Harvard Alumni Split Over Delhi Protests as One Group Alleges Police Brutality, Another Warns of ‘Concerted Campaign’

A ideological clash within the Harvard University community has spilled out into the open, with two distinct groups issuing contrasting statements regarding the heavy-handed police response to political demonstrations in New Delhi.

The controversy centres on recent protests organised by the Coakroach Janta Party (CJP) and student groups demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls.

Initial Letter Condemns Police Action and Detentions

The first statement, issued by a group of approximately 100 Harvard alumni, students, faculty, and staff, strongly condemned the Delhi Police actions during demonstrations. Denouncing what it termed "arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional police actions against peaceful protesters," the group highlighted allegations of police brutality and unlawful detentions.

The signatories specifically pointed to incidents involving Harvard graduates. These included senior advocate Shadan Farasat, a 2009 Harvard Law School alumnus who was allegedly detained while attempting to offer legal support to a demonstrator, and Mehr Pasricha, a 2025 Harvard Kennedy School graduate, who was reportedly held for 13 hours without formal charges after being picked up near a market. The letter urged Indian authorities to immediately stop constitutional violations and enforce accountability.

Counter-Statement Defends Democratic Institutions

In response, a second collective—comprising Indian lawyers, policymakers, civil servants, and academics associated with Harvard issued a sharp rebuttal titled "Constitutional Responsibility, Rule of Law, and Institutional Integrity".

This group expressed deep concern over what it described as a "concerted campaign" aimed at undermining India's constitutional bodies, including the Election Commission, the Supreme Court, and Parliament. Arguing that sweeping allegations and abusive rhetoric cannot replace evidence or due process, the counter-statement stressed that maintainers of public order must operate under fair scrutiny, but democratic institutions should not be vilified for political convenience.

Representatives linked to the Harvard Club of India clarified that the initial critique did not reflect any official position of the institutional club, underscoring the deep polarization within the diaspora over civil liberties and state action in India.