Ranchi/Kolkata: Long before Neha Bora, Dalit educationist Savitribai Phule endured daily humiliation for educating girls and oppressed communities. Mud, stones, cow dung and other refuse were hurled at her as she walked to school. In independent India, one of the most widely reported ink attacks on a woman public figure was on IAS-turned social activist Aruna Roy in 2011 during public consultations on the Lokpal Bill.
More than a century after Savitribai, another young woman has become the target of public humiliation.
The Journey from NEET Protests to the Ranchi Attack
Twenty-nine-year-old Neha Bora, national president of the All India Students’ Association (AISA), was attacked with ink in Ranchi. The alleged attacker later claimed he targeted her because she is “anti-national” and supports Umar Khalid.
That one statement has turned what could have remained an isolated assault into a larger debate about dissent, student politics and the shrinking space for speaking in defence of Umar Khalid.
Thirty-eight-year-old Umar Khalid, who holds a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has spent nearly six years in prison over allegations of conspiring against the nation, without trial. Coincidentally, his doctoral research focused on Adivasi communities, including those in Jharkhand.
Neha had emerged as one of the most recognisable faces of the nationwide student movement after leading a 23-day hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar against the NEET paper leak and corruption in the country’s education system. By the time Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned on July 26, her fiery speeches and persistence had made her a familiar face far beyond student politics.
The JNU research scholar had already faced lathi charges, tear gas and pellet firing during the Delhi protests. Soon afterwards, when students protesting in Bihar were allegedly fired upon with AK-47 rifles and several were arrested, Neha travelled across the state to campaign for their release.
“We did not get scared of pellets and tear gas. Do they think students will now be frightened by ink?” Neha said after the attack. “We will write our future with this ink. And we now pledge to defeat their politics of hatred.”
Ranchi Police did not disclose the identity of the attacker. However, at a press conference, Neha identified him as 26-year-old Amarnath Pandey, a Hindi honours student, and alleged that he is associated with the RSS.
A senior Ranchi journalist wrote on social media that the attack reflected a lack of genuine concern for education reforms. “Until now, they had been asking CJP and AISA to come to Ranchi. Now that they have, they are responding by throwing ink at them,” he wrote.
eNewsroom also contacted Saurav Das of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), but received no response till the time of publication. However, CJP shared several videos of Neha speaking after the attack and described the incident as “shameful”.
Ink Attack Rekindles Questions Over Speaking for Umar Khalid
CPIML General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya described the incident as another attempt to intimidate the student movement.
“Having failed to silence the youth movement by unleashing police brutalities, the Sangh brigade has now resorted to street violence and online abuse,” he told eNewsroom. “The ink attack on AISA President Neha Bora reveals its growing fear of Gen Z, and of young women activists in particular. But every such attack will only strengthen the movement.”
The alleged attacker’s statement also prompted eNewsroom to ask former Rajya Sabha MP and public intellectual Jawhar Sircar whether India had reached a point where even expressing solidarity with Umar Khalid could invite intimidation.
At a time when Umar Khalid has spent nearly six years in prison without a trial, has the space to demand due process, constitutional rights and a fair hearing become so narrow that even speaking in his support carries a cost? Is it time for civil liberties groups to speak more forcefully in his defence?
Sircar replied:
“Umar Khalid’s continued incarceration despite no tenable charges and the judiciary’s obvious indulgence is a new low-water mark in Indian democracy. It was tragic to see a once-liberal Chief Justice find newer and newer reasons to either avoid granting bail or holding the government to account—proving not only the hollowness of his much-flaunted openness but also the system’s hypocrisy.”
