A call for Systemic Change: Reflections on academic culture at IISER Kolkata
“I never imagined I would be speaking about these issues publicly, but recent events have compelled me to break my silence. As someone who spent seven years pursuing my PhD at IISER Kolkata, I feel a responsibility for contributing to the urgent conversation about the toxic academic culture that has claimed lives and continues to harm students.
When I learned about the recent tragedy at IISER Kolkata, I was deeply affected not just as an alumnus, but as someone who knew the deceased personally. During my last visit to India, I remember meeting Anamitra and sharing similar ideas and perspectives on various matters. He was a beautiful human being, someone who genuinely cared about people. This event is particularly also difficult because of my acquaintances with the people mentioned in the suicide note; they are individuals I had known to be good people. I slowly but surely came into a realization that pointing fingers at individuals misses the larger, more critical issue: the systemic failures that create environments where such tragedies become possible. While I have personal knowledge of many incidents and situations at IISER Kolkata, I speak not to assign blame to specific individuals, but to highlight the systemic problems that demand immediate attention. Indian academia as a whole is toxic, but IISER Kolkata, in my experience, has elements that make it “beyond toxic”. It is a phrase I also used in my recent social media post.
The Entrenched Hierarchy Problem: The most fundamental issue is the rigid hierarchy that permeates the academic life at the institute. The most visible and damaging expression of this hierarchy occurs within laboratories, where some faculty treat the lab as their personal stronghold. Many supervisors behave as if the students work for them rather than with them. This isn’t driven by external pressure to produce results, as can be said for systems with tenure track structures. It is, in my opinion, a byproduct of faculty mindset and an ingrained sense of ownership. I’m even aware of autocratic environments where supervisors dictate the smallest of operational aspects extending into the personal life of the students. I have been cognizant of labs where supervisors have inappropriate relationships with students that consequently generate a power imbalance within the group. Instances of harassment, both subtle and overt, have been known and discussed yet rarely addressed meaningfully. Structural choices also reinforce these hierarchies. For instance, segregating PhD students from the hostels that were once shared with BS-MS students. This not only isolates them socially but also weakens collective student solidarity, leaving PhD students more vulnerable within the hierarchy.
A Culture of Fear and Retaliation: Perhaps most disturbing is the pervasive culture of fear that prevents an individual internally from speaking out. Students are afraid of retaliation, and their fears are justified. This culture extends even to the alumni. After this incident, and how it then played out, a former student and close friend of Anamitra shared their grief in a social media post. Instead of engaging sensitively, they were threatened with legal action and even their parents were contacted. This is not only unprofessional, but also reveals a mindset of stifling dissenting voices, a pattern that can be seen in many other instances. I know of a student, who was actively involved in the protests during the 2022 incident, subsequently failed their comprehensive exam and this is not a very common occurrence. Such an outcome inevitably raises doubts about whether this was genuine academic rigor or institutional vendetta disguised as it. This blurring of lines between personal activism and professional evaluation leaves PhD students vulnerable.
Contextually, I want to highlight the flaws in the ways a PhD student is evaluated. Research Progress Committees (RPCs), introduced as an annual check on PhD work, are meant to provide oversight. But in practice they are anything but independent. Supervisors dominate the process, and the student’s academic trajectory often depends more on their personal relationship with the PI than on objective work. Additionally external review only occurs during thesis submission, making the space closed and hence vulnerable to abuse.
Protecting the Guilty/Accused: One of the most troubling patterns I’ve observed is the institutional tendency to protect those who commit violations. I’m aware of a case where a student was found guilty of gross sexual violation yet faced no real consequences. They were essentially given a free pass to continue their academic pursuits without accountability. This culture of protection extends beyond individual cases to systemic suppression of documentation. During the 2022 incident, there was an alleged attempt to suppress the photograph of the suicide note from reaching the student community. Supposedly, it was one leaked photo that allowed everyone to learn the truth. This pattern of damage control over accountability creates an environment which in the long run only makes things worse.
In fact, in the most recent tragedy involving Anamitra, the student explicitly named in the suicide note defended the PhD successfully within just two days of an official email stating the defense had been “postponed until further notice.” These may have been intended as a well-meaning resolution, but for many it only deepened distrust. Against the backdrop of past incidents, such opacity does not inspire confidence and only symbolizes darkness in terms of how authorities and powerful people operate.
Failed Grievance Redressal mechanisms: What makes the recent tragedy particularly heartbreaking is that unlike the 2022 incident, this student had clearly reached out for help. He had registered formal complaints seeking institutional support but received no meaningful assistance. This represents a clear failure of the administration to act on early warnings. Part of the problem lies in the way grievance and disciplinary committees are structured. These bodies are overwhelmingly composed of faculty members, with little to no meaningful student representation. This naturally creates an imbalance of power, where complaints made by students are far more likely to be dismissed, delayed, or quietly absorbed into bureaucratic procedures that protect faculty interests. The lack of independence in these mechanisms means that students rarely see their concerns addressed impartially, and in practice, the system functions more as a shield for the institution than as a safeguard for students. Many students, recognizing how stacked the system is against them, choose not to file formal complaints at all. The fear of retaliation or academic retribution often far outweighs the hope of justice. As a result, some students quietly withdraw or drop out before completing their degrees, prioritizing their mental health over enduring prolonged hostility. There is probably no official list that tracks how many PhD students have left midway, but from experience, I can say that such a list would be alarmingly lengthy. These hidden losses are no less tragic, and they underscore the silent cost of a broken system.
The Mental Health Support Failure: The existing mental health support system, the Mind Care and Wellness Center (MCWC), works to provide a reaction rather than prevention. There is very little focus on the underlying causes of student stress and harassment.
Parallel but independent Student Representation: At present, the Student Activity Council (SAC) has little to no say in decisions that affect students, especially PhD scholars. On a few occasions, SAC members were allegedly not even consulted even though the input was mandated. To make matters worse, SAC positions are often filled uncontested, leaving room for complacency and even abuse of power. SAC has too often functioned as an extension of the administration,as opposed to being an independent voice for students. IISER Kolkata truly needs an independent student union to exist alongside the SAC, one that cannot be co-opted by the administration, and that functions as a counterbalance. Its role should be to safeguard student rights, provide a legitimate channel for students’ voices, and hold the system necessarily accountable when it fails.
Mandatory Education and Sensitization: All students and faculty should be required to complete courses on diversity, inclusion, mental well-being, and harassment prevention courses that clearly define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. When I joined Cambridge, such courses were mandatory, setting a common standard of conduct across the community. It inculcates in students a shared understanding of boundaries and recourse when those boundaries are crossed.
Integrated Mental Health Policy: Mental health professionals should be involved in policymaking and curriculum development, helping create an environment that promotes well-being rather than simply responding to crises after they happen.
Transparent Grievance Processing: Clear, documented procedures for receiving complaints and handling those must be established and followed, with an oversight of students’ representatives to eliminate chances of retaliation.
Accountability Across the System: There must be real consequences for faculty, staff, or students who abuse their power. Transparent investigation processes should ensure that no one is shielded simply because of their position or connections. Only a culture of accountability at every level can dismantle the impunity that currently pervades academic spaces.
I want to emphasize that accountability for recent events lies primarily with the institute. When a student registers a complaint seeking help and receives none, when early warnings go unheeded, these are systemic failures building the foundation for tragedy. My goal in speaking out is not to assign blame but to catalyze the conversation we desperately need to have to bring about a collective reform. If actual change is to happen, it must focus on transforming processes and structures, not simply scapegoating individuals.
The students at IISER Kolkata are extremely meritorious, hard-working and capable. They deserve better, a space that actively fosters their well-being. IISER Kolkata has the opportunity to lead by example and set a precedent for reforming Indian academic culture. But this will require honest acknowledgment of current problems, genuine commitment to deep changes, and the courage to implement policies that decentralize power and sustain real accountability.
We cannot continue losing these brilliant minds to the system. The time for damage control and denial has passed. The time for honest conversation and meaningful reform is now.”
-Susnata Karmakar, PhD Alumnus, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata
