Inside the SRFTI clash over an RSS-affiliated event

A programme by an RSS-affiliated organisation at SRFTI escalated into a clash involving students, faculty and organisers, with competing allegations over provocation and assault.

inscript
5 min read
Inside the SRFTI clash over an RSS-affiliated event

What began as an event inside the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI) on Sunday turned into a confrontation involving students, organisers, faculty and police, leaving the campus tense and raising questions over how an external organisation’s programme was allowed to unfold inside an academic space.

The first question is about the event itself. The Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat (ABGP), an RSS-affiliated organisation, was holding a programme at SRFTI’s main theatre. The Statesman reported that the programme had the permission of institute authorities. Students, however, told later that the Student Union had not been informed and that the theatre was primarily used for academic activities and screenings. They said they had formally objected to the event. That disagreement became the first fault line.

Around noon, according to student accounts, students confronted the organisers over the programme. Reports also carried allegations that speakers at the event had made provocative or inflammatory remarks. The precise content of those remarks has not been independently established in the available reports. What followed, however, is where the dispute moved from an institutional disagreement to physical confrontation.

It was reported that some students entered the venue and removed and tore down flags put up by the organisers, after which an altercation broke out. Students, meanwhile, alleged that members of the visiting group attacked protesters. There were allegations of knife attacks in which at least six students were injured, while other reports put the number of injured at at least four. The conflicting accounts make one question central: who initiated the violence, and what happened inside the venue before the confrontation spread across the campus?

The situation then moved beyond the auditorium.

Reports claim, a large crowd gathered outside the institute and stones were allegedly thrown at students, leaving around 150 students inside the campus. Bricks and water-bottle throwing from outside the gate went on as several RSS supporters were stranded inside. Students blocked the gate and stopped a bus, reportedly believing RSS members were travelling in it.

Police arrived with a large contingent led by Deputy Commissioner of Police Arindam Sarkar. Further reports claim that officers detained a person identified by students as the principal accused, while students alleged that the security deployment was inadequate and demanded an FIR. Faculty members also joined students inside the campus. The Statesman reported that additional forces were later deployed after clashes allegedly continued even in the presence of police.

By then, the problem was no longer simply whether students should have objected to an outside event. It had become a question of campus governance and security.

Who authorised the programme? Why was the Student Union reportedly not informed? What exactly was said at the event before students began protesting? Who brought weapons, if the stabbing allegations are substantiated? How did a dispute inside an auditorium turn into stone-pelting and a crowd outside the institute? And once police arrived, why did the confrontation continue?

Thus incident shows an educational campus becoming a space where competing political affiliations settle disputes through physical force.

The SRFTI incident therefore needs to be examined beyond the label of a 'student clash'. At its centre is a sequence that demands answers: how an authorised external event entered the campus, how objections escalated into violence, and whether the institutions responsible for the space and its security acted before the confrontation became unmanageable.

Written by
inscript
inscript
16 Followers

Read more

The socialist soul behind Dev Anand’s charm

Dev Anand’s cinema emerged from an India shaped by socialism, progressive culture and a restless search for modernity. From his collaborations with Guru Dutt, Sahir Ludhianvi and Majrooh Sultanpuri to films such as Baazi and Guide his work turned class, freedom, social mobility and rebellion into the language of popular cinema.

From Sukumar Sen to Gyanesh Kumar. What happened to the Election Commission

Sukumar Sen built India’s Election Commission around one foundational idea: every citizen, regardless of wealth or power, must count equally at the ballot box. Seventy-five years later, Gyanesh Kumar’s tenure has brought the ECI, electoral rolls, voter deletions and internal objections back into focus — raising questions about how India’s most important electoral institution is functioning today.

Jantar Mantar Protest Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar: Why was Neha Bora detained?

The Jantar Mantar protest over Gyanesh Kumar, SIR and Election Commission objections highlights growing concerns over electoral-roll transparency and accountability.

What the Supreme Court plea against Gyanesh Kumar seeks to uncover

A Supreme Court plea seeks criminal prosecution of CEC Gyanesh Kumar and an SIT probe into alleged SIR-related voter deletions, while raising questions over changes to Form 6 and the ECI’s electoral-roll systems.

Why did West Bengal account for Rs.287 Crore of BJP poll spending?

The BJP reported spending Rs.286.99 crore in West Bengal—more than half its Rs.29.38-crore expenditure across five Assembly polls. Where did the money go?

Influencers and BJP’s Bengal campaign: What the Shamik Adhikary-Sayak Chakraborty payments reveal

Election Commission of India documents indicate the BJP allocated significant funds to Bengali content creators Shamik Adhikary and Sayak Chakraborty for promotional campaign material.

Rahul Gandhi raises the stakes on India’s Electoral rolls

Rahul Gandhi has demanded CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation amid reported dissent within the Election Commission, alleging that the poll panel’s functioning has compromised electoral integrity.