Features

Ragging rages on: From Centres to Margins

Published

5 years ago

2021/03/30

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.

All News Advertisement

Features

Sustaining good governance requires good systems

Published

16 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A prominent feature of the first year of the NPP government is that it has not engaged in the institutional reforms which was expected of it. This observation comes in the context of the extraordinary mandate with which the government was elected and the high expectations that accompanied its rise to power. When in opposition and in its election manifesto, the JVP and NPP took a prominent role in advocating good governance systems for the country. They insisted on constitutional reform that included the abolition of the executive presidency and the concentration of power it epitomises, the strengthening of independent institutions that overlook key state institutions such as the judiciary, public service and police, and the reform or repeal of repressive laws such as the PTA and the Online Safety Act.

The transformation of a political party that averaged between three to five percent of the popular vote into one that currently forms the government with a two thirds majority in parliament is a testament to the faith that the general population placed in the JVP/ NPP combine. This faith was the outcome of more than three decades of disciplined conduct in the aftermath of the bitter experience of the 1988 to 1990 period of JVP insurrection. The manner in which the handful of JVP parliamentarians engaged in debate with well researched critiques of government policy and actions, and their service in times of disaster such as the tsunami of 2004 won them the trust of the people. This faith was bolstered by the Aragalaya movement which galvanized the citizens against the ruling elites of the past.

In this context, the long delay to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act which has earned notoriety for its abuse especially against ethnic and religious minorities, has been a disappointment to those who value human rights. So has been the delay in appointing an Auditor General, so important in ensuring accountability for the money expended by the state. The PTA has a long history of being used without restraint against those deemed to be anti-state which, ironically enough, included the JVP in the period 1988 to 1990. The draft Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), published in December 2025, is the latest attempt to repeal and replace the PTA. Unfortunately, the PSTA largely replicates the structure, logic and dangers of previous failed counter terrorism bills, including the Counter Terrorism Act of 2018 and the Anti Terrorism Act proposed in 2023.

Misguided Assumption

Despite its stated commitment to rule of law and fundamental rights, the draft PTSA reproduces many of the core defects of the PTA. In a preliminary statement, the Centre for Policy Alternatives has observed among other things that “if there is a Detention Order made against the person, then in combination, the period of remand and detention can extend up to two years. This means that a person can languish in detention for up to two years without being charged with a crime. Such a long period again raises questions of the power of the State to target individuals, exacerbated by Sri Lanka’s history of long periods of remand and detention, which has contributed to abuse and violence.” Human Rights lawyer Ermiza Tegal has warned against the broad definition of terrorism under the proposed law: “The definition empowers state officials to term acts of dissent and civil disobedience as ‘terrorism’ and will lawfully permit disproportionate and excessive responses.” The legitimate and peaceful protests against abuse of power by the authorities cannot be classified as acts of terror.

The willingness to retain such powers reflects the surmise that the government feels that keeping in place the structures that come from the past is to their benefit, as they can utilise those powers in a crisis. Due to the strict discipline that exists within the JVP/NPP at this time there may be an assumption that those the party appoints will not abuse their trust. However, the country’s experience with draconian laws designed for exceptional circumstances demonstrates that they tend to become tools of routine governance. On the plus side, the government has given two months for public comment which will become meaningful if the inputs from civil society actors are taken into consideration.

Worldwide experience has repeatedly demonstrated that integrity at the level of individual leaders, while necessary, is not sufficient to guarantee good governance over time. This is where the absence of institutional reform becomes significant. The aftermath of Cyclone Ditwah in particular has necessitated massive procurements of emergency relief which have to be disbursed at maximum speed. There are also significant amounts of foreign aid flowing into the country to help it deal with the relief and recovery phase. There are protocols in place that need to be followed and monitored so that a fiasco like the disappearance of tsunami aid in 2004 does not recur. To the government’s credit there are no such allegations at the present time. But precautions need to be in place, and those precautions depend less on trust in individuals than on the strength and independence of oversight institutions.

Inappropriate Appointments

It is in this context that the government’s efforts to appoint its own preferred nominees to the Auditor General’s Department has also come as a disappointment to civil society groups. The unsuitability of the latest presidential nominee has given rise to the surmise that this nomination was a time buying exercise to make an acting appointment. For the fourth time, the Constitutional Council refused to accept the president’s nominee. The term of the three independent civil society members of the Constitutional Council ends in January which would give the government the opportunity to appoint three new members of its choice and get its way in the future.

The failure to appoint a permanent Auditor General has created an institutional vacuum at a critical moment. The Auditor General acts as a watchdog, ensuring effective service delivery promoting integrity in public administration and providing an independent review of the performance and accountability. Transparency International has observed “The sequence of events following the retirement of the previous Auditor General points to a broader political inertia and a governance failure. Despite the clear constitutional importance of the role, the appointment process has remained protracted and opaque, raising serious questions about political will and commitment to accountability.”

It would appear that the government leadership takes the position they have been given the mandate to govern the country which requires implementation by those they have confidence in. This may explain their approach to the appointment (or non-appointment) at this time of the Auditor General. Yet this approach carries risks. Institutions are designed to function beyond the lifespan of any one government and to protect the public interest even when those in power are tempted to act otherwise. The challenge and opportunity for the NPP government is to safeguard independent institutions and enact just laws, so that the promise of system change endures beyond personalities and political cycles.

by Jehan Perera

Features

General education reforms: What about language and ethnicity?

Published

16 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

A new batch arrived at our Faculty again. Students representing almost all districts of the country remind me once again of the wonderful opportunity we have for promoting social and ethnic cohesion at our universities. Sadly, however, many students do not interact with each other during the first few semesters, not only because they do not speak each other’s language(s), but also because of the fear and distrust that still prevails among communities in our society.

General education reform presents an opportunity to explore ways to promote social and ethnic cohesion. A school curriculum could foster shared values, empathy, and critical thinking, through social studies and civics education, implement inclusive language policies, and raise critical awareness about our collective histories. Yet, the government’s new policy document, Transforming General Education in Sri Lanka 2025, leaves us little to look forward to in this regard.

The policy document points to several “salient” features within it, including: 1) a school credit system to quantify learning; 2) module-based formative and summative assessments to replace end-of-term tests; 3) skills assessment in Grade 9 consisting of a ‘literacy and numeracy test’ and a ‘career interest test’; 4) a comprehensive GPA-based reporting system spanning the various phases of education; 5) blended learning that combines online with classroom teaching; 6) learning units to guide students to select their preferred career pathways; 7) technology modules; 8) innovation labs; and 9) Early Childhood Education (ECE). Notably, social and ethnic cohesion does not appear in this list. Here, I explore how the proposed curriculum reforms align (or do not align) with the NPP’s pledge to inculcate “[s]afety, mutual understanding, trust and rights of all ethnicities and religious groups” (p.127), in their 2024 Election Manifesto.

Language/ethnicity in the present curriculum

The civil war ended over 15 years ago, but our general education system has done little to bring ethnic communities together. In fact, most students still cannot speak in the “second national language” (SNL) and textbooks continue to reinforce negative stereotyping of ethnic minorities, while leaving out crucial elements of our post-independence history.

Although SNL has been a compulsory subject since the 1990s, the hours dedicated to SNL are few, curricula poorly developed, and trained teachers few (Perera, 2025). Perhaps due to unconscious bias and for ideological reasons, SNL is not valued by parents and school communities more broadly. Most students, who enter our Faculty, only have basic reading/writing skills in SNL, apart from the few Muslim and Tamil students who schooled outside the North and the East; they pick up SNL by virtue of their environment, not the school curriculum.

Regardless of ethnic background, most undergraduates seem to be ignorant about crucial aspects of our country’s history of ethnic conflict. The Grade 11 history textbook, which contains the only chapter on the post-independence period, does not mention the civil war or the events that led up to it. While the textbook valourises ‘Sinhala Only’ as an anti-colonial policy (p.11), the material covering the period thereafter fails to mention the anti-Tamil riots, rise of rebel groups, escalation of civil war, and JVP insurrections. The words “Tamil” and “Muslim” appear most frequently in the chapter, ‘National Renaissance,’ which cursorily mentions “Sinhalese-Muslim riots” vis-à-vis the Temperance Movement (p.57). The disenfranchisement of the Malaiyaha Tamils and their history are completely left out.

Given the horrifying experiences of war and exclusion experienced by many of our peoples since independence, and because most students still learn in mono-ethnic schools having little interaction with the ‘Other’, it is not surprising that our undergraduates find it difficult to mix across language and ethnic communities. This environment also creates fertile ground for polarizing discourses that further divide and segregate students once they enter university.

More of the same?

How does Transforming General Education seek to address these problems? The introduction begins on a positive note: “The proposed reforms will create citizens with a critical consciousness who will respect and appreciate the diversity they see around them, along the lines of ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, and other areas of difference” (p.1). Although National Education Goal no. 8 somewhat problematically aims to “Develop a patriotic Sri Lankan citizen fostering national cohesion, national integrity, and national unity while respecting cultural diversity (p. 2), the curriculum reforms aim to embed values of “equity, inclusivity, and social justice” (p. 9) through education. Such buzzwords appear through the introduction, but are not reflected in the reforms.

Learning SNL is promoted under Language and Literacy (Learning Area no. 1) as “a critical means of reconciliation and co-existence”, but the number of hours assigned to SNL are minimal. For instance, at primary level (Grades 1 to 5), only 0.3 to 1 hour is allocated to SNL per week. Meanwhile, at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), out of 35 credits (30 credits across 15 essential subjects that include SNL, history and civics; 3 credits of further learning modules; and 2 credits of transversal skills modules (p. 13, pp.18-19), SNL receives 1 credit (10 hours) per term. Like other essential subjects, SNL is to be assessed through formative and summative assessments within modules. As details of the Grade 9 skills assessment are not provided in the document, it is unclear whether SNL assessments will be included in the ‘Literacy and numeracy test’. At senior secondary level – phase 1 (Grades 10-11 – O/L equivalent), SNL is listed as an elective.

Refreshingly, the policy document does acknowledge the detrimental effects of funding cuts in the humanities and social sciences, and highlights their importance for creating knowledge that could help to “eradicate socioeconomic divisions and inequalities” (p.5-6). It goes on to point to the salience of the Humanities and Social Sciences Education under Learning Area no. 6 (p.12):

“Humanities and Social Sciences education is vital for students to develop as well as critique various forms of identities so that they have an awareness of their role in their immediate communities and nation. Such awareness will allow them to contribute towards the strengthening of democracy and intercommunal dialogue, which is necessary for peace and reconciliation. Furthermore, a strong grounding in the Humanities and Social Sciences will lead to equity and social justice concerning caste, disability, gender, and other features of social stratification.”

Sadly, the seemingly progressive philosophy guiding has not moulded the new curriculum. Subjects that could potentially address social/ethnic cohesion, such as environmental studies, history and civics, are not listed as learning areas at the primary level. History is allocated 20 hours (2 credits) across four years at junior secondary level (Grades 6 to 9), while only 10 hours (1 credit) are allocated to civics. Meanwhile, at the O/L, students will learn 5 compulsory subjects (Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, and Religion and Value Education), and 2 electives—SNL, history and civics are bunched together with the likes of entrepreneurship here. Unlike the compulsory subjects, which are allocated 140 hours (14 credits or 70 hours each) across two years, those who opt for history or civics as electives would only have 20 hours (2 credits) of learning in each. A further 14 credits per term are for further learning modules, which will allow students to explore their interests before committing to a A/L stream or career path.

With the distribution of credits across a large number of subjects, and the few credits available for SNL, history and civics, social/ethnic cohesion will likely remain on the back burner. It appears to be neglected at primary level, is dealt sparingly at junior secondary level, and relegated to electives in senior years. This means that students will be able to progress through their entire school years, like we did, with very basic competencies in SNL and little understanding of history.

Going forward

Whether the students who experience this curriculum will be able to “resist and respond to hegemonic, divisive forces that pose a threat to social harmony and multicultural coexistence” (p.9) as anticipated in the policy, is questionable. Education policymakers and others must call for more attention to social and ethnic cohesion in the curriculum. However, changes to the curriculum would only be meaningful if accompanied by constitutional reform, abolition of policies, such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act (and its proxies), and other political changes.

For now, our school system remains divided by ethnicity and religion. Research from conflict-ridden societies suggests that lack of intercultural exposure in mono-ethnic schools leads to ignorance, prejudice, and polarized positions on politics and national identity. While such problems must be addressed in broader education reform efforts that also safeguard minority identities, the new curriculum revision presents an opportune moment to move this agenda forward.

(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

Features

Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs

Published

16 hours ago

2025/12/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

Certain songs become ever-present every December, and with Christmas just two days away, I thought of highlighting the Top 10 Most Popular Festive Songs.

The famous festive songs usually feature timeless classics like ‘White Christmas,’ ‘Silent Night,’ and ‘Jingle Bells,’ alongside modern staples like Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You,’ Wham’s ‘Last Christmas,’ and Brenda Lee’s ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree.’

The following renowned Christmas songs are celebrated for their lasting impact and festive spirit:

* ‘White Christmas’ — Bing Crosby

The most famous holiday song ever recorded, with estimated worldwide sales exceeding 50 million copies. It remains the best-selling single of all time.

* ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ — Mariah Carey

A modern anthem that dominates global charts every December. As of late 2025, it holds an 18x Platinum certification in the US and is often ranked as the No. 1 popular holiday track.

Mariah Carey: ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’

* ‘Silent Night’ — Traditional

Widely considered the quintessential Christmas carol, it is valued for its peaceful melody and has been recorded by hundreds of artistes, most famously by Bing Crosby.

* ‘Jingle Bells’ — Traditional

One of the most universally recognised and widely sung songs globally, making it a staple for children and festive gatherings.

* ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ — Brenda Lee

Recorded when Lee was just 13, this rock ‘n’ roll favourite has seen a massive resurgence in the 2020s, often rivaling Mariah Carey for the top spot on the Billboard Hot 100.

* ‘Last Christmas’ — Wham!

A bittersweet ’80s pop classic that has spent decades in the top 10 during the holiday season. It recently achieved 7x Platinum status in the UK.

* ‘Jingle Bell Rock’ — Bobby Helms

A festive rockabilly standard released in 1957 that remains a staple of holiday radio and playlists.

* ‘The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire)’— Nat King Cole

Known for its smooth, warm vocals, this track is frequently cited as the ultimate Christmas jazz standard.

Wham! ‘Last Christmas’

* ‘It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year’ — Andy Williams

Released in 1963, this high-energy big band track is famous for capturing the “hectic merriment” of the season.

* ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer’ — Gene Autry

A beloved narrative song that has sold approximately 25 million copies worldwide, cementing the character’s place in Christmas folklore.

Other perennial favourites often in the mix:

* ‘Feliz Navidad’ – José Feliciano

* ‘A Holly Jolly Christmas’ – Burl Ives

* ‘Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!’ – Frank Sinatra

Let me also add that this Thursday’s ‘SceneAround’ feature (25th December) will be a Christmas edition, highlighting special Christmas and New Year messages put together by well-known personalities for readers of The Island.