The October 10 protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the subsequent police action in Delhi have sparked a public disagreement between two groups of Harvard-affiliated individuals. While one group condemned the alleged police excesses against protesters, another questioned the criticism of India’s constitutional institutions and the use of Harvard’s name in political statements. The BJP has since backed the second group’s position, adding a political dimension to the controversy.
On October 12, around 100 Harvard University alumni, students, faculty members and staff issued a statement condemning what they described as police brutality, unlawful detention and violations of protesters’ constitutional rights. The statement prompted the Harvard Club of India to clarify that it had neither issued nor endorsed the letter.
CJP co-convenor Saurav Das welcomed the statement, writing on X, “Harvard folks condemn those hard at work to brutalise protesters.”
Two days later, on October 14, a separate group of 44 Harvard-affiliated scholars and professionals issued a counterstatement titled Constitutional Responsibility, Rule of Law, and Institutional Integrity. The group questioned what it described as attacks on India’s constitutional institutions and raised concerns about the use of Harvard’s name to lend credibility to political campaigns without proper authorisation.
The BJP amplified the second statement on X, arguing that allegations against constitutional authorities should be supported by evidence and that respect for democratic institutions must take precedence over political considerations.
First Letter Condemns Police Action
The first statement expressed solidarity with people detained during the October 10 demonstrations organised by the CJP and student groups. The protest was directed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar amid allegations of electoral irregularities and concerns over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
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 by Delhi Police.
According to the statement, Farasat was manhandled while attempting 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 signatories urged the government to protect constitutional rights, ensure access to legal assistance and hold officials accountable for alleged abuses.
The October 10 protest also drew criticism from Opposition parties, civil society organisations and legal professionals. Reports of extensive security deployments, transport restrictions and more than 7,000 detentions added to concerns over the police response. Protesters, lawyers and journalists alleged excessive use of force, while authorities sought to prevent the planned mass mobilisation at Jantar Mantar.
Harvard Club of India Clarifies Its Position
Following the release of the first letter, the Harvard Club of India said it had neither issued nor endorsed the statement.
Rajat Sethi, a member of the club’s executive committee, told ANI that individuals were entitled to express their personal views but could not present them as the organisation’s position.
“While we respect personal expression, that is not a substitute for institutional representation,” Sethi said.
The club maintained that its governing rules did not authorise political statements on its behalf or on behalf of Harvard University.
Sethi has also been associated with BJP election campaigns. He helped manage the party’s successful 2016 Assam Assembly election campaign and subsequently advised BJP chief ministers in Manipur and Jharkhand.
The club’s clarification drew a distinction between the personal opinions of Harvard-affiliated individuals and the official positions of the alumni association and the university. It did not challenge the signatories’ right to express their views independently.
Second Letter Emphasises Constitutional Institutions
The second statement, released on October 14, raised concerns about what its signatories described as a campaign against India’s constitutional institutions, including the Election Commission, Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India and Parliament.
The signatories included Rajat Sethi, A K Raghawan, Abhigyan Satyam, Sujeet Kumar, Richa Arya and Rashmini Koparkar.
The group questioned descriptions of India as being under “siege” and references to constitutional authorities as “thieves” or “compromised”. It argued that such language risked undermining public confidence in democratic institutions.
The statement also questioned 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 conduct should be scrutinised 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 Backs Second Group
The BJP endorsed the second group’s statement, highlighting its concerns about the use of Harvard’s name and criticism directed at constitutional authorities.
In its post on X, the party emphasised the importance of evidence, due process, institutional accountability and respect for democratic institutions.
“Constitutional responsibility, institutional integrity and respect for democratic institutions must take precedence over political convenience,” the BJP said.
The party’s intervention brought the dispute further into the political arena. What began as a disagreement over the treatment of protesters and the right to dissent has expanded into a debate over institutional accountability, political rhetoric and the use of academic affiliations in public discourse.
A Dispute Over Protest Rights and Representation
The controversy raises two distinct questions. The first concerns whether the police response to the October 10 protest violated citizens’ constitutional rights, including the rights to peaceful assembly and dissent. The second concerns whether individuals can invoke their Harvard affiliations in public statements without creating the impression that they speak for the university or its recognised alumni association.
The Harvard Club of India’s clarification addressed the question of institutional representation. The two letters, meanwhile, reflected the differing positions of their respective signatories.
Neither statement was an official declaration by Harvard University itself.
With the BJP backing the second group, the disagreement has moved beyond Harvard-affiliated circles and become part of the wider political debate over the October 10 protest, police conduct and the role of India’s constitutional institutions.
Editorial note: Before publication, independently verify the reported figure of more than 7,000 detentions, the accounts of the two individuals’ alleged treatment, and the wording and signatories of both statements. The rewrite preserves these as attributed claims rather than independently established findings.