Anna University's hostel curfews and quick fixes: Are university safety measures missing the point?

The harrowing sexual assault of a second-year engineering student at Anna University by a 37-year-old intruder has sparked an urgent discourse on campus safety.

The incident, which occurred on December 25, exposed not only glaring security lapses but also systemic shortcomings in addressing the root causes of gendered violence within university spaces.

In the aftermath, the administration’s response — including a hastily implemented curfew for female students — has drawn sharp criticism from across the country.

Students, activists, and community leaders have been vocal about the inadequacy of such measures, questioning whether they address the underlying issues or perpetuate existing inequalities.

Restricting hostel timings: An effective solution?

The move to impose stricter curfews in hostels, ostensibly for the safety of female students, has met with widespread opposition. Mridhula, State Joint Secretary of Tamil Nadu Students' Federation of India (SFI), underscored the entrenched gender biases evident in such rules. 

“In Tamil Nadu, most hostels have time restrictions only for girls. Even when restrictions apply to boys, they are comparatively lenient. The University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines clearly state there should be no such differentiation, but campuses rarely follow them,” she explained, recounting protests against such policies, including one at Madras University where curfew times were extended only after significant student pushback.

Mridhula also highlighted how restrictions affect working students.

“Many hostel residents take part-time jobs to pay their fees. These curfews make it impossible for them to sustain themselves,” she said.

The broader issue, according to Mridhula, lies in the administration’s focus on superficial fixes rather than addressing systemic failings.

Kripa Maria George, a hosteller from the University of Hyderabad (UoH), shared a similar sentiment, emphasising that curfews penalise victims rather than the perpetrators.

“Restricting timings will never help. It curtails women’s access to resources and opportunities while letting the university shirk its responsibility for sensitisation and systemic change,” she stated.

Apoorva Nayak, a hosteller from Pondicherry University, echoed this view, terming such measures “sexist” and noting that safety solutions often come at the cost of women’s autonomy.

In some institutions, curfews for women extend to extreme measures.

Oishe Ghosh, a hosteller and Convenor of Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), highlighted how neighbouring universities enforce oppressive rules.

“During Holi last year, Delhi University issued a circular forbidding women from stepping out after 6 pm. These are regressive policies masquerading as safety measures,” she said.

Responses to incidents of sexual harassment or assault

The reactions to incidents of sexual harassment vary significantly across institutions, with some faring better than others.

At Anna University, students highlighted the administration’s tendency to deflect accountability.

“Instead of addressing how the intruder gained access to the campus, the conversation shifted to victim-blaming,” said Mridhula, who also pointed to the leak of sensitive information about the survivor.

Kripa praised the robust redressal mechanisms at her university, including the presence of an elected students’ union and regular sensitisation programs.

“Accountability ensures preventive measures, from proper campus lighting to prompt action against perpetrators,” she explained.

However, Apoorva’s experience at Pondicherry University was less positive. “Even when complaints are registered, cases drag on with no resolution. Victim-blaming is rampant,” she shared.

Oishe recounted a troubling incident from JNU’s gender sensitisation committee.

“I’ve seen cases where survivors were met with dismissive comments during hearings. One student said she was asked why she was out late during a protest — as if her presence justified the harassment,” she revealed.

Such attitudes, she noted, discourage survivors from coming forward.

Perceptions of safety despite technological advances

The reliance on surveillance tools such as CCTV has been proven insufficient in many cases.

At Anna University, excuses about malfunctioning cameras — blamed on monkeys and dense foliage — revealed glaring inadequacies.

“Out of 70 installed cameras, only 57 were operational. Such excuses reflect a deeper apathy toward safety,” Mridhula noted.

In contrast, Kripa described feeling secure at her university despite minimal surveillance.

“University of Hyderabad has done well in creating an environment where students respect one another, which makes a significant difference in how safe we feel,” she added. 

“It’s more about fostering a culture of respect than installing cameras everywhere. Social contracts within the community create a safe atmosphere,” she said.

Similarly, Oishe emphasised that sensitisation outweighs surveillance.

“Even campuses without cameras can feel safe if the culture is inclusive and gender-sensitive,” she said. She also critiqued technological reliance, noting, “Cameras and Artificial Intelligence (AI) don’t address the root problem. They often end up invading privacy rather than ensuring safety.” 

Chinmayi Sripada, a prominent singer and activist, had also voiced strong criticism of the curfew measures, tweeting, “Next they’ll tell female students to lock themselves inside their bathrooms where there is a possibility that a hidden camera could be fixed. BTW how does a curfew for girls in Anna University work when the rape happened INSIDE the campus by an OUTSIDER? This mindset is utterly regressive and deflects accountability from the administration.”

The impact of victim-blaming

Victim blaming remains a concerning issue, deeply affecting survivors’ willingness to report incidents.

Prerna (name changed), a hosteller from a renowned university in Karnataka, shared that such attitudes would, in fact, stop her from coming forward.

“Victim-blaming is so common that many feel it’s better to stay silent than face humiliation,” she admitted.

Oishe elaborated on this systemic issue, highlighting the psychological toll it could take. “Who would want to relive their trauma only to be questioned inappropriately or shamed? Even at JNU, where progressive voices exist, victim-blaming might happen. Imagine the situation in more regressive campuses,” she remarked.

Apoorva also recalled instances where friends hesitated to report harassment due to the university’s dismissive approach.

“The committee is ineffective. Often, they blame the victim rather than addressing the issue,” she shared.

Proposed measures for improved safety

Across the board, students called for meaningful changes to campus safety protocols. Suggestions included better gender-sensitisation initiatives, improved grievance mechanisms, and fostering open dialogue between administration and students.

Kripa advocated for regular sensitisation programmes, while Apoorva emphasised the need for sex education even at the university level.

Mridhula highlighted the urgent need for functional ICCs with trained members who understand gender sensitivity. “Most committees lack empathy, often dismissing complaints or asking inappropriate questions,” she said.

Oishe stressed the importance of survivor-centric approaches. “Survivors’ needs must be prioritised. Psychological counselling and a supportive community are essential,” she said.

She also pointed to the necessity of anonymous reporting mechanisms, allowing survivors to come forward without fear of retaliation.

Support systems: Adequate or lacking?

Support systems for survivors remain inadequate in most universities.

However, Prerna (name changed) noted that her university’s emphasis on security guards and a responsive warden system has made her hostel environment feel relatively safe.

At Anna University, administrative responses have been limited to increasing curfews and deploying security guards, with little attention to survivor support.

In contrast, JNU and University of Hyderabad student-led initiatives have attempted to fill these gaps. Oishe described how JNU Students Union (JNUSU) ensures survivors receive medical, legal, and emotional support.

Prerna lamented the lack of specialised resources at her university.

“There are no dedicated clubs or support groups for female students. Counselling is available but it is not tailored to survivors’ needs,” she shared.

The incident at Anna University has brought systemic issues of campus safety and gender inequality to the forefront. While curfews and surveillance may offer superficial reassurance, they fail to address the root causes of violence. As students across the country have articulated, meaningful change requires addressing patriarchal norms, empowering survivors, and fostering a culture of accountability and respect within university spaces.