[NavhindTimes] Freshers’ Woes

Link to report

EDITORIAL

Though belated the government of Goa finally came to realize the need for having an anti-ragging bill. The delay probably owed to the fact that instances of ugly ragging— psychological, social, political, economic, cultural — against the freshers in the educational institutions in Goa so far did not surface. But the fact remains the government preferred to have Goa Prohibition Of Ragging Bill 2007 on the statute book under pressure from the parents and academics to prohibit the practice of ragging.

The provisions of the Bill appear to be tough, but a closer look makes it clear that there are certain loopholes. What should be the criteria for convicting the guilty? Who is to frame the charges leading to conviction? For acting against the culprit it is imperative that a complainant should be there. In this regard the observation of the Raghavan committee is quite interesting. The committee notes: “Almost all the stake-holders have failed to act in curbing the menace of ragging in every State. The State Governments have not monitored if the ragging in their state has been curbed or not. The authorities of the institution have not played a pro-active role, which was very necessary in terms of the guidelines of the apex court, where primary responsibility was cast on the institutional authorities. On the contrary, it was told to the committee that the authorities dissuaded the victims of ragging from making any complaint.”

Prior to its order of 2006, which it issued taking cognizance of ragging as crime, the Supreme Court in fact in 2001 had issued certain guidelines. But those failed to counter the menace, as none was primarily held responsible for ensuring that ragging did not take place. The Supreme Court order (based on the recommendations) of May 16, 2007 makes it obligatory for academic institutions to file official First Information Reports with the police in any instance of a complaint of ragging. This would ensure that all cases would be formally investigated under criminal justice system, and not by the academic institutions own ad-hoc bodies. Any failure on the part of the institutional authority or negligence or deliberate delay in lodging the FIR shall be construed to be an act of culpable negligence. It would be better to incorporate some of the recommendations of the Raghavan committee in the proposed Bill.

It would be appropriate to mention increasing privatisation of higher education is witnessing sustained increase in ragging related excesses. Unfortunately for fear of losing their credibility these institutions do not allow the victim students to report the incidents to the police. According to the Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education at least 25 students have succumbed to the brutalities of ragging in the past seven years. In many cases, complaints by victims have fallen on deaf ears.

Ragging is a perverse and cruel activity and the reason for indulging in this activity is to show off power and authority. It needs to be perceived as a failure to inculcate human values from the schooling stage. Obviously any attempt to curb the menace must have a wider framework. Besides making responsible the academic institutions for tackling the menace, behavioural patterns among students, particularly potential ‘raggers’, need to be identified. The measures must really be deterrent in nature.