The death of IIT Bombay student Sahil Wakode has once again brought to the fore a serious question hidden behind the glittering buildings of the country’s most prestigious educational institutions—are our higher education institutions merely testing talent, or are they also fulfilling the responsibility of nurturing it? The investigation into the circumstances of Sahil’s death is still ongoing. Therefore, it would not be appropriate at this time to pinpoint any single person, incident, or alleged discrimination as the ultimate cause of his suicide. His family has alleged caste discrimination and mental harassment, while the institute has stated that it had not received any such formal complaint. Therefore, the path to the truth must be through an impartial and transparent investigation. But even as we await the findings of the investigation, a major question remains: why are so many of the country’s talented youth taking their own lives?
Data from the National Crime Records Bureau indicates the severity of this crisis. In 2013, 8,423 cases of student suicide were reported in the country. This number increased to 13,892 in 2013 and 14,488 in 2014. This represents a significant increase in the number of cases reported over a decade. However, it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions based solely on these figures, as the total student population and enrollment in higher education have also increased during this period. Therefore, a detailed study of suicide rates in relation to the student population, based on age, gender, social background, institution, course, and region is needed. Nevertheless, it is clear that student suicide is no longer an isolated incident but has become a matter of national concern. This question becomes even more serious in institutions like the IITs. The Ministry of Education reported in Parliament that 39 students died by suicide on IIT campuses between 2018 and 2023. On the other hand, compilations based on various RTI responses and media reports have revealed higher figures. One reason for the varying numbers across sources is that their timeframes, definitions, and data collection methods are not the same. Therefore, instead of accepting any single figure as the ultimate truth, a nationally reliable database should be created by combining government records, institutional records, and independent studies. Until this happens, the debate will remain mired in data and claims, and the true picture of the problem will remain obscured.
The question of social and economic background is also crucial in this debate. Questions have been raised from time to time about discrimination, social isolation, academic pressure, and dropout rates faced by Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and OBC students in IITs and other central educational institutions. Claims are also made on social media and in public discourse about a disproportionately high share of student suicides attributed to a particular social group, but such claims are not appropriate to be accepted as final without verified government data, a clear timeline, and reliable studies. However, if a student faces additional mental pressure or discrimination due to their caste, class, language, region, economic status, or any other social identity, it is a serious warning for the education system. Talent should be assessed based on a student’s ability, not their social background.
It must also be understood that not every suicide is caused solely by discrimination or institutional harassment. Often, exam and performance pressure, fear of failure, family expectations, financial difficulties, loneliness, relationship problems, worries about the future, and mental health issues all play a role. In many cases, the full range of causes remains unclear even after the incident. Therefore, attributing a student’s death to a single cause is as dangerous as completely dismissing the possibility of institutional problems. What is needed is an independent, sensitive, and scientific investigation into each incident, and linking the findings to institutional reform.
Mental health in higher education institutions must no longer be considered an optional facility, but a fundamental institutional responsibility. Simply posting a counseling center is not enough. Students must have easily accessible and confidential mental health services, trained counselors, sensitive wardens, trained faculty mentors, a reliable complaint system, and a timely grievance redressal system. If a student faces caste discrimination, ragging, bullying, sexual harassment, academic humiliation, or any other form of pressure, they must be confident that their complaint will be heard and that they will not face retaliation. Similarly, institutions must maintain discipline, fairness in examinations, and academic standards. Sensitivity and quality are not contradictory, but complementary.
The most pressing need is to change the culture that considers failure a crime and seeking help a weakness. Admission to IIT is not the ultimate achievement, and failing an exam is not a failure. Low marks in a subject, failing an exam, wanting to change courses, or being unsure about a career path are natural stages of life. But when a student feels they have no way to return, stay, or seek help, the crisis can deepen. Therefore, family, teachers, and institutions must understand that a student is not just a number of marks, rank, or placement; they are human beings with feelings, aspirations, and struggles.
We’ve made education a stepping stone to success, but haven’t paid the necessary attention to making it a preparation for life. Parents expect success from their children, institutions seek excellence, and society seeks rankings; but often, there’s not enough time to address the mental pressures students are facing, what they fear, and who they can share their concerns with. This is where the education system needs to introspect.
The investigation into Sahil’s death will take its course. Whether the allegations made by his family are true or not should be determined by an impartial investigation and the available evidence. But it would be unfair to limit the questions raised by this incident to just one student, one institution, or one incident. The country must decide whether its top educational institutions will only produce excellent engineers, scientists, doctors, and researchers, or will they also produce sensitive human beings who can handle difficult times. The death of a brilliant student is not just a tragedy for his or her family; it poses a difficult question for the entire education system. This question must be answered not through accusations, social media debates, or the politics of statistics, but through transparent investigations, credible data, scientific studies, sensitive institutional reforms, and a culture that places the highest value on the life of every student. After all, the greatest asset of any nation is not its buildings, institutions, or rankings, but its youth. If those same young people succumb to helplessness, we should not only ask why they did so; we should also ask what the system around them was doing in time to save them.
The writer is a PhD (Political Science), is a poet and social thinker.)
