Anjel Chakma: When Being Indian Was Not Enough

In December 2025, the death of Anjel Chakma, a 24-year-old MBA student from Tripura, shook the country and reopened uncomfortable conversations about safety, discrimination, and justice in India. What began as a street altercation in Dehradun ended with a young man losing his life, and a nation divided over how such violence should be understood and addressed.

Anjel Chakma was a student from Tripura’s Chakma community, studying and living in Dehradun, Uttarakhand. Like many students from the Northeast, he had moved away from home in search of education and opportunity. His life was cut short far from his family, under circumstances that remain under investigation.

On 9 December 2025, Anjel and his younger brother were involved in an altercation with a group of local youths in the Selaqui area of Dehradun. According to Anjel’s family and initial witness accounts, the confrontation began after the brothers were subjected to racially derogatory remarks related to their appearance, with slurs like "chinese", "momo" and "chinki" commonly directed at people from Northeast India.

During the confrontation, violence broke out. Anjel suffered severe injuries, particularly to his neck and spine. He was rushed to the hospital and placed in the ICU, where he fought for his life for more than two weeks.

On 26 December 2025, Anjel Chakma succumbed to his injuries.

The case became controversial due to different narratives, with the victim's family and community members stating that the attack was triggered by racial abuse and discrimination often faced by the people of Northeast India.

However, the Police officials say that

their investigation had not yet found conclusive evidence proving racial motivation and described the incident as a violent escalation of a verbal dispute.

This gap in narratives makes us ask: Why is prejudice treated as something that needs proof, while victims’ experiences are questioned, and perpetrators’ actions often taken at face value?

Anjel reportedly said, “We are not Chinese, we are Indians.” But the plea went unheard. Words meant to clarify identity, to demand recognition and dignity, did nothing to stop the violence. He was attacked, critically injured, and eventually lost his life.

This moment is more than a tragic quote, it is a mirror of a larger problem. If asserting your identity cannot protect you, then what safety do we truly have? When a society doubts the experiences of victims and hesitates to confront bias, the system itself becomes part of the injustice.

Protests erupted across the country. Students from the Northeast lit candles, marched, and raised their voices, demanding not just arrests, but acknowledgement, that racism exists, that assumptions based on appearance are dangerous, and that lives should not be lost because of them.

Police Investigation and Differing Narratives

Following the incident, Uttarakhand Police registered a case and formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT). Several accused were arrested, while one main accused remained absconding at the time of reporting.

But legal procedures alone cannot erase the fear, the loss, or the message sent to communities who already feel marginalised. Justice is more than punishment, it is recognition, protection, and equality.

Anjel’s death forces us to ask a question we cannot ignore: if being Indian isn’t enough to be safe, then what is? Until we answer that, words and laws are not enough to prevent the next tragedy.

                           -The Civic Forum