Last month’s tragic death of a Nepali engineering student at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) in Odisha, eastern India, has?created? and concern in both Nepal and India.
Following the suspected suicide, Nepali students at KIIT organised protests demanding justice for Prakriti. However, many of these students faced mistreatment and were forcibly evicted from their university-owned hostels. In response to student outcry over this, KIIT’s vice-chancellor, Saranjit Singh, had to apologise for the institution’s handling of the incident and announced the removal of two officials who made “extremely irresponsible” comments during the crisis.
This incident is likely?to have far-reaching implications for India’s higher education sector, particularly at a time when the country is striving to position itself as a preferred destination for international students. Nepal currently contributes the largest share of foreign students in India, accounting for 13,126 of the total of 46,878, according to the latest official data. The fallout from this tragedy, if not addressed carefully, could significantly impact India’s ability to attract and retain students, not only from Nepal but from other regions.
The incident also underscores troubling trends within India’s higher education system. Student protests occur in both public and private institutions, but unrest in private institutions such as KIIT, which are playing an increasingly prominent role in meeting India’s demand for higher education, often highlight deeper, systemic issues. These include lack of accountability and insufficient attention to the safety, well-being and rights of both domestic and international students.
Duty of care: making university safe for all
Public institutions are more prone than private universities to student protest?because of?the active role of student organisations. They are also less able to conceal it?because of their transparency; private institutions frequently attempt to suppress or downplay these issues. Nevertheless, in recent years, student unrest has come to light at many institutions across India, both public and private, raising a pertinent question: why are institutions compelling students to take to the streets and not fostering open dialogue and resolution mechanisms?
A number of recent incidents illustrate the failure of institutional authorities to handle grievances sensitively and proactively. Some of these were campus-based, while others were political in nature. Last year, for instance, a enrolled at the National Institute of Technology in Assam was sent back to her country for reacting with a “love” emoji on a social media post deemed anti-India. Likewise, last year two Bangladeshi students at Aligarh Muslim University, a central (public) institution in Uttar Pradesh, were ?over controversial social media posts in response to .
Another instance occurred in 2024 at OP Jindal Global University, where two for making allegedly provocative statements during a campus event. The decision to penalise students rather than engage with them on sensitive issues demonstrates institutions’ growing reluctance to navigate complex socio-political discussions with nuance and care. The absence of meaningful consultation with students before enforcing such strict rules and policies has only fuelled discontent.
Many institutions enforce a regimented campus culture defined by strict rules and highly structured routines. Discipline is often maintained through policies and mechanisms that prioritise control over individual freedoms. This has led to growing discontent among students, with several recent protests highlighting their resistance to such restrictions.
At the National Institute of Technology, a central university in Kerala, ?last year against an attempt by authorities to impose a night curfew and mandate the closure of canteens by 11pm. Similarly, in 2024, students of Bennett University, a private university located near New Delhi, staged a demanding the administration lift restrictions on online food deliveries after 11pm.
In another instance, female students at the public University of Delhi defied hostel curfews in 2023, leading a midnight march to “” (in many universities and colleges, female students often face stricter curfew timings than their male counterparts do). These incidents reflect a broader pushback against institutional policies perceived as overly restrictive and an assertion of students’ rights to freedom.
Common disciplinary measures at many of India’s private colleges and universities can be quite draconian, such as bans on carrying cigarettes on campus and mandatory pocket checks. Students are also subjected to biometric checking of their presence in hostels every night, with non-compliance resulting in parental notification.
Taking leave requires an email request from the student’s parents to the proctor specifying the duration. Any theft or damage to hostel assets in common areas or corridors leads to collective financial penalties imposed on all students in the affected wing. Such policies reinforce an environment of surveillance and restriction.
Institutional leadership approaches that prioritise control over open dialogue create an environment where student concerns are systematically ignored or silenced. This not only undermines the principles of democratic engagement but stifles the development of a healthy academic environment, which thrives on inclusivity, dialogue and mutual respect. If India really wants to improve the quality of its university sector and draw more international students, listening?better to students would be a good place to start.
Eldho Mathews is programme officer (internationalisation of higher education) at the Kerala State Higher Education Council, India.
