Graffiti News

Political slogans became part of the campus dispute

Political graffiti appeared on the exterior walls of SRFTI in Kolkata, India, on October 24, 2026, according to Times of India. The newspaper described the slogans as directed against the prime minister and RSS and reported that their appearance raised security concerns. Alongside the dispute, the student union called for nationwide protests on October 27 against what it described as suppression of dissent.

Registrar Deepak Kumar told the newspaper that an internal inquiry had begun to establish who wrote the slogans on October 24. His account placed authorship under investigation. It did not establish that the writers were the students facing disciplinary action, or that the student union had organised the writing.

According to Kumar’s account in Times of India, police requested removal of the slogans, while the administration was concerned that removing them would bring accusations of censorship. His explanation put two questions around the same walls: who was responsible for the writing, and how the institute should respond to the request to erase it.

Shah alleged retaliation against students

Actor Naseeruddin Shah criticised the administration in a video statement on October 24, according to Times of India. Shah alleged that BJP was seeking retaliation against people who opposed its beliefs and policies after its victory in the Bengal elections. The assessment of the election and the alleged political motive were Shah’s claims.

Shah also alleged that the administration had responded to students seeking accountability with notices requiring explanations, surveillance, threats and instructions to leave their hostels. According to the newspaper, he portrayed students and aspiring filmmakers as targets of political retaliation and appealed for public support for them.

The report said Shah accused BJP of trying to indoctrinate or intimidate future filmmakers. He expressed confidence that the students would instead convey the country’s realities through their work. Those remarks concerned his view of the students’ position and future filmmaking; they did not identify the people who had written on the walls.

The administration cited alleged misconduct

Kumar said the Dean’s Council had unanimously recommended rustication of six students, according to Times of India. He attributed the recommendation to evidence of obstruction, intimidation, verbal abuse and physical assault involving vice-chancellor Santosh Ajmera. These were the administration’s stated grounds for disciplinary action, alongside Shah’s separate allegation that students were facing retaliation.

Kumar also told the newspaper that Ajmera had not taken office when permission was granted for the ABGP event that triggered the crisis. That account addressed the timing of the event’s approval and Ajmera’s assumption of office. Actor and BJP legislator Rudranil Ghosh questioned Shah’s grasp of the controversy and said statements from someone of his standing should be grounded in facts, the newspaper reported.

Times of India also reported that locks at the New CRT building were found broken on the night of October 23. Ajmera said documentary evidence showed serious student violations that had undermined peaceful protest. The newspaper reported his appeal for mediation rather than instigation. The broken locks and the administration’s account of misconduct remained distinct from Kumar’s investigation into the graffiti’s authorship.

The walls carried political messages within a wider conflict

The wall writing belonged to a dispute over dissent, discipline and institutional authority, as described by Times of India. For readers following graffiti and other forms of expression on walls, that setting matters: the reported messages were political slogans within an active campus conflict. Their appearance alone does not establish who wrote them, who approved them or whether the writers represented other protesters.

Actor Mia Maelzer, who had occasionally taught at SRFTI, urged students to consider whether cinema could serve as a means of self-defence, according to the newspaper. She also criticised the authorities, arguing that their conduct was contributing to disorder in the country. Her intervention concerned students’ response through film and the authorities’ actions.

Kumar’s explanation of the removal request shows how the physical wall also became a point of disagreement about institutional response. Keeping the speakers attached to their allegations preserves the distinction between a political message, an accusation about student conduct and an administrative decision. For separate mural location searches, explore the Wallscape map.

Source: Times of India