Two groups of people associated with Harvard University have issued contrasting statements over the October 10 Delhi protests and police action. While one condemned the alleged police brutality, the other questioned attacks on India's constitutional institutions. The BJP has now joined in the row, questioning the use of Harvard's name to lend credibility to campaigns.
Shadan Farasat (left) was backed by the first Harvard group, while Rajat Sethi (right) signed the counterstatement. (Images: Social Media)
The CJP's October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the subsequent police action has triggered a battle among people associated with Harvard University. Two groups with the US university's name have issued contrasting statements about the protest and the police action. Meanwhile, the BJP has joined the controversy and backed the second group associated with Harvard University.
Days after the protests on October 12, a group of 100 Harvard-affiliated individuals condemned police brutality against protesters in Delhi. This had prompted the Harvard Club of India to clarify that the statement did not represent its official position. CJP co-convenor Saurav Das welcomed the statement, saying, "Harvard folks condemn those hard at work to brutalise protesters."
Two days later, on Wednesday, another group of 44 Harvard-linked scholars and professionals issued a counterstatement, questioning "attacks on India's constitutional institutions" and the use of Harvard's name to lend credibility to political campaigns.
The BJP amplified the second group's statement, turning a disagreement among Harvard-associated individuals into another flashpoint over the October 10 protests.
In a post on X on Wednesday, the BJP said the statement by the second group highlighted the use of the university's name without proper authorisation and the rhetoric targeting the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India and Parliament. It argued that allegations against constitutional authorities must be supported by evidence and that institutional integrity and respect for democratic institutions should take precedence over political convenience.
The controversy began after the October 10 protest by the CJP and student organisations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities and the SIR of voter rolls. Delhi witnessed an extraordinary security clampdown, with thousands of police and paramilitary personnel deployed, restrictions on transport and more than 7,000 reported detentions. Protesters, lawyers and journalists alleged excessive police force, while the authorities sought to prevent the planned mass mobilisation at Jantar Mantar.
The developments on October 10 drew criticism from Opposition parties, civil society groups and legal professionals, setting the stage for the dispute involving Harvard-affiliated individuals.
FIRST LETTER BACKED PROTESTERS, CONDEMNED POLICE ACTION
On October 12, 100 Harvard University alumni, students, faculty members and staff issued a statement expressing solidarity with protesters detained during the October 10 demonstrations.
The signatories described the police deployment in New Delhi as an unprecedented siege and criticised what they alleged were arbitrary and unconstitutional actions against peaceful protesters.
"We strongly condemn police brutality, unlawful detention, and violations of constitutional rights of all peaceful protestors," the statement said.
The group also expressed solidarity with Supreme Court Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, a 2009 Harvard Law School alumnus, and Mehr Pasricha, a 2025 Harvard Kennedy School graduate and CJP policy head, over their alleged mistreatment and detention by Delhi Police.
According to the signatories, Farasat was manhandled while trying to prevent a protester's detention. Pasricha was allegedly detained while having breakfast at Laxmi Nagar market and held for 13 hours without being informed of the grounds for her detention. The statement called on the government to stop violations of constitutional rights, protect access to legal assistance and ensure accountability for alleged abuses.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das welcomed the intervention, posting on X on October 12, "Harvard folks condemn those hard at work to brutalise protesters."
"Entire country is condemning the government," he added.
HARVARD CLUB DISTANCES ITSELF FROM FIRST LETTER
The first statement prompted a clarification from the Harvard Club of India, an officially recognised alumni association, which said it had neither issued nor endorsed the letter.
Rajat Sethi, a member of the Club's Executive Committee, told ANI that the signatories were entitled to express personal views but could not claim to represent the organisation.
"While we respect personal expression, that is not a substitute for institutional representation," Sethi said.
Rajat Sethi, who is popular as a political analyst on TV news debates, has links with the BJP. Sethi helped manage the BJP's successful 2016 Assam Assembly election campaign and subsequently advised BJP chief ministers in Manipur and Jharkhand.
The Club maintained that its governing rules did not authorise political statements on its behalf or on behalf of Harvard University.
The clarification was significant as it distinguished the personal political positions of Harvard alumni from the institutional position of the university or its recognised alumni association. It did not dispute the signatories' right to speak as individuals.
SECOND LETTER DEFENDS CONSTITUTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
On Wednesday, another group of 44 Harvard-affiliated scholars and professionals issued a statement titled "Constitutional Responsibility, Rule of Law, and Institutional Integrity".
The signatories included Rajat Sethi, A K Raghawan, Abhigyan Satyam, Sujeet Kumar, Richa Arya and Rashmini Koparkar.
The group expressed concern over what it described as a campaign against India's constitutional institutions, including the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India and Parliament.
It questioned language portraying India as being under "siege" and constitutional authorities as "thieves" or "compromised", arguing that such rhetoric could undermine public trust.
The statement also raised concerns over reports that Harvard University's name had been used to lend credibility to a political campaign without appropriate authorisation. However, the signatories acknowledged that police actions deserved scrutiny and that civil liberties must be protected.
"The dignity of public servants and the offices they hold must be respected. The Constitution, rule of law, and civil liberties must be respected at all times, not just when it suits our interests," the statement said. "Our commitment must remain to the Constitution, not convenience; to justice, not selective outrage; and to democratic institutions, not the politics of accusation," it added.
BJP JOINS HARVARD VS HARVARD ROW
The BJP seized upon the second letter and highlighted its criticism of allegations against constitutional bodies and posts. In a post on X, the BJP said the statement addressed the use of Harvard's name without proper authorisation and emphasised evidence, due process and institutional accountability.
"Constitutional responsibility, institutional integrity and respect for democratic institutions must take precedence over political convenience," the BJP said.
The party's intervention added a political dimension to what had begun as a disagreement over the treatment of protesters and the right of Harvard-affiliated individuals to speak, associating oneself with the university's name.
There is, however, an important distinction. The Harvard Club of India's clarification was an institutional statement about representation, while the October 14 letter was signed by another group of individuals associated with Harvard. Neither of the two competing letters had an official statement from Harvard University itself.
The row has therefore become a fight over two questions arising from the October 10 protests. One is whether the police violated citizens' constitutional rights of association and dissent. The other is whether Harvard's name and reputation were being drawn into India's political fights by people associated with the university. And with the BJP now taking sides, the argument has travelled well beyond Harvard's alumni circles.
- Ends
(Written by Sushim Mukul)