Bharathidasan Raman, a Tamil Nadu research scholar pursuing a PhD at the National University of Malaysia under the Annal Ambedkar Overseas Higher Education Scholarship, has disputed the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department’s claim that he failed to submit bills required for the release of further funds.
In a video released amid the ongoing dispute over his scholarship, Bharathidasan said he had submitted the required bills and supporting documents, including an email sent on August 26, and accused officials of repeatedly claiming that he had not responded.
As reported in Times of India, the scholar had earlier alleged that the non-release of funds had stalled his research for around six months and put his continued studies at risk. He has also said that he may be unable to attend a programme at AIIMS Delhi on October 6, where he is scheduled to present a paper titled “Establishment of an In Vitro Aging Brain Model for the Study of MSC-EV Effects on Epigenetics and Bioenergetics.”
The controversy intensified after the Tamil Nadu Social Justice Department reportedly rejected his allegations, maintaining that funds had been released to him and his university and that the necessary expenditure records had not been submitted for further assistance.
Bharathidasan has now directly disputed that explanation.
In his latest video, he said the department had issued another communication claiming that he had not responded to a bill he had submitted on the 20th. He said this was incorrect and asked officials to check their spam folders if they could not locate his email.
He then displayed what he said was proof of an email sent to the department on August 26, along with the relevant bill and supporting details.
According to Bharathidasan, he had provided all the required information but was subsequently accused of failing to submit the documents. He alleged that officials were using their “IT wings” to target him and damage his academic aspirations and credibility.
The scholar also rejected an allegation that he had misused the overseas education scholarship scheme.
He appealed to the department to publish details of how many PhD scholars were pursuing higher education under the scheme, arguing that the financial requirements of doctoral research were substantially different from those of a one-year master’s programme.
Bharathidasan explained that pursuing research overseas involves expenses beyond tuition and living costs, including research equipment, conference participation, books and other academic requirements.
He said that while he had secured a Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) in India, he chose to pursue his research abroad because he believed the programme would provide him with a significant opportunity to build an academic career and eventually qualify for positions such as professor at institutions including IITs and IISc.
According to him, he gave up the salary associated with his JRF and continued his research without an income, with his parents also bearing the burden of supporting his education.
He said the repeated questioning and what he described as personal attacks had caused him considerable distress.
The dispute began after Bharathidasan publicly raised concerns over the delay in receiving financial assistance under the Annal Ambedkar Overseas Higher Education Scholarship. He had claimed that the delay had disrupted his research and left him facing the possibility of being removed from his university over unpaid fees.
Social Justice Minister Vanni Arasu, the lone VCK minister in the TVK cabinet, had earlier rejected Bharathidasan’s allegations in the Assembly. He said the scholar had received ₹35 lakh in 2025 but had not submitted the required expenditure records for further assistance. The minister had also stated that the government had released a total of ₹48 lakh towards Bharathidasan’s academic and related expenses.
Bharathidasan has nevertheless maintained that he submitted the required bills and supporting documents and has challenged the department’s claim that he failed to respond.
In his latest video, he also invoked the case of Dalit research scholar Rohith Vemula, alleging that the treatment meted out to him by the Social Justice Department was similar to what Vemula had faced.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
