Features
Ragging rages on: From Centres to Margins
BY Shamala Kumar
A student, who publicly described the ragging-related sexual violence he experienced, was accused of having ulterior motives for speaking out. A junior staff member, who spoke out about the ragging she witnessed was bullied for doing so, not only by raggers, but also by the staff. A faculty member, who worked hard to stop ragging, was vilified for apparently causing divisions among students. In a survey on ragging, a student commented, “We can finally speak about ragging.” As tempting as it is to identify ragging as the problem, the response to these acts of resistance, even simply speaking about ragging, indicate the complexities of the problem and the difficulties in finding solutions.
Ragging
Much of ragging is invisible. We may hear of a student who is hospitalized after a tire was rolled over him or another who is paralysed after jumping out of a second storey window to escape rape, and we are shocked. These are, however, the most blatant of acts, and they can be easily condemned. Ragging, however, is not always obviously violent. In fact, many will say their experience of ragging was fun, describing it as ‘harmless’ and simply involving singing or listening to filth. Some who engaged in these outwardly silly acts may even say that ragging brings fond memories. But when students resist, they are dealt with swiftly, ostracised, and abused, both physically and emotionally.
Reinforcing a subculture of violence
Encountering uniformly dressed first-years walking solemnly (laughing is forbidden!) in a line, two-by-two, is so common on campus that they pass almost unseen. Their invisibility is a sign of how entrenched ragging is within the university system. Ragging reinforces the hierarchy of senior students over new students, academic staff and administration over students, men over women, and dominant languages over minority ones, instituting a command and control- structure which establishes who can speak and whose opinions count.
Ragging is built on a culture of misogyny. A past student described how her “mistakes” during ragging resulted in punishments, not to her, but to a male first-year nearby. Women are apparently not even responsible for their actions within this subculture; it is the men around them who ‘own’ and must pay for their misbehaviour. Ragging simply initiates new students to this system of oppression and violence. Yet, this culture remains even after ragging season is over, and the consequences of violating or resisting the system continue throughout the student years, and even beyond.
Academics frequently enforce hierarchies and penalise those who challenge authority. Junior staff are told, even during ‘staff development’, to remain silent in forums, as they may be dismissed as troublemakers or ignored when they speak. Those in the margins are “managed” rather than engaged with in an honest and meaningful way. This toxicity, at its extreme, ends in sexual harassment and bullying. Each of us know of such incidents but rarely discuss them in the open, allowing the ethos cultivated to permeate the university system. It is this pervasiveness that makes much of ragging invisible. And because a similar culture of violence pervades broader society, ragging remains invisible even to those outside the system.
A ragging reinforced social order
If ragging is about creating a hierarchical social order, understanding whom such a system serves is important. True, unions influenced by political party affiliations, use ragging to fulfil their agendas. They co-opt the ragged to their fold. However, vibrant student activism is integral to universities, and unions do bring up important concerns. Yet, their weak position on ragging and complete control over student activism are unacceptable. Placing blame solely on politically-affiliated unions, however, leaves unexplained the persistence of ragging on campuses where such student activism is absent and its presence even in high schools.
New and senior students benefit from the support systems and bonds formed through ragging. Students receive academic support through ‘kuppi’ classes and mentoring relationships. The batch helps out when students encounter personal crises with remarkable efficiency. Students eligible for housing share housing with those ineligible. For some students, these support systems are essential and being subjected to ragging may thus seem desirable.
The compliance cultivated through ragging also helps the university administration ‘handle’ the student body. When non-ragging related problems arise, the administration simply negotiates with student leaders to defuse them. Teachers comfortably teach, unencumbered by critically engaged students. Governments manage and manipulate student activism without much fear of organic student movements forming. Overall, a large swath of entities benefits from the social order that ragging creates.
Ending ragging difficult?
Outsiders regularly express incredulity that ragging persists at universities. Enacted laws, committees and task forces, copious research, and countless newspaper articles have done little to abate it. Why?
Firstly, the scope of ragging is misunderstood. The anti-ragging act of 1998 makes ragging unbailable with mandatory jail sentences. As all forms of ragging may not justify such severe punishments, responsible officers hesitate to implement the Act.
The Act neglects treating ragging as a group process where perpetrators collectively victimise others and are themselves victims. Those caught ragging can generally point to others who coerced them, because senior batches oversee the batch conducting the ragging. Seniors use coercive relationships established during previous years to punish students who do not rag to their liking. Nor does it implicate institutions that tacitly condone ragging. The anti-ragging act is not equipped to address these complexities.
As ragging is symptomatic of a broader culture of violence and misogyny, the violence of ragging is frequently unrecognised. A deafening silence surrounds ragging that allows it to remain hidden. Consequently, discussions among staff are coloured by a false equivalence of “both sides”, raggers and non-raggers, even though violence and coercion should never be acceptable. Ragging investigations are also often tainted by such a mindset. Sometimes a deliberate effort is made to make ragging invisible by the authorities. Complainants and victims are not always supported or protected and are even harassed and accused of tarnishing the image of the institution.
The recent proposal to involve the military in controlling ragging is also ill-conceived. The military promotes their own version of violence, hierarchy, and authoritarianism. In fact, induction into the military involves its own brand of ragging. In universities, such attempts will only result in alternative, even more corrosive problematic social orders, in which we must submit to the whims and fancies of even more powerful forces.
Strengthening education and democracy
Without acknowledging the deeply problematic anti-educational and anti-democratic nature of the ragging culture, we can neither eliminate ragging nor strengthen university education. Ragging must be understood as a manifestation of pervasive, frequently invisible, forces built on an uncritically accepted patriarchal and violent culture that undermines institutional structures and violates the very concept of education.
Confronting ragging requires a radical shift in how the problem is conceived and a firm rejection of the social order and subculture that sustains it. We need an ethos in universities that promotes dialogue, allows students and staff to voice themselves, and expand spaces for collective action in which plurality of perspectives is encouraged. Students and staff should be able to express, including through various art forms, their experience of violence, not just in terms of ragging, but also the myriad forms of violence in the classroom, and that perpetrated by institutional structures and social systems.
Laws and policies designed to address ragging must recognise its group-based nature. While identifying the range of activities that constitute ragging, they must recognize that all acts of ragging are not equal. They must address ragging by tying it to other forms of violence that afflict universities and even the country as a whole.
Importantly, they must not curb student activism, infringe on academic freedom or violate principles of democracy. Such policies should be created through discussion, debate and other democratic processes.
As institutions, we must understand the gap that ragging fills in students’ lives and attempt to address that void. Students are dependent on senior students for a range of services that institutions do not provide. A student who barely understands English is traumatized when confronted with a degree programme delivered in English. Transitioning to university is difficult under any circumstances. Helping students during this period requires well-planned programmes of support and a dedicated and equipped staff.
We must recognize that ragging is deeply entrenched in the university’s social fabric. Such a framing implicates us all: staff, students, administration, and even the general public. It requires a willingness to accept vulnerability. We must recognise that addressing ragging requires tremendous strength, unwavering commitment, and collective effort.
Ragging is a cancer; confronting it will hurt and result in collateral damage, but however painful, it ultimately is a lifegiving activity that targets wellness. Ignoring it, on the other hand, will result in a slow and tortuous death. We must be prepared for the hurt and pain while courageously working towards a ragging-free university system.
Kuppi is a politics and a pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
by Jehan Perera
The Batalanda Commission report which goes into details of what happened during the JVP insurrection of 1987-89 has become the centre of public attention. The controversy has long been a point of contention and a reminder of the country’s troubled past and entrenched divisions that still exist. The events that occurred at Batalanda during the violent suppression of the JVP-led insurgency, remain a raw wound, as seen in the sudden resurfacing of the issue. The scars of violence and war still run deep. At a time when the country is grappling with pressing challenges ranging from economic recovery to social stability, there is a need to keep in focus the broader goal of unity for long-term peace and prosperity. But the ghosts of the past need also to be put to rest without continuing to haunt the present and future.
Grisly accounts of what transpired at Batalanda now fill the social media even in the Tamil media, though Tamils were not specifically targeted at that time. There was then a ceasefire between the government and LTTE. The Indo-Lanka Accord had just been signed and the LTTE were fighting the Indian peacekeeping army. The videos that are now circulating on social media would show the Tamil people that they were not the only ones at the receiving end of counter-terrorist measures. The Sinhalese were in danger then, as it was a rebellion of Sinhalese against the state. Sinhalese youth had to be especially careful.
It appears that former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was caught unprepared by the questions from a team from Al Jazeera television. The answers he gave, in which he downplayed the significance of the Batalanda Commission report have been viewed differently, depending on the perspective of the observer. He has also made a statement in which he has rejected the report. The report, which demands introspection, referred to events that had taken place 37 years earlier. But the ghosts of the past have returned. After the issue has come to the fore, there are many relatives and acquaintances of the victims from different backgrounds who are demanding justice and offering to come forward to give evidence of what they had witnessed. They need closure after so many years.
MORE POLARISATION
The public reaction to the airing of the Al Jazeera television programme is a reminder that atrocities that have taken place cannot be easily buried. The government has tabled the Batalanda Commission report in parliament and hold a two-day debate on it. The two days were to be consecutive but now the government has decided to space them out over two months. There is reason to be concerned about what transpires in the debate. The atrocities that took place during the JVP insurrection involved multiple parties. Batalanda was not the only interrogation site or the only torture chamber. There were many others. Former president Ranil Wickremesinghe was not the only prominent protagonist in the events that transpired at that time.
The atrocities of the late 1980s were not confined to one location, nor were they the responsibility of a single individual or group. The JVP engaged in many atrocities and human rights violations. In addition to members of the former government and military who engaged in counter-terrorism operations there were also other groups that engaged both in self-defence and mayhem. These included members of left political parties who were targeted by the JVP and who formed their own para-military groups. Some of the leaders went on to become ministers in succeeding governments and even represented Sri Lanka at international human rights forums. Even members of the present government will not be able to escape the fallout of the debate over the Batalanda Commission report.
If the debate becomes a battleground for assigning blame rather than seeking solutions, it could have far-reaching consequences for Sri Lanka’s social and political stability. Economic recovery, governance reform, and development require stability and cooperation. The present storm caused by the Batalanda Commission report, and the prospects for increased polarisation and hatred do not bode well for the country. Rather than engaging in potentially divisive debates that could lead to further entrenchment of opposing narratives, Sri Lanka would be better served by a structured and impartial approach to truth-seeking and reconciliation.
NATIONAL HEALING
Earlier this month at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the government rejected the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights assertion that the external evidence gathering unit would continue to collect evidence on human rights violations in Sri Lanka. This evidence gathering unit has a mandate to collect information on a wide range of human rights violations including intimidation and killings of journalists but with a focus on the human rights violations and war crimes during the course of the LTTE war and especially at its end. The government’s position has been that it is determined to deal with human rights challenges including reconciliation through domestic processes.
Addressing the High-Level Segment of the 58th Regular Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva in February this year, Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath said: “The contours of a truth and reconciliation framework, will be further discussed with the broadest possible cross section of stakeholders, before operationalisation to ensure a process that has the trust of all Sri Lankans. Our aim is to make the domestic mechanisms credible and sound within the constitutional framework. This will include strengthening the work towards a truth and reconciliation commission empowered to investigate acts of violence caused by racism and religious extremism that give rise to tensions within Sri Lankan society.”
The concept of a truth and reconciliation commission was first broached in 2015 by then prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s government. In 2019 after winning the presidential elections, former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa too saw merit in the idea, but neither of these two leaders had the commitment to ensure that the process was completed. Promoting reconciliation in Sri Lanka among divergent political actors with violent political pasts requires a multi-faceted approach that blends political, social, and psychological strategies.
Given the country’s complex history of armed conflict, ethnic tensions, and political polarisation, the process must be carefully designed to build trust, address grievances, and create a shared vision for the future. A truth and reconciliation process as outlined in Geneva by the government, which has teeth in it for both punishment and amnesty, can give the country the time and space in which to uncover the painful truths and the path to national healing.
Our universities are characterized by hierarchies. They manifest in formal and informal ways, reinforcing power asymmetries based on class, ethnicity and gender, and placing inordinate authority in those with higher status. In medicine, a ‘hidden curriculum’ orients undergraduates to hierarchies from their early days in training, placing professors over lecturers, ‘clinical’ over ‘non-clinical’ teachers, consultants over medical officers, and so on. While hierarchies are needed at universities (and hospitals) to streamline decision-making, dysfunctional hierarchies create unhealthy learning environments and a culture of fear that discourages students from asking questions and voicing concerns. They also legitimize mistreatment, humiliation, bullying, and other abuses of power. A few months ago, when I invited a medical student to participate in a session on ragging and harassment for incoming students, she asked me (quoted with permission), “What’s the point of doing a programme like that if ragging happens in official level by teachers with everyone knowing, Madam?” Her question led me to explore the avenues available at state universities for undergraduates to counter abuses of power by teachers and university administrations.
What can undergrads do?
The University Grants Commission (UGC) and all state universities have established mechanisms for reporting complaints of ragging and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The UGC’s online portal entertains complaints on “all forms of ragging; sexual harassment; sexual or gender based violence; threats and intimidation; bullying; and harassment.” Complaint procedures for ragging and SGBV are described in detail on the websites of each university, as well as the websites of some faculties. Students may also take any complaints directly to the Dean, student counsellors, academic advisors/mentors, and teachers. In addition, many faculties have portals to submit online complaints on ragging and harassment, while others rely on informal mechanisms, like complaint boxes, to protect anonymity. While these systems are used by students to some extent, rarely do they function as checks and balances against abuses of power by teachers and others at the pinnacle of the university hierarchy.
Anyone who works at a state university would know that students (and the university community more broadly) have very little confidence in existing complaint and grievance procedures. While the minority of incidents that get reported may make it to the inquiry stage, the complaints are often withdrawn under threat and intimidation from the authorities or simply brushed under the carpet. More recently, certain universities and faculties have worked towards establishing formal student grievance procedures outside the SGBV/ragging reporting systems.
Newer grievance mechanisms
Sabaragamuwa University appears to be the only university with a university-wide policy for grievance redressal. The protocol described in the standard operating procedure (SOP) requires that students submit their complaint in writing to the Dean or Deputy Senior Student Counsellor of the relevant faculty. On receiving a complaint, a Committee will be set up by the Dean/Deputy Senior Student Counsellor to conduct an inquiry. The Committee will comprise five senior staff members, including “two independent members (one representing another department, and one may represent the Gender Equity and Equality Cell of the Faculty where relevant)…” The SOP further states that “any student can oppose to have his/her mentor and/or any faculty member to be in the five-person team handling his/her issue.” However, this information is available only to the discerning student who is able to navigate the university’s complex website, hit the Centre for Quality Assurance tab, view the list of documents and click ‘best practices’.
Several faculties of medicine appear to have introduced grievance mechanisms. The Grievance Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Colombo, considers complaints regarding “a decision or action that is perceived to adversely affect the grievant in her or his professional academic capacity.” The procedure requires that students submit the grievance in writing to the Dean. The Committee comprises “persons who are not current employees of the Faculty of Medicine” and the complainant may request the presence of a member of the Medical Students’ Welfare Society. The Faculty of Medicine, Ruhuna, implements a grievance policy that is more expansive in scope, covering concerns related to “organizational changes in the teaching and learning environment, decisions by academic staff members affecting individuals or groups of students, changes in the content or structure of academic programmes, changes in the nature and quality of teaching and assessment, supervision of students undertaking research projects, authorship and intellectual property, [and the] quality of student services and access to university facilities and resources.” While the policy notes that incidents related to harassment, discrimination and bullying, come under the jurisdiction of the university’s SGBV policy, it does not entertain complaints about examinations. The medical faculty of the University of Sri Jayewardenepura (SJP), has an online grievance system that investigates complaints related to “any physical, psychological, academic or any other problem related to the University life”. The system commits to maintaining confidentiality, pledging that “information will not be divulged to members outside the Student Grievances Committee without the student’s permission.”
Gaps in existing systems
The university-wide SGBV/ragging reporting system could be used to address harassment and intimidation of all kinds. Sadly, however, undergraduates appear to be unaware of these possibilities or reluctant to use them. It is unclear as to whether the newer grievance mechanisms at universities and faculties have managed to achieve the desired outcome. Are they used by students and do they lead to constructive changes in the learning environment or do they simply exist to tick the check box of quality assurance? None of the websites report on the number of cases investigated or the kinds of redressal measures taken. If these mechanisms are to be used by students, they must fulfill certain basic requirements.
First and foremost, all students and staff must be made aware of existing grievance mechanisms. Policies and procedures cannot simply be included under a tab buried in the faculty/university website, but need to be placed front and centre. Students should know what steps the institution will take to ensure confidentiality and how those who come forward, including witnesses, will be protected. They should be confident that swift action will be taken when any breaches of confidentiality occur. Inquiries need to be conducted without delay and complainants kept informed of the actions taken. All in all, universities and/or faculties must commit to ensuring integrity and fairness in the grievance process.
Second, the independence of inquiries must be guaranteed. Some universities/faculties have SOPs that require the inclusion of ‘independent’ members in grievance committees—members who are currently non-faculty, academics from other faculties and/or student representatives. Whether the inclusion of non-faculty members would be sufficient to safeguard independence is questionable in fields like medicine where there is a tendency to cover up professional misconduct at all levels. Permitting complainants to have a say in the makeup of the inquiry committee may help to increase confidence in the system. It may be advisable for inquiries to be handled by ombudspersons or others who do not have a stake in the outcome, rather than by academic staff who are part of the university hierarchy.
Third, grievance mechanisms must address the very real possibility of retaliation from university administrations and teachers. The TOR of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, states that the Committee must ensure “students do not suffer any victimization or discrimination as a result of raising complaints or grievances,” but provides no guidance on how this might be accomplished. Any grievance mechanism must address what recourse to action complainants (and witnesses) have in the event of retaliation. At present, there are no regulations in place to ensure that persons alleged of misconduct are not involved in examination procedures. Neither do universities provide any guarantee that complainants’ academic/employment prospects will not be compromised by coming forward. This is especially concerning in medicine where practical assessments of clinical skills and interview-based examinations (viva) are common, and those at higher rank are usually trainers at the postgraduate level.
Going forward
Student grievance mechanisms provide a structured process for students to voice concerns and seek redress when they feel they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by university staff or policies. The mechanisms currently in place at state universities appear to be weak and insufficient. The UGC could call for universities to participate in a consultative process aimed at developing a policy on handling student grievances in ways that promote fairness in academic matters, faculty conduct, and administration at state universities. While such a policy could foster supportive learning environments, build trust between university administrations and students, and protect students from bullying, intimidation and harassment, it must be accompanied by efforts to address and undo dysfunctional hierarchies within our universities.
(Ramya Kumar is attached to the Department of Community and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Jaffna.)
Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.
By Ramya Kumar
The months literally keep flying and, before long, we will be celebrating Oktoberfest.
In our scene, Oktoberfest is looked forward to by many and the five-star venues, especially, create the ideal kind of atmosphere for the celebration of this event, held in late September and early October.
Suzi Croner, who was in town last month (February), is already contracted to do the Oktoberfest scene at a popular five-star venue, in the city.
She says she will be performing six consecutive nights, from 23rd to 28th September, along with a band from Germany.
Suzi’s scene in Switzerland
According to Suzi, the organisers have indicated that they are looking forward to welcoming around 1,500 Oktoberfest enthusiasts on all six days the festivities are held.
“I’m really looking forward to doing the needful, especially with a German band, and I know, for sure, it’s going to be awesome.”
In fact, Suzi, of the band Friends’ fame, and now based in Switzerland, indicated that she never expected to come to her land of birth for the second time, this year.
“After my trip to Sri Lanka, in February, I thought I would check things out again next year, but I’m so happy that I don’t have to wait that long to see my fans, music lovers and friends for the second time, in 2025.”
Suzi spent 11 amazing days in Sri Lanka, in February, performing six nights at a five-star venue in Colombo, in addition to doing the ‘Country & Western Nite’ scene, at the Ramada, and an unscheduled performance, as well.
Suzi Croner: Colombo here I come…in September
Her next much-looked-forward to event is ‘Country Night,’ Down Under.
It will be her second appearance at this ‘Country Night’ dance and music lovers, in Melbourne, in particular, are waiting eagerly to give Suzi a rousing welcome.
Suzi’s bubbly personality has made her a hit wherever she performs.
In her hometown of Spreitenbach, in Switzerland, she is a big draw-card at many local events.
Suzi was the frontline vocalist for the group Friends, decades ago, and this outfit, too, had a huge following in the local scene, with a fan club that had over 1,500 members.
The band was based abroad and travelled to Sri Lanka, during the festive season, to keep their fans entertained, and it was, invariably, a full house for all their performances in the scene here.
Police under greater pressure to track down IGP on the run as CA rejects bid to stay arrest order
Wajira says JVP killed over 1,900 UNPers
Health Professionals to launch strike
-
Foreign News3 days agoSearch continues in Dominican Republic for missing student Sudiksha Konanki
-
Features5 days agoRichard de Zoysa at 67
-
News6 days agoAlfred Duraiappa’s relative killed in Canada shooting
-
Midweek Review6 days agoRanil in Head-to-Head controversy
-
Features5 days agoSL Navy helping save kidneys
-
News3 days agoDPMC unveils brand-new Bajaj three-wheeler
-
Features2 days agoThe Royal-Thomian and its Timeless Charm
-
Latest News4 days agoDebutant Madara, Athapaththu fashion Sri Lanka women’s first T20I win in New Zealand