Equal Opportunity Cell: Promises, Plans, and the long road ahead

In November 2023, Somak Raychaudhary, Vice Chancellor of Ashoka University, committed to an Equal Opportunities Cell (EOC) being made operational by the Spring ‘24 semester in the wake of protests organized by the Social Justice Forum (SJF) around establishing a formal body to counter discrimination. By February 2024, the cell was still “in the process of setting up policy” when the SJF led a protest in response to the conflict between the Democracy Collective (DemCol) and the administration over the DemCol’s screening of ‘Ram ke Naam’, a 1992 documentary by Anand Patwardhan. At a townhall organized in response to the protest, Vice-Chancellor Raychaudhary promised to address two of the SJFs key demands—- the organization of an annual Ambedkar Memorial lecture series and the institution of an annual Socio-Economic Survey which would also collect data about constitutional caste groups in the Ashoka student body— and placed them under the purview of the newly-constituted EOC.  Two years on, The Edict independently assessed the status of these projects and of the EOC. 

The guidelines for the constitution of the EOC explain that its role is to “increase awareness, undertake sensitisation measures, and make recommendations toward greater inclusion.” The EOC aimed to tackle and minimize discrimination faced by students from their peers, the administration, or the faculty. Moreover, it was designed not just as an investigative and disciplinary body, but also as a proactive one, to organize events that would make the campus community more inclusive. 

Functioning of the EOC

As of Monsoon ‘25, the EOC has a total of 11 members, including two undergraduate student representatives, one post-graduate representative, one PhD cohort representative, one YIF member, as well as members of the faculty.  However, UGC regulations for EOC’s mandate posts for representatives from each constitutional caste category, which have not been accounted for yet by the Cell. Student representatives have told The Edict that it is rare for the committee to have to meet in its entirety, and that most communication is conducted via email, though they also agreed that communication was effective and regular, and that complaints to the EOC are addressed by a panel comprising either the chair or co-chair, and the student representative of the complainant’s cohort. Prof. Janice Pariat, Chair of the EOC, clarified that the Cell typically tries to meet thrice across each semester. 

The first Ambedkar Memorial Lecture was held successfully in April 2025, in collaboration with the Savitri Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (SAPSC). Radhika Vemula, a prominent Dalit rights activist, spoke about the need to address caste-driven discrimination on college campuses. 

The EOC has also conducted various sensitization workshops for the Post Graduate, PhD and YIF cohorts, as well as faculty and library staff. On October 31st, the first year undergraduate cohort received an email confirming sensitisation workshops to be held for them on the 4th of November. The sensitization workshop, held in collaboration with UnsoundProject, saw scant attendance, with 3 students present. A concern among students was a lack of significant advance notice, and no consideration or collaborative communication about when the best time to meet would have been. A second sensitization workshop, inviting students across all undergraduate batches, is to be held on the 10th of November. 

Furthermore, the Socio-Economic Survey remains pending. The objective of the Socio-Economic Survey was chiefly to collect data regarding constitutional caste-demographics in the Ashoka student body. Student representatives assure us that work on the survey is ongoing. “We made the survey, the draft, but we haven’t really received approval to send it out yet,” said Anushka Goyal (UG '28), undergraduate representative. 

The key challenge with this was the sensitivity of the data and the possibility that not enough students would be willing to share information, rendering any potential surveys non-representative and unreliable. “It is a question of methodology,” said Amulya Dhawan (UG’28), UG Rep. “We don’t want to conduct a survey that leads to inconclusivity,  because of low engagement. So, everyone on the team is trying to work to get an idea of what would be the most foolproof way to conduct the survey, and if there isn’t any, they think it shouldn’t happen.”

The EOC’s attempts at finalizing a mandate have encountered similar roadblocks. “The first order of business is that we want to send out the official EOC Mandate, but it keeps getting delayed because we haven’t gotten approval from the admin yet. We are in talks with the Office of Student Affairs (OSA), and there is a lot of back and forth, but we haven’t gotten the approval yet,” explained Goyal. Such challenges raise the question of the independence of the EOC as a body, as it was formed with the intent to address systemic discrimination, not just within the student body but within faculty and administration as well. 

Another revealed concern was the ‘visibility’ of the EOC as a body. Though the EOC now receives dedicated time with the incoming batch during O-Week to introduce the Cell and its functioning, the committee has only just been allotted official space in AC-01 and is not yet well known among students as a space to discuss issues around diversity and inclusion. “Now that we’ve got an office space, we can expect greater visibility,” says Goyal, explaining that this is a crucial step forward in expanding EOC presence on campus. Speaking to The Edict, Professor Janice Pariat, Chair of the EOC, said that it took over a year for the requisition to be met in the first place due to logistical constraints. 

Visibility is not a new issue. Many of Ashoka’s administrative student-facing committees, most notably, the Student Grievance Redressal Committee (SGRC) have been noted by students as barely noticeable. In a previous interview with The Edict, Atharva Salve (UG’27), UG Rep to the SGRC, flagged issues surrounding procedural and jurisdictionary ambiguity between redressal committees, springing partly from the lack of clear and publicly accessible committee mandates. 

Lack of visibility has also affected student engagement in elections for student representation in University bodies. Speaking to The Edict, Yuvaraj R (PhD 2024), PhD representative, said that his “biggest concern” was that students may not apply to be representatives. “Last year,” he said, “I was the only one who nominated myself [for the post], so there was no election. This year, I said, I will nominate myself, but if anyone else files a nomination, I will withdraw.” The elections for UG representatives faced a similar paucity of candidates, with Goyal and Dhawan being the only nominees, and a representative for the YIF cohort, Ahammed Fazariya (YIF '26) being newly elected. 

When asked about the efficacy of self-nomination for candidates, Pariat said “The idea was to have committee members who are as diverse as possible, and also - this extends to student reps as well - to invite people who have a lived experience of discrimination [to apply].” Pariat further explained that the EOC followed the same electoral process as all other redressal committees.

While concerns around representative data and adequate methodology are perfectly valid – many students wonder about greater efforts to coordinate its organization with the larger student body, working with the AUSG and perhaps even forming a working group to focus exclusively on the issue of engagement. A first step toward such transparency is the recent Annual Report by the EOC, released on 6th November. The principle of the EOC  as a committee that tackles discrimination both seen and unseen, not just punitively but pro-actively, holds immense potential for impact. However, challenges presented by a lack of autonomy, and no clear methods for ensuring diversity in student representation thus far still demand to be addressed.

(Edited by Somansh Sarangi)