Patna: The Bihar Legislative Assembly on Friday witnessed intense uproar and heated exchanges after CPI (ML) Liberation MLA Sandeep Saurabh raised the issue of caste-based discrimination in higher educational institutions and used the term “Brahminism” during his speech. The remark triggered strong objections, eventually leading to the Speaker ordering the removal of the word “Brahmin” from the official records. Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Kumar Sinha responded firmly, stressing constitutional values, social harmony, and his own lived experience of discrimination to counter what he described as divisive rhetoric.
Sandeep Saurabh, while speaking on the issue of alleged caste-based discrimination in universities and colleges, proposed the implementation of University Grants Commission (UGC) equity guidelines in Bihar. He cited several tragic incidents from across the country, including the deaths of Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi, and Darshan Solanki, describing them as examples of harassment linked to caste discrimination. Referring to a UGC report, he claimed that cases of caste-based harassment on campuses had increased by 118 percent between 2019 and 2024. However, his use of the term “Brahminism” sparked immediate protests inside the House.
Amid loud sloganeering and disruptions, Assembly Speaker Prem Kumar intervened and ordered that the caste-referential word be expunged from the proceedings, reiterating that caste-indicative language would not be permitted in the House. Despite this, the atmosphere remained charged as members from both sides continued to argue.
Responding strongly, Deputy Chief Minister Vijay Kumar Sinha condemned the use of language that, in his view, targeted a particular community and threatened social cohesion. Emphasising his commitment to constitutional principles, Sinha said that any discourse within a constitutional institution must uphold dignity, mutual respect, and inclusiveness. He asserted that every community in India deserves equal respect and that deliberately invoking caste-based terminology in a provocative manner reflects a mindset that undermines the spirit of the Constitution.
In a significant personal intervention, Vijay Kumar Sinha shared his own experience of harassment to underline that discrimination is not confined to any single community. He recalled that during his student days at a technical college in Muzaffarpur, he himself faced ragging and was forced to leave the hostel, despite belonging to the Bhumihar Brahmin community. He warned that those who indulge in rhetoric that “poisons society” weaken national unity and act against the interests of the country. According to Sinha, questioning constitutional institutions or their decisions through inflammatory language reveals a disregard for democratic values.
Sinha’s remarks were followed by further uproar from opposition benches, but members of the ruling alliance rallied behind him, viewing his intervention as a principled stand against caste-based polarisation. Supporters argued that while discrimination in educational institutions must be addressed seriously, the issue should be approached through constructive policy measures and inclusive dialogue rather than terminology that risks stoking social tensions.
