top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While...

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While protesters are readily caricatured as troublemakers or political pawns, Bhagwat has consciously rejected that temptation. By insisting that young demonstrators are neither anti-national nor outsiders but India’s own next generation, he has reframed the debate from one of confrontation to one of responsibility. While the protests spearheaded by Abhijit Dipke and his Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) took a notably ugly turn, leading many citizens to cast aspersions on the motivations on the protestors and their credibility, the controversy over examination leaks is nevertheless a serious and burning issue reflecting deeper anxieties among millions of young Indians about fairness, merit and opportunity. Bhagwat’s admission that “something that shouldn’t happen” had indeed happened, and that such failures indicated “a deficiency” requiring correction, was an important recognition that government institutions must be capable of introspection. Equally striking was his understanding of generational change. His observation that his own generation accepted authority while Gen Z demands logical answers was a graceful acceptance that democratic engagement has evolved. Young Indians today question institutions because they have higher expectations of them. Mature democracies do not fear such questioning, and that is what Bhagwat’s remarks implied. His approach may carry considerable political significance for the ruling BJP. India is one of the world’s youngest democracies, with more than half its population below the age of 35. By 2029, Gen Z will constitute one of the country’s most influential electoral constituencies. Alienating them through dismissive rhetoric or excessive force would have been politically costly. Bhagwat’s unequivocal expression of trust - going so far as to say that if asked to trust blindly, he would trust Gen Z - offers a markedly different message. It tells young Indians that criticism of administrative failures need not place them outside the national mainstream. In doing so, Bhagwat may also have blunted attempts by politically motivated groups to convert legitimate student grievances into a broader campaign of perpetual confrontation. Every democracy contains forces that seek to transform dissatisfaction into lasting alienation from constitutional politics. The surest antidote is not denunciation but through engagement. By recognising the legitimacy of protest while emphasising dialogue and democratic methods, Bhagwat has reduced the space for those seeking to escalate anger into indiscriminate agitation.

The Missing Link in India’s Suicide Investigations

India loses over 400 lives to suicide each day, making psychological autopsy — bridging medicine and mind, science and empathy — a moral and investigative necessity.

Suicide continues to be one of the gravest public health concerns worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly seven lakh people die by suicide every year—that’s one person every 40 seconds. It remains among the top five causes of death among people aged 15 to 29 years globally. In India, the situation is equally alarming. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reported over 1.64 lakh suicides in 2021, marking a 7% rise from the previous year. Economic distress, academic pressure, mental illness, and relationship breakdowns continue to drive this silent epidemic. Yet, what often goes unnoticed are the many deaths that sit on the border between suicide and something more sinister — the so-called equivocal deaths.


In such cases, where a person is found dead under suspicious or unclear circumstances, determining whether it was suicide, accident, or homicide becomes a complex puzzle. Conventional autopsy methods focus on physical evidence — wounds, toxicology, or cause of death — but they cannot always reveal intent. This is where the psychological autopsy comes into play.


A psychological autopsy is a forensic technique used to reconstruct the mental state of the deceased before death. It relies on psychological, social, and circumstantial evidence to assess whether the person was likely suicidal. The method was first introduced in the 1960s by Dr Edwin Shneidman, a pioneer in suicidology in the United States. Since then, it has been used internationally in high-profile equivocal death and disaster investigations. In the West, it has evolved into a standard investigative tool, often helping courts and police draw conclusions when physical evidence alone is inconclusive.


In India, however, the technique remains largely underutilised. Only a handful of cases have seen its formal application. The Burari mass deaths in Delhi in 2018 drew national attention when investigators used a psychological autopsy approach to analyse the family’s collective mindset before ruling out foul play. Similarly, the Sushant Singh Rajput case reignited debate on India’s approach to mental health and the need for scientific psychological probing in disputed suicides.


A psychological autopsy involves a structured, checklist-based inquiry. Investigators and forensic psychologists examine medical and psychiatric history, recent stressors such as financial or family problems, communication patterns including diaries, social media, and text messages, and interview relatives, colleagues, and friends. They also study behavioural and mood changes in the weeks before death. All this information is analysed to create a psychological profile indicating whether suicidal ideation or intent was present.


In India, Dr Asha Srivastava, former Director of CFSL (CBI) and current Dean at the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), is one of the leading experts in this domain. A renowned forensic psychologist, she has applied psychological autopsy techniques in several complex and disputed death cases, demonstrating their immense value. She continues to advocate for its inclusion in standard forensic practice and trains officers and students across the country.


The potential of psychological autopsy in India is enormous. It can aid investigators and courts in resolving disputed suicides, assist in policy-level understanding of suicidal behaviour, and even contribute to prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the absence of uniform national guidelines, the shortage of trained experts, and limited legal recognition of its evidentiary value have hindered its adoption.


The Indian judiciary has repeatedly underscored the need for scientific investigation in suspicious suicides, especially in custodial and dowry-related deaths. However, specific judicial directions on the use of psychological autopsy are still lacking. To bridge this gap, there is an urgent need to institutionalise this tool within India’s forensic and law enforcement framework, supported by proper training, certification, and standard operating procedures.


Psychological autopsy bridges the gap between medicine and mind, science and empathy. It gives investigators the means to understand what drove the deceased — and sometimes, what silenced them. In a nation losing more than 400 lives to suicide every day, adopting every scientific method available is not merely desirable—it is a moral and investigative necessity.

(Dr. Keshav Kumar is a retired IPS officer and forensic advisor to the Assam government. Hemanth Sai Reddy is Forensic Psychologist and Industrial & Corporate Security Professional.)

Comments

bottom of page