On September 20, I visited the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Bombay, as an alumnus to express solidarity with students protesting after a recent death by suicide on campus. When I arrived at the main gate, I found the entrance blocked by campus security, Mumbai Police and private security personnel. I was directed to enter through the other gate, commonly known as the YP Gate, which I did.The protest site was just behind the main gate, but barricades had effectively cut it off from the outside. Protesting students were already in discussion with representatives of the institute’s student council when I entered. I remained at the site for approximately four hours. What follows is my account of what I witnessed, followed by some reflections based on my experience as an IIT Bombay alumnus.At the protest siteI introduced myself as an alumnus and expressed my solidarity with the students. While I was waiting, several people came over to speak with me. One young man, whom I later realised was a member of the student council, quietly asked whether I knew why the students were protesting. When I said I did, he suggested that the situation was not what I thought it was, but declined to explain further.Over the next half hour, however, I watched him speak extensively and confidently during the discussion between the student council and the protesters. Two other male council members were also present. Their principal objective appeared to be persuading the protesting students to withdraw their demand for the resignation of the IIT Bombay director.The students, however, argued that this demand, along with the other demands, had been decided collectively during the protest march on September 19. The council members said they had since spoken to undergraduate students in the hostels, who they claimed did not support the demand for the director’s resignation.Also reads: Who Gets to Survive the ‘IIT Dream’? When the council members were asked about accountability, they argued that replacing the director would take months and would not necessarily produce systematic reform. The question of accountability itself, however, remained largely unanswered.Eventually, the students agreed that the the demand for the director’s resignation would be decided democratically at a gathering scheduled for 9 pm. An immediate dispute over the timing of the gathering. The protesting students had called a gathering for 9 pm, while the student council had separately announced one for 6.30 pm. It was agreed that the substantive discussion of the demands would be held at 9 pm.In the meantime, students discussed other demands, including the wording of compensation demand and whether Professor Suryanarayana Doolla, whom students had accused in connection with the incident, should be suspended or asked to resign.The meetingAround 6.45 pm, students began arriving in larger numbers. Between 7 pm and 7.30 pm, the director appeared at the protest site. It soon became apparent that the planned 9 pm ‘democratic discussion’ on his resignation was unlikely to take place as intended. The meeting began with candles being lit and classmates, friends and seniors remembering the deceased student. They described him as a good student, with a cumulative grade of eight and as someone who was happy and enjoyable to be around.During these emotional moments, students who tried to raise questions about institutional accountability or the director’s resignation were repeatedly interrupted or silenced by members of the student council. At times, some members appeared to be physically intimidating other students. I also noticed that the council group was overwhelmingly male; I saw only one woman among its members. The director’s address and unanswered questionsThe director then addressed the students, offering condolences and saying that he wanted to work with them to improve the situation concerning student deaths by suicide on campus. This was, as students pointed out, the fourth death by suicide at IIT Bombay within a year. He suggested, among other things, that faculty members should visit hostels and speak with students. He also said investigations would be conducted into the circumstances surrounding the deaths.However, he did not address claims circulating on social media that the deceased student had been caught cheating. He said he had wanted to meet the deceased student’s friends, but had not been allowed to do so. When asked who had prevented the meeting, he did not answer.Students also raised concerns about condolence emails sent by the director after recent deaths. They said messages following the last two deaths by suicide on campus were identical and that the email issued after Sahil Wankhede’s death did not mention him by name. The director said he had written the emails himself, without using a template or artificial intelligence, and that every word reflected his genuine emotions. He did not explain why the two emails were identical or why Sahil’s name had been omitted.After the director finished speaking, several students wanted to respond. Student council members appeared opposed to allowing them to do so.Eventually, a woman took the microphone and challenged the director’s account of his interaction with Sahil’s family. She said Sahil’s parents had arrived at IIT Bombay the day after his death but had not been met by anyone from the administration. According to her account, they had repeatedly tried to meet with the director to understand what had happened to their son, but had not been given an opportunity to do so. She further alleged that the institute had prevented Sahil’s parents from entering the campus and meeting the protesting students on September 19.Her microphone was then switched off and she was forced to stop speaking.I also noticed several men in plain clothes who did not appear to be students. I could not establish whether they were hired security personnel or plain-clothes police officers.The split among the studentsBy this point, a clear division had emerged between two groups: students who wanted to pursue a more diplomatic approach towards the administration, largely represented by the student council, and protesting students demanding stronger institutional accountability, including the director’s resignation.Verbal clashes repeatedly broke out between the groups. On several occasions, microphones were switched off when protesting students attempted to speak.I left the campus at approximately 8.30 pm, during another such confrontation.Also read: Sahil Wakode and the Verdict That Came Before the InvestigationLater that night, at around 11 pm, I saw reports on social media that the director had agreed to an 18-point demand charter put forward by the student council. A protesting student, who asked not to be identified, told me that the charter was a diluted version of the demands democratically agreed upon on September 19. Among other things, the demand concerning Doolla had been reportedly narrowed to his removal as dean, rather than his removal from the faculty or academic duties. The director’s resignation was not included in the charter. At the time of writing, some students were still protesting. Family members of another student who had died by suicide, Sohel Sangwan, had joined the protest and said they had not yet received Sohel’s belongings. They also alleged that Naman Agarwal’s family had faced similar treatment.According to students, the parents of Darshan Solanki, another IIT Bombay student who died by suicide, attempted to join Sohel’s family at the protest but were detained by Mumbai Police along with other protesting students.Beyond individual blameNational Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data cited in 2026 reports show that India recorded 14,488 student deaths by suicide in 2024 – an average of nearly 40 a day. Reports in 2026 have also cited ten student deaths by suicide across different IITs that year.Every such death rightly prompts concern about mental health. But mental-health difficulties do not arise in a vacuum. They are shaped, in part, by the institutions and social structures in which young people live and study.Yet public discussion of student deaths often stops short of examining the structure of education itself: the commodification of education, the coaching economy, intense academic competition and the expectation that young people must continually perform to secure upward social mobility.Inside IITs, students often know which faculty members are known for verbally humiliating or intimidating students. Such behaviour can remain normalised until another student dies and the institution is forced to confront the environment it has created.Four deaths by suicides in one year should compel IIT Bombay to ask difficult questions about campus life, academic pressure, student support and institutional accountability. Those questions cannot be reduced to whether an individual student experienced a mental-health difficulty. Nor should the circumstances of a student’s death be reduced to allegations about cheating circulating on social media.The students protesting at IIT Bombay are asking a more fundamental question: what responsibility does an institution bear for the conditions under which its students live and study?That question deserves to be heard before another student becomes a mere statistic.Ushak Rahaman, PhD Physics, IIT-Bombay, 2018.If you know someone – friend or family member – at risk of suicide, please reach out to them. The Suicide Prevention India Foundation has a list of telephone numbers they can call to speak in confidence. Icall, a counselling service run by TISS, has maintained a crowdsourced list of therapists across the country. You could also take them to the nearest hospital.