‘Why Me?’ — The Question That Sparked Outrage at Tezpur University

“Why me?” — a question that might have sounded casual elsewhere, but at Tezpur University, it triggered a storm. The remark, reportedly made by Dr. Jaya Chakraborty, the only female proctor in the university’s Proctorial Committee, during a crucial student movement, has now become a symbol of institutional apathy and gender insensitivity.

For nearly 50 days, women students of Tezpur University have been leading a peaceful movement under the banner “Reclaiming the Space”, demanding freedom from gender-biased restrictions, moral policing, and intimidation. But when the students, hoping for empathy, reached out to Dr. Chakraborty for dialogue, they were met with silence — and later, with that single, dismissive question: “Why me?”

The students’ protest began as a response to the discriminatory 9:30 p.m. hostel entry rule imposed only on female residents. Calling it a violation of their constitutional right to freedom of movement, students declared that safety could not come at the cost of liberty. “Even within the confines of a closed campus, women are denied the freedom to move, think, and exist without being questioned in the name of safety,” said one participant at the public discussion held on Sunday night.

The 8 p.m. event, held under the open sky and titled “Reclaiming the Space”, became more than a protest — it was a reclaiming of voice, of presence, and of identity within a university system students say has grown indifferent to their lived realities.

The discussion saw the presence of Chief Proctor Prof. Jiten Chandra Dutta and Associate Dean of Students’ Welfare (ADSW) Dr. Nirmali Gogoi, both of whom extended their support to the students and assured that the administration would reconsider the restrictive hostel timings. Their gesture, students said, rekindled hope for change.

Yet, the absence of Dr. Chakraborty — the only woman in the Proctorial Committee — was glaring. Despite being requested by the Chief Proctor to engage with the protesting students, she did not respond to calls. Later, when students and faculty approached her residence, her reaction — “Why me?” — was described by witnesses as dismissive and unprofessional, especially given that the discussion revolved around women’s safety, dignity, and representation.

The anger, however, did not begin with that remark. Several students have accused Dr. Chakraborty of moral policing, passing personal judgments based on appearance, attire, or behavior, and creating an environment of fear rather than trust. Her approach, students allege, is condescending and objectifying, both through words and non-verbal cues.

One student from a female hostel recalled an incident that left her humiliated. She had approached the proctor’s office to report a harassment case within the hostel. The meeting, chaired by the Chief Proctor and Dr. Chakraborty, reportedly turned distressing. Instead of empathy, the student said she was met with a gaze that objectified her, coupled with verbal accusations suggesting she was “seeking attention.” The female proctor allegedly downplayed the seriousness of the issue, acting as if the matter had been exaggerated.

“Her presence was intimidating, not reassuring,” said a fellow student. “We expected sensitivity and support from the only woman in that position, but what we got was judgment.”

Students have also cited earlier incidents — such as one following the RG Kar Hospital case, where a group sought permission to hold a candlelight march in solidarity with victims of gender-based violence. Instead of support, Dr. Chakraborty allegedly dismissed the idea, saying the march would only hold meaning if led by medical professionals — undermining students’ civic agency and their right to peaceful expression.

Such incidents, they say, reveal a disturbing pattern — where women seeking justice or dialogue are met not with compassion, but with scrutiny and dismissal.

Following recent complaints about her behavior, students allege that Dr. Chakraborty has tried to identify and question those who spoke out against her, asking for the names of complainants and the circumstances under which they approached her earlier. This, they claim, has further deepened the climate of fear on campus.

Her judgmental demeanor and body language, students say, reinforce patriarchal notions of control and normalize the “male gaze” within an academic space that should instead be fostering trust and equality. Many now feel unsafe and unwilling to approach the administration at all.

In a memorandum submitted to the university administration, students outlined five key demands: redressal of insensitive treatment toward female students by officials, an end to moral policing in hostels and on campus, removal of gender-biased rules including unequal hostel and library timings, revision of rigid leave procedures that disregard emergencies, and abolition of arbitrary regulations violating constitutional rights.

Despite repeated assurances, students insist that without structural accountability, any promise of reform remains hollow. “We are not fighting authority,” said one organizer. “We are demanding dignity, equality, and dialogue.”

What began as a movement against a curfew has now evolved into a larger fight against systemic silencing. The students’ campaign — “Reclaiming the Space” — is not just about rules, but about representation, respect, and reclaiming agency in spaces that were supposed to be safe.

“‘Why me?’ — that’s exactly the question women on this campus have been asking for years,” one student concluded. “Why us, every time, when it comes to scrutiny, blame, or control?”

ALSO READ: Vice Chancellor in Dock over Dubious Hindi Faculty Hire at Tezpur Univ