Two quick student suicides in Goa in two days — one a student of BITS Pilani, Sancoale and the other a Bengaluru-born student residing at Sao Jose de Areal, Salcete, have once again brought the topic of mental health and academic pressure to the forefront. Unfortunately, this is the sixth case of suicide reported among BITS students. In the Areal case, the Bengaluru boy who had recently answered NEET left a suicide note indicating his reluctance to partake in such exams.
South Goa Collector Egna Cleetus stated that investigations suspected a “suicide contagion” or “cluster effect” behind the BITS cases. Ironically, suicides have occurred at different time spans and over different situations, and do not appropriately fit into that terminology. Moreover, labelling these tragedies as a contagion effect is like attaching an element of inevitability while underpinning other factors such as academic stress and institutional shortcomings.
Suicide contagion on college campuses is a phenomenon where exposure to suicide increases the likelihood of subsequent suicides among peers, especially those who are vulnerable. It is driven more by imitation. Research suggests that people involved in a “cluster” often have identifiable connections, such as shared social networks, attendance at the same schools or institutions, or exposure to similar informational influences. None of these connections were visible in the BITS cases.
Even if we consider the “cluster effect”, the onus is on the administration to develop targeted interventions, including community response guidelines intended to contain clusters and reduce the likelihood of further spread. We are back to the same question — why are BITS students committing suicide? These cases indicate that there is a multifaceted problem that demands sustained attention. The “contagion” situation, even if discussed from an academic perspective, calls for wider interventions from mental health professionals and society as a whole.
Having a well-integrated counselling mechanism in place is one part of the story, and identifying vulnerable students is the other. The competitive stress on young minds cannot be fully addressed if early warning signs are not detected. While BITS has informed that mental health initiatives have been taken by hiring more professionals, the measures appear insufficient, and it is a clear sign that all systems need to be revisited.
The collector’s emphasis on responsible reporting in the media is welcome, but she needs to understand that it is only because of the media coverage that systemic gaps have been exposed and reality has dawned on authorities in the past. Agreed that media outlets and social media platforms bear responsibility in how they report on suicide cases because sensationalism and speculation can have consequences. But the fear is that an underplay may work to the advantage of those failing. If we may recall, it was the media coverage of the previous cases at the campus that prompted intense inquiry and the introduction of new protocols. It is because of the media glare that the lack of mental health redressal mechanisms has come into sharp focus.
Finally, the questions that still remain unanswered: Why are suicides reported mainly of BITS Pilani students, when there are students from equally tough streams competing at various levels? If the talk is about academic pressure, are students at that level not aware of what they are getting into? Are parents not aware? Why do parents fail to understand the mental well-being of their children?
It’s time the management, students, parents and stakeholders debate this issue at a much deeper level.
