Who is Ashwin Nambiar Azim Premji University student who committed suicide, death reason, biography, age, family

Who is Ashwin Nambiar Azim Premji University student who committed suicide, death reason, biography, age, family

Know ho is Ashwin Nambiar Azim Premji University student

On November 10, Ashwin, a BSc final-year student at Bengaluru’s Azim Premji University (APU), committed suicide. His relatives claimed that the university’s disciplinary measures were the cause of his passing.

Who is Ashwin Nambiar Azim Premji University student who committed suicide, death reason, biography, age, family and education

The family claims he was suspended for a pack of cigarettes.


Ashwin, a 21-year-old Azim Premji University (APU) in Bengaluru final-year BSc student, committed suicide on November 10. He lived in the university’s hostel and was a native of Hyderabad. According to his older brother, Ashish Nambiar, Ashwin appeared content and mentioned to her how much his therapy was helping him recover, and the day before he committed suicide, he had a conversation with his mother.

The family said that APU had not contacted Ashwin’s family in more than two weeks since his suicide, especially considering that he had been suspended by the institution for having a pack of cigarettes with him. Ashish, an APU alumnus who is presently enrolled in Indiana University’s PhD program in biology, disclosed that Ashwin experienced clinical depression and was receiving medication that was helping. But according to his family, receiving a suspension was the tipping point.

Ashish believes the suspension led to the suicide of his depressed brother.

According to Ashish, there was an incident a few weeks ago involving the scent of cigarettes floating through the hostel’s corridor. As a result, the hostel staff inspected every room, and among the possessions of Ashwin and the other students, they discovered cigarette packets. Disciplinary action was taken against all of them, even though it was unclear who was smoking, but their families were not told of this.

Ashwin’s faculty mentor requested leniency since he needed family assistance during the disciplinary procedure, but his request was denied. Ashwin was not allowed to discuss the case with friends or family during the hearings. He was informed that he had been suspended at the conclusion of the disciplinary procedure.


Ashwin took his own life a few days after the suspension, according to the family, which claimed that the decision was made without sufficient proof. Since they are unable to provide any evidence, the family believes that the authorities’ suspension of him was imposed without cause. He was headed toward recovery, but these types of accusations may shatter someone coming out of deep despair.

The family has not heard from the university in writing since that time. They still don’t know the identities of the members of the disciplinary committee or the particulars of the meetings held during the procedure. They thought APU would show them some basic civility and explain what happened before his passing, but all they have access to are fragments of information that Ashwin had given his pals. In addition, Ashish mentioned that no student representation was present and that the sessions were not recorded.

The institution had previously told TNM in a statement that it had been in communication with the family and that any insinuation to the contrary was regretful. Ashish, however, claimed that APU has not communicated with the family or sent them condolences other than to ask them to finish Ashwin’s funeral rituals.

Students at APU support Ashwin’s family

Students expressed their need for the university administration to recognize and accept accountability for the negative effects its actions have had on the general mental health of the student body in a memo that they sent to the university. 800 students signed the memorandum criticizing disciplinary committees for continuing to further alienate and demonize students by deeming them guilty before being proven innocent.

The students demanded the creation of an elected student council that would take gendered marginalization and religious factors into account, as well as provide reserved representation for scholarship and non-scholarship students from SC, ST, OBC, and disabled groups. Additionally, they pushed for a significant transfer of authority to this council in order to guarantee open and honest decision-making that serves the interests of students.