SRFTI protest: 30 days on, why are students facing disciplinary action?

On October 27, a month after violence was reported on the campus of the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), students were still waiting for what they describe as meaningful action against those responsible. The September 27 incident followed objections to a programme organised by an RSS-affiliated group. Students alleged that they were assaulted, with several sustaining injuries serious enough to require hospitalisation. Since then, they claim, the police have taken no effective action on the alleged attack. The administration, meanwhile, has issued show-cause notices, expelled students and initiated FIRs against some of those involved in the protest. Demanding justice and a safe campus where dissent is not penalised, the students have continued their agitation.

The confrontation did not end in September. Sudip Chakraborty, one of the protesting students, alleged that the campus was attacked again on October 4. According to him, individuals associated with the Hindu Jagran Manch entered the premises, created a disturbance and pelted students with stones. Several students were injured, he said, but no effective action followed. Sudip also accused the new vice-chancellor of questioning the protesters rather than addressing their complaints. The students would not withdraw their agitation until the vice-chancellor resigned, he maintained. Describing the restrictions imposed in the name of campus security, he likened the institute to a prison.

For the protesters, the administration's response has become as much a source of grievance as the alleged attacks themselves. They say disciplinary proceedings, show-cause notices and FIRs are being used to intimidate students and weaken the movement. Sudip claimed that notices had even been sent to students who were not on campus on the day of the incident.

Their objection goes beyond the individual cases. Students insist that they have every right to question the administration and demand explanations, and that attempts to curb this right strike at the heart of campus democracy. They also reject the idea that the crisis can be treated simply as an internal dispute at SRFTI. In their view, it reflects a wider pattern of dissent being suppressed in educational institutions across the country.

Conditions on campus have added to the tensions. Students alleged that they were ordered to vacate their hostels within 24 hours ahead of Durga Puja. They also claimed that drinking water supplied by tankers was cut off for several days, forcing them to buy water. With the mess closed as well, students had to order food from outside or cook for themselves.

Restrictions on movement have been another point of contention. According to the protesters, high barricades were erected inside the campus, limiting where students could go. They also accused the vice-chancellor of inviting selected media organisations to present his account of the situation while making it difficult for students to speak to journalists. The authorities have not yet responded to these allegations. Inscript's representatives, too, were denied entry when they attempted to access the campus for reporting.

October 27 was marked by a series of protest programmes, beginning in the morning with a floral tribute to B. R. Ambedkar. Manas Ruidas, a student involved in the agitation, said that guests who had arrived to express solidarity were not allowed inside the campus. They addressed the gathering from outside the main gate while students listened from within.

The protest then took a more visual and cultural form. Students put up posters and banners, displayed photographs and used artworks to document their grievances. A torchlight procession followed, with songs and poetry bringing the day's programmes to a close in the evening. Manas said the intention was not simply to keep the movement alive but to make the events of the past month known to a wider public.

Yet the day's events were followed by another dispute, this time over the presence of police on campus late at night.

Students said their peaceful torchlight procession, which passed through the campus and the area around the main gate, had concluded at around 6.30 pm. Police personnel entered the campus at approximately 11.30 pm, nearly five hours later. The timing prompted questions from the protesters, who wanted to know why the deployment had taken place so late.

Four student representatives reportedly approached the vice-chancellor to seek an explanation and ask for it in writing. According to the students, he declined to speak to them. They also claimed that most of the police personnel deployed on campus were not wearing nameplates.

The students disputed the vice-chancellor's reported claim that the torchlight procession had left him feeling threatened. They said the area around the guest house had been empty, with no students present, and announced that they would release photographs and videos to substantiate their account.

As the protest enters its second month, the central questions remain unanswered from the students' perspective. They want an impartial investigation into the alleged attacks and action against those responsible. They are also demanding the withdrawal of disciplinary measures against protesters, the restoration of a normal academic environment and the vice-chancellor's resignation.

For now, the students have no intention of calling off the agitation. Whether the administration will address their grievances or allow the standoff to continue remains to be seen.