MUMBAI, Oct. 5 -- A difference of opinion has emerged among students of the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IIT-B) over the ongoing protest seeking justice for the second-year student who died on September 18 of suicide on campus, with one group maintaining that the agitation at the institute's main gate does not represent the entire student community, while the protesting students insist that their demands reflect wider concerns of the students after the death. The development comes two days after protesting students began a hunger strike demanding action in connection with the student's death and seeking the resignation of IIT-B director Shireesh B Kedare and professor Suryanarayana Doolla over allegations of caste-based discrimination and harassment. Both Kedare and Doolla were questioned by the police for several hours last week in connection with the death. Police said the two denied allegations of caste-based discrimination and harassment and maintained that they had followed the stipulated procedure after the student was allegedly caught copying. In a statement issued on October 4, the Institute General Secretaries, on behalf of the student community, said the IIT-B community was still coping with the student's death. They said the 18 demands raised following the incident were a collective response that took into account the concerns of more than 1,000 students. According to the statement, only around 10 to 12 students were currently participating in the agitation and argued that they could not be seen as representing the entire student community. The group also said the continuing protest was affecting the daily lives of students who needed to attend classes, laboratories, examinations, research work and placement-related activities. While acknowledging students' right to protest, they said it should not disrupt the lives of thousands of students indefinitely. The statement further said several students were working with the administration and also organised discussions on mental health, campus democracy, placements and other issues affecting the campus community. The protesting students, however, rejected the suggestion that they were claiming to represent all students. In their response, they said they had never claimed to speak for the entire student community, but maintained that their demands had emerged from concerns shared by a larger section of students and from long-standing dissatisfaction with the administration. They also questioned the role of the student council, arguing that it was part of the institute's structure and therefore could not be considered an independent body representing all students. The protesters further alleged that the 18-point demands signed by the director did not incorporate some of the key demands raised by students, particularly those concerning accountability....