Stories of the Wind

·     |
Myth-I: Ragging brings unity

The claim that ragging brings unity is a patently false one since in almost all universities ragging is ethnic-based. A Sinhalese first-year student can only be ragged by Sinhalese seniors, a Tamil first-year student by Tamil seniors and so on. Moreover, ragging is faculty-based. Despite multiple attempts in many universities common ragging has been impossible.

In reality, ragging, far from bringing unity, is in fact a very powerful tool in the perpetuation of ethnic and religious hatred. Ragging thrives on division. Tamil students who study in the south are repeatedly reminded by senior Tamil students that they are in enemy territory. The same is true of Sinhalese students who study in Tamil areas. ‘There is no one to save you but us’ is a statement that is always repeated by seniors in intimidating new comers into submission. ‘Sinhala ass-kissers’ is the name which has been given to a bunch of Tamil students who decided to oppose ragging. One of the writers was told by a senior, on the day he registered for his course, ‘never to trust Muslim dogs’.

It would seem that only the inverse of the unity argument is true. What ragging does bring is a degree of (pervasive) uniformity, a point to which we shall return later.

Myth-II: Ragging makes the new entrant tough

There is a general tendency to view ragging as a toughening up process. Ragging period, we are told, prepares the naïve new entrant for the ‘real’ world which is full of cruelty, treachery, violence and injustice. There is widespread consensus as to the validity of this claim. We, however, hold a radically different view.

It is helpful, at this point, to go into the details of what ragging actually constitutes. There are mild forms of ragging such as asking the fresher to sing, and then there are other monstrous forms of it such as indiscriminate physical torture, verbal assault, sexual harassment etc. In order to dispel the myth that ragging moulds bold students, we shall limit ourselves to exploring the more violent forms of ragging.

First, it is important to note that what goes on under the guise of ragging is actually serious criminal activity.  In Dr Brian Seneviratne’s words ‘Sticking candles in vagina, putting testicles in drawers and closing the drawer, throwing people into the shallow Lotus (now the ‘Alwis’) pond at the entrance of the Peradeniya campus having first put bits of broken glass into the pond, parading terrified newcomers, some of whom had left home for the first time, and getting them to perform all sorts of crazy, and even obscene acts in public. That is sadism and criminal activity’.

Second, it is important to get our definition of ‘tough’ or ‘strong’ right. Being a strong man is very different from being a bully. Being strong and being violent are two very different things. Silent obedience to systems of power is not an example of courage, it is cowardice.

Finally, ragging, in fact, creates the so called ‘real’ world to which it purports to prepare people. Those who accept ragging also accept the means through which it is sustained. Those who defend it, similarly, also defend the means through which it is propagated. Ragging period is when innocents are transformed into blind followers of a stupid system that thrives on unjust means such as threat, lies, intimidation, fear mongering and outright violence. It is the time when young students are brainwashed into embracing sadism. It is the time when educated thugs are bred. Ragging is what gives Sri Lanka leaders who have utter disregard for fairness, justice and the rule of law. Ragging snuffs out the very essence of humanity from the country’s future leaders and in its place puts apathy, arrogance and an animalistic sense of ethics.

For the above reasons, the claim that ragging toughens up the naïve fresher and positively prepares her for the future is simply absurd.  

Myth III – Ragging brings equality among students

Claims are abound that opposition to ragging comes from middle and upper middle class students who espouse a kind of superiority complex. It is claimed that ragging, by weeding out the superiority complex of middle and upper middle class freshmen, ensures that all students are treated equal. Upon close inspection this line of defence also fails.

Here again there is a conceptual misunderstanding. Equality and uniformity are not the same things, nor does uniformity imply equality. Equality refers to ‘the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities’, whereas uniformity means ‘1. always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying’ or ‘2. conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent’.

It is foolish to believe that conforming to the same dress code for first three months of the first year, or being forced to speak in one’s mother tongue will bring equality in status, rights or opportunities. Far more foolish is the belief that students from rural backgrounds harassing those from urban areas verbally and physically brings parity.

It must be pointed out that with the exception of universities in Colombo, and perhaps also Peradeniya, language is not a dividing factor. Even in universities where language disparities exist, putting in place language regulations does not help resolve the issue; they only reinforce it. It is no secret a great number of students struggle very hard to follow lectures in English, especially in the science stream. Language regulations – insistence upon the using mother tongue alone in communication – undermine the chances of non-English speaking students to pick up the language from batch mates. It goes without saying that English speaking students must act in such a way that non-English speaking students willingly learn from them.

Ironically, even the illusory uniformity does not last long. As soon as the ragging period is over disparities resurface. More often than not, they resurface in glaring clarity.

Underlying this kind of defence for ragging is the assumption that class is the only (at least, the most dominant) dividing factor. Ragging, as noted above, is powerless to bridge gaps that arise as a result of race, religion, caste and territory. There is no evidence to suggest that class is the only dividing factor that needs to be dealt with. Even if so, the methods used in the attempt to remove this problem are superficial and, ultimately, meaningless.

_____________________________________________

Notes: