Brahmins Leave Campus → Mild Outrage. Reverse With Low Caste? Nationwide Riots
ONE LINE OF GRAFFITI, A THOUSAND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
A few words scrawled on a college wall — “Brahmins Leave The Campus” — were enough to ignite a firestorm. Not because graffiti is new, and not because campuses haven’t seen protest slogans before. The uproar came from a deeper place: why some hate slogans provoke immediate national outrage while others are met with uneasy silence.
As debates intensify and the University Grants Commission considers changes to rules governing campus conduct, the incident has become a mirror — reflecting how differently we respond depending on who is targeted.
THE CONTROVERSY, STRIPPED TO ITS CORE
1. A Slogan That Crossed a Line
Targeting any community with exclusionary language is wrong. Period. Campuses are meant for debate, not banishment.
2. The Counterfactual That Won’t Go Away
Imagine the same wall reading “SC/ST/OBC Leave the Campus.” The likely response? Immediate condemnation, protests, political statements, and national headlines. The contrast fuels resentment and suspicion.
3. Hate Is Hate — Selectivity Is the Problem
Condemning hate selectively weakens the moral argument against it. Either exclusionary slogans are unacceptable everywhere, or the principle collapses.
4. Why the Silence Hurts
For many in the general category, the absence of swift, loud pushback feels like indifference. Not being seen as a vote bank amplifies that sense of neglect.
5. Representation Matters
Communities that mobilize quickly and speak with one voice tend to command attention. Others struggle to translate grievance into visibility — especially on big platforms.
6. Campuses Are Becoming Proxy Battlefields
Instead of being spaces for learning and disagreement, universities risk turning into arenas where political signals are sent through provocation.
7. UGC’s Tightrope Walk
Any amendment must balance free expression, student safety, and equal protection. Overcorrection risks chilling speech; underreaction normalizes targeting.
8. The Slippery Slope
If exclusionary language is tolerated once, it invites repetition. Today it’s a wall. Tomorrow it’s policy pressure.
WHAT SHOULD CHANGE — PRACTICAL, EQUAL RULES
| Issue | What’s Needed |
|---|---|
| Hate slogans | Zero tolerance, regardless of the target |
| Campus committees | Clear, neutral procedures and timelines |
| Enforcement | Swift, transparent action |
| Representation | Inclusive dialogue, not identity silos |
| Communication | One standard, one message |
THE BIGGER PICTURE
This isn’t a plea for special treatment. It’s a demand for consistent principles. A society that fights discrimination must do so without a hierarchy of victims. Otherwise, anger hardens, trust erodes, and campuses lose their purpose.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Exclusionary slogans don’t become acceptable because of who they target.
Silence doesn’t become virtue because it’s convenient.
If universities are to remain spaces of reason, the rule must be simple and universal: no community is fair game. Equality isn’t loud for some and quiet for others — or it isn’t equality at all.