Posted by Dhruv Raj Sharma on June 13, 2005, 12:17:33, in reply to "The Psychology of Ragging" The Psychology of Ragging As the result the earnest endeavours of the Vishwa Jagriti Mission and their supporters, ragging today faces a nation-wide ban by the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. And why not! The things that Harsh Agarwal (medical college drop out) had to endure, the events that led to the loss of six lives in the last three years, and all the horrible incidents of raggers resorting to physical abuse, are terrible enough to deserve such action. But who are these “raggers”? Are they men who used to assist Hitler in his “concentration camps”; are they merciless Pharaohs, back from the dead; or are these the extraordinary Martians that we have been looking for, who move around in UFOs and have antennae on their heads? Think about it. Of all those of you reading this article, there would hardly be anyone for whom ragging is something new. Most of you have gone through it. Even in all-girls’ colleges like Lady Shri Ram and Miranda House there have been age-old “traditions” of ragging. And, therefore, if one is faced with a phenomenon as common as ragging, is it not necessary to ask the basic question, “Why”? Why does one group of students wish to harass another group of students? Had the institution in question been an insignificant one, where teachers are indifferent, and students left to roam the campus like cattle, the above explanation could have been accepted. But since ragging is prevalent in institutions as prestigious as St. Stephens and IIT-D, we have to seek a deeper answer. The psychology of a college sophomore approximates closest to that of the elder child. After having enjoyed being the sole focus of his parents’ attention, it is quite natural for the first child to feel threatened by the arrival of the new baby. And these first children have even been known to inflict mortal injuries upon their new siblings. This, in psychological terms, is commonly known as “sibling rivalry”, and can successfully be prevented by responsible parental intervention. In fact, such rivalry can indeed be channelised towards developing a sense of responsibility in the elder child. In the case of the sophomore, the “rivalry” may have been reduced to mere curiosity. But even this meagre emotion, if neglected by the guardians, is potent enough to keep ragging alive. And, therefore, let me turn your attention to the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, 3.3.2001 [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 656 of 1998]: And it is this last point that needs to be carefully adhered to. We must not fail to notice the emphasis that these guidelines place on the role of the educational institution in the prevention of ragging. We must be sensitive to the fact that children, even till class XII, are accustomed to a lot more personal attention from their faculty than what college faculties deny them in the name of “no spoon-feeding”. We must also observe that in places (like St. Stephen’s) where the faculty is actively involved with the students, hardly any untoward incidents ever take place: on the contrary, students are able to experience some of the most cherished moments of their lives, on these campuses. Therefore, it naturally follows that at the root of this social-evil lies not a need for one-upmanship, or schadenfreude, but a gross neglect of students’ emotional needs by the teachers. Those who disagree must ask themselves as to why there is no ragging at the intermediate level, in school. How do those angelic school-goers become monstrous tyrants in just one year? Institutions must realize that it is as much their responsibility to provide the “healthy atmosphere” that the Supreme Court guidelines recommend as it is to hold regular classes. The author may be contacted at: dhruvrajsharma@yahoo.co.uk.
203.94.244.90
Is it more than schadenfreude?
Dhruv Raj Sharma
Department of Applied Psychology,
University of Delhi, South Campus.
A sociologist, I heard on television, attributed ragging to our innate tendency for one-upmanship – to establish our supremacy over others by crushing them. This may be true, in its own right, but it is a less responsible explanation because it does not offer any solution to the problem of ragging.
“1. Ragging cannot be cured merely by making it a cognizable criminal offence.
2. Students’ acts of indiscipline must primarily be dealt with within the institution.
3. Students going to educational institutions for learning should not remain under the constant fear of being dealt with by the police.
4. Moreover, the management should devise such positive and constructive activities to be arranged, so that the seniors and the juniors can interact with each other in a healthy atmosphere… …and behave like members of a family in an institution.”
Blanket bans are nothing new for India: it is all so convenient, to prevent something just make it a punishable offence. Psychology attributes this to a process called perceptual defence, where by we turn blind to unpleasant sights. So, from preventing the use of unfair means in examinations (“cheating”) to curbing prostitution, the best solution the government can imagine is a ban. How successful these two bans have been in stopping cheating or prostitution needs to be questioned, to say the least.
Sirs, we must understand that this is not what Gandhiji meant when he said “Bura mat dekho”. Ragging is an emotional problem, not a criminal one. And, because the victims of it are the future of our country, we need to be a little more responsible.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread