The book at the centre of the dispute is Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power, published by Juggernaut in 2026. It is based on Khalid’s doctoral thesis, submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in 2018. The research examines the history of Adivasi communities in the Singhbhum region of present-day Jharkhand, with particular attention to colonial administration, local governance and changing power relations.
The controversy emerged after social media users highlighted the book’s presence in the Srinivasa Ramanujan Library at the government-funded science and research institute. Critics questioned why a publication associated with Khalid had been added to the collection, given his ongoing legal case connected to the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
The online reaction prompted a response from Madabhushi Madan Gopal, the in-charge chairman of the institute’s Board of Governors. In a post on X, he said the book had been withdrawn and that action had been initiated against those responsible for what he described as “mischief”. He also indicated that the institute’s director had taken immediate steps to address the matter.
The response brought IISER-Pune into the centre of a wider debate over how educational institutions should respond when library acquisitions generate public controversy. While administrators are responsible for maintaining institutional procedures, the episode also raises questions about whether decisions concerning academic material should be guided by established scholarly criteria or reconsidered following online criticism.
Khalid, a former JNU student and activist, has been in judicial custody since September 2020 in connection with the larger conspiracy case relating to the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other legal provisions. However, he has not been convicted in the case, and the allegations against him must be distinguished from a judicial finding of guilt.
The book itself focuses on historical research rather than the contemporary legal proceedings involving its author. It examines how colonial rule, administrative systems and local power structures shaped Adivasi society in Singhbhum. Khalid submitted the underlying thesis to JNU’s Centre for Historical Studies in 2018 and received his doctorate in 2019.
This distinction is central to the controversy. A book written by a person facing criminal charges may attract public scrutiny, but its scholarly content and the circumstances surrounding its author are separate questions. For a research library, assessing the publication’s academic relevance, subject matter and institutional suitability would ordinarily form part of the acquisition process.
The withdrawal has consequently prompted renewed scrutiny of the procedures followed by IISER-Pune when selecting books for its library. Questions remain about who recommended the title, which committee or authority approved its purchase, and whether the decision to withdraw it followed a formal review. The institute had not provided a detailed public explanation addressing these questions in the reports available at the time of publication.
The episode also illustrates the growing influence of social media in institutional decision-making. Online platforms can bring questionable administrative practices to public attention, but criticism can also generate pressure before all relevant facts are established. Transparent procedures and clear explanations are therefore important when publicly funded institutions make decisions that attract widespread attention.
For IISER-Pune, a science-focused institution, the immediate challenge is to clarify the process behind both the book’s inclusion and its subsequent removal. Publishing the relevant acquisition guidelines and explaining whether established procedures were followed could help address public concerns and prevent similar disputes.
At the same time, the controversy should not be reduced to a question of whether a particular author is politically popular or unpopular. Libraries serve researchers, students and faculty by providing access to material relevant to their fields of study. Their collections may include works that examine contested histories, controversial political figures and competing interpretations of public events.
The withdrawal of the book has therefore become a test of institutional transparency as much as a debate about one publication. A clear account of the decision would allow the public to distinguish between a legitimate administrative correction and a response driven primarily by external pressure.
Ultimately, the IISER-Pune controversy highlights the importance of consistent library policies, accountable administration and informed public discussion. The institute’s next steps, including any formal explanation of the withdrawal, will be important in establishing how the matter was handled and what safeguards will govern similar decisions in the future.
