above them. Moreover, I want to know if these members
are plain advisors/counselors/knowledge-distributing psychologists or
psychiatrists only. I don't think they would help any more than
cluelessly wondering and telling you the same. Please understand that I
am not a typical student asking for typical help. There have been
serious harm and permanent losses done to me. If you decide to help me,
and convey that to Aditya Sir, the same would not be faced by any other
student.
Since it was our first conversation as this-Dean-to-Student, that was sufficient to consult about the serious nature of my ongoing case. I had known the person from class and the pretense was almost gone now. I was advised to explore any or all channels available, as a citizen of India. At this point, he probably knew about the last 3 years that I did. Still hopeful for mercy, I replied:
If there were any available channels, I would not be asking here to
connect with these external members. My case was tossed around for
months and then buried, and then I was shown the way you see the
students around you take. They made sure to keep me out of campus to
avoid any cleanup of potential tragedy. I did not have such intentions
from the beginning, that's why I decided to file the complaint.
There aren't any channels. I did not hesitate and have been searching
for about three years. It is practically impossible for anyone who is
labeled as mentally unfit by the college to get any kind of help other
than consolation on tele. I come from a very poor background as do half
of the students of IIT Delhi. You have no idea how I get treated daily.
You have no idea how I get treated even after stating the things that
happened to me. Please do NOT advise any member of your community to
explore any or all channels available to them as a citizen of India.
There is no other channel.
Please help at least one student take some meaningful action.
He didn’t have words, he wrote, that he would personally provide information about the committee ASAP. And on March 5, he did. It was the same document distributed in the general notification. The Xerox copy was the announcement page with no contact info of any kind, except the names of the students from previous emails. I had contacted a UG rep. from that list before, and he was the one who told me to contact the Dean. Students can NOT help students against faculty in the slightest, that’s general knowledge. When asked about the contact, I was denied. Now Bill Gates is gone so there is no obligation to help a student who may put his colleagues behind bars. I apologized for contacting him and requested again to share my contact with this seemingly helpful committee. I received mockery in the form of a petty consolation.
I was so hopeful because of the demands made by the students, and the promises made—to all students this time—to address the bad actors. They were rigged to the core, of course, but with my information, a single genuine person could help me take action.
The identified Course of Action had three categories: mental well-being, academic (policy or administrative), and student-supervisor/instructor interactions. For someone who had the worst and most brutal experience from all three categories, liable to act and still alive, it was crucial to reach the first formed body collecting the information. There were even claims to go beyond this category*. Little did I know they would even control information now. This committee was supposed to be one of three to have all the resources possible, and all the data. Apparently, it was from the surveys mentioned earlier, the confidential notes of the dead, and the failed attempts of those who tried. Based on the treatment I got later, they probably would keep data like mine from ever coming out.
The highlight of the announcement was the last member of the committee—a consultant hired by the legal cell (answers only to directors regarding dealings of non-public affairs). He was later found out to be the convenor. (Why? No one knows, no one asked. No one wondered) The handful of students on the committee were probably fooled into believing it was taking matters seriously. If not, they just didn’t want to get in the bad light. No student can stand up without affecting the degree. That’s a fact.
Nonetheless, at that time, I tried my best to ask the student reps to connect me with the committee people. Every time, the juniors promised to ask for permission from the Dean or committee or whoever they had. And then nothing. I wonder what was told to them about me. All the efforts were converged into a mail in mid-April, asking all students to share anything they want in the Google form with a provision of an in-person meeting. There were assurances of keeping submissions anonymous. This was from the guy hired by the legal cell and the entire committee was under the director. This director has already declined to help me before. And students are supposed to trust these guys with complaints against faculty and staff. For context: a meeting was not guaranteed(as explained below) and every student on campus knows what happens when you mention names. These guys spent two months, supposedly working, and now they were asking about students’ experiences, complaints, and/or concerns, about aspects of life and/or about any faculty or authority. And they did not mention, how or why or when they were going to start the course of action.
Three things usually happen after this: 1) Complaints that can potentially harm the Deans or the Director are targeted and neutralized based on their current status. 2) The nature of issues gets normalized and muddled into a frequent ordinary problem with vague or uncertain details. 3) The culprits of the complaints are made aware, with all details, and asked to tread lightly for some time. The culprits follow the initial cues and then give in to exercise their power, harass students indirectly or through implicit means like grades, or attendance. In the end, if the complainant can not be satisfied, they will be labeled mentally compromised and provided with desktop meditation workshops or the new and improved counseling cell (under the dean of students who is probably part of the complaint because they might have turned a blind eye).
I waited a week for any update on this attempt to bulk-thrash student complaints. After a week I tried to to contact another student rep from the committee. No result. I started preparing general mail to give an overview of my extended complaints and tried to mention the real-life existence of all three cases above. The same week, a general mail arrived from the Dean of students, who was the point of contact for the external committee, (who denied me). It was an invitation from the same legal consultant to all students to come and meet the committee for the first time. It was in the middle of the most important exams of the semester—aptly placed to suppress those who desperately wanted to put their issues forward. It was important to obtain that one line in the final findings of this whole makebelieve study: We waited for hours and nobody came. Ironically, the mail ended with: Let us be there for each
other - Jaagte Raho! Help, Report, Support" spirit of IIT Delhi.
So I decided to go:
Hello sir,
My name is Mayank. I have been trying to reach this committee before its formation. Unfortunately, Prof. Mittal refused to provide a way to make contact. I tried to ask the students mentioned in the Xerox copy attached to reach the set of people studying the institutional processes responsible for student tragedies. I received no help.
I filed a complaint regarding the many wrongdoings and sought help. I received a multifold of what I filed against afterward. If you are a veteran of the IIT Delhi office, you already know me.
If I were to come to this meeting, can you make sure: (A) I can enter the campus without any holdup at the gate. (B) I am not tailed by anyone in and out of campus before or after this meeting. (C) I am allowed to have a chair in the senate room as it is a small room compared to the large amount of students. I am not physically fit enough to stand and talk.
Please respond as soon as you can so that I can make my travel possible.
No response came…
On May 1st, I landed in front of the campus gate at 11:45. Coming directly from the train, I stopped by RK Puram metro to wash my face before the long day. The campus gate was just outside the metro. All students enter through this gate all day, usually without identification. I found out that I am not one of those students. I was stopped, and my ID was checked, then photographed and sent. I was notified that my entry was banned. They didn’t know the reason, and neither did I. I was sent to the other gate for more checking.
I reached the main gate, and my ID was checked, taken, and sent. I told the purpose of the meeting (well underway now) and showed the emails (photographed and sent). I was told my entry was banned. I told them there was no such ban, and that I was not provided any reason or update when this virtual ban took place. I demanded details. The local guard said that I must have done something wrong. I clarified to him that I did not. I demanded details. I was made to wait for the confirmation. I waited for a long time. During that time, I was only told repeatedly that I was banned because of something I did in the past. I affirmed that I filed a complaint. I was asked to call the same security room. The same room that asked me to wait. They repeated the same thing. When asked why I was prohibited from entering campus, the guy on the phone told me to ask myself the reason. I told them about the ongoing meeting and the mail I received. I asked them to provide written information on this forced ban, with reasons and time. I was told to wait again. That’s how it was supposed to be. During the wait, I decided to call the number in the original mail of the committee convenor (legal consultant). My call was rejected. Then I got the same call. The convenor knew my name (he saw the mail request I made to save me from this very apprehension). I briefed about the situation and asked him to come to the meeting. The next moment I was called by the local guard for entry. Little did I know that I was going to be monitored for the rest of the time. The poor guard didn’t even know why, he just said that were his orders. Then, I was forcibly taken to the control room. I explained about the meeting and demanded to be left alone. I was tailed to the very end of the meeting room. It was already around 12:45.
For anyone who would want to meet a group of people studying the institutional processes and environment in the context of recent student tragedies, this entire ordeal would have tragic results. I wanted to mention it all in the meeting. Just like an idiot would hope.
The meeting was well underway. There was just a legal cell convenor and the head, the former dean of (NIMAN). The attendees consisted of a couple of students and a retired professor (plus their snacks and servers). A couple of students came later. They presented their arguments in turn. There was a wide range of issues, in detail, about discrimination, brutal treatment, retaliations, etc. The students were already explaining how disciplinary actions work in college, and how they are used to abuse students’ mental health. Surprisingly, the head had no idea about its existence, two months into studying the institutional processes and environment responsible for student tragedies. In theory, disciplinary actions were the only way to punish students. The head mentioned that they are just a suggesting-body that will act to convey stuff to the administration in the long process of making something possible on the campus. He covered the size and scale of IIT systems and how these things were complicated. He asked them to think about the ways we may tackle these challenges, difficult scenarios, and whatnot, as apparently, they were already aware of every issue. General issues as they were. The students mentioned a great number of things about previous tragedies. They mentioned the absence of proper guidelines and lack of support and requested the necessary setup. They mentioned the forms of biases based on the status of a student in every corner of the campus. They mentioned how counselors stick everything* in the students’ faces with their grades to call it off. It was noted down, next. They mentioned their anti-discrimination proposal that was denied. It was noted down. Next, there were proposed campaigns and workshops for awareness to finish it off. It was also noted down. (This last point is usually kept in bold, for further meetings not involving students.) The entire discussion lasted about 45 minutes. It was a full-scale ACT, minus the commitment part, as their job was primarily to pass on the same suggestions to the administrative bodies (who denied the same to students previously). The study of the institutional processes and environment of student tragedies was “primarily” providing feedback about it.
After everyone left, my turn came. I started by asking about the objective of the committee. The answer was student welfare. To help students. I asked about the prior meetings, if any, with the students. There was one the previous day, as the head mentioned during his earlier responses. It did not have students, an internal. He said there may be meetings regularly. I asked about the next meeting. He replied by asking if I had any suggestions at all regarding the current meeting. I informed him I was not a campus student and had come outside just for this meeting. I stated that I was not aware of the current state of this committee and I had been trying to reach out for the last two months. I was told that the committee was not there to take questions, provide answers, or even be authorized to provide any response to questions. They were there for suggestions. Just suggestions.
Packings were underway, and apparently, it was lunch (snacks were ignored). The session was supposed to be till 4 PM. I asked if I would be given time. I was told if I had suggestions, I could say after lunch. I was relieved to hear that. As we were standing up, I mentioned my background. They were not interested, they already knew me and my kind.
As soon as I left the room, the same local guard was waiting for me. He was asked to kick me off the campus based on the ban they manifested verbally hours ago. I told him my turn was after lunch, which I was also supposed to go. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to. I was forcibly escorted to the control room. There, I was directed to wait. For context, students are made to wait there after they commit a crime. I rejected it and asked them to provide a written order for directives. Then, I was escorted to see the security room head in his office. There, along with two guards, I asked the head of security about this virtual ban. Then followed the gaslighting part. I was provided no reasons or explanations and repeatedly informed that I would be followed and couldn’t do anything about it. I denied it and plainly asked them to send an official order or mail to exercise any form of restrictions. (I have not received that to the present day). Even after that, I was tailed by multiple security personnel in public, like I was carrying explosives. The main aim of such tactics is to provoke a student to react aggressively and find a window to charge with anything in the internal reports. It is fool-proof and effective, with long-lasting trauma to deter other students from following suit. You can take action against them (in theory,) but it usually ends in tragedy ranging from career ruins to severe mental disorders or deaths.
That kept running for the entire 30 minutes I waited. I returned to the room and found no one but a guy from the legal cell. He didn’t know anything about the committee. Some staff from the guard room peeked in a couple of times and left. (Meetings with no lunch break take more time for on-demand lunch breaks since the end time is fixed.) When you file a grievance, it is the same process for all real meetings. Wait and observe; simple. A small group of Ph.D. students came; we talked briefly. The staff guy noticed, immediately made the call, and the meeting was back in order. The head addressed me directly. I was told that the committee was not interested in dealing with complaints and grievances of any kind and would only accept suggestions. I suggested that there should be help available for students outside the campus as there is no way to reach this committee. I was someone who went through the extreme forms of all the treatments previous students mentioned in that meeting. He said sure, anything else. He didn’t care. I mentioned the next suggestion: “The students, who would become the upcoming tragedies, will decide not to come to this meeting. Not because they are in the middle of the final exams. There is no help here for any student if you are going to report back to the same people exploiting them.” He said okay. We heard you. He suggested to send concerns by mail to the person who couldn’t permit me to enter this meeting. And then, I was asked to leave, to avoid making contact with anyone else. I denied it and stated my intention to attend the entire meeting. I was given around 6 minutes to speak in total. Then, the real meeting started. There were brief introductions, and then there was an extended discussion on the points students presented.
These students presented far more important points than the others, including the ways of discrimination, and harassment and how students were suppressed on campus. They mentioned the issues and retellings students repeated in the prior open house meetings and from other informal discussions. All that time, I sat there and affirmed every point (by signaling my hand,) that I could personally confirm and explain the how-part. I was right in front of them, practically begging them to note my information in the record. I was reminded that my turn was over. Then one of the students took an example of me to explain an issue. It was ignored. The meeting was quickly folded and as a formality, some mental health philosophies were spit to close the meeting. With about one hour remaining, the committee got too full of suggestions and called the day. The students were willing to discuss the gravity of the issues in more detail but the head was not interested. The lack of students will be mentioned in the end notes.
Later, they arranged the meeting for the next day. The exams were still ongoing. But they didn’t care. The next committee will act upon these rigorous findings and continue in the same manner for the foreseeable timeline.
Snake-oil-racket: The concept I first encountered in the course Intro to Marketing.
Feel free to contact me for more details, or if any of the attached links don't open…