The ragging epidemic: Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Ragging is not only disastrous for the individual itself, but has devastating effects on families and communities, comparable to death or suffering caused by apartheid or civil war. source: ALAMY 

• Anti-raggers face the wrath of ragging, for example:- Samantha Vithanage, a Sri Jayawardhanapura undergraduate and also an anti-ragger, was killed during a dispute over ragging
• Former vice chancellor of Ruhuna University, Prof. Sujeewa Amarasena, was a vocal critic and also took steps to dissolve ragging culture; however, he claims to have become a victim of political victimisation and has been removed from his post as a result

 Barely a month after the suicide of Sabaragamuwa University student Charith Dilshan, the entire episode seems to be forgotten. There are new scandals and shocks almost on a daily basis. A disastrous bus accident, cyclonic weather and a new Covid variant have dominated the curriculum of daily worries. This is precisely the climate in which raggers and their obnoxious subculture of ragging thrive. They know that public outrage won’t last, and they will be free to carry on as usual until the next scandal.

This time, however, the degree of public reaction was such that even the rather insular Inter University Students’ Federation was rattled. That’s why their spokesman made a public statement that a ‘common pardon’ (podu samawa) for those accused of ragging should be considered.

Before we examine what this ‘common pardon’ amounts to, let’s take a quick look at the ragging-anti-ragging stand-off. Ragging isn’t limited to our universities and technical colleges because this is where the sub-culture of ragging exists as the dominant political force. The militant Inter University Student Federation (‘Anthare’) is reportedly the main driving force behind organised ragging. Formerly run by the JVP, it is now dominated by the rival Peratugami party.

Anti-ragging groups within the universities have faced the raggers’ wrath. Samantha Vithanage, a Sri Jayawardhanapura undergraduate who led such an opposition, was killed during a dispute over ragging. This demonstrates just how seriously ragging is taken by those who talk of levelling social inequities by ragging newcomers; but their real motivation could be sadistic pleasure and sexual malaise.

As mentioned previously in this column, courageous individuals such as the former vice chancellor of Ruhuna University, Prof. Sujeewa Amarasena, have not only criticised organised, inhuman ragging but have taken active steps to track down and discipline the worst raggers. In return, student unions gang up against such individuals, even taking them hostage under various pretexts. Prof. Amarasena did not bow down to such pressure from raggers and their supporters, which may even include academic staff, but says he became a victim of political victimisation and has been removed from his post.

But the pressure put on raggers by such individuals and groups opposed to ragging has had its effect, and raggers haven’t had it all their way within the campuses. They may intimidate, dominate and create unwritten laws within campuses. For example, for those who oppose ragging, ‘freshers’ or seniors, certain parts of campuses are declared ‘no-go’ zones. Raggers may have turned our campuses into their fiefdoms, but they no longer feel entirely secure within those enclaves. The unexpected idea of a ‘common pardon’ coming from a radical student body has to be seen in the context of that recent outcry over Charith Dilshan’s death.

But there is no such thing as a ‘common pardon’ in known legal terms. Pardons come in various forms, broadly categorised as full, partial, absolute and conditional. Someone with extraordinary authority may pardon a group, an entire community or a town for a given reason. But in a democratic context with a modern legal framework, the concept of a common pardon, as the ruler of a fiefdom may offer some of his subjects who have rebelled against him, doesn’t exist (an amnesty is not a common pardon, either). In a democracy, a president has the authority to offer a presidential pardon, but that usually applies to individual cases.

What the student union spokesman can request in this context is a reconciliation process. It is used in post-conflict situations where serious human rights violations and war crimes have been committed. As trials can be lengthy and costly, often dividing the accused and victims even further, some countries have opted for the reconciliation process. South Africa’s reconciliation process three decades ago is an example.

South Africa’s reconciliation process, particularly through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), aimed to address the legacy of apartheid and promote national unity. The TRC’s mandate focused on uncovering the truth about human rights violations, offering amnesty to perpetrators who confessed, and providing reparations to victims. The process emphasised forgiveness, reconciliation, and the creation of a more just and equitable society. 

From the above description, the idea of a truth and reconciliation process seems far-fetched in the context of our university ragging. The idea behind South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was to uncover the truth of past rights abuses and violations, and get perpetrators to confess and seek an amnesty plus forgiveness from victims and their families. The TRC looked into cases of murder, torture and unlawful detention and incarceration. But it is both an irony and a coincidence that the TRC’s goal of creating a more just and equitable society is precisely what the raggers claim as their goal, though it only results in disharmony, social disruption and dehumanisation.

In the case of ragging, we can look at cases of mental and physical torture, sexual abuse and the disruption of normal student lives, forcing some to give up studies. As for the deaths, we looked at the legal angle of deaths caused by ragging in a previous column – in most cases, it can be defined as culpable homicide, a murder charge being the exception. But, legalities apart, the impact on families caused by deaths due to ragging (by suicide or any other form) has a devastating effect on victims’ families and friends. As such, there is no difference whether death, injury, pain, trauma and depression were caused by Apartheid, civil war, or by ragging in a peaceful country.

The TRC process was criticised by many as inadequate. The BBC described such criticisms as stemming from a “basic misunderstanding” about the TRC’s mandate, which was to uncover the truth about past abuse, using amnesty as a mechanism, rather than to punish past crimes. Assuming we have a similar process in Sri Lanka in the ragging context, it remains to be seen if victims and their families would agree to offering amnesties to perpetrators without legal redress to victims and families.

But any such process would be pointless unless the perpetrators are willing to admit to their crimes in public and offer apologies. As Elton John put it tellingly in a song, ‘Sorry seems to be the 

hardest word.’