Ragging is a crime, Jadavpur is a wake-up call
The Jadavpur violence requires extraordinary action, which can stir the conscience of parents and educational administrators
In 2006, I headed a committee of experienced educationists, set up by the Supreme Court, to suggest measures to combat the menace of ragging. The apex court’s terms of reference were clear and were motivated by the desire to bring safety to campuses. The members — representatives from different disciplines of civil administration and two former vice-chancellors — were unanimous that the problem demanded sagacity and firmness, shorn of any kid-glove handling. From this belief came the committee’s direction that in every case of ragging, the institution concerned should take the initiative to send an First Information Report (FIR) to the local police. Any attempt at a cover-up should trigger punitive action against the authorities.
Ragging was traditionally seen as a way to promote camaraderie between incoming students and the seniors. On paper, this was a harmless endeavour at a time when communication channels were limited, and new students needed help to stabilise themselves in an unfamiliar environment. But violence had made this practice intolerable, fuelled by the impact of popular culture. My committee was conscious that this problem required a mixture of persuasion and administrative sternness. Acting in silos, the bureaucratic set-up was not equipped to deal with it. The paradox was that students who were victims in a particular year turned aggressors the next year as if they were waiting to avenge the harassment they were subjected to. Since ragging was more rampant in hostels than classrooms, we found the lack of interest of hostel wardens — who were not full-time officials but also held teaching responsibilities — troubling. The committee settled on careful guidelines for wardens and their training.
Although ragging could easily fit into the existing provisions of the Indian Penal Code, there was the clamour for special legislation. A few states fell in line with this approach and enacted special statutes, some of which were draconian in their provisions, but their impact remains unclear.
Another suggestion was the insistence on an undertaking given by the parents and incorporated in student applications, that committed their wards to good conduct, failing which they would be expelled. This assurance of good behaviour had only a marginal impact, that too only if parents continuously monitored their children’s behaviour. The pity was that unlettered parents were hardly equipped to perform the role. They came mainly from rural areas and had no clue about the barbaric practices that had crept into ragging in current times unless their own children were victims or aggressors. This situation alone rendered this particular solution too onerous and vague.
In the end, the committee was clear that since ragging was a scourge to higher education, the primary responsibility for curbing ragging was with the institutions themselves. We also recommended incentives, and disincentives, for success (or failure) in curbing the menace, and asked authorities to see ragging as a failure to inculcate values and, therefore, identify behavioural patterns. We also asked for harsh and exemplary punishment to offenders, FIRs to note culpable negligence of authorities in cases of failure, and courts to accord judicial priority in cases involving ragging. In addition, we asked for anti-ragging measures to be part of student curriculums and for anti-ragging committees and squads to be formed in institutions.
The measures to curb ragging did make some strides. Unfortunately, the recent gruesome incident in Jadavpur University – where a first-year student died from a fall from the second floor of the hostel after he was allegedly shamed during an act of ragging – confirms that the evil still exists. As chairman of the panel which is now almost two decades old, I am appalled. I was too naive to believe that the panel’s practical recommendations, which obtained nationwide acceptance, were a panacea to reducing the intensity of the menace. I was also wrong to believe that ragging in its crude form had been eliminated. Jadavpur has belied our hopes. It has illustrated the futility of drafting guidelines on a drawing board to tackle a social menace, one that has taken deep roots in our campuses, sometimes with the connivance of campus administrators.
The required teamwork remains a pipe dream. Politicians look upon it as a mere administrative malfunction that can be fixed with police attention. Cursory visits to the victim’s family by politicians and other opinion leaders are mostly for press attention. Against this backdrop, how can you expect anti-ragging exercises to have an impact? There are far too many players who need to work as a team, that too tirelessly, if at least a modicum of success has to be achieved. In sum, the Jadavpur violence requires extraordinary action, which can also stir the conscience of a large number of parents and educational administrators, and make them more accountable to society. Nothing else will work.
RK Raghavan is a former CBI director, and a former high commissioner of India to Cyprus. He currently teaches Criminal Justice at the Jindal Global University, Sonepat, Haryana. The views expressed are personal
Continue reading with HT Premium Subscription
