give a speech on ragging

Watch CBS News

Biden says "I gave my best to you" and passes torch to Harris in DNC speech last night

By Kathryn Watson

Updated on: August 20, 2024 / 10:14 AM EDT / CBS News

President Biden took the stage on the first night of the Democratic National Convention for the last time as president — or as a candidate for the presidency — to cite the accomplishments of his single presidential term and the threat to democracy as the reasons Kamala Harris should succeed him as president.

"It's been the honor of my lifetime to serve as your president," Mr. Biden said in a speech that capped over five decades in office, as senator, vice president and president. "I love the job, but I love my country more. All this talk about how I'm angry at all those people (who) said I should step down — that's not true. I love my country more, and we need to preserve our democracy in 2024 ."

He received a thunderous standing ovation from the crowd and took a moment to wipe his eyes after his daughter, Ashley, introduced him. It took several minutes for the crowd to quiet, and his speech was interrupted at times by chants of, "We love Joe!" The party faithful filling the Chicago arena held up signs that said "We 💗 Joe." 

Five months ago, Mr. Biden clinched the Democratic nomination and had every right to expect at that time he would be here tonight to take the mantle of Democratic nominee for the second time. Instead, he asked the crowd, "Are you ready to elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as president and vice president of the United States?" 

The president joked that he was too young to begin work in the Senate, elected at 29, and "too old" to remain as president. 

"I've made a lot of mistakes in my career, but I gave my best to you," he said. 

In July, under increasing pressure to step aside as the nominee after a disastrous debate in June against former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden acquiesced and announced he would give up the nomination and endorse Harris. 

The president reminisced Monday night about his decision to run for president after what he saw in Charlottesville in August 2017, when white supremacist rallies devolved into clashes that left one dead and several others injured. He also recalled the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol, when rioters breached the Capitol and many tried to stop the certification of his election. 

"I believed then and I believe now that progress was and is possible," Mr. Biden said. "Justice is achievable. And our best days are not behind us — they're before us. Now, it's summer. The winter has passed. And with a grateful heart, I stand before you now on this August night to report that democracy has prevailed. Democracy has delivered. And now, democracy must be preserved." 

"You cannot say you love your country only when you win," the president said, in a line that he has used about former President Donald Trump but now could apply to him, albeit for very different reasons. 

Everyone in the room, the president said, came together in 2020 to save democracy.

"As your president, I've been determined to keep America moving forward, not going back," he said. "To stand against hate and violence in all its forms."

Mr. Biden celebrated the accomplishments of his presidency, ticking off a list — 60 million new jobs, a record high stock market, bringing inflation down, the smallest racial wealth gap in 20 years and getting health insurance coverage for more Americans than ever.

When the crowd chanted, "Thank you, Joe," at one point, Mr. Biden said, "Thank you Kamala, too!"

Mr. Biden then went after his former opponent, Donald Trump, and Trump's promise of infrastructure week.

"And he never built a damn thing," Mr. Biden said. 

"Donald Trump calls America a failing nation," the president said, adding that Trump is wrong that America is failing. "He says we're losing. He's the loser, he's dead wrong." 

The president also noted violent crime has dropped across the country after spiking during the pandemic. 

"Crime will keep coming down when we put a prosecutor in the Oval Office instead of a convicted felon," he said, nodding to Harris' career as a prosecutor.

Mr. Biden said he'll keep fighting for the freedom to vote and the freedom to love whomever one chooses.

"MAGA Republicans found out the power of women in 2022," he said. "And Donald Trump is going to find out the power of women in 2024." 

Turning to foreign concerns, the president said his team is "working around the clock" to secure a cease-fire deal in the Middle East and get aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Protesters criticizing Mr. Biden's handling of the war stood outside the convention, at times slowing convention goers from entering. 

"Those protesters out in the street, they have a point," he conceded. "A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."

The president said Harris and Walz understand this nation must continue to be a place of possibilities, not just for the few, but for all, and Democrats need to ensure they win. 

"I promise I'll be the best volunteer Harris and Walz's campaign have ever seen," the president said. 

Kathryn Watson is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital, based in Washington, D.C.

More from CBS News

Emhoff says Harris is "exactly the right president" for the nation at this time

Michelle Obama, at DNC, pays tribute to her late mother and jabs at Trump

DNC Day 2: Here's what to expect from the second day of the Democratic convention

Ashley Biden introduces her father at DNC as the "OG girl dad"

Short Speech on Ragging in English for Students and Children

Table of Contents

3 Minute Speech on Ragging for School and College students

Good morning to our Respected Principal, teachers, and my dear friends. As we all have gathered today to celebrate this occasion, I would like to draw your attention towards an important issue rising these days in many organizations. I would like to speak on the topic- Ragging.

Sometimes this practice is done very lightly and in a friendly way where it is used for introducing each other. This way it creates a friendly atmosphere for the new people. But if this practice is done harshly by embarrassing someone or making someone do something beyond his or her will, then it becomes a matter of punishment.

Ragging is banned as sometimes it becomes so severe that it leads to physical injuries and development of fear of psychosis. If any one faces ragging anywhere, he/she should inform the head of the institution in order to control this act. One should not tolerate this violation of human rights.

In the end, I would like to say that I am very happy to be a part of this reputed school where I have never witnessed ragging. Instead, I have always found my seniors as a guiding light and very supportive of anything we want to learn from them. I hope you never face such an unkind act in your life and in case you do, now you know what you should do.

Questions on Ragging

What are the effects of ragging.

The victims suffer depression, isolation, demoralisation, deterimental effect on personality. Constant fear and tension in the mind of every students led to poor performance in curriculum.  There are also the case of suicide due to ragging.

How can we stop ragging?

Ragging is a offence and punishable under various laws. Here few suggestion how to stop ragging in campus.

Related Posts:

Essay on Anti Ragging

Students are often asked to write an essay on Anti Ragging in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Anti Ragging

Understanding ragging.

Ragging is a harmful act where seniors in educational institutions bully newcomers. It can cause physical and emotional harm.

The Need for Anti-Ragging

Anti-ragging is necessary to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all students. It helps to promote respect and equality.

Anti-Ragging Measures

Schools can take steps like strict rules against ragging, awareness programs, and counseling sessions. These help to prevent ragging and protect students.

Role of Students

Students should stand against ragging, report incidents, and support victims. This can help to eliminate ragging.

250 Words Essay on Anti Ragging

The anti-ragging movement.

The Anti-Ragging movement is a significant step towards eliminating this harmful practice. It aims to create a safe, inclusive, and respectful environment for all students. The movement focuses on educating individuals about the negative impacts of ragging and promoting the values of empathy, respect, and equality.

The Necessity of Anti-Ragging

The necessity of the Anti-Ragging movement is undeniable. It is essential for the mental, emotional, and physical well-being of students. Ragging can lead to severe psychological trauma, academic decline, and even suicide in extreme cases. By eliminating ragging, we can ensure a healthier, more conducive environment for learning and growth.

As students, it is our responsibility to support the Anti-Ragging movement. We can do this by refusing to participate in ragging activities, reporting incidents, and spreading awareness about its harmful effects.

In conclusion, the Anti-Ragging movement is a crucial initiative that requires collective effort. It is not just about eliminating a harmful practice but also about fostering a culture of respect and dignity. By supporting this movement, we can contribute to a safer, more inclusive educational environment for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Anti Ragging

Introduction.

Ragging is a social evil that has percolated the fabric of higher education institutions worldwide. It is a form of abuse on newcomers to educational institutions in India and various other countries. It ranges from innocuous fun to serious abuses, sometimes resulting in grave physical injuries or psychological trauma. This essay discusses the anti-ragging movement, its importance, and the steps taken to prevent this social malice.

Importance of Anti-Ragging

Ragging can leave a lasting impact on the victim’s mind, leading to severe psychological issues like depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. It can also lead to academic decline, dropout, and in extreme cases, even suicide. Therefore, the importance of the anti-ragging movement cannot be overstated. It not only safeguards the physical and mental health of students but also ensures a conducive environment for learning and growth.

Steps to Combat Ragging

To combat ragging, several steps have been taken at various levels. Legal measures are in place, with the Supreme Court of India defining ragging as a criminal offense. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has also mandated all universities to establish an Anti-Ragging Committee to monitor and curb ragging activities.

Moreover, technology has been leveraged to combat ragging. Online platforms have been developed where students can anonymously report ragging incidents. Mobile applications like ‘No More Ragging’ provide information about anti-ragging laws and helpline numbers.

Students play a crucial role in the anti-ragging movement. They must be aware of their rights and the laws against ragging. They should not succumb to peer pressure and participate in ragging activities. Instead, they should stand against it and report any incidents to the authorities. They can also form anti-ragging squads in their institutions to monitor and prevent ragging.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Death by ragging: A long global history of violence

This month, India’s worst case of homicidal ragging, that of Swapnadeep Kundu, at Bengal’s famous Jadavpur University, is forcing us all to introspect about studentry and power. The meaning of the word ‘ragging’ is threefold:

First, it means to make fun of someone rumbustiously. Second, it means to upbraid someone without restraint. And, third, it means to “draw attention facetiously and persistently” to someone’s alleged shortcomings. In its original sense, by 1739, ‘to rag’ meant ‘to scold, chide’. By 1807, the word ‘bullyrag’, meaning ‘to intimidate’, had come into play; by the following year, it had become studentry slang, meaning to ‘annoy, tease, harass roughly’.

What took hold in the West was a plesionym of ragging, a less offensive term: hazing, a celebratory rite of passage into fraternities since the founding of Plato’s Academy in 387 BCE. Called ‘pennalism’, it meant ‘a system of mild oppression and torment practised upon first-year students’.

In 18th-century Europe, student guilds came up, with all the perks of swaggering seniorism. Meanwhile, in the US, in 1684, a student was expelled for violence and vassalage. The world’s first death from ragging was documented in 1873 in New York City.

The history of military hazing is long, multigeographic, and across cultures. Ragging, which is today an almost exclusively civilian phenomenon, has military origins. While some institutions of higher learning have damped it, it continues unabated in nearly all military academies under the stern rubric of ‘toughening up’.

But the history of ragging truly takes off only after World War I. Following the armistice, millions of the surviving soldiery entered college (some to make splendid postbellum careers for themselves as technicians, scientists, writers and poets), and brought their traditions and traumas with them.

The 20th-century World Wars might have been fought mostly in Europe, but the soldiers were funnelled in from all the colonies. In much of South Asia, the act of gateway bullying, both in the military and academia, didn’t exist prior to the decolonising fall of dominoes in the mid-century. Demobilised Sri Lankan troops, back from the killing fields of World War II, entered the higher education system, bringing with them the methodology of military-style hazing learnt abroad. The Sri Lankan college system today is riddled with ragging, with deaths even more numerous than in India. Given that Sri Lanka has 1,00,000 tertiary education students compared to India’s 35 million, this fact speaks to its epidemicity.

But ragging didn’t infiltrate India through its southern neighbour. Most of India’s demobbed wartime soldiers returned not to a collegiate life but to their meagre landholdings, and taught the next generation of soldiery their traditions, including the ritus transitus hazing of their White counterparts.

Meanwhile, in the 1960s and 1970s, Indian academia was overrun by waves of inculturation from the US. American student comportment sidled in through chinks in the fortress of State protectionism (which, when it fell in the early-1990s and gave way to liberalisation, allowed in a stormfront of cultural inspiration, including an uptick in copycat ragging).

A 2015 study by JNU, Psychosocial Study of Ragging in Selected Educational Institutions in India, found that nearly 60% of students were targeted by raggers, and that, going by “rough estimates, from reports in English media alone, there are more than 10 deaths, 40–50 cases of serious injuries leading to hospitalisation, several cases of rioting in colleges due to ragging every year”.

This month, a UGC response to an RTI query was telling: over the past five and a half years, at least 25 students died by suicide-after-ragging. The UGC’s anti-ragging cell reported that in 10 years (2013-22), 832 complaints of ragging were recorded in Uttar Pradesh, followed by 666 in Madhya Pradesh. Two states alone. The aforementioned JNU report believes that stats like these represent “the tip of an iceberg”.

Today, military ragging in India has a name that is widespread through the ranks: ragda (which translates, variously, as friction, attrition, scouring, grinding in a pestle). It is, essentially, corporal punishment of conscripts and cadets—overseen institutionally by so-called squadron traditions and applied covertly by younger officer-instructors on loose leashes in the chain of command.

Also read: Death of artistry: The lament of India’s creative soul

The fallout of sadistic punition has been terrible: 1,256 cadets quit the National Defence Academy (NDA) from January 2008 to November 2017, mostly because of unapproved, even illegal, punishment. In 2016, the Indian Military Academy (IMA) demoted 16 of its under-training cadets for ragging. According to a report in 2015, the inordinate harshness of seniors cost the NDA an unprecedented 40 cadets from its 127th course (2011–14)—the previous dropout average per year being 12. In 2018, a paper jointly prepared by the Integrated Defence Staff Headquarters and the National Defence Academy revealed that the dropout rate was 16–20% each year.

After Independence, the Indian youth has been instilled with two ambitions: either to gather as many higher education qualifications as possible, or join the military (or both). Both realms of social mobility and livelihood have been infected by one of the worst traditions of colonialism: pitiless superiorism. Of course, it’s not about teaching, hardening up in the interests of national or corps duty, or building character.

As complex a phenomenon as it is, with intersectional motivations such as “colour, race, religion, caste, ethnicity, gender (including transgender), sexual orientation, appearance, nationality, regional origins, linguistic identity, place of birth, place of residence or economic background” (UGC), the punishment for maximal ragging is paltry: a maximum of two years of imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of  Rs 10,000. I could find no data on a single student or senior cadet who has faced the full rap.

Veteran journalist

( [email protected] )

Click here for all the earlier columns

Follow The New Indian Express channel on WhatsApp  

Download the TNIE app to stay with us and follow the latest

Related Stories

• Preferred Topics
• Mental Health
• Emotional Health
• Happiness Hacks
• Women’s Health

Rage against ragging: Why this unwelcome way to welcome needs to STOP

Vivid memories of the first day of college live on. The excitement of stepping into a new, crucial phase of life was at its peak. But so was a nail-biting nervousness over the ragging we could face. We were a motley group of freshers trying to escape the prying eyes of seniors who were looking out for their ‘preys’ on Day 1! But we failed. Our ordeal ended only once we danced publicly in a marketplace. In hindsight, I’d say we were lucky. Not many face the same fate when they transition from a cocooned and protective school environment into the more competitive college milieu. They face worse. The perils of ragging are once again in the spotlight after an 18-year-old Odisha girl left behind a suicide note, claiming depression arising out of ragging and torture by her seniors.

Ragging has earned its share of notoriety and more as an unwelcome practice to welcome a new set of students to college life. The ugly face of ragging and its impact on mental health have been far too pronounced in the recent past. Just three months ago, a first-year MBBS student of Haryana died by suicide after facing alleged torture by his seniors.

In India, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has been making strides to curb the menace of ragging in higher education institutions across the nation, with a 24*7 anti-ragging helpline, an online process for submission of complaints, and more.

Still, 2021 media reports citing UGC data claim a total of 2,790 complaints had been reported since 2018.

Take a Poll

Who is your go-to person for emotional and mental support.

• Mental health professional

What is ragging?

Ragging, according to the UGC, is defined as any conduct whether by words spoken or written or by an act which:

* Has the effect of teasing, treating or handling with rudeness any other student * Indulging in rowdy or undisciplined activities or which is likely to cause anyone annoyance, hardship or psychological harm * Raising fear or apprehension in a fresher or a junior student * Asking the students to do any act or perform something which such student will not do in the ordinary course * Urging students to do any act which causes or generates a sense of shame of embarrassment * Adversely affecting the physique or psyche of a fresher or student.

Yet, cases of ragging occur, dimming the light of bright and young minds in college. Ragging can leave the mind with a dent, whether it is through psychological or physical torture.

The latest incident spurred even Olympian Dutee Chand to make a startling revelation about being a victim of ragging. In an interview, she has spoken about how seniors during her stay at the Sports Hostel in Bhubaneswar from 2006-08, harassed her.

“ Didis (seniors) used to force me to massage their bodies and wash their clothes at the Sports Hostel,” she told PTI, adding how she even faced adverse comments on her finances. And when she complained, she herself faced the brunt.

“It used to take a mental toll on me. I was helpless at that time,” Chand added.

How can ragging impact mental health?

Ragging, when it becomes a humiliating, degrading, aggressive and negative experience, can impact an individual’s mental health in many ways, says senior psychologist Dr Kamna Chhibber.

A specialist in handling mental health cases related to relationships, trauma and abuse, she tells Health Shots, “Ragging can affect moods, lead to anxiousness, negatively impact the (concept of) self of the individual, make them feel worthless and helpless, cause experiences of insomnia and disturbed sleep patterns.”

Additionally, facing the horrors of insensitive ragging can also impact the ways in which an individual may approach college life, causing them to be “tentative and apprehensive in place of experiencing the joy and happiness” of going through a new and different phase of life.

Even bullying at workplace needs to be taken seriously.

How to deal with ragging?

Yes, ragging can be debilitating, but awareness and preparedness can sometimes be the armour you may need.

1. Awareness

“As a young person it is important to approach such situations with an understanding and knowledge of what redressal mechanisms are available to be able to tackle an uncomfortable situation in the college,” explains Dr Chhibber.

Secondly, it is important not to shield the bullies because of a cloud of fear on your head.

“Talking about and sharing what the experiences are is crucial so that if there is a traumatic experience, the coping is not compromised. This will also help the person to engage in healthy ways of working through the situation,” the expert suggests.

“It is important to focus on what you can control and accept the emotional experiences that you would have,” she adds.

Also read: Are you hiding your feelings? You may be harming yourself more

3. Lean on your support system

Most importantly, build and maintain a support system that helps you manage yourself and your experiences. Your parents, your siblings and your friends are always your inner circle and you should be open to them about any issues you face in life.

The last word

Ragging is a social evil that needs to be uprooted. People need to stop indulging in ragging even under the veil of a ‘fun induction’ because it has crossed the threshold and instilled a sense of fear among people. Let fresh minds get stronger, not weaker!

Get Latest Updates on Mind , Emotional Health , Happiness Hacks , Mental Health

Radhika Bhirani is a journalist with close to 15 years of experience in the Indian media industry. After writing extensively on health, lifestyle and entertainment, she leads the English content team at Health Shots. She has a special interest in writing on mental health and wellness. ... Read More

Related Stories

The signs and side effects of a fragile ego — and how to deal with it, 5 side effects of eating too many eggs, aquaphobia: 6 effective tips to overcome the fear of water, cognitive behavioral therapy: how does cbt work to treat depression and more, photo gallery, 8 fibre-rich foods for weight loss, 9 low-calorie foods to help you lose weight, 8 healthy breakfast recipes for diabetics.

AOC once electrified the left. Now she electrifies the party establishment.

At the 2020 Democratic National Convention, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., got 90 seconds to speak. Ocasio-Cortez was then a freshman lawmaker who’d toppled a 10-term Democratic incumbent with a left-wing campaign that shocked the party and the country. Her speech , delivered on the second night of that convention, was about rallying progressives and seconding the presidential nomination of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. It was a symbolic move because he had lost his presidential campaign, his second one, in the primaries. She spoke about her loyalty to a “mass people’s movement,” which she said was needed to address the “brutality” of the economy, recognize “colonialism” and propose “deep systemic solutions.” She was speaking at a convention for the party, but her remarks were aimed at the party’s shortcomings.

Ocasio-Cortez’s speech Monday night couldn’t have been more different. 

She was given seven minutes during a prime-time slot on opening night. She introduced herself as a former waitress but made no mention of her background as a left-wing political organizer. She wasn’t sounding a dissenting note about a failed insurgency; instead, she was firing up the crowd for the nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Gone was the talk about a mass movement; Ocasio-Cortez focused on the health and the future of the Democratic Party, including winning not just the White House, but majorities in both chambers of Congress. While Ocasio-Cortez spoke about class divisions, the rhetoric was dialed down, more in line with the party establishment’s generic conception of the wealthy versus the rest. Ocasio-Cortez's praise for Harris for being “for the middle class because she is from the middle class” made her sound more like a centrist Democrat than a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Monday night's Ocasio-Cortez had grown into a creature of the establishment, both for better and for worse.

The contrast between her two DNC appearances illustrates Ocasio-Cortez’s swift ascendance within the party.

The contrast between her two DNC appearances illustrates Ocasio-Cortez’s swift ascendance within the party. Ocasio-Cortez remains the leading voice of “the Squad,” the most progressive bloc of lawmakers in the House. But her collaboration with President Joe Biden during his time in office — during which he governed further to the left on social spending and climate policy than anyone expected — has resulted in her evolution from gadfly to strategic progressive partner for the party. She serves as an advocate and surrogate for certain sectors of the left within the party, but simultaneously maintains increasingly strong ties with the upper echelons of the party. She did not play hardball with Biden with defections from his bills as he compromised on progressive legislation to win over conservatives in the party.

And in the most striking display of her change to date, Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sanders , argued for Biden to remain the party’s presidential nominee even as the party establishment turned on him after his fateful June debate performance against former President Donald Trump. Ocasio-Cortez’s rationale for that may have been based primarily on the strategic belief that Biden was more reliable than any potential establishment successor as a friend of the left. But still, her sticking vociferously by his side despite his extreme unpopularity reflected a strategic calculus removed from her background of channeling grassroots energy.

Becoming an operator means more input into consequential policy. But it often also means becoming a more pliant politician.

The most striking — and disappointing — moment of Ocasio-Cortez’s speech came when she praised Harris for “working tirelessly to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and bringing hostages home.” It was a stunning dodge on the biggest issue for the American movement left today. The Biden administration has long stated that it desires a cease-fire; the real problem is the administration’s failure to take any punitive steps against Israel, which has shown stunning disregard for civilian life in Gaza while contemplating radical solutions at odds with international law and dragging its feet.

Ocasio-Cortez could’ve called for the party to focus on the plight of Palestinian civilians there, or reverse its wicked policy of defunding the UNRWA that makes it harder to get life-saving supplies distributed throughout the territory. She could’ve issued a subtle challenge to Harris to take a position on conditioning aid to Israel. She could’ve supported some of the protesters raging outside the convention as calling for overdue moral clarity. Instead, she used her influence as the most prominent progressive in Congress to give Harris a green light without Harris having really done anything to earn it. And, thus, Ocasio-Cortez summed up the vexing eternal trade-offs of gaining power: The closer one gets to the center of power, the less capable one is of fundamentally challenging it.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Politico, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here .

Anti-ragging Slogans

Table of Contents

Ragging, a form of bullying or hazing often experienced by students in educational institutions, is a serious concern that can have lasting physical and emotional effects. To combat this issue, anti-ragging campaigns have been initiated worldwide. In this blog, we’ll explore what ragging is, and what anti-ragging entails, and share over 30 anti-ragging slogans that emphasize the importance of a safe and respectful educational environment.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

What is Ragging?

Ragging is a deplorable practice that involves the bullying, harassment, or humiliation of new students, typically in educational institutions such as colleges and universities. It takes various forms, ranging from verbal abuse and taunts to physical harm, and often occurs during the early days or weeks of a student’s enrollment. Ragging can have serious consequences, both physical and psychological, and can leave lasting scars on the victims. It is a harmful tradition that undermines the principles of respect, inclusion, and a safe learning environment, making it crucial to address and eradicate from educational institutions.

What is Anti-Ragging?

Anti-ragging is a concerted effort to combat and prevent the practice of ragging within educational institutions. It encompasses a range of strategies and initiatives aimed at creating awareness about the harmful effects of ragging, establishing strict policies against it, and fostering a culture of respect, inclusivity, and safety on campuses. Anti-ragging campaigns seek to protect the dignity and well-being of students, encouraging them to report incidents of ragging without fear of retaliation. The ultimate goal of anti-ragging efforts is to ensure that educational environments are free from intimidation, harassment, and bullying, allowing students to pursue their studies in a safe and supportive atmosphere.

Popular Anti-ragging Slogans in English

• Ragging hurts, don’t do it
• Keep the campus safe – say no to ragging
• A little kindness can go a long way – don’t rag
• We’re in this together – no ragging
• Let’s be better than our worst selves – say no to ragging
• Don’t let ragging define you
• Be a leader, not a follower – say no to ragging
• You can make a difference – stop ragging
• Be the change you want to see – say no to ragging
• Don’t ruin someone else’s life – no ragging
• Think before you act – don’t rag
• Make a stand against ragging
• Everyone deserves respect – no ragging
• Stand up for what’s right – say no to ragging
• Speak out against ragging
• Do your part to end ragging

30+ Anti-Ragging Slogans

• “Respect, Not Ragging!”
• “Say No to Ragging, Say Yes to Friendship.”
• “Stand Up, Speak Out, Stop Ragging.”
• “Ragging-Free Zones: Our Campuses!”
• “Ragging: No Laughing Matter.”
• “Education, Not Intimidation.”
• “Unity in Diversity, Not Ragging.”
• “Let’s Build Bridges, Not Walls.”
• “Ragging is a Crime, Not a Game.”
• “Bully-Free Campuses, Brighter Futures.”
• “Together Against Ragging.”
• “Respect Every Student’s Right to Learn.”
• “Zero Tolerance for Ragging.”
• “Inclusion, Not Exclusion.”
• “Say Yes to Friendship, No to Ragging.”
• “Education Empowers, Ragging Devours.”
• “Be a Hero, Stand Against Ragging.”
• “Ragging Kills Dreams, Choose Kindness.”
• “A Rag-Free Tomorrow Starts Today.”
• “Respect, Empathy, Equality – No Room for Ragging.”
• “Don’t Let Ragging Define Our Institutions.”
• “Ragging Robs Innocence, Speak Up!”
• “Embrace Differences, Reject Ragging.”
• “Ragging: A Stain on Education.”
• “Ragging-Free Campuses: Our Pledge.”
• “Let’s Learn, Not Harm.”
• “Real Leaders Don’t Rag, They Inspire.”
• “Report Ragging, Protect Lives.”
• “Together We Stand, Against Ragging.”
• “Ragging: Silence Encourages Violence.”
• “Safe Campuses, Happy Students.”
• “Respect the New, Reject the Ragging.”

Best Anti-Ragging Slogans in English

Ragging is a harmful practice that can cause emotional and physical distress to students. It is important to create a safe and welcoming environment in educational institutions, where everyone is treated with respect and kindness. Anti-ragging slogans play a crucial role in raising awareness and encouraging students to take a stand against ragging. Here are some powerful and simple slogans that promote a ragging-free environment:

• Emphasizing the importance of building positive relationships instead of engaging in harmful practices.
• Highlighting the seriousness of ragging and its consequences.
• Encouraging students to stand up against ragging and promote mutual respect.
• Urging students to support and help each other instead of ragging.
• Conveying the message that true friendships are nurturing and ragging only causes pain.
• Encouraging students to reject bullying behavior and choose kindness.
• Promoting the idea that a campus free of ragging is a happy and healthy place to study.
• Emphasizing the importance of unity and acceptance in a diverse educational setting.
• Motivating students to speak out against ragging and prevent violence.
• Encouraging a shift from outdated practices like ragging to modern values of respect and kindness.
• Inspiring students to choose compassion and understanding instead of ragging.
• Highlighting that ragging is shameful while respect helps rebuild positive relationships.
• Encouraging the creation of strong, positive connections rather than instilling fear.
• Promoting safety and well-being by eliminating ragging from educational institutions.
• Reminding students that their behavior can make a difference in creating a ragging-free environment.

Anti-ragging Slogans FAQs

What is the purpose of anti-ragging.

The purpose of anti-ragging initiatives is to prevent and eliminate the practice of ragging in educational institutions, ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all students.

How do I stop anti-ragging?

To stop ragging, institutions enforce strict anti-ragging policies, promote awareness campaigns, and encourage students to report incidents promptly.

How to write a slogan?

To write a slogan, keep it short, catchy, and focused on the message you want to convey. It should be memorable and reflect the purpose or cause effectively.

Who banned ragging?

Ragging has been banned by educational institutions, governments, and regulatory bodies to protect students from its harmful effects.

Give a slogan on ragging

Say No to Ragging, Say Yes to Respect!

Give a few anti-ragging slogans in Hindi

Ragging Se Inkaar, Samman Hi Humara Adhikar! Ragging Ko Rokna Hai, Surakshit Shiksha Dena Hai!

Related content

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Select your Course

Please select class.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Ragging as an expression of power in a deeply divided society; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university

Ayanthi Wickramasinghe

International Maternal and Child health unit, Department of Women and Children’s health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Birgitta Essén

Jill trenholm, associated data.

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Initiation rituals such as hazing, bullying, and ragging, as it is referred to in Sri Lanka, is a global phenomenon and has become a serious public health problem. Students are bullied and harassed by senior students causing them to suffer severe adverse consequences including depression, increased university dropouts and suicide. Although this has led to a significant burden on the country, research on ragging is scarce. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of students concerning the phenomenon of ragging and to understand how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka. This paper is based on 17 focus group discussions with male and female students of Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim ethnicity. Thematic analysis was employed to navigate through the theoretical lenses of structural violence, intersectionality, and social dominance. The findings revealed how students perceived ragging differently; as an expression of power to initiate order and as a way to express dissatisfaction towards social inequalities occurring within the larger society or to facilitate bonds between university students. Students trivialized violence related to ragging and accepted it as a part of the university subculture despite being aware of the dire consequences. There was a described cyclical nature to ragging whereby victims become perpetrators. The student’s perspective appeared to be a missed opportunity in finding feasible solutions to a societal problem that must take all parties involved, into consideration.

Introduction

Many university students look forward to gaining entry to a university, and celebrating this milestone in their transition to adulthood. However, this elation and excitement is often replaced by fear and anxiety when students have to undergo harmful initiation practices and rituals. Although the terminology differs from country to country; “hazing” or “bullying” in USA, “bizutage” in France, “praxe” in Portugal and “Mopokaste” in Finland, there are commonalities to these practices found in higher education institutes and universities around the world [ 1 ]. In Sri Lanka and most South Asian countries, this so-called initiation ritual is known as “ragging”. It is carried out by senior students and was originally created to forge comradery and bonds of friendship. However, ragging has evolved in South Asian countries to have little remnants of its original form [ 2 – 4 ]. In Sri Lanka, ragging is defined as “any deliberate act by an individual student or group of students, which causes physical or psychological stress or trauma and results in humiliating, harassing and intimidating the other person” [ 5 ]. It has been expressed as an intentional and systematic violation of human rights and freedom of thought and movement of the junior students [ 6 ].

Depending on the country and cultural contexts, initiation rites differ as does the goal of the practice. In the western world, hazing practices, especially within fraternities and sororities, mostly consist of sexual abuse, drinking games including forced binge drinking in order to form social bonds [ 7 – 9 ], whereas ragging practices in Sri Lanka are built upon breaking cultural taboos often seen as an opportunity to equalize students from different societal backgrounds [ 10 , 11 ]. These practices, seen differently in different countries can be viewed as highly contextual, often mirroring the society at large and exhibiting different power dynamics related to race, gender, socioeconomic status and other facets of student’s identity [ 12 ]. Ragging in Sri Lanka has been considered to be distinct as it has been shown to be driven by an outcry of discontent towards authoritative figures and societal hierarchies [ 13 , 14 ].

To put Sri Lanka in context, it is a multicultural, multilingual country consisting of an ethno-religious blend of Sinhalese (75%), Sri Lankan Tamils (11%), Moors (Muslims) (9%), and other groups (5%) [ 15 ]. The Northern and Eastern Provinces are predominated by Tamil Hindus, and the rest of the country is predominated by Sinhalese Buddhists. The official languages are Sinhala, Tamil, and English, a remnant of colonialism. This post-war nation is still struggling from its history of colonialism [ 16 ] and the 27-year long civil war which ended in 2009. Sri Lanka is a country rich in traditions, still believed to uphold patriarchal values and a hierarchical social structure [ 17 ].

Following the colonial rule, the Sri Lankan educational system changed from an elitist model, where only the wealthy partook, to a mass model where all citizens were welcomed in higher education. Along with this, the change in the medium of instruction from English to Sinhalese and Tamil, led to changes in the composition of the student population [ 14 ]. The most prominent feature of mass university education was the change in socioeconomic structure of the student population due to the district quotas enabling a higher intake of rural students who are often from poorer backgrounds [ 18 ]. The previous majority of English-speaking urban upper and middle class was replaced by Sinhalese and Tamil speaking lower classes from lesser privileged backgrounds [ 18 ].

The lack of adequate English skills in this new cohort, has hindered these students from eventually securing so-called desirable jobs and entering the global job market. The resultant high unemployment rate has led Sri Lankan youth to feel frustrated and perceive the country to be unjust, unequal and marginalizing [ 19 ]. Therefore, these culturally embedded underlying inequalities have become a breeding ground for dissatisfaction and have contributed to the changing practice of ragging. Ragging practices are carried out by the “seniors”, who are students from the second year and above, forcing the new entrants to university to conform to their rules. Ragging often entails the newcomers being subjected to psychological, verbal and physical abuse such as beating, hitting with objects, performing dangerous tasks, and sexual abuse such as stripping, performing sex acts and rape [ 1 , 10 ]. This has led to a range of health consequences like anxiety, depression, insomnia, injuries, and even death and suicide [ 20 ]. Ragging has become a significant public health problem which not only has led to ill health, but has resulted in a loss of students from universities, with a subsequent loss of human resources and economic prosperity in the country [ 13 ].

Ragging has been a criminal offense in Sri Lanka since 1998 and carries a severe punishment [ 21 ], yet this has not deterred students from carrying out this ritual covertly. This practice is embedded as part of the university ‘subculture’[ 17 ]. A recent report conducted among students in eight Sri Lankan state Universities found the prevalence of verbal ragging to be over 51%, psychological ragging 34%, physical ragging 24% and sexual ragging 17% [ 22 ]. Initiatives made by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the administrative body of universities, by issuing guidelines [ 5 ] and creating several methods to lodge complaints against ragging but these initiatives have not been successful in curbing this practice [ 10 ].

There is a scarcity of research on ragging in Sri Lanka, particularly around student’s perceptions. According to reports by the Ministry of Education, approximately 2000 students dropout annually, and several students have committed suicide as a result of ragging [ 23 ]. Similarly, a study conducted in Bangladesh demonstrated, traumatic incidents such as ragging increased suicidal ideation among university students [ 24 ].

Educating youth in a safe space is essential, particularly for its subsequent contributions towards the country’s future. It is increasingly imperative to address this serious public health problem that profoundly affects all students, not only victims but also perpetrators and by-standers. Ragging has a potential deleterious impact upon society’s younger generations and their university years intended for building intellectual capacity. The aim of this study was to explore students’ perceptions concerning the phenomenon of ragging, and to understand how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna.

Integrated theoretical lenses

Universities are microcosms of the larger society [ 14 ]. Contexts matter and ragging communicates within this complexity, deeply affecting students’ lives and behaviour. The following integrated theories, explained below, helped sensitize us during the data analysis.

Galtung’s theory [ 25 ] of structural violence was the theoretical departure point at the macro level. This theory holds that direct violence, like ragging, is the visible manifestation of underlying invisible violence that goes unquestioned in everyday praxis. According to Galtung, structural/instutionalized violence reveals how societies naturally purvey their cultural beliefs veiling the reality of destruction by making violence seem acceptable.

The essence of intersectionality [ 26 , 27 ] is inextricably linked to structural violence. By examining the diversity of the students who make up this microcosmic society of the university, one notes how personal identities and their many other diverse attributes influence beliefs, actions, and experiences. How these cultural features/attributes intersect, renders the individual more than a sum of their parts. Intersectionality reveals the individual’s many unique intersecting factors, such as student’s age, gender, ethnicity, social class, caste, language, cultural history, and geographical origins, giving a more nuanced view of their marginalized states.

These individual factors, not only build upon their identity, but also allocates them into various social groups that mirror the hierarchies of the larger society. This leads to group formations that attempt to wield power/status, enabling them to control other groups. This group dynamic is in alignment with Social Dominance theory, which states that dominant individuals have a tendency to organize themselves into ingroups and outgroups to form social hierarchies, with the ingroup dictating or controlling the outgroup [ 28 ].

Structural violence, Intersectionality and Social Dominance theories are integrated, and serve to reflect the macro, meso and micro levels of society. Employing this matrix of theories, the complexity and subtleties of ragging are further illuminated ( Fig 1 ).

Materials and methods

Study design.

A qualitative phenomenological design was used for this exploratory study. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were chosen as it is the method of choice when exploring societal/group norms, revealing their lived experiences and how attitudes and behaviors are formed within groups [ 29 ].

Study setting

The University of Jaffna, is situated in the Northern province of Sri Lanka. Jaffna was a major war zone during the ethnic conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that ended in 2009. A majority of the population of the Northern province are Tamils [ 15 ]. Since 2012, similar numbers of students of all ethnicities began their studies at the University of Jaffna. Most other universities across Sri Lanka have a Sinhalese majority. The university of Jaffna was chosen for this study as the student composition was more diverse.

Study participants

The principal investigator (PI)/first author, approached heads of departments from Medicine, Arts, Management, Science, and Technology faculties, and asked them to inform students enrolled in these faculties about the study and how to contact her if they were interested in participating in the FGDs. From the students who responded, a convenient sample of 50 male, and 58 female students, from the 2 nd and 3 rd year, between 21 to 25 years were selected. The chosen participants could include victims, perpetrators and by-standers. First year students were excluded as they could suffer re-traumatization as they could have most likely experienced ragging recently. The participants were informed about the study by the PI and explained that it was a part of a larger doctoral project involving ragging.

The PI is a Sri Lankan born medical doctor currently undergoing her doctoral studies. She has grown up in the context yet received her own education overseas. Having not attended Sri Lankan university yet being part of the culture, she has a distinct insider/outsider vantage point. She spent over a month in Jaffna prior to data collection to get acquainted with the university setup and familiarize herself with the surroundings.

Data collection

A total of 17 FGDs were conducted with individual groups of Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim students, organized by ethnicity, language, and gender as it was deemed more appropriate and for ease of communication amongst like students. Similar numbers of FGDs were conducted with each ethnic group/gender. Discussions were carried out in three languages. The English FDGs were moderated by PA, a Swedish medical doctor with extensive experience in cross cultural collaborations and longstanding work history in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese FDG’s were moderated by KW a Sri Lankan researcher with expertise in qualitative methods. Some of the English and Sinhalese FDG’s were moderated by the PI who is Sinhalese speaking. A Sri Lankan Tamil speaking research assistant moderated all the Tamil FDG’s. Notes were taken by two observers in the Tamil focus groups, and for the other groups, one observer was present. A thematic guide was used, with questions related to student’s perceptions of ragging, perpetrators, victims, campus environment and student recommendations. Observers notes enriched the data collection and were used in debriefings. Groups consisted of four to eight participants, with each discussion lasting 45–60 minutes. A quiet location that ensured privacy and located on the university premises was used. All FGDs were carried out in March 2019, except for the Faculty of Technology, which was conducted in November 2019 due to the closure of the faculty concerning a severe ragging incident [ 30 ].

Data analysis

The participating researchers discussed the FDG’s immediately after they were conducted, prior to conducting subsequent FGDs in order to refine probing questions and to incorporate emerging information. FGDs were transcribed and translated/back-translated into English by the PI and a Tamil speaking research assistant. This process contributed to enhancing familiarity with the data as transcripts were read repeatedly during the transcription and translation processes. Transcripts were analyzed by the PI and two other researchers with both insider and outsider positions, using thematic analysis [ 31 ]. The research team initially coded the themes independently and then met and spent several days coming to a consensus, mapping, defining, and redefining the themes. Notes concerning background information, comments, and innuendos were used to better understand and substantiate the material. Through the chosen integrated theoretical lenses; Structural violence [ 25 ], Intersectionality [ 27 ] and Social Dominance [ 28 ]. The transcripts were iteratively read and inductively coded. Subsequently, similar emergent codes were grouped together in a mapping exercise. Quotes were used to enhance credibility. Themes and sub themes were developed from the multiple data interpretation discussions. During this process, one overall theme and four main subthemes were chosen by consensus of the research team.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was granted by the ethical review committee of the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka (J/ERC/18/96/NDR/0200). The PI provided information about the aim and procedures of the study to the participants and obtained a written informed consent before starting the interviews. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured by assigning each participant a code according to ethnicity and gender, Sinhalese (S), Tamil (T), Muslim (M) and male (M), and female (F), which was used to identify the transcripts.

Ragging as an expression of power was established as the overall theme ( Fig 2 ).

There were five subthemes as follows; veil of secrecy and silence, ragging lies on a spectrum, cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy, a society with deep divisions and student recommendations; an unexplored potential resource. Four of the subthemes focused on inter-student relationships and their dynamics, while the other, portrayed the complex interaction with teachers, university administration and society.

Subtheme 1: Veil of secrecy and silence

The existence of ragging within the university was expressed as a well-kept secret among the students. “No, it never happened to us”, was how most FGD’s began with students claiming that ragging did not occur in the University of Jaffna and that they had never heard, or experienced it. They ultimately contradicted themselves when they then went on to explain how it was.

Students claimed that the seniors gave the newcomers humiliating names which dehumanized them, and the seniors themselves were identified by pseudonyms that demonstrated power, keeping them “nameless”, further maintaining the secrecy of this ritual.

“They (seniors) will put names. The names will have very bad meanings. For the next four years they will only use that name.” (T, F)

Ruled by fear

It was evident that generating fear and intimidating newcomers was the way the seniors maintained secrecy. One student put it this way:

“First years are afraid. They won’t talk about ragging to anyone. Even if we (batch mates) ask who carried out the ragging, they won’t tell.” (T, M)

Other students thought the raggers threats took away the juniors’ independent decision-making capacity, suppressing their ability to differentiate right from wrong expressed here;

“Introducing them (juniors) to a new place and showing them how to behave by reducing their capacity of self-thinking and decision making from their own experience, creates a hive mentality within the students.” (T, M)

Subtheme 2: Ragging lies on a spectrum

For many students ragging was part of the university “subculture” which the newcomers faced in their first year, and sometimes longer. Ragging practices were seen as both positive and negative, which can be as mild as singing or a dress code to extortion and violence. The junior women had to wear dresses made from a certain fabric generally worn only at home, referred to as “Cheeta dresses” in Sri Lanka and braid their hair in two braids, seen as juvenile for their age group. The men had to shave their heads, wear white long-sleeved shirts, no belts, and no underwear. Both men and women had to wear a certain type of bathroom slippers and were not allowed to wear shoes. This was meant to humiliate and infantilize them. This student expressed the stigma related to being dressed in bathroom slippers;

“They (seniors) treat them (newcomers) like small children…when they go in the bus people will laugh at them …are you working in the bathroom, like bathroom cleaners?” (M, F)

The victims of ragging were said to be the junior students, and the ones that were picked on the most, were men that were “handsome”, came from so-called “good schools” and did not “respect the seniors”. The seniors who engaged in or instigated ragging, were in most cases students who had undergone ragging as juniors, had “under par academic performance”, “violent tendencies” and/or “inferiority complexes”. In their words, a ragger was;

“A person who came from a low-level society, studied in a low-level school, and had nothing special in his life and wanted to enjoy everything here.” (M, M)

The students spoke about both the negative and positive consequences of ragging; “not all ragging becomes violent”. While other students said that “Ragging and interaction are being used as synonyms” by the seniors to justify ragging. This demonstrates how ragging was carried out using greater and lesser degrees of violence/coercion, from things such as asking the newcomers to sing a song to assaulting the newcomers.

The persistent harassment of new students was a recurrent topic in the FDGs as is described here;

“Before and after every lecture the seniors will come to the lecture hall and rag us. Every hour at least 10 minutes they will rag us.” (T, F)

Even though ragging took a predominantly psychological or physical form, there were instances students were subjected to sexual forms. Students were reluctant to expose the occurrence of sexual harassment but the following was revealed;

“Some kind of touching (sexual) also goes on… Sinhalese girls are sexually harassed.” (M, M)

Another student said;

“They (newcomers) have to imitate dogs having sex. Girls are asked to draw boy’s body parts, and the boys to draw girl’s body parts.” (M, F)

Several students said ragging was necessary. They believed it was a positive way to develop bonds and increase comradery between the seniors and juniors.

“When we come to this campus, those are the friendships that remain with us. To have a friendship we need to form a connection, because of ragging a connection was formed.” (T, M)

Some students believed that ragging should continue in a non-violent manner because it helped develop and nurture new skills such as communication;

“…with a thing like this (ragging), their (newcomers) personality improves, this is my experience, before I wasn’t a person who would speak out like this but little by little it improved” (S, M)

Another argument made by the students concerning positive ragging, was that seniors perceived they helped newcomers by guiding them towards the “correct path” using fear, demonstrated in the following quote:

“If we tell them (junior females), maybe in fear they will wear (culturally) appropriate clothes from the first year. If not they will face problems when they go out (society). So, we can’t completely stop ragging.” (T, F)

The participants mentioned that seniors often kept juniors awake throughout the night and woke them up early in morning to rag them, thus causing sleep deprivation and exhaustion. Therefore, newcomers lacked time for their studies and were frequently drowsy during lectures.

“We (newcomers) are told to come at 9.00 pm and they (seniors) let us go around 12 midnight. Even if we say that we are feeling very sleepy, they don’t listen. If you’re sleepy you have to sleep on the floor, we have to wait till they (seniors) let us go.” (M, F)

Subtheme 3: Cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy

This sub-theme revealed that ragging was a cyclical system organized to create a hierarchy within the university student body by the demonstration of ‘power over’.

Rite of passage

The FGD participants saw ragging as a rite of passage that all students entering university must undergo to be accepted by their seniors and belong to their peer group. The “ragging period” ends, with the so-called “ponding ceremony” where newcomers are thrown dirty stagnant water on. Following this, the seniors give the juniors a “welcome party” where the seniors and juniors unite as “Batch fit” (an expression that indicates belonging to the group).

“Ragging is like an acceptance to campus. When we give the first-year students the welcome party then there is some unity.” (S, M)

Students stated that it was a ritual with a few unwritten rules such as, ragging occurs only among your own faculty and only seniors can rag. Men were said to be ragged by men, and women ragged by women, and most importantly, ragging occurred strictly within ethnicities.

“Other faculty seniors should not hit our juniors. Only we will hit our juniors.” (T, M)

The powerful perpetrator

Several students referred to ragging as a way for seniors to demonstrate power and seniority, exhibiting their power over the juniors in the following manner:

“You are a newcomer, I am going to show you my superiority by ragging, physically, mentally and psychologically.” (T, M)

Another student spoke of how ragging was believed to prepare them for the greater world:

“He (senior student) said ragging is to improve leadership qualities. If you don’t obey your senior, how will you obey your boss in future?” (M, M)

Students who were disrespectful towards the seniors, got ragged more. Newcomers who made complaints, were often isolated from their batch, branded as “anti-raggers” and stigmatized. They were said to be excluded from university functions, parties organized by the students, not given leadership roles, and frozen out by the rest of their peers.

“If someone won’t obey them (seniors), they will separate that person from the batch and won’t involve that person in common events.” (M, F)

Students spoke about the financial burden caused by ragging. The seniors were said to extort money from newcomers, asking them to buy food for them in the cafeteria or to top up their mobile phone accounts. Some students, gave up their food for the day to fulfill the demand of feeding the seniors as indicated here;

“Every student comes from a different economic status. I have seen some students (juniors) buy them (seniors) food and then they don’t eat for the whole day or they will eat only one time per day.” (T, F)

Juniors dependent on the seniors

Juniors were said to be forced to depend upon seniors for academic support, as the lectures were at times inadequate or the students did not understand the lecture material due to language problems.

“They (seniors) do it (extra classes) willingly, as a help to the junior students.” (S, F)

Victims become perpetrators

Participants claimed that new students got revenge by ragging newcomers the following year. Students expressed that they did not see the harm in ragging their juniors as they themselves underwent it.

“If a boy got ragged, in future he will think about how he could develop that ragging and give it back. They (the boys) will talk in which way they could make it worse.” (T, F)

Subtheme 4: A society with deep divisions

Students spoke about how rigid norms and hierarchies in Sri Lankan society influenced ragging. Participants spoke about their tenuous relationships with authority figures which seemed to be imbued with fear. There was talk of distrust on both sides, authority figures and students. Ragging rules exist but action was expressed as rarely taken.

Ragging challenging rigid norms

Participants alluded to Sri Lankan society’s deep divisions in age hierarchies, gender, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic class, and caste which had an impact on ragging.

It was evident that the students’ behavior was guided by traditional gender norms, displayed by the soft-spoken demure manner in which women spoke as opposed to the more loud, aggressive manner the males expressed their opinions. During the FGD’s, the women often giggled and whispered when certain topics were discussed, whereas the men got agitated and angry when the female moderators probed their views.

They expressed how ragging occurred as per these gender norms. Men used more physical ragging to show off power to impress women as they did not often get opportunities to interact freely.

“Boys will hit handsome (male) students. Because he (ragger) can impress juniors (females).” (T, F)

According to the students, ragging practices were gendered, in that men underwent more physical ragging than women;

“They (seniors) will make us (females) sing and they will beat the male students.” (T, F)

Senior women considered it their responsibility to guide and make sure the junior women upheld their respectability. Controlling the newcomer’s behavior was a way to safeguard their decorum. A female student commented:

“I saw a girl sitting on a final year student’s bench after 6pm and laughing with senior boys. The boys will be drunk. The girls don’t know what will happen to them. When we saw that we got angry. They should think about their protection. They should think, how will I go back home safely.” (T, F)

It was expressed how male students were often drunk in the evenings. Newcomers were said to be forced to consume alcohol, as it was seen as being unmanly if they did not. The cultural norm states that women are not supposed to drink alcohol, whereas men were defined by drinking. This was elaborated by the following;

“They will force the male newcomers to drink if they don’t, they will scold them… you are not a boy, you are a girl.” (M, F)

The students saw ragging as a way to equalize divisions such as socioeconomic status and caste, while increasing divisions in other cases.

“…they (juniors) are brought together. Ragging reduces the disparity in the different levels of society and brings everyone to the same level…We bring them all down to the same level.” (S, M)

The senior students felt it as a part of their duty to equalize everyone and “fix” the so-called mentality of the more privileged to become more equal with the more marginalized groups.

“We call them privileged…We take them and bring them all to the same level, and we fix their mentality.” (S, M)

The participants felt very strongly about it being unfair that certain students who came from a stronger financial background could afford better things than others. These discussions became quite heated;

“…If I go to the canteen with 60 rupees and he has 100 rupees…I can eat a vegetable rice, he can have a fried rice and drink a coke cola. We are in the same batch, we sit for the same exam, we study in the same campus and we study together, then why is there a difference?” (S, M)

The lack of knowledge of the English language led to a lot of difficulties among the students in communicating with students and lecturers of other ethnicities, understanding lectures and basic interaction with people living in the area. Students expressed that the English language was seen as a class marker, creating a social divide, as evidenced by;

“…Some students try to show a fake poshness (by speaking English) …” (S, F)

Not allowing juniors to speak English during the ragging period was another method of suppressing students;

“In the first semester we have to talk using only Sinhalese words, we are not allowed to speak a single word in English.” (S, M)

Trivializing violence

Many students believed that ragging be a part of university life/culture and they did not see the harm. They convinced themselves that it was harmless despite contrary information. This notion is reflected by this statement:

“…but unlike other campuses there isn’t ragging here. But by ragging no one is mentally or physically hurt here. If it’s done there is no harm caused to anyone…” (S, F)

Some students felt that violence was a part of the Sri Lankan society and that people had to be obedient to the hierarchical systems, therefore they did not see ragging as something to be concerned about.

“In every situation people should have obedience. We should obey someone, maybe in an office. You should obey your boss. When a person can’t obey, he is subjected to violence.” (T, M)

Students feel demonized

Due to controversial ragging incidents, students lamented that all students were seen as perpetrators and portrayed in a negative light by the media, and therefore mistreated by the university authorities by false accusations.

“The ones who were not involved got an inquiry … they (university administration) wanted to put a noose around their neck… that person was not even involved in anything (ragging)…” (S, F)

Another student expressed how complaints of ragging were demoralizing;

“When you’re trying to educate us, why are the people above us trying to put us down by talking about ragging, ragging, ragging?” (S, M)

Some participants claimed that they were worried about being a part of the FGDs because they thought it was an inquiry where they would be falsely penalized for ragging;

“To be honest, none of us wanted to come here (for the FGD) today. We thought it’s like an inquiry but when the science lecturer explained… we thought, let’s go and tell our problems, we can’t suffer like this every day.” (S, F)

Submitting to authorities that don’t take responsibility

Although there were several ways to make complaints, students conveyed their frustration, that authorities often did not take any action. The students expressed disappointment that lecturers, counselors, and others responsible, did not want to intervene or get involved with ragging leaving a vacuum, where raggers rule.

“The lecturers stay aside and let ragging occur. The lecturers won’t get involved, then the seniors behave the way they want and rag the juniors.” (S, F)

Subtheme 5: Students’ recommendations; an unexplored potential resource

The students had several recommendations on how to end ragging. Some students believed that ragging was unnecessary but organized interactions between senior and junior students were needed. They believed that the use of these terms interchangeably was the main problem and evident in the statement below;

“Ragging and interactions are being used as synonyms. Those are two different words. Ragging is hurting someone for ones’ entertainment. Interaction is creating a place to get connected with students from different areas and societies. It becomes a problem when these terms are used interchangeably. Students get confused with these two words but they are two distinct things. Interaction is needed but not ragging.” (T,M)

Participants had ideas on how to help students respect one another through mentorship and how to make ragging a more harmless way to interact with each other. One of the recommendations was;

“Until we eradicate the mentality of the seniors to suppress their juniors, we can’t eradicate ragging. To do that mentorship is important. Mentorship by lecturers, to tell me what university is all about, what are my rights, how can I reach help and security. This message should reach the new students before the seniors capture them…” (T, M)

It was expressed that during, wartime, the students were a more intricate part of the greater society and thus were more community oriented, versus the current more individualistic society;

“…students (before entering university) were living inside a bubble created within school, home, and tuition classes. I think they need to think about society, they should make efforts to get connected with society.” (M, M)

Anti-raggers were cited as a potential counter force, provided they got more support from students and the administration;

“There are anti-raggers in every batch. We can form a group through the university administration with the anti-raggers to identify raggers and to give them a punishment or suspension.” (T, M)

This study expands the knowledge on students’ perceptions of ragging and how ragging affects student life and culture in Sri Lanka. It was striking that the students themselves were ambivalent in their views of ragging. However, ragging used as an expression of power permeated the findings as an overall theme. This overall theme consists of five subthemes as follows; veil of secrecy and silence, ragging lies on a spectrum, cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy, a society with deep divisions and student recommendations; an unexplored potential resource. These finding can contribute to a deeper understanding on how this negative ragging practice can be curbed and/or promote change in preserving the more positive experiences of bonding.

The wider context of ragging: Sri Lanka and it’s university culture

This study underscores Sri Lanka’s historically embedded rigid social norms and hierarchical systems lending itself to youth’s discontent which manifests in ragging as direct violence [ 25 ]. Beneath the facade of this purported equitable society, students revealed hierarchies of socioeconomic classes, caste, ethnicity and gender which has led to a clash of attitudes, differences in privileges, and perceived unjust divisions of power [ 32 ]. The diverse mix of students at Jaffna University seem to experience being re-grouped according to a hierarchical system whereby the seniors’ ruled over the newcomers. This aligns with social dominance theory [ 28 ] and the stated administrative apathy creates a vacuum which contributes to the institutionalizing of structural violence. Samaranayake et al. [ 18 ] showed how students who feel alienated, ignored and unheard, by adult power structures both in the university and in society often turn towards violence; ragging can be seen as an expression of this violence. The students in this study shared the sentiments that they had to comply with the hierarchical restructuring and felt more let down than supported by the administration.

The English-speaking urban middle class continues to rise to the top in the national and private sector while sidelining the rural, monolingual, lower classes that are dependent on very limited government and public sector jobs. [ 11 , 19 ]. Despite common dissatisfaction, disgruntled youth of different ethnicities remain isolated from each other due to segregation by language divisions and regional barriers [ 16 ]. Gamage et al. [ 16 ] remarks that ragging has served as a method of ensuring those from privileged backgrounds are made aware that they are not superior to those from less privileged settings, thereby disrupting the existent societal norm. Similarly, this study’s findings demonstrate how ragging is a tool to equalize societal hierarchies and associated disadvantages giving voice to the marginalized, by leveling the playing field. This was evident in how the participants spoke about “equalizing” students. The social injustices faced by the youth can be considered as invisible structural violence as per Galtung [ 25 ]. It has been shown that students’ involvement in confrontational politics, could be an attempt to empower themselves, while the Marxist and leftist political parties are said to be the driving force behind student unions eager to recruit dissatisfied youth [ 18 ].

Intersectionality reveals the gendered dimension found in our study. Differences in the methods of ragging between men and women were further strengthened through patriarchal-driven norms repeatedly endorsed by society. It was evident that university students still upheld the traditional notion of ‘ Læjja-baya’ (Shame-fear), expected of women. Every child in Sri Lanka has been taught to conform to the concept of ‘ Læjja-baya’ or in other words, ‘shame and fear of ridicule’ which is exploited in ragging [ 17 ]. Young women are expected to behave with sexual modesty and be chaste, otherwise they will be exposed to ridicule and shame [ 17 ]. Similarly, gender norms dictate that women should be submissive. The rising number of female students in universities has not kept pace with the entrenched gender expectations [ 10 , 17 ]. Women are still unable to reach higher positions as some men still think that women should remain at home and take care of their families [ 17 , 33 ].

In Sri Lankan society where patriarchal practices dominate, ‘power over’ is the currency used to gain social dominance and respect. Study participants felt that ragging was an opportunity for seniors to form hierarchies and therefore hold power over the newcomers. Participants reported it was mandatory for the juniors to obey the seniors. Furthermore, the former newcomers looked forward to their turn as seniors, gaining control over the next new batch, maintaining the cycle of ragging [ 17 ]. The requisite for deference towards parents, authoritative figures and one’s seniors is the cultural norm [ 34 ]. Senior students by default acquire this position of power, and thereby pacifying their frustrations over social inequalities, personal jealousies and inferiority complexes [ 10 , 11 , 14 ]. Worldwide studies show that coercion, domination and abuse of power are the pillars that these initiation rites are built upon [ 7 , 8 , 35 ].

Ragging also invokes Sri Lankan society’s acceptable masculinity role. This study supports the notion that ragging among men often takes a more aggressive and physical form as compared to the more psychological form women endure. Correspondingly, several studies found these practices to be gendered [ 12 , 36 ]. Véliz-Calderón et al. [ 36 ] and Tong et al. [ 37 ] describe hazing experiences among female students to be psychological, including eating disgusting food and sleep deprivation, whereas male students had to undergo activities displaying physical strength, supporting the socio-cultural construct of American masculinity/femininity.

Evidence of gendered male dominance and female submission was also present in our study. These gendered expectations are damaging to both men and women. Attracting a partner is one such example [ 10 , 17 ]. Senior male students were expected to demonstrate power over the newcomers which enabled them to impress a suitable partner from the opposite sex to fulfill their romantic and sexual needs [ 11 , 17 ]. Due to the notion of ‘ Læjja-baya’ expressed earlier, male interaction with females is limited and ragging provides a platform for connecting.

With social dominance and the quest for power at stake, it is therefore not surprising that ragging is maintained in secrecy. This has a historical implication where ragging has only recently been discussed. Despite numerous efforts by the UGC and the Sri Lankan government, ragging continues to be widespread. Like ragging, hazing and other initiation practices are often secretly conducted according to Campo et al. [ 38 ]. This secrecy is in part owed to the unwillingness of students to make complaints due to the fear of being ostracized and of the wrath of powerful seniors [ 13 ]. This study’s participants expressed similar fears that were outweighed by the authorities’ apathy they have experienced upon reporting. Gunatilaka et al. [ 10 ] reported ragging was seen by students, as a small price to pay to receive a university education and all that entails, also seen in this study. Participants claimed refusal to participate in ragging resulted in a loss of inclusion. The practice of excluding or “othering” is an instinctive reaction to protect oneself and one’s group particularly when there is a perception of scarce resources [ 39 ]. This holds true when many students are fighting for limited university seats and employment opportunities.

Students in this study often normalized or trivialized violence. The dismissive manner in which violence is seen by society can play a role in the acceptability of ragging. Sri Lanka has had a violent past with several bloody insurgencies and a protracted ethnic uprising [ 18 ].These study participants were born during Sri Lanka’s days of civil war. This perceived invisibility/normalization of violence has also permeated the culture in the ways children are raised. This could have influenced the tolerance of violent and aggressive behavior [ 10 ]. Although corporal punishment in schools is officially banned, it continues to occur at home [ 40 ]. Child maltreatment contributes to a child’s normalization of violence according to studies conducted globally [ 41 , 42 ]. Several other studies on intimate partner violence in Sri Lanka have shown violence rates to be between 17–72% [ 43 , 44 ], these permissive attitudes towards violence against women also demonstrate societal perceptions of violence [ 10 ]. Normalization of violence distorts ragging as harmless. This has been described in other studies where students don’t acknowledge these practices as harmful or deny having experienced what they consider to be ‘violence’ [ 7 , 38 ].

Another aspect contributing to student ragging is the rapid expansion of government funded universities and the influx of diverse student populations that came along with this. It did not go hand in hand with sufficient infrastructure, accommodation, leisure activities and sports for students [ 18 ]. This could be attributed to slow growth of the economy and the lack of public funds to finance educational institutes [ 14 ]. The scarcity of funding has also resulted in shortcomings such as a lack of lecturers, decreased quality of teaching and poor security within the university and surroundings [ 13 ]. The participants indicated that these unsatisfactory conditions and inadequacies at the system level contribute to student rebellion, which is in line with Galtung’s structural violence [ 25 ]. Societal structures that honor certain groups and not others, contribute to the invisible violence level, in this case, manifested as ragging.

The spectrum of ragging

The students’ ambivalence revealed that ragging is seen on a spectrum with both positive and negative attributes. Students who saw ragging as more of a bonding experience, were proponents for ragging; they experienced it as a part of university life and a rite of passage all new entrants must undergo in order to belong [ 17 ]. Ragging can range from performing trivial tasks such as singing songs to extreme physical and sexual harassment [ 10 ]. Other studies also showed that these practices increase group cohesiveness [ 45 , 46 ]. Participants claimed that certain ragging practices were constructive and helpful, especially milder forms have been shown to have positive effects on students similar to other studies [ 10 ]. Students entering university from rural areas or disadvantaged backgrounds could be timid, making it difficult for them to engage and communicate with other students and lecturers. By performing simple ragging tasks helping them overcome shyness and experience a sense of belonging [ 17 ]. Due to the cited shortcomings or absence of university administration support, newcomers felt more reliant upon senior students for support/guidance.

The participants of our study mentioned several negative effects of ragging, which were similar to findings in other studies that show severe forms of ragging result in adverse consequences for their victims, such as physical and emotional problems [ 20 , 47 ]. Ragging disrupts the education of the 1 st year students since it mostly occurs during this period. Similarly, students have recounted in an UGC report, to be unable to concentrate due to stress and sleep deprivation [ 48 ] leading to poor exam performance, delays in graduating and entering the job market [ 13 ]. The negative impression generated by ragging in state-funded universities, has been shown to impede the chances of graduates gaining employment in the private sector [ 32 ].

Strengths and limitations

There were several limitations to our study. Ragging victimization mostly occurs in the 1 st year and since the participants were 2 nd and 3 rd years students there may have been a recall bias as they could have been victims, perpetrators or by-standers as well as affected by the cultural tendency to trivialize/normalize ragging. As this is a sensitive topic and victims can become future perpetrators, they may have refrained from revealing information.

The FGDs were conducted after a severe ragging incident in the Technology faculty which led to the closure of this faculty for several weeks which could have made the students more reluctant to discuss ragging. There is the possibility that students provided what they assumed to be desirable answers, though our experience was that they were eventually quite forthright about positive and negative issues.

The research team did have only female members; this could have affected the information divulged by male students. It would be difficult to say if males would have been more or less comfortable sharing females considering the gendered expectations upheld in society.

The main strength of our study was that our findings focused upon students’ perspectives. Assisted through the chosen theoretical lenses, a more nuanced view of students’ behaviour was illuminated. Most existing information on ragging in Sri Lanka is derived from reports and studies that lack a rigorous research methodology. This study is at the forefront of including students in the analysis of this very sensitive and multi-layered social problem.

Further research is needed to better understand the practice of ragging. Replicating this methodology focusing on student voices is essential, as there is a dearth of research concerning students’ perspective. As in most qualitative studies, transferability to other settings is possible but must be done with caution as context plays such an important role. Participatory action research could be useful in providing agency to those implicated on the front lines of ragging. The perceptions of lecturers and key persons in positions of authority in the university as well as parents’ perceptions would also enhance a more comprehensive picture of ragging.

This study suggests students use ragging as an expression of power in a highly competitive societal context which includes the educational system. Some of the contributing factors towards this practice are normalization of violence, the acceptance of ragging as part of the university subculture, gender norms and socioeconomic class disparities. These factors, when combined, provides a breeding ground for student unrest, violence and insubordination, manifesting as ragging. This study has illuminated a wider picture by providing students’ insights, which are a fundamental part of a multisectoral approach towards solutions; one that involves university administration, the UGC, student unions and university students themselves. A proactive approach is needed; one that creates awareness about ragging’s harmful effects, while promoting a more positive interaction between students and those in positions of authority. This long-standing problem has reached a critical juncture of doing more harm than good to young people while acquiring education and developing skills for life, so important to the future of their country. Therefore, all efforts must be used to eliminate ragging and its deleterious effects. There is a serious need for deep reforms within universities and a critical look at the role of structural violence, to successfully address ragging.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

Rajendra Surenthirukumaran, Kumudu Wijewardana, Shajeetha Thurauappah are thanked for their time and effort in making this study possible.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Faculty of Medicine at Uppsala University.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• PLoS One. 2022; 17(7): e0271087.

Decision Letter 0

10 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-15111

“We are considered to be dust”; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 9 September 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcel Pikhart

Academic Editor

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the interview guide used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed an interview guide as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

3. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at gro.solp@enosolp with a request to remove this option.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

This manuscript explores students’ perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging in a university. Any type of bullying, without a doubt, constitutes a serious problem that must be studied in depth.

This is an interesting and important study due, despite this, before it can be published it would need some methodological clarifications and revisions:

- The manuscript does not meet with the sections of the journal.

- Introduction/background seem very long and confused. This journal only has an introductory section. This structure looks like for another journal. The claims are not properly placed in the context of the previous literature, since there are references that show contexts or social situations from more than 20 years ago.

Materials and methods section: “Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2013b, p. 3). In this case, the theoretical approach has not been indicated, is it ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory? A correct qualitative study needs a strong theoretical foundation.

- Research design needs to be further explained, as well as other subsections of the methods. Following the journal recommendations, I kindly suggest reviewing the CASP and COREQ checklists to ensure the quality of the data reporting. For example, the researcher's relationship with the participants, What grade and semester were the students in?

- I suggest that only current references are used in the discussion, due to changes in this phenomenon in recent years (for example, the introduction of new technologies has changed the type of harassment in different contexts).

- You should mention limitations.

Thank you for the clarifications.

Reviewer #2: I want to thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The time spent creating and shipping it is greatly appreciated. In my humble opinion, it offers interesting results that the scientific community, as well as professionals in this field, can benefit from. However, currently the manuscript presents some problems that must be taken into account and repaired. Here are my recommendations:

There is a total absence of contextualization of the study, the introduction does not justify or theoretically support the research, they should include the hypotheses of the work.

The method is not explicit enough. It does not give details of the data analysis and the software used for the analysis of the transcripts. Likewise, you should expand the information on the characteristics of the participants.

In the discussion section there is no comparison of its results with the initial contextualization. Personally, I am not in favor of using literature in the discussion that has not been previously mentioned in the introduction, since it transmits an incomplete review of the state of the topic investigated, there are several of the citations included in this section that have not been previously cited in the introduction .

It should include the limitations and future lines of research before the conclusions.

The conclusions can be expanded to include and / or give examples of how this information can be useful to the population and the field of education. Authors must make explicit reference to the practical application of the results obtained (this is one of the strengths of the manuscript), paying special attention to the possibilities offered by the data for the design of interventions.

These limitations should be addressed with a view to the possible publication of the manuscript.

Thank you for your work.

Reviewer #3: This is an intriguing report of the findings emerging from focus groups at a university.

Introduction/Background/Theoretical Lenses:

- This section needs more of the explanatory material provided in the Discussion. Please use the introduction to expand more on issues of how ragging is perhaps culturally specific, even though it does have analogues in other cultures. Indeed, please move up much of the information on Sri Lankan society, especially the social classes, that is given in the Discussion. Those facts help the reader to make sense of the data you report and you should give more of that information in your Introduction to help the reader contextualize the findings. You don't need to to talk about all of the details in the introduction, but they do add information that would be helpful to a reader of the introduction

- The thematic analysis is interesting, but the reader has no sense of how representative it is of the sample of focus groups or individuals. Please go back to the data and make tables to report the number of times each of these themes were mentioned or discussed, variation by gender, and ethnicity. You can also use such data to conduct a grander analysis, like a cluster analysis for the themes. The reader is curious, does the expression of some of these themes within the focus groups overlap with the expression of other themes? That is, are the themes correlated? If so, you could report and discuss such potential patterns in the data. At present, the reader has a rich picture of the general findings and concept of ragging and its social-economic expression at the University, but more concrete numbers would greatly enhance the paper.

Conclusion:

- Please reduce the space given to the Discussion (currently 6 pages) and insert much of that important information in the Background/Theoretical Lenses (which are only 3 pages combined)

Thank you for conducting this important research.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Author response to Decision Letter 0

We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see below for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewer 1#

Thank you very much for taking the time to assess our manuscript and provide your valuable comments. We have addressed all the concerns you have raised to the best of our abilities.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to comply with the journal format throughout the manuscript.

We have also changed the heading Background to Introduction (page 3, line 46).

We have changed the word background to introduction along with a few other formatting changes as mentioned above.

We have changed the introduction (pages 3-5) to provide a better contextual background as we also received a similar comment from another reviewer.

We agree with the reviewer that some references date back 20 years but there is a strong cultural and historical context to the occurrence of ragging that we wished to highlight. At the same time this is an under researched area in Sri Lanka and there is a lack of current research that can portray the social situation and context.

- Materials and methods section: “Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem” (Creswell, 2013b, p. 3). In this case, the theoretical approach has not been indicated, is it ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory? A correct qualitative study needs a strong theoretical foundation.

Thank you for pointing out our oversight in not mentioning the theoretical approach. We have now included it in (page 7, line 198). Our reference for the phenomenological approach aligns with Creswell that states that, “Qualitative research is an approach for exploring and understanding the meaning individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem”.

We agree that qualitative studies need a strong theoretical foundation and you will find our theoretical framework in figure 1.

- Research design needs to be further explained, as well as other subsections of the methods. Following the journal recommendations, I kindly suggest reviewing the CASP and COREQ checklists to ensure the quality of the data reporting. For example, the researcher's relationship with the participants, what grade and semester were the students in?

That was a very good suggestion to align with the COREQ checklist. We have revised our methods and materials section using the COREQ checklist. The changes are visible on (pages 8-10, lines 216-278).

The researcher had no relationship with the participants and further details have been added to the relevant section (page 8, line 220-228). To maintain the anonymity of the participants, we did not inquire which grade or semester they were currently studying-in but all participants were chosen from the 2nd and 3rd year of study (page 8, line 217-220).

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that it would be better to use more current references, unfortunately since there is little research available, we are unable to do so. We share your belief that technology has enhanced the ability to be bullied and there were instances stated by our participants where mobile phones were used. It is our hope that this seminal paper will lead to deeper and broader inquiries into the myriad of ways that ragging is carried out in Sri Lanka. The public health of youth and particularly the increase in mental health issues, demand this.

- You should mention limitations

Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have rectified this mistake and added the limitations of our study (page 32, lines 929-940).

Reviewer 2#

We appreciate your time and effort in providing feedback on our manuscript and are thankful for the insightful comments. We have tried our best to address all your comments and concerns.

- There is a total absence of contextualization of the study, the introduction does not justify or theoretically support the research, they should include the hypotheses of the work.

Thank you for this feedback concerning the lack of context in the introduction. We have rectified that shortcoming by reorganizing the introduction section and adding more context as per the reviewer’s suggestion. These changes are reflected in the revised introduction section (pages 3-5). We appreciate the suggestion to include a hypothesis, however as this manuscript is an explorative qualitative study, as in most studies of this nature, there is rarely a hypotheses as it is more about discovery.

- The method is not explicit enough. It does not give details of the data analysis and the software used for the analysis of the transcripts. Likewise, you should expand the information on the characteristics of the participants.

We agree with the reviewer and have updated the methods section to provide more details and information. These changes can be seen on (page 8, lines 214-220 and page 8, lines 253-278). No software was used for the analysis of the transcripts. The diverse research team read and re-read the transcripts after which we spent several days altogether mapping, defining, and re-defining the themes with the help of a whiteboard as per Braun and Clark’s description of carrying out thematic analysis.

- In the discussion section there is no comparison of its results with the initial contextualization. Personally, I am not in favor of using literature in the discussion that has not been previously mentioned in the introduction, since it transmits an incomplete review of the state of the topic investigated, there are several of the citations included in this section that have not been previously cited in the introduction.

Thank you for this observation. We have changed the introduction (pages 3-5) to improve the context as well as changed the discussion (pages 26-31), thereby allowing a better comparison of the results in the discussion section. In this explorative study design, new findings emerged that required searching for new literature that was then included in the discussion. Prior to analysis of the findings, this new material was not relevant to the introduction.

- It should include the limitations and future lines of research before the conclusions.

The conclusions can be expanded to include and / or give examples of how this information can be useful to the population and the field of education. Authors must make explicit reference to the practical application of the results obtained (this is one of the strengths of the manuscript), paying special attention to the possibilities offered by the data for the design of interventions. These limitations should be addressed with a view to the possible publication of the manuscript.

- We agree that practical application is our eventual goal. We have strengthened the manuscript to include the reviewers suggestions, which will be reflected on (pages 32-33, lines 942-949). As this was an explorative study, these results cannot be generalized although in qualitative there is a possibility that some of the findings/ideas are transferable to similar settings/contexts but that would be up to the different individual readers to draw any conclusions there. Therefore, the practical application of the results and the design of intervention require further research. This will certainly be addressed in our upcoming research currently underway.

The limitations of our study have been included to the manuscript

(page 32, lines 929-940).

Reviewer 3#

We thank you for taking the time to identify certain issues in our manuscript and providing us with the opportunity to strengthen the paper.

- Introduction/Background/Theoretical Lenses:

This section needs more of the explanatory material provided in the Discussion. Please use the introduction to expand more on issues of how ragging is perhaps culturally specific, even though it does have analogues in other cultures. Indeed, please move up much of the information on Sri Lankan society, especially the social classes, that is given in the Discussion. Those facts help the reader to make sense of the data you report and you should give more of that information in your Introduction to help the reader contextualize the findings. You don't need to talk about all of the details in the introduction, but they do add information that would be helpful to a reader of the introduction.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention what lacked in our introduction to make this paper a comprehensive read for those unfamiliar with this context. We have reorganized and revised our introduction (pages 3-5) and discussion (pages 26-31) as suggested to include more extensive information concerning Sri Lanka’s history, society, and culture.

The thematic analysis is interesting, but the reader has no sense of how representative it is of the sample of focus groups or individuals. Please go back to the data and make tables to report the number of times each of these themes were mentioned or discussed, variation by gender, and ethnicity. You can also use such data to conduct a grander analysis, like a cluster analysis for the themes. The reader is curious, does the expression of some of these themes within the focus groups overlap with the expression of other themes? That is, are the themes correlated? If so, you could report and discuss such potential patterns in the data. At present, the reader has a rich picture of the general findings and concept of ragging and its social-economic expression at the University, but more concrete numbers would greatly enhance the paper.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that it would be interesting to demonstrate number of times each of these themes were mentioned or discussed, variation by gender, and ethnicity however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of this introductory and exploratory paper. We hope that this explorative/scoping study will serve as base line information to feed into our planned quantitative study where your idea a grander analysis would indeed provide more concrete numbers.

The themes of our study were inductive and data driven. In the method of Thematic analysis as per Braun and Clark, themes can overlap and are not mutually exclusive as in content analysis. This is demonstrated in figure 2.

- Conclusion:

Please reduce the space given to the Discussion (currently 6 pages) and insert much of that important information in the Background/Theoretical Lenses (which are only 3 pages combined).

Thank you for your comment, we have enriched the introduction and reorganized the discussion section as per the reviewer’s suggestion. Unfortunately, we were not able to reduce the number of pages of the discussion since we had to address the comments from the other reviewers on the discussion, and we also added the limitations of our study.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

20 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-15111R1

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript does not meet our criteria for publication and must therefore be rejected based on the reviwers´ suggestion. 

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion, but hope that you appreciate the reasons for this decision.

Yours sincerely,

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Partly

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing the concerns of my review. The paper is now much easier to follow for a non-specialist reader. However I do remain concerned about the lack of any type of quantitative analysis of the data, but I understand that such analyses will be provided in future research.

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

For journal use only: PONEDEC3

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Comments by the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Authors comments

Based on the question it appears that two reviewers were satisfied with our comments which is why we are confused where our omissions lie.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

This question is very quantitatively oriented and is not applicable to our manuscript as it was a qualitative manuscript. Our manuscript is technically sound for a qualitative piece, the data supports the conclusions and has been guided by the COREQ checklist suggested by your reviewer. Our manuscript also follows the guidelines for qualitative work on the PLOS ONE website submission guide.

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: No

This question is also quantitatively oriented and is not applicable to our manuscript as it was a qualitative manuscript. We are quite surprised by these varied responses by your reviewers number 2 and 3.

Reviewer #1: No

We were asked to provide the interview guide which we promptly provided. There were no further requests for any other data although we would have gladly provided any further data if requested.

In review 2, we received contradictory responses from the reviewers as opposed to review 1, which leaves us quite confused.

Reviewer #3: Yes

We are quite perplexed that in the first review round, all reviewers agreed, the manuscript was “presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English”. In the second-round reviewer number 1 changed the response although only minor edits were carried out according to the reviewers comments. The manuscript has undergone English language review each time by a professional English academic writer, who is also a co-author.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for addressing the concerns of my review. The paper is now much easier to follow for a non-specialist reader. However I do remain concerned about the lack of any type of quantitative analysis of the data, but I understand that such analyses will be provided in future research.

If our manuscript is “not acceptable” despite “all comments have been addressed” (please see comment 1), it leaves us wondering what is missing now and leaves little room for improving the paper, qualitatively.

The comment from reviewer 3 shows lack of understanding of qualitative work as there is no quantitative analyses in qualitative research. The reviewer #3 also presents as a “non-specialist reader”.

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

22 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-15111R2

Dear Dr Wickramasinghe,

First of all, let me thank you for your patience! I have now finished my assessment of your paper and the previous review process.

Your paper touches on a very important issue that is worth to be presented to the scientific public. However, I have a couple of major concerns that prevent the publication of the paper as it stands. If you see a possibility and feel motivated for a second major and thorough revision that addresses my concerns, it will be a pleasure for us to review this revised version. But I should emphasize that it will be an open decision and that there will be no guarantee that PlosOne publishes a revised version.

Before I go into details of the paper, I will explain my assessment of the previous review process. Similar as you, I was surprised by the rejection of the paper on the basis of three very different reviewer reports. Although it is not unusual that the paper is rejected even if one reviewer accepts the paper, another one wishes major revision and the third reviewer rejects the paper, I think you were justified to expect more involvement and guidance from the academic editor, particularly because the reviewer recommendations diverged. I also share your opinion that at least one of the reviewer may have been a suboptimal choice since s(he) was not very familiar with qualitative methods and asked you to present quantitative details that are only usual in some qualitative methods, such as a qualitative content analysis.

Therefore, I think your appeal was justified as far as we consider the review process. Together with a Division Editor of PlosOne, we decided to re-review your paper. To avoid an undue delay, only one person, me as the new Academic Editor, has reviewed the paper:

1. My first major concern refers to the study question. Although the study question  seems clear on first view – the perception of ragging, seen from the student perspective –, the sample of students that you choose for your study makes the issue ambiguous. One could say, it is a group ‘in - between’. They are no longer freshman who experience ragging at the very moment; they are not 'old' students who are 'entitled' to rag other students. Therefore, some of them may have experienced ragging – we don’t know exactly; some may have observed ragging being in the position of a 'neutral observer' or a 'former affected person' – we don’t know exactly; some seem to prepare themselves to become ‘ragger’ themselves in the near future – we don’t know exactly. But throughout the paper you write more or less as an advocate of the 'victims' (see, for example, lines 114 -118).

I can understand your argument that you did not want to discuss this matter with young students, who may still suffer from ragging or are reminded of this terrible experience in the group discussion, you cannot claim your study addresses the victim perspective (line 116). While this seems to be a limitation of your study, you could also make it to a strength of your study. The experiences of your 'in – between' group may be an optimal opportunity to study how a procedure, which is so burdensome for many young persons, becomes an established and accepted institution in students' life. So you should clarify what you exactly expect from your study – it is definitely not the experience of ragging; in this case young students should have been enrolled. So you should precisely define your scientific interest (e.g., to understand how ragging invades student life and culture). Of course, you can criticize the practice of ragging in the Discussion but you should not use the study participants for this purpose; they are much more ambivalent.

2. My second major concern refers to what you define as the 'overarching theme' of your analysis: "ragging as a means of communication". It was you, not the students, who stimulated a communication about ragging. Even more important, the students first reaction in the group discussion was to emphasize that ragging did not occur (line 391). It seems to be a secret or hidden practice, but definitely not a ‘means of communication’. Perhaps you mean something else but your expression is in any case misleading. By the way, I’m not sure whether you need an overarching theme at all. Isn’t it sufficient to define your subthemes as main themes and to present them as your results?

In this case, it may be a good idea to start the Results section with the issue of 'secrecy' and your overall observation that all groups denied ragging in the beginning of the discussion. This is really striking, given the formative experience of ragging. Obviously, older students try to forget or deny it. This could be the first important result and could later lead to an interesting discussion how difficult it is to make ragging 'public'.

3. Please check the logic of your themes and how you present them in the Results section. I see a couple of inconsistencies so that a re-arrangement may be required. Let me give you several examples:

(a) ‘Trivializing violence’ (lines 415 ff.) is not a subtheme of "Veil of secrecy and silence".

(b) Although the examples under the subtheme "Rigid norms" are interesting, I’m not sure whether all of them belong to the main theme "A society with deep divisions". They deal, for example, with things like a general lack of protection of women (why is this a matter of ‘rigid norms’?). I think, other interesting examples, too, have nothing to do with ‘rigid norms’, such as equalizing (lines 503 ff.) or denying ethnic clashes (lines 536 ff.). Please check the main theme and the subthemes so that they are consistent.    

(c) It is also not clear how the students’ feeling not to be heard by the society and the university (lines 542 ff.) or the feeling of insecurity (lines 571 ff.) is related to ragging. It is surely an important aspect, especially in the life of minorities but the authors should help readers to understand why these feelings and experiences may lead to ragging or may cause some students to accept ragging or to deny it. This should happen at least in the Discussion

(d) I would recommend to display “The students’ recommendations” (lines 585 ff.) as a main theme in Figure 2 and to present it as a main theme in the text so that readers can better follow your complete analysis and identification of themes.

4. The Discussion needs much more structure. You should start with a short and precise “summary of main findings”, no longer than 8 to 10 lines. I would suggest to stress the aspect of ambiguity or ambivalence towards ragging as the most important aspect (at least for me). The first sentence (lines 611 f.) Is superfluous; the last sentence (lines 617 ff. should be moved to the "Strength and Limitations" section in the Discussion. After the short summary you could go on with three major sections perhaps clearly marked with a subheading:

- Why ragging is positively perceived?

- Why ragging is negatively perceived?

- The wider context of ragging: Sri Lanka and its university culture

(this is nothing nothing more than a suggestion; I think you have better ideas.)

In any case, it is important that the reader recognizes a clear structure and a clear line of arguments.

5. I like your theoretical model of violence displayed in Figure 1, but I see two problems. I miss an “integration” as you claim with the Figure. Some arrows in the Figure and the pure statement “structural violence, intersectionality and social dominance theories are intricately linked” in the text (line 144) are not an integration. Moreover, you should use this model in a more creative way to explain ragging in societies like Sri Lanka. For example, as far as I understand, you say Sri Lanka is a violent country and unsatisfactory conditions contribute to student violence (line 657 f.). I agree, but one could ask, how? You say, ragging is violence and at the same time, ragging seems to be protest against inequalities and violence of the society. It is also remarkable that it is not the upper-class students (or only a few) who practice ragging but those at the other social end. Therefore, I would very much appreciate if you make a second attempt to use the model for an explanation.

Some minor concerns:

6. In addition to reference 22, you may also refer to this just published study that shows the strong association of ragging and suicide: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35025905/

7. Did you attach the COREQ statement for qualitative studies and did you fill in the page numbers, as requested?

8. Line 399: One or two examples how seniors named juniors could be helpful to better understand this humiliating procedure.

9. It would be generally helpful to give more examples (in form of an Appendix) how ragging is executed. It reminded me of practices and rituals of student leagues (“Burschenschaften) in Germany. Here, too, the younger ones have to be servants of the older students, are treated very badly, much alcohol is on the way and for some student leagues it is a special pleasure to hurt one another, using swords and, thus, to demonstrate masculinity. These practices are well known and also documented via media so that we have a very good idea of these rituals. Perhaps you have also some material to present examples in an Appendix that makes ragging easier imaginable for Non-Sri Lanka people.

10. Line 729 ff. Of course, the practices you describe here are humiliating women. But please, consider that it can also be a hard expectation towards male students to behave in such an inhuman way. I do not want to exonerate males from accusations but some of them may also feel in a dilemma.

11. Line 785: I agree with your last plea but, following the students’ experiences, should it not read that it needs deep reforms in the university and the society to successfully combating ragging?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

Wolfgang Himmel

Journal requirements:

1. We notice that your manuscript file was uploaded on September 3, 2021. Please can you upload the latest version of your revised manuscript as the main article file, ensuring that does not contain any tracked changes or highlighting. This will be used in the production process if your manuscript is accepted. Please follow this link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions .

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories .

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Response to Reviewers

Dear Wolfgang Himmel,

Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have taken to provide insightful feedback as well as your useful comments. Your comments and concerns have been addressed below. We accept the opportunity you have offered to submit a revised draft of our manuscript with the revised title: “When a person can’t obey, he is subjected to violence”; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university to PLOS ONE. Attached, please also find the completed COREQ guide as requested and additionally, more examples of ragging, as supporting information in an Appendix.

The interview guide was developed by the research group as a part of the study and is not copy righted. The interview guide was only developed in English as all the moderators were fluent in English and did not require the interview guide to be translated.

We attached the transcripts of the 17 FGDs as requested as supporting information S4_4.File. We would once again like to point out the sensitive nature of the transcripts. The FDGs conducted among the students were divided by ethnicity and gender, and most often the participants belonged to the same faculty. During the FGDs the participants also discussed certain issues which would increase the chances of them being identified. Some of the issues discussed where regarding the lecturers and the university administration which could cause problems for the students if they were to be identified. These indirect identifiers may risk the identification of study participants, which would be a breach of our confidentiality agreement, as well as our ethical approval.

Changes made within the manuscript are highlighted below in blue along with a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

1. My first major concern refers to the study question. Although the study question seems clear on first view – the perception of ragging, seen from the student perspective –, the sample of students that you choose for your study makes the issue ambiguous. One could say, it is a group ‘in - between’. They are no longer freshman who experience ragging at the very moment; they are not 'old' students who are 'entitled' to rag other students. Therefore, some of them may have experienced ragging – we don’t know exactly; some may have observed ragging being in the position of a 'neutral observer' or a 'former affected person' – we don’t know exactly; some seem to prepare themselves to become ‘ragger’ themselves in the near future – we don’t know exactly. But throughout the paper you write more or less as an advocate of the 'victims' (see, for example, lines 114 -118).

Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to make it clearer. As health care advocates we often tend to divert attentions towards the victim’s plight but we agree that this is a public health problem where all students suffer, as you correctly indicate.

These changes are visible on page 8 line 223-224 and in the introduction in page 6, line 136-138.

I can understand your argument that you did not want to discuss this matter with young students, who may still suffer from ragging or are reminded of this terrible experience in the group discussion, you cannot claim your study addresses the victim perspective (line 116). While this seems to be a limitation of your study, you could also make it to a strength of your study. The experiences of your 'in – between' group may be an optimal opportunity to study how a procedure, which is so burdensome for many young persons, becomes an established and accepted institution in students' life. So, you should clarify what you exactly expect from your study – it is definitely not the experience of ragging; in this case young students should have been enrolled. So, you should precisely define your scientific interest (e.g., to understand how ragging invades student life and culture). Of course, you can criticize the practice of ragging in the Discussion but you should not use the study participants for this purpose; they are much more ambivalent.

As ragging is a very sensitive issue in Sri Lanka, we had to be very cautious in our selection of participants. We also realized that we had not mentioned that perpetration of ragging occurs from the second year of university attendance, onwards and have now included this information in the introduction (Page 5, line 109-111). In order to better define/clarify our scientific interest, we have amended the aim (Page 6, line 141-143) of our study.

This paper is a part of a larger study on ragging where we have found the prevalence rates of ragging among students at Jaffna University to be over 50%. We have another qualitative manuscript exploring the perceptions of lecturers and other key persons attached to the University highlighting that angle.

Thank you for your comment. Following a discussion between the authors, we have decided to change the overall theme to “Ragging as an expression of power” which maybe better suited for the study. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes and page 11, line 277)

We have made changes in the order of the results section to start with the “Veil of secrecy and silence” as it is an important and interesting aspect of ragging, as you underscored in your comments (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes and page 11, lines 288-309).

3. Please check the logic of your themes and how you present them in the Results section. I see a couple of inconsistencies so that a re-arrangement may be required.

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the order of the results in a manner that might be easier to follow. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes)

We have changed “Trivializing violence”, to belong to the subtheme “A society with deep divisions” as it is a culturally learned response. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes and page 22, line 620-635).

(b) Although the examples under the subtheme "Rigid norms" are interesting, I’m not sure whether all of them belong to the main theme "A society with deep divisions". They deal, for example, with things like a general lack of protection of women (why is this a matter of ‘rigid norms’?). I think, other interesting examples, too, have nothing to do with ‘rigid norms’, such as equalizing (lines 503 ff.) or denying ethnic clashes (lines 536 ff.). Please check the main theme and the subthemes so that they are consistent.

We have thought through your suggestion and revised the subthemes as well as removed some sections which we agreed could lead to confusion. Societal/Cultural norms are the foundations of how people comport themselves in groups. When there is an inflexibility between groups, there tends to be inequalities and higher rates of conflict. That said, the lack of protection for women occurred in small pockets and as it was not mentioned widely in the study so we decided to omit it. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes)

(c) It is also not clear how the students’ feeling not to be heard by the society and the university (lines 542 ff.) or the feeling of insecurity (lines 571 ff.) is related to ragging. It is surely an important aspect, especially in the life of minorities but the authors should help readers to understand why these feelings and experiences may lead to ragging or may cause some students to accept ragging or to deny it. This should happen at least in the discussion.

Thank you for this observation. We realize that insecurity, might not be directly related to ragging and we have removed these sections. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes)

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that it would be better to have “student recommendations” as a main theme. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes and pages 24-25, lines 668-840)

We have made changes to streamline the discussion as per your suggestion, and added subheadings to demarcate the three major sections for better flow. We combined the positive and negative ragging under the subheading of “Spectrum of ragging”. (page 25-31)

- Why ragging is positively perceived? (page 30, line 1125-1158)

- Why ragging is negatively perceived? (page 31, line 1160-1168)

- The wider context of ragging: Sri Lanka and its university culture (page 26, line 1002-1122)

We agree that there was much room for improvement in our model to demonstrate the integration of the three theoretical frameworks. These changes will be visible in Fig.1. Integrated theories on ragging in society.

6. In addition to reference 22, you may also refer to this just published study that shows the strong association of ragging and suicide:

Thank you for the reference. We have included it in our manuscript (Reference 24, page 5-6, line 131-133).

We did not attach the COREQ guide statement for qualitative studies although we followed the guidelines. We have now attached it under supporting information. (S_2. File)

We appreciate the suggestion to include an example of how the seniors humiliate the juniors and have included it (page 11-12, line 295-309 and page 13, line 333-343).

Thank you for this recommendation to include examples of ragging to better understand this practice especially for non-Sri Lankans. We have added several newspaper articles and YouTube links as a supporting document. (S_3 File)

We share your belief that gendered expectations harm both women and men and we have rephrased this sentence (page 28, line 1077).

Thank you for your suggestion, which is also our belief and does strengthen our closing statement (page 33, line 1379-1381).

Decision Letter 3

25 May 2022

PONE-D-21-15111R3“When a person can’t obey, he is subjected to violence”; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan universityPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wickramasinghe,

==============================

From my point of view, the manuscript has clearly gained in structure, methodological clarity and explanatory power. Before the final acceptance of the paper and publication, I would like to suggest a number of changes and additions, which you hopefully appreciate:

1. It was a good idea to change the title, especially since the previous title was difficult to understand for readers who are unfamiliar with the background of Sri Lanka. However, I’m afraid, readers will also have problems to understand the meaning of the new title and its association with ragging, apart from the fact that “he” in the title is suboptimal and “(s)he” is not accurate … What do you think about including the topic of ‘power’ in the title, for example this way:

“Ragging as an expression of power in a deeply divided society — a qualitative study on students’ perceptions of ragging at a Sri Lankan university”

You may even find a better alternative. Please, consider, I’m a non-native speaker …

2. Although you tried to adapt the Abstract to the new version, it reflects the manuscript only to a limited degree. For example, main themes and sub themes are not well presented in the Abstract; also, the Discussion in the paper is not represented in the Abstract.

First of all, I would suggest to structure the Abstract with the help of the usual subheadings, i.e., Introduction, Methods and so on.  Please be aware, PlosOne allows 300 words (you have currently about 250 words).   

The last two sentences of the Abstract are very similar, so one of them could be deleted. Instead, there would be some more room for 1 or 2 sentences of a "Discussion ". Moreover, to be more precise, I would suggest to change one of the reported results in the Abstract this way:

The findings revealed how students used ragging as an expression of power to initiate order and as a way to express dissatisfaction towards social inequalities occurring within the larger society as well as facilitate bonds between university students.

The findings revealed how students used—or perceived—ragging very differently: as an expression of power to initiate order or as a way to express dissatisfaction towards social inequalities occurring within the larger society or to facilitate bonds between university students.

3. line 117: the word “ragging” is missing, isn’t it? (my “lines” always refer to the ‘clean’ version.)

4. For me, the lines 120 to 127 are crucial because they present and justify the Aim of the Study. However, I do not find the passage completely convincing and could imagine the following passage instead, based mainly on regrouping the sentences:

It is increasingly imperative to address this serious public health problem that profoundly affects all students, not only victims but also perpetrators and by-standers. Ragging has a potential deleterious impact upon society’s younger generations and their university years intended for building intellectual capacity. Educating youth in a safe space is essential, particularly for its subsequent contributions towards the country’s future. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of students concerning the phenomenon of ragging, and to understand how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna.

Educating the youth in a safe space is essential, particularly for their subsequent contributions towards the country’s future. It is increasingly imperative to address this serious public health problem from the students’ perspective and to understand how it affects all students, not only victims but also perpetrators and by-standers. Since ragging has a potentially deleterious impact upon society’s younger generations and their university years intended for building intellectual capacity. The aim of this study was to explore how students perceive ragging and how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna.

You may even find better alternatives …

5. From the history of the submission, I know that the chapter “Theoretical lenses” was desired by the reviewers for the Introduction. Although interesting, it may surprise the reader at this point, because after the formulation of the Aim of the Study, the Methods chapter is expected. That said, it would be much wiser to present the Theoretical lenses right there, namely in the Methods chapter, preferably starting at line 227 ff. What do you think?

While moving the Theoretical lenses into the Methods chapter, you should make it a bit clearer at this point that you used the Theoretical lenses to sensitize yourself for the data analysis. You have already mentioned this very well at the end of the Discussion; however, this argument should (also) come up already at the beginning of the Theoretical lenses chapter so that readers are informed about the significance of this chapter.

6. Due to the many (sub)headings in the Results chapter, it is not always clear which of them are the four main topics. I would therefore simply suggest (for lines 251, 278 etc.) to add: Subtheme 1: …, Subtheme 2: …  etc.

7. Line 283: I would suggest to start the first sentence with: For many students, ragging was part of …

8. Of course, I do not want to go into the details of your analysis. However, the presentation of the themes is still not quite logical in some places — despite the otherwise very successful revision. This is most noticeable in the case of sub-theme 2. For me, there are two very different topics that are shoved into each other here, namely ‘Ragging lies on a wide spectrum’ and ‘ragging is a cyclical event that thereby establishes hierarchies’.

While the lines 283 ff. belong to the ‘spectrum’ topic, lines 288 ff. belong to ‘hierarchy’. Lines 307 ff. deal again with ‘spectrum’ over a rather longer period. Lines 352 ff. then deal with ‘hierarchy’; lines 371 ff. clarify in particular the cyclic character, lines 386 ff. the ‘hierarchy’. Lines 406 ff. again the ‘spectrum’, in this case, the positive side. Lines 417 ff. deal again with the ‘cyclic hierarchies’. This is the way I read/understand your quotes.

I urgently ask you to check here again structure and argumentation thoroughly, as well as the naming of the main topics. Perhaps a fifth sub-theme will be appropriate to avoid the confusion in presenting sub-theme 2. In any case, your terms/themes should be distinctive, convincing and simply to follow for readers. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 09 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Thank you for your very thorough reading of our manuscript. We appreciate you taking the time as the editor, and for all the insightful comments and recommendations you have made. We you are grateful for the opportunity to refine our manuscript to PLOS ONE standards.

“Ragging as an Expression of Power in a Deeply Divided Society; — a qualitative study on students’ perceptions of ragging at a Sri Lankan university”

Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that the title you suggested, better captures the understanding of our manuscript’s content and have revised the title accordingly. (Page 1 line 3-5).

First of all, I would suggest to structure the Abstract with the help of the usual subheadings, i.e., Introduction, Methods and so on. Please be aware, PlosOne allows 300 words (you have currently about 250 words).

We appreciate your suggestions on refining the abstract for more clarity.

Your observation of the repetition in the final lines of the abstract prompted us to delete one of the last sentences. (Pages 2, line 42)

We agree that it would be better to rephrase the findings in the abstract as recommended by the reviewer. (Page 2, lines 36-39)

While we appreciate the suggestion to include a structured abstract with subheadings, most qualitative work published in PLOS ONE had unstructured abstracts and we thought it was best to adhere to the general rule.

We have rectified the omission and now included the word “ragging” (Page 5, line 127).

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the aim, taking your suggestion into consideration and rearranged the sentences to make the aim more succinct. (Page 6, lines 133-139).

Thank you for your comment. We have thought through your suggestion and made some changes to both the Theoretical lenses section (Page 6, lines 143-144) and the Methods section (Page 10, lines 242-243) which will enable the reader to comprehend this section better.

Since it is common practice in qualitative studies to include the theoretical lenses at the end of the introduction, we have adhered to this format. Furthermore, theories most often evolve from the literature review and even when not made explicit, are ever-present throughout the work. For example, phenomenology is understood as foundational to qualitative approaches. There is an interplay between the theoretical lenses, the introduction to the literature, and the methods section. We believe, including the theoretical lenses at the end of the introduction, helps sensitize the reader early in the text thereby laying the groundwork in which to view the methods section.

6. Due to the many (sub)headings in the Results chapter, it is not always clear which of them are the four main topics. I would therefore simply suggest (for lines 251, 278 etc.) to add: Subtheme 1: …, Subtheme 2: … etc.

We agree that including subheadings in the Results section would make the main topics/themes more clear (Page 11 line 267, Page 12 line 295, Page 15 line 380, Page 18line 464, Page 23 line 588).

We thank the reviewer for the comment and have made the necessary revision. (Page 12, line 296)

I urgently ask you to check here again structure and argumentation thoroughly, as well as the naming of the main topics. Perhaps a fifth sub-theme will be appropriate to avoid the confusion in presenting sub-theme 2. In any case, your terms/themes should be distinctive, convincing and simply to follow for readers.

We appreciate your perspective here. We have revised the sub-theme titles by moving the section “Ragging lies on a spectrum” and making it a new sub-theme. We agree that it does impart more distinctive data than having it as part of the Cycle of Ragging. This will facilitate better understanding for the reader. (Fig. 2. Main theme and subthemes and page 12, lines 295-299).

We have also added a few sentences to clarify certain sections that may have been a little unclear. (Page 12, lines 298-453)

As recommended, a section found under “Ragging lies on a spectrum” has been moved to a more appropriate place in the text under “The powerful perpetrator” for easier comprehension. (Page 17, lines 432-439)

The section “Juniors dependent on seniors” is meant to illustrate dependency indicating subservience in the hierarchy. As the initial part of this section with its accompanying quote may had led to some confusion, we have omitted it from our revised manuscript to make it less ambiguous. (Page 17, lines 442-453)

Decision Letter 4

24 Jun 2022

Ragging as an expression of power in a deeply divided society ; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university

PONE-D-21-15111R4

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Let me say that I appreciated your efforts to constantly improve the manuscript. I hope you also agree that the manuscript is now much clearer in its arguments, easier to read and will evoke a better understanding of Sri Lanka's student culture and the country's structural problems. Thank you!   

Additional journal comments:

This decision was made after a re-evaluation following an appeal to a reject decision issued after a first round of revisions. More information about the appeal process can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process#loc-appeals

Acceptance letter

30 Jun 2022

Dear Dr. Wickramasinghe:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Wolfgang Himmel

Advertisement

Supported by

Biden Defends His Record and Endorses Harris: ‘America, I Gave My Best to You’

In a 52-minute speech, President Biden made the case that Vice President Kamala Harris is the best person to carry on his legacy.

• Share full article

Biden Delivers Keynote on First Night of D.N.C.

In his speech, which lasted nearly an hour, the president touted his accomplishments, attacked donald trump and passed the baton to kamala harris..

“We love Joe.” “America, I love you. Let me ask you, are you ready to vote for freedom?” “Yeah!” “Are you ready to vote for democracy and for America?” “Yeah!” “Are you ready to elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walz –” “Yeah!” “president and vice president of the United States? Because of you, we’ve had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever, period. When, I say ‘we,’ I mean Kamala and me. Donald Trump calls America a failing nation. He says we’re losing. He’s the loser. He’s dead wrong. Donald Trump says he will refuse to accept the election result if he loses again. Think about that. He means it. Think about that. All of us carry a special obligation. Independents, Republicans, Democrats. We saved democracy in 2020 and now we must save it again in 2024. Folks, we just have to remember who we are. We’re the United States of America. And there’s nothing we cannot do when we do it together. God bless you all, and may God protect our troops.”

By Michael D. Shear

Reporting from Chicago

Follow the latest news on the Democratic National Convention .

President Biden used his valedictory address at the Democratic National Convention on Monday to deliver a lengthy defense of his own record aimed at cementing a 50-year legacy of public service, even as he passed the reins to Vice President Kamala Harris as the new face of the party he led until just weeks ago.

Speaking to a raucous arena filled with Democrats who chanted “We Love Joe!” and gave him a three-and-a-half-minute standing ovation, Mr. Biden grew emotional as he delivered what amounted to a political farewell to his most fervent supporters.

“I’ve given my heart and soul to our nation, and I’ve been blessed a million times in return,” the president said as he made the case that Ms. Harris is the best person to lead the country now that he is no longer in the race.

“She’s tough. She’s experienced. And she has enormous integrity,” Mr. Biden said. Selecting Ms. Harris as his vice president, he added, “was the best decision I made my whole career.”

That was not the case that Mr. Biden expected to be making just over a month ago, before his stunning political demise following a debate performance that raised doubts about his age and vitality. And in some ways, his praise of Ms. Harris during the 52-minute address seemed secondary to his desire to recount the greatest hits of his career in a speech he might have given as the party’s nominee.

One by one, Mr. Biden ticked through a litany of achievements from the stump speeches of his now-ended campaign: $35 insulin; breathing room for American families; strengthening NATO; beating “big Pharma”; burn pits that harmed veterans; investments in infrastructure; appointing a Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court; and the now-familiar call to remember “who the hell we are: We’re the United States of America, and there’s nothing we can’t do if we do it together.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

August 6, 2021

Ragging: prohibition, prevention and punishment.

WHAT IS RAGGING? : Ragging is the phrase for the so-called “initiation rite” that takes place in higher education institutions across South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Ragging refers to senior students abusing, humiliating, or harassing fresh recruits or junior students. It often takes a malignant turn, with newcomers being subjected to psychological or physical assault.

The University Grants Commission of India issued laws to Indian universities in 2009 to help combat ragging and established a toll-free “anti-ragging helpline.” Bullying is a subcategory of ragging. Unlike other types of bullying, ragging is immediately identifiable.

RAGGING AS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE : According to the Supreme Court’s decision, ragging is a criminal act. Ragging is defined as follows in the penal code and section 116 of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (Karnataka Act No. 1 of 1995): “Causing, inducing, compelling or forcing a student, Whether by way of practical joke or otherwise, to do any act which detracts from human dignity or violates his / her person or exposes him/her to ridicule from doing any lawful act. By intimidating, wrongfully restraining, wrongfully confining, or injuring him or by using criminal force on him/her or by holding out to him/her any threat of intimidation, wrongful confinement, injury, or the use of criminal force”.

PUNISHMENT FOR RAGGING IN INDIA : Ragging is not particularly addressed in the IPC. The greatest punishment for ragging is under section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Shaikshanik Sansthan Me Pratarna Ka Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2001, which carries a sentence of up to 5 years in prison or a fine of up to 5,000 rupees, or both.

PROVISIONS FOR RAGGING : There are 13 provisions of IPC that can be used by a fresher who is being ragged. These sections are- 339, 340, 341, 342, 294, 506, 323, 324, 325, 326, 304, 306 & 307.

TYPES OF RAGGING : There are various types of ragging some of which are as follows:-

1. Dress code Ragging – For a set amount of time, freshmen are required to dress in a specified manner. Dressing totally in white or black with hair oiled and combed in a specific style, dressing in shirts without stripes, and dressing in long skirts for females are all examples of odd dress codes. Freshmen may be put off by dress code ragging since it attracts undue attention from the rest of the class.

2. Verbal abuse – Indulging in careless discourse is a form of verbal torment. In front of a big group of classmates, freshmen may be ordered to sing the lyrics of any filthy song or use abusive language. During this time, seniors assign juniors a cruel and insulting name known as card, which they must be called by for the rest of their academic careers. After the ragging era at some institutions, this nickname is changed to a less vulgar term. These aliases are largely used to protect students engaging in ragging and other illegal actions from being identified by university officials. Verbal ragging takes several forms depending on the institution. Students at several institutions are required to learn and read filthy poems in front of their peers.

3. Physical abuse – Freshmen are required to perform different duties, including sit-ups or push-ups, sitting in the murga posture, forcing seniors to call as ‘sir’/’ma’am,’ and removing their shirts. In an attempt to avoid participating in the activities, they may slap or hit the fresher with baseball bats.

In India, however, if a complaint is filed against that senior, he or she (together with others who were there at the moment) will face harsh penalties such as expulsion from the university, incarceration for a year, and so on.

4. Academic performance – Seniors may try to bully or frighten juniors into finishing their work, skipping classes, refusing to participate in any activities or join clubs, and so on. However, in certain cases, freshmen are not allowed to conduct any academic-related activities other than attending lectures during university hours, ostensibly to prepare them for larger responsibilities in their subsequent years.

Although it falls under the category of extreme incidents of ragging, it will result in severe punishment for the seniors if a complaint is made.

WHERE CAN A COMPLAINT ABOUT RAGGING BE FILED? : The University Grants Commission (UGC) provides an online form for filing a ragging report, and students can record an FIR with the police station whose jurisdiction area the incident occurred.

Universal Anti-Ragging Helpline No : 1800-180-5522

Email : [email protected]

BIBLIOGRAPHY : https://www.shrideviengineering.org/ragging-is-a-criminal-offence/

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against  Glorifying Over Work  and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on  Facebook ,  Twitter    Youtube  and  Instagram .

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep.   Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems   at [email protected]

We also have a Facebook Group  Restarter Moms  for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

Featured articles

Ipr laws applicable to theater in india – notes, basic intellectual property rights for digital content creators, the doctrine of preemptive defense: legal implications and controversies, sebi regulatory framework for ipos in india,      debentures – a brief on alternative source of capital, a study on the principle of separate legal entity and its exception, related articles, analysis of difference between criminal conspiracy and conspiracy by abetment.

This article has been written by Yash Tated Abstract Criminal conspiracy refers to an agreement between two or more people…

AN ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTRA-TERRITORIAL AND EXTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF IPC 1860.

This article written by,RADHA BEERE. INTRODUCTION:- Intra- territorial jurisdiction deals with the crimes committed within the boundaries of the Indian…

This article has been written by Ms, Riddhi khanna , a 1st year BA LLB student from new law college…

Hurt and Grievous Hurt: Everything you need to know about it 

This article is written by Nilesh Merotha studying in NRI vidyadayani institute of science management and technology. Bhopal pursuing B.A.LL.B…

DURATION OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF BODY

This article has been written by Ms Arundhathi G, a 3rd year BA LLB Student from Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed to…

WHAT IS AN OFFENCE

This article has been written by Kumari Shalini, a student studying B.A. LL. B from Lloyd Law College, Gr. Noida.…

SUBMISSION OF DEATH SENTENCES FOR CONFIRMATION

This article has been written by- Mr. Loknath Saha, a 1st year LL. B student from Lloyd Law College.  …

Corruption and Bribery: Legal Framework and Anti-Corruption Measures in India

This article has been written by Ritika Kumari, a student studying LLB (3 Years) from Narvadeshwar Law College (Lucknow University),…

SECTION 349: FORCE 

  BY: DIPANSHA AGRAWAL LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, GREATER NOIDA   INTRODUCTION  As all we know, crime is the very serious…

Perjury: The Betrayal of Truth in the Courtroom

This article has been written by Pulak Mohanty, a 2nd year BA.LLB Student from Lloyd Law College. Introduction : Perjury, the act…

Defences in Criminal Law: Examining Different Legal Strategies

Offences against property and documents.

WhatsApp us

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

'America, I gave my best to you': watch as President Joe Biden speaks at DNC convention

President Joe Biden spoke Monday at the first night of the Democratic National Convention , saying he loved his country after the crowd finally quieted down from prolonged "WE LOVE JOE" cheers.

Before Biden even started speaking, tears appeared in the eyes of some audience members and Biden wiped away his own after an emotional introduction from his daughter Ashley Biden .

Biden's speech is likely much different than what he would have been planning less than two months ago, before the debate that would begin the end of his candidacy . Still, he recounted his tenure from candidacy until this convention as a fight for democracy , and linked some of his administration's achievements to Vice President Kamala Harris .

"I love the job, but I love my country more," Biden said toward the end of his remarks, as the crowd broke into another round of cheers.

Biden capped his speech quoting from "American Anthem": "America, I gave my best to you."

Watch President Joe Biden's full speech at the DNC convention here

Democratic convention live updates: What time does Joe Biden speak tonight? How can I watch?

President Joe Biden at DNC convention

• Who is he: Joe Biden is the current and 46th president of the U.S.
• What role does he play: Biden was the presumed Democratic nominee, until a disastrous June debate led to mounting calls for him to step aside. He bowed out of the race on July 21, and quickly endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him on the ticket.
• In his words: "You cannot say you love your country only when you win," he said. "On the step of the Capitol on a cold January day, I raised my right hand, I swore an oath to you and to God to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution...I believe then and I believe now, that progress was and is possible...our best days are not behind us, they're before us."

How to watch and stream the 2024 DNC

The convention is taking place Monday through Thursday this week at the United Center, home of the Chicago Bulls and Blackhawks, will be the  main venue  for the DNC. Chicago has hosted the Democratic Convention 11 times, most recently in 1996 when the United Center saw President Bill Clinton was nominated for a second time.

The convention will  air live on its website , from the United Center in Chicago between 6:15 p.m. and 11 p.m. Eastern (5:15 p.m. to 10 p.m Central) on Monday, and 7 p.m to 11 p.m. Eastern (6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Central) the other days.

USA TODAY will provide livestream coverage on YouTube  each night of the DNC, Monday through Thursday.

What are the themes for each night of the DNC?

The DNC announced nightly themes for the convention. The title of the convention is "For the People, For Our Future."

Here are the themes for each night:

• Monday:  "For the People"
• Tuesday:  "A Bold Vision for America's Future"
• Wednesday:  "A Fight for our Freedoms"
• Thursday:  "For our Future"

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Social Justice

Make Your Note

Combating Ragging in Educational Institutions

• 23 Aug 2023
• GS Paper - 2
• Issues Arising Out of Design & Implementation of Policies
• Judgements & Cases

For Prelims: Legal Consequences of Ragging in India, Raghavan Committee, Supreme Court

For Mains : UGC Guidelines to Curb the Menace of Ragging, Issues Related to Higher Education System in India.

Why in News?

The issue of ragging , a persistently troubling phenomenon in Indian educational institutions, has once again captured national attention due to a recent incident at Jadavpur University.

• The Supreme Court of India has taken significant steps to address this issue through various cases and guidelines.

What is the Current State of Anti-ragging Measures in India?

• In the 2001 (Vishwa Jagriti Mission) case, the Supreme Court provided a comprehensive definition of ragging.
• The Court also noted that the motives behind ragging often include deriving sadistic pleasure, showcasing power, authority, or superiority by seniors over freshers.
• The Supreme Court guidelines emphasized the importance of setting up proctoral committees within educational institutions to prevent and address ragging.
• Furthermore, it highlighted the possibility of reporting ragging incidents to the police if they become unmanageable or amount to cognizable offenses.
• In 2009, the Supreme Court revisited the ragging issue and appointed a committee led by former CBI Director RK Raghavan to address it comprehensively.
• The UGC issued detailed guidelines that universities were required to follow in order to counter ragging effectively.
• The UGC guidelines, titled "Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions ," highlighted several forms of ragging, including teasing, causing physical or psychological harm, generating a sense of shame, and engaging in financial extortion.
• The guidelines also mandated universities to publicly declare their commitment to preventing ragging and required students to sign undertakings that they would not engage in such activities.
• Universities were required to establish committees comprising course-incharges, student advisors, wardens, and senior students.
• These committees were tasked with monitoring and regulating interactions between freshers and seniors, ensuring a healthy and safe environment.

Note : UGC also recognised gender identity and sexual orientation as grounds for ragging in 2016.

• While ragging itself is not categorized as a specific offense , it can be penalized under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• For instance, wrongful restraint, as defined under Section 339 of the IPC, can lead to imprisonment for up to one month or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.
• Wrongful confinement, governed by Section 340 of the IPC, can result in imprisonment for up to a year or a fine of up to one thousand rupees, or both.
• For instance, the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997, The Assam Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998 and Maharashtra Prohibition of Ragging act, 1999.

Way Forward

• These audits can provide insights into gaps , areas of improvement, and successful practices.
• The findings can be used to refine and adapt governance strategies , ensuring a proactive approach to preventing ragging.
• The system could incorporate real-time notifications to relevant authorities, ensuring swift intervention.
• Community Engagement Events: There is a need to organize regular community events that involve students in volunteer work, community service, and social outreach. Building a sense of responsibility and unity can help reduce the inclination towards ragging.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Ragging as an expression of power in a deeply divided society; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university

Contributed equally to this work with: Ayanthi Wickramasinghe, Pia Axemo

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Current address: Department of Women and Children’s Health, MTC-huset, Uppsala, Sweden

Affiliation International Maternal and Child health unit, Department of Women and Children’s health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing

• Ayanthi Wickramasinghe, 
• Pia Axemo, 
• Birgitta Essén, 
• Jill Trenholm

• Published: July 11, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Initiation rituals such as hazing, bullying, and ragging, as it is referred to in Sri Lanka, is a global phenomenon and has become a serious public health problem. Students are bullied and harassed by senior students causing them to suffer severe adverse consequences including depression, increased university dropouts and suicide. Although this has led to a significant burden on the country, research on ragging is scarce. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of students concerning the phenomenon of ragging and to understand how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka. This paper is based on 17 focus group discussions with male and female students of Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim ethnicity. Thematic analysis was employed to navigate through the theoretical lenses of structural violence, intersectionality, and social dominance. The findings revealed how students perceived ragging differently; as an expression of power to initiate order and as a way to express dissatisfaction towards social inequalities occurring within the larger society or to facilitate bonds between university students. Students trivialized violence related to ragging and accepted it as a part of the university subculture despite being aware of the dire consequences. There was a described cyclical nature to ragging whereby victims become perpetrators. The student’s perspective appeared to be a missed opportunity in finding feasible solutions to a societal problem that must take all parties involved, into consideration.

Citation: Wickramasinghe A, Axemo P, Essén B, Trenholm J (2022) Ragging as an expression of power in a deeply divided society; a qualitative study on students perceptions on the phenomenon of ragging at a Sri Lankan university. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0271087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087

Editor: Wolfgang Himmel, University of Göttingen, GERMANY

Received: May 7, 2021; Accepted: June 18, 2022; Published: July 11, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Wickramasinghe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded by the Faculty of Medicine at Uppsala University.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Many university students look forward to gaining entry to a university, and celebrating this milestone in their transition to adulthood. However, this elation and excitement is often replaced by fear and anxiety when students have to undergo harmful initiation practices and rituals. Although the terminology differs from country to country; “hazing” or “bullying” in USA, “bizutage” in France, “praxe” in Portugal and “Mopokaste” in Finland, there are commonalities to these practices found in higher education institutes and universities around the world [ 1 ]. In Sri Lanka and most South Asian countries, this so-called initiation ritual is known as “ragging”. It is carried out by senior students and was originally created to forge comradery and bonds of friendship. However, ragging has evolved in South Asian countries to have little remnants of its original form [ 2 – 4 ]. In Sri Lanka, ragging is defined as “any deliberate act by an individual student or group of students, which causes physical or psychological stress or trauma and results in humiliating, harassing and intimidating the other person” [ 5 ]. It has been expressed as an intentional and systematic violation of human rights and freedom of thought and movement of the junior students [ 6 ].

Depending on the country and cultural contexts, initiation rites differ as does the goal of the practice. In the western world, hazing practices, especially within fraternities and sororities, mostly consist of sexual abuse, drinking games including forced binge drinking in order to form social bonds [ 7 – 9 ], whereas ragging practices in Sri Lanka are built upon breaking cultural taboos often seen as an opportunity to equalize students from different societal backgrounds [ 10 , 11 ]. These practices, seen differently in different countries can be viewed as highly contextual, often mirroring the society at large and exhibiting different power dynamics related to race, gender, socioeconomic status and other facets of student’s identity [ 12 ]. Ragging in Sri Lanka has been considered to be distinct as it has been shown to be driven by an outcry of discontent towards authoritative figures and societal hierarchies [ 13 , 14 ].

To put Sri Lanka in context, it is a multicultural, multilingual country consisting of an ethno-religious blend of Sinhalese (75%), Sri Lankan Tamils (11%), Moors (Muslims) (9%), and other groups (5%) [ 15 ]. The Northern and Eastern Provinces are predominated by Tamil Hindus, and the rest of the country is predominated by Sinhalese Buddhists. The official languages are Sinhala, Tamil, and English, a remnant of colonialism. This post-war nation is still struggling from its history of colonialism [ 16 ] and the 27-year long civil war which ended in 2009. Sri Lanka is a country rich in traditions, still believed to uphold patriarchal values and a hierarchical social structure [ 17 ].

Following the colonial rule, the Sri Lankan educational system changed from an elitist model, where only the wealthy partook, to a mass model where all citizens were welcomed in higher education. Along with this, the change in the medium of instruction from English to Sinhalese and Tamil, led to changes in the composition of the student population [ 14 ]. The most prominent feature of mass university education was the change in socioeconomic structure of the student population due to the district quotas enabling a higher intake of rural students who are often from poorer backgrounds [ 18 ]. The previous majority of English-speaking urban upper and middle class was replaced by Sinhalese and Tamil speaking lower classes from lesser privileged backgrounds [ 18 ].

The lack of adequate English skills in this new cohort, has hindered these students from eventually securing so-called desirable jobs and entering the global job market. The resultant high unemployment rate has led Sri Lankan youth to feel frustrated and perceive the country to be unjust, unequal and marginalizing [ 19 ]. Therefore, these culturally embedded underlying inequalities have become a breeding ground for dissatisfaction and have contributed to the changing practice of ragging. Ragging practices are carried out by the “seniors”, who are students from the second year and above, forcing the new entrants to university to conform to their rules. Ragging often entails the newcomers being subjected to psychological, verbal and physical abuse such as beating, hitting with objects, performing dangerous tasks, and sexual abuse such as stripping, performing sex acts and rape [ 1 , 10 ]. This has led to a range of health consequences like anxiety, depression, insomnia, injuries, and even death and suicide [ 20 ]. Ragging has become a significant public health problem which not only has led to ill health, but has resulted in a loss of students from universities, with a subsequent loss of human resources and economic prosperity in the country [ 13 ].

Ragging has been a criminal offense in Sri Lanka since 1998 and carries a severe punishment [ 21 ], yet this has not deterred students from carrying out this ritual covertly. This practice is embedded as part of the university ‘subculture’[ 17 ]. A recent report conducted among students in eight Sri Lankan state Universities found the prevalence of verbal ragging to be over 51%, psychological ragging 34%, physical ragging 24% and sexual ragging 17% [ 22 ]. Initiatives made by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the administrative body of universities, by issuing guidelines [ 5 ] and creating several methods to lodge complaints against ragging but these initiatives have not been successful in curbing this practice [ 10 ].

There is a scarcity of research on ragging in Sri Lanka, particularly around student’s perceptions. According to reports by the Ministry of Education, approximately 2000 students dropout annually, and several students have committed suicide as a result of ragging [ 23 ]. Similarly, a study conducted in Bangladesh demonstrated, traumatic incidents such as ragging increased suicidal ideation among university students [ 24 ].

Educating youth in a safe space is essential, particularly for its subsequent contributions towards the country’s future. It is increasingly imperative to address this serious public health problem that profoundly affects all students, not only victims but also perpetrators and by-standers. Ragging has a potential deleterious impact upon society’s younger generations and their university years intended for building intellectual capacity. The aim of this study was to explore students’ perceptions concerning the phenomenon of ragging, and to understand how ragging affects student life and culture at the University of Jaffna.

Integrated theoretical lenses

Universities are microcosms of the larger society [ 14 ]. Contexts matter and ragging communicates within this complexity, deeply affecting students’ lives and behaviour. The following integrated theories, explained below, helped sensitize us during the data analysis.

Galtung’s theory [ 25 ] of structural violence was the theoretical departure point at the macro level. This theory holds that direct violence, like ragging, is the visible manifestation of underlying invisible violence that goes unquestioned in everyday praxis. According to Galtung, structural/instutionalized violence reveals how societies naturally purvey their cultural beliefs veiling the reality of destruction by making violence seem acceptable.

The essence of intersectionality [ 26 , 27 ] is inextricably linked to structural violence. By examining the diversity of the students who make up this microcosmic society of the university, one notes how personal identities and their many other diverse attributes influence beliefs, actions, and experiences. How these cultural features/attributes intersect, renders the individual more than a sum of their parts. Intersectionality reveals the individual’s many unique intersecting factors, such as student’s age, gender, ethnicity, social class, caste, language, cultural history, and geographical origins, giving a more nuanced view of their marginalized states.

These individual factors, not only build upon their identity, but also allocates them into various social groups that mirror the hierarchies of the larger society. This leads to group formations that attempt to wield power/status, enabling them to control other groups. This group dynamic is in alignment with Social Dominance theory, which states that dominant individuals have a tendency to organize themselves into ingroups and outgroups to form social hierarchies, with the ingroup dictating or controlling the outgroup [ 28 ].

Structural violence, Intersectionality and Social Dominance theories are integrated, and serve to reflect the macro, meso and micro levels of society. Employing this matrix of theories, the complexity and subtleties of ragging are further illuminated ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.g001

Materials and methods

Study design.

A qualitative phenomenological design was used for this exploratory study. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were chosen as it is the method of choice when exploring societal/group norms, revealing their lived experiences and how attitudes and behaviors are formed within groups [ 29 ].

Study setting

The University of Jaffna, is situated in the Northern province of Sri Lanka. Jaffna was a major war zone during the ethnic conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam that ended in 2009. A majority of the population of the Northern province are Tamils [ 15 ]. Since 2012, similar numbers of students of all ethnicities began their studies at the University of Jaffna. Most other universities across Sri Lanka have a Sinhalese majority. The university of Jaffna was chosen for this study as the student composition was more diverse.

Study participants

The principal investigator (PI)/first author, approached heads of departments from Medicine, Arts, Management, Science, and Technology faculties, and asked them to inform students enrolled in these faculties about the study and how to contact her if they were interested in participating in the FGDs. From the students who responded, a convenient sample of 50 male, and 58 female students, from the 2 nd and 3 rd year, between 21 to 25 years were selected. The chosen participants could include victims, perpetrators and by-standers. First year students were excluded as they could suffer re-traumatization as they could have most likely experienced ragging recently. The participants were informed about the study by the PI and explained that it was a part of a larger doctoral project involving ragging.

The PI is a Sri Lankan born medical doctor currently undergoing her doctoral studies. She has grown up in the context yet received her own education overseas. Having not attended Sri Lankan university yet being part of the culture, she has a distinct insider/outsider vantage point. She spent over a month in Jaffna prior to data collection to get acquainted with the university setup and familiarize herself with the surroundings.

Data collection

A total of 17 FGDs were conducted with individual groups of Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim students, organized by ethnicity, language, and gender as it was deemed more appropriate and for ease of communication amongst like students. Similar numbers of FGDs were conducted with each ethnic group/gender. Discussions were carried out in three languages. The English FDGs were moderated by PA, a Swedish medical doctor with extensive experience in cross cultural collaborations and longstanding work history in Sri Lanka. The Sinhalese FDG’s were moderated by KW a Sri Lankan researcher with expertise in qualitative methods. Some of the English and Sinhalese FDG’s were moderated by the PI who is Sinhalese speaking. A Sri Lankan Tamil speaking research assistant moderated all the Tamil FDG’s. Notes were taken by two observers in the Tamil focus groups, and for the other groups, one observer was present. A thematic guide was used, with questions related to student’s perceptions of ragging, perpetrators, victims, campus environment and student recommendations. Observers notes enriched the data collection and were used in debriefings. Groups consisted of four to eight participants, with each discussion lasting 45–60 minutes. A quiet location that ensured privacy and located on the university premises was used. All FGDs were carried out in March 2019, except for the Faculty of Technology, which was conducted in November 2019 due to the closure of the faculty concerning a severe ragging incident [ 30 ].

Data analysis

The participating researchers discussed the FDG’s immediately after they were conducted, prior to conducting subsequent FGDs in order to refine probing questions and to incorporate emerging information. FGDs were transcribed and translated/back-translated into English by the PI and a Tamil speaking research assistant. This process contributed to enhancing familiarity with the data as transcripts were read repeatedly during the transcription and translation processes. Transcripts were analyzed by the PI and two other researchers with both insider and outsider positions, using thematic analysis [ 31 ]. The research team initially coded the themes independently and then met and spent several days coming to a consensus, mapping, defining, and redefining the themes. Notes concerning background information, comments, and innuendos were used to better understand and substantiate the material. Through the chosen integrated theoretical lenses; Structural violence [ 25 ], Intersectionality [ 27 ] and Social Dominance [ 28 ]. The transcripts were iteratively read and inductively coded. Subsequently, similar emergent codes were grouped together in a mapping exercise. Quotes were used to enhance credibility. Themes and sub themes were developed from the multiple data interpretation discussions. During this process, one overall theme and four main subthemes were chosen by consensus of the research team.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was granted by the ethical review committee of the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka (J/ERC/18/96/NDR/0200). The PI provided information about the aim and procedures of the study to the participants and obtained a written informed consent before starting the interviews. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured by assigning each participant a code according to ethnicity and gender, Sinhalese (S), Tamil (T), Muslim (M) and male (M), and female (F), which was used to identify the transcripts.

Ragging as an expression of power was established as the overall theme ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.g002

There were five subthemes as follows; veil of secrecy and silence, ragging lies on a spectrum, cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy, a society with deep divisions and student recommendations; an unexplored potential resource. Four of the subthemes focused on inter-student relationships and their dynamics, while the other, portrayed the complex interaction with teachers, university administration and society.

Subtheme 1: Veil of secrecy and silence

The existence of ragging within the university was expressed as a well-kept secret among the students. “No, it never happened to us”, was how most FGD’s began with students claiming that ragging did not occur in the University of Jaffna and that they had never heard, or experienced it. They ultimately contradicted themselves when they then went on to explain how it was.

Students claimed that the seniors gave the newcomers humiliating names which dehumanized them, and the seniors themselves were identified by pseudonyms that demonstrated power, keeping them “nameless”, further maintaining the secrecy of this ritual.

“They (seniors) will put names. The names will have very bad meanings. For the next four years they will only use that name.” (T, F)

Ruled by fear.

It was evident that generating fear and intimidating newcomers was the way the seniors maintained secrecy. One student put it this way:

“First years are afraid. They won’t talk about ragging to anyone. Even if we (batch mates) ask who carried out the ragging, they won’t tell.” (T, M)

Other students thought the raggers threats took away the juniors’ independent decision-making capacity, suppressing their ability to differentiate right from wrong expressed here;

“Introducing them (juniors) to a new place and showing them how to behave by reducing their capacity of self-thinking and decision making from their own experience, creates a hive mentality within the students.” (T, M)

Subtheme 2: Ragging lies on a spectrum

For many students ragging was part of the university “subculture” which the newcomers faced in their first year, and sometimes longer. Ragging practices were seen as both positive and negative, which can be as mild as singing or a dress code to extortion and violence. The junior women had to wear dresses made from a certain fabric generally worn only at home, referred to as “Cheeta dresses” in Sri Lanka and braid their hair in two braids, seen as juvenile for their age group. The men had to shave their heads, wear white long-sleeved shirts, no belts, and no underwear. Both men and women had to wear a certain type of bathroom slippers and were not allowed to wear shoes. This was meant to humiliate and infantilize them. This student expressed the stigma related to being dressed in bathroom slippers;

“They (seniors) treat them (newcomers) like small children…when they go in the bus people will laugh at them …are you working in the bathroom, like bathroom cleaners?” (M, F)

The victims of ragging were said to be the junior students, and the ones that were picked on the most, were men that were “handsome”, came from so-called “good schools” and did not “respect the seniors”. The seniors who engaged in or instigated ragging, were in most cases students who had undergone ragging as juniors, had “under par academic performance”, “violent tendencies” and/or “inferiority complexes”. In their words, a ragger was;

“A person who came from a low-level society, studied in a low-level school, and had nothing special in his life and wanted to enjoy everything here.” (M, M)

The students spoke about both the negative and positive consequences of ragging; “not all ragging becomes violent”. While other students said that “Ragging and interaction are being used as synonyms” by the seniors to justify ragging. This demonstrates how ragging was carried out using greater and lesser degrees of violence/coercion, from things such as asking the newcomers to sing a song to assaulting the newcomers.

The persistent harassment of new students was a recurrent topic in the FDGs as is described here;

“Before and after every lecture the seniors will come to the lecture hall and rag us. Every hour at least 10 minutes they will rag us.” (T, F)

Even though ragging took a predominantly psychological or physical form, there were instances students were subjected to sexual forms. Students were reluctant to expose the occurrence of sexual harassment but the following was revealed;

“Some kind of touching (sexual) also goes on… Sinhalese girls are sexually harassed.” (M, M)

Another student said;

“They (newcomers) have to imitate dogs having sex. Girls are asked to draw boy’s body parts, and the boys to draw girl’s body parts.” (M, F)

Several students said ragging was necessary. They believed it was a positive way to develop bonds and increase comradery between the seniors and juniors.

“When we come to this campus, those are the friendships that remain with us. To have a friendship we need to form a connection, because of ragging a connection was formed.” (T, M)

Some students believed that ragging should continue in a non-violent manner because it helped develop and nurture new skills such as communication;

“…with a thing like this (ragging), their (newcomers) personality improves, this is my experience, before I wasn’t a person who would speak out like this but little by little it improved” (S, M)

Another argument made by the students concerning positive ragging, was that seniors perceived they helped newcomers by guiding them towards the “correct path” using fear, demonstrated in the following quote:

“If we tell them (junior females), maybe in fear they will wear (culturally) appropriate clothes from the first year. If not they will face problems when they go out (society). So, we can’t completely stop ragging.” (T, F)

The participants mentioned that seniors often kept juniors awake throughout the night and woke them up early in morning to rag them, thus causing sleep deprivation and exhaustion. Therefore, newcomers lacked time for their studies and were frequently drowsy during lectures.

“We (newcomers) are told to come at 9.00 pm and they (seniors) let us go around 12 midnight. Even if we say that we are feeling very sleepy, they don’t listen. If you’re sleepy you have to sleep on the floor, we have to wait till they (seniors) let us go.” (M, F)

Subtheme 3: Cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy

This sub-theme revealed that ragging was a cyclical system organized to create a hierarchy within the university student body by the demonstration of ‘power over’.

Rite of passage.

The FGD participants saw ragging as a rite of passage that all students entering university must undergo to be accepted by their seniors and belong to their peer group. The “ragging period” ends, with the so-called “ponding ceremony” where newcomers are thrown dirty stagnant water on. Following this, the seniors give the juniors a “welcome party” where the seniors and juniors unite as “Batch fit” (an expression that indicates belonging to the group).

“Ragging is like an acceptance to campus. When we give the first-year students the welcome party then there is some unity.” (S, M)

Students stated that it was a ritual with a few unwritten rules such as, ragging occurs only among your own faculty and only seniors can rag. Men were said to be ragged by men, and women ragged by women, and most importantly, ragging occurred strictly within ethnicities.

“Other faculty seniors should not hit our juniors. Only we will hit our juniors.” (T, M)

The powerful perpetrator.

Several students referred to ragging as a way for seniors to demonstrate power and seniority, exhibiting their power over the juniors in the following manner:

“You are a newcomer, I am going to show you my superiority by ragging, physically, mentally and psychologically.” (T, M)

Another student spoke of how ragging was believed to prepare them for the greater world:

“He (senior student) said ragging is to improve leadership qualities. If you don’t obey your senior, how will you obey your boss in future?” (M, M)

Students who were disrespectful towards the seniors, got ragged more. Newcomers who made complaints, were often isolated from their batch, branded as “anti-raggers” and stigmatized. They were said to be excluded from university functions, parties organized by the students, not given leadership roles, and frozen out by the rest of their peers.

“If someone won’t obey them (seniors), they will separate that person from the batch and won’t involve that person in common events.” (M, F)

Students spoke about the financial burden caused by ragging. The seniors were said to extort money from newcomers, asking them to buy food for them in the cafeteria or to top up their mobile phone accounts. Some students, gave up their food for the day to fulfill the demand of feeding the seniors as indicated here;

“Every student comes from a different economic status. I have seen some students (juniors) buy them (seniors) food and then they don’t eat for the whole day or they will eat only one time per day.” (T, F)

Juniors dependent on the seniors.

Juniors were said to be forced to depend upon seniors for academic support, as the lectures were at times inadequate or the students did not understand the lecture material due to language problems.

“They (seniors) do it (extra classes) willingly, as a help to the junior students.” (S, F)

Victims become perpetrators.

Participants claimed that new students got revenge by ragging newcomers the following year. Students expressed that they did not see the harm in ragging their juniors as they themselves underwent it.

“If a boy got ragged, in future he will think about how he could develop that ragging and give it back. They (the boys) will talk in which way they could make it worse.” (T, F)

Subtheme 4: A society with deep divisions

Students spoke about how rigid norms and hierarchies in Sri Lankan society influenced ragging. Participants spoke about their tenuous relationships with authority figures which seemed to be imbued with fear. There was talk of distrust on both sides, authority figures and students. Ragging rules exist but action was expressed as rarely taken.

Ragging challenging rigid norms.

Participants alluded to Sri Lankan society’s deep divisions in age hierarchies, gender, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic class, and caste which had an impact on ragging.

It was evident that the students’ behavior was guided by traditional gender norms, displayed by the soft-spoken demure manner in which women spoke as opposed to the more loud, aggressive manner the males expressed their opinions. During the FGD’s, the women often giggled and whispered when certain topics were discussed, whereas the men got agitated and angry when the female moderators probed their views.

They expressed how ragging occurred as per these gender norms. Men used more physical ragging to show off power to impress women as they did not often get opportunities to interact freely.

“Boys will hit handsome (male) students. Because he (ragger) can impress juniors (females).” (T, F)

According to the students, ragging practices were gendered, in that men underwent more physical ragging than women;

“They (seniors) will make us (females) sing and they will beat the male students.” (T, F)

Senior women considered it their responsibility to guide and make sure the junior women upheld their respectability. Controlling the newcomer’s behavior was a way to safeguard their decorum. A female student commented:

“I saw a girl sitting on a final year student’s bench after 6pm and laughing with senior boys. The boys will be drunk. The girls don’t know what will happen to them. When we saw that we got angry. They should think about their protection. They should think, how will I go back home safely.” (T, F)

It was expressed how male students were often drunk in the evenings. Newcomers were said to be forced to consume alcohol, as it was seen as being unmanly if they did not. The cultural norm states that women are not supposed to drink alcohol, whereas men were defined by drinking. This was elaborated by the following;

“They will force the male newcomers to drink if they don’t, they will scold them… you are not a boy, you are a girl.” (M, F)

The students saw ragging as a way to equalize divisions such as socioeconomic status and caste, while increasing divisions in other cases.

“…they (juniors) are brought together. Ragging reduces the disparity in the different levels of society and brings everyone to the same level…We bring them all down to the same level.” (S, M)

The senior students felt it as a part of their duty to equalize everyone and “fix” the so-called mentality of the more privileged to become more equal with the more marginalized groups.

“We call them privileged…We take them and bring them all to the same level, and we fix their mentality.” (S, M)

The participants felt very strongly about it being unfair that certain students who came from a stronger financial background could afford better things than others. These discussions became quite heated;

“…If I go to the canteen with 60 rupees and he has 100 rupees…I can eat a vegetable rice, he can have a fried rice and drink a coke cola. We are in the same batch, we sit for the same exam, we study in the same campus and we study together, then why is there a difference?” (S, M)

The lack of knowledge of the English language led to a lot of difficulties among the students in communicating with students and lecturers of other ethnicities, understanding lectures and basic interaction with people living in the area. Students expressed that the English language was seen as a class marker, creating a social divide, as evidenced by;

“…Some students try to show a fake poshness (by speaking English) …” (S, F)

Not allowing juniors to speak English during the ragging period was another method of suppressing students;

“In the first semester we have to talk using only Sinhalese words, we are not allowed to speak a single word in English.” (S, M)

Trivializing violence.

Many students believed that ragging be a part of university life/culture and they did not see the harm. They convinced themselves that it was harmless despite contrary information. This notion is reflected by this statement:

“…but unlike other campuses there isn’t ragging here. But by ragging no one is mentally or physically hurt here. If it’s done there is no harm caused to anyone…” (S, F)

Some students felt that violence was a part of the Sri Lankan society and that people had to be obedient to the hierarchical systems, therefore they did not see ragging as something to be concerned about.

“In every situation people should have obedience. We should obey someone, maybe in an office. You should obey your boss. When a person can’t obey, he is subjected to violence.” (T, M)

Students feel demonized.

Due to controversial ragging incidents, students lamented that all students were seen as perpetrators and portrayed in a negative light by the media, and therefore mistreated by the university authorities by false accusations.

“The ones who were not involved got an inquiry … they (university administration) wanted to put a noose around their neck… that person was not even involved in anything (ragging)…” (S, F)

Another student expressed how complaints of ragging were demoralizing;

“When you’re trying to educate us, why are the people above us trying to put us down by talking about ragging, ragging, ragging?” (S, M)

Some participants claimed that they were worried about being a part of the FGDs because they thought it was an inquiry where they would be falsely penalized for ragging;

“To be honest, none of us wanted to come here (for the FGD) today. We thought it’s like an inquiry but when the science lecturer explained… we thought, let’s go and tell our problems, we can’t suffer like this every day.” (S, F)

Submitting to authorities that don’t take responsibility.

Although there were several ways to make complaints, students conveyed their frustration, that authorities often did not take any action. The students expressed disappointment that lecturers, counselors, and others responsible, did not want to intervene or get involved with ragging leaving a vacuum, where raggers rule.

“The lecturers stay aside and let ragging occur. The lecturers won’t get involved, then the seniors behave the way they want and rag the juniors.” (S, F)

Subtheme 5: Students’ recommendations; an unexplored potential resource

The students had several recommendations on how to end ragging. Some students believed that ragging was unnecessary but organized interactions between senior and junior students were needed. They believed that the use of these terms interchangeably was the main problem and evident in the statement below;

“Ragging and interactions are being used as synonyms. Those are two different words. Ragging is hurting someone for ones’ entertainment. Interaction is creating a place to get connected with students from different areas and societies. It becomes a problem when these terms are used interchangeably. Students get confused with these two words but they are two distinct things. Interaction is needed but not ragging.” (T,M)

Participants had ideas on how to help students respect one another through mentorship and how to make ragging a more harmless way to interact with each other. One of the recommendations was;

“Until we eradicate the mentality of the seniors to suppress their juniors, we can’t eradicate ragging. To do that mentorship is important. Mentorship by lecturers, to tell me what university is all about, what are my rights, how can I reach help and security. This message should reach the new students before the seniors capture them…” (T, M)

It was expressed that during, wartime, the students were a more intricate part of the greater society and thus were more community oriented, versus the current more individualistic society;

“…students (before entering university) were living inside a bubble created within school, home, and tuition classes. I think they need to think about society, they should make efforts to get connected with society.” (M, M)

Anti-raggers were cited as a potential counter force, provided they got more support from students and the administration;

“There are anti-raggers in every batch. We can form a group through the university administration with the anti-raggers to identify raggers and to give them a punishment or suspension.” (T, M)

This study expands the knowledge on students’ perceptions of ragging and how ragging affects student life and culture in Sri Lanka. It was striking that the students themselves were ambivalent in their views of ragging. However, ragging used as an expression of power permeated the findings as an overall theme. This overall theme consists of five subthemes as follows; veil of secrecy and silence, ragging lies on a spectrum, cycle of ragging establishes a hierarchy, a society with deep divisions and student recommendations; an unexplored potential resource. These finding can contribute to a deeper understanding on how this negative ragging practice can be curbed and/or promote change in preserving the more positive experiences of bonding.

The wider context of ragging: Sri Lanka and it’s university culture

This study underscores Sri Lanka’s historically embedded rigid social norms and hierarchical systems lending itself to youth’s discontent which manifests in ragging as direct violence [ 25 ]. Beneath the facade of this purported equitable society, students revealed hierarchies of socioeconomic classes, caste, ethnicity and gender which has led to a clash of attitudes, differences in privileges, and perceived unjust divisions of power [ 32 ]. The diverse mix of students at Jaffna University seem to experience being re-grouped according to a hierarchical system whereby the seniors’ ruled over the newcomers. This aligns with social dominance theory [ 28 ] and the stated administrative apathy creates a vacuum which contributes to the institutionalizing of structural violence. Samaranayake et al. [ 18 ] showed how students who feel alienated, ignored and unheard, by adult power structures both in the university and in society often turn towards violence; ragging can be seen as an expression of this violence. The students in this study shared the sentiments that they had to comply with the hierarchical restructuring and felt more let down than supported by the administration.

The English-speaking urban middle class continues to rise to the top in the national and private sector while sidelining the rural, monolingual, lower classes that are dependent on very limited government and public sector jobs. [ 11 , 19 ]. Despite common dissatisfaction, disgruntled youth of different ethnicities remain isolated from each other due to segregation by language divisions and regional barriers [ 16 ]. Gamage et al. [ 16 ] remarks that ragging has served as a method of ensuring those from privileged backgrounds are made aware that they are not superior to those from less privileged settings, thereby disrupting the existent societal norm. Similarly, this study’s findings demonstrate how ragging is a tool to equalize societal hierarchies and associated disadvantages giving voice to the marginalized, by leveling the playing field. This was evident in how the participants spoke about “equalizing” students. The social injustices faced by the youth can be considered as invisible structural violence as per Galtung [ 25 ]. It has been shown that students’ involvement in confrontational politics, could be an attempt to empower themselves, while the Marxist and leftist political parties are said to be the driving force behind student unions eager to recruit dissatisfied youth [ 18 ].

Intersectionality reveals the gendered dimension found in our study. Differences in the methods of ragging between men and women were further strengthened through patriarchal-driven norms repeatedly endorsed by society. It was evident that university students still upheld the traditional notion of ‘ Læjja-baya’ (Shame-fear), expected of women. Every child in Sri Lanka has been taught to conform to the concept of ‘ Læjja-baya’ or in other words, ‘shame and fear of ridicule’ which is exploited in ragging [ 17 ]. Young women are expected to behave with sexual modesty and be chaste, otherwise they will be exposed to ridicule and shame [ 17 ]. Similarly, gender norms dictate that women should be submissive. The rising number of female students in universities has not kept pace with the entrenched gender expectations [ 10 , 17 ]. Women are still unable to reach higher positions as some men still think that women should remain at home and take care of their families [ 17 , 33 ].

In Sri Lankan society where patriarchal practices dominate, ‘power over’ is the currency used to gain social dominance and respect. Study participants felt that ragging was an opportunity for seniors to form hierarchies and therefore hold power over the newcomers. Participants reported it was mandatory for the juniors to obey the seniors. Furthermore, the former newcomers looked forward to their turn as seniors, gaining control over the next new batch, maintaining the cycle of ragging [ 17 ]. The requisite for deference towards parents, authoritative figures and one’s seniors is the cultural norm [ 34 ]. Senior students by default acquire this position of power, and thereby pacifying their frustrations over social inequalities, personal jealousies and inferiority complexes [ 10 , 11 , 14 ]. Worldwide studies show that coercion, domination and abuse of power are the pillars that these initiation rites are built upon [ 7 , 8 , 35 ].

Ragging also invokes Sri Lankan society’s acceptable masculinity role. This study supports the notion that ragging among men often takes a more aggressive and physical form as compared to the more psychological form women endure. Correspondingly, several studies found these practices to be gendered [ 12 , 36 ]. Véliz-Calderón et al. [ 36 ] and Tong et al. [ 37 ] describe hazing experiences among female students to be psychological, including eating disgusting food and sleep deprivation, whereas male students had to undergo activities displaying physical strength, supporting the socio-cultural construct of American masculinity/femininity.

Evidence of gendered male dominance and female submission was also present in our study. These gendered expectations are damaging to both men and women. Attracting a partner is one such example [ 10 , 17 ]. Senior male students were expected to demonstrate power over the newcomers which enabled them to impress a suitable partner from the opposite sex to fulfill their romantic and sexual needs [ 11 , 17 ]. Due to the notion of ‘ Læjja-baya’ expressed earlier, male interaction with females is limited and ragging provides a platform for connecting.

With social dominance and the quest for power at stake, it is therefore not surprising that ragging is maintained in secrecy. This has a historical implication where ragging has only recently been discussed. Despite numerous efforts by the UGC and the Sri Lankan government, ragging continues to be widespread. Like ragging, hazing and other initiation practices are often secretly conducted according to Campo et al. [ 38 ]. This secrecy is in part owed to the unwillingness of students to make complaints due to the fear of being ostracized and of the wrath of powerful seniors [ 13 ]. This study’s participants expressed similar fears that were outweighed by the authorities’ apathy they have experienced upon reporting. Gunatilaka et al. [ 10 ] reported ragging was seen by students, as a small price to pay to receive a university education and all that entails, also seen in this study. Participants claimed refusal to participate in ragging resulted in a loss of inclusion. The practice of excluding or “othering” is an instinctive reaction to protect oneself and one’s group particularly when there is a perception of scarce resources [ 39 ]. This holds true when many students are fighting for limited university seats and employment opportunities.

Students in this study often normalized or trivialized violence. The dismissive manner in which violence is seen by society can play a role in the acceptability of ragging. Sri Lanka has had a violent past with several bloody insurgencies and a protracted ethnic uprising [ 18 ].These study participants were born during Sri Lanka’s days of civil war. This perceived invisibility/normalization of violence has also permeated the culture in the ways children are raised. This could have influenced the tolerance of violent and aggressive behavior [ 10 ]. Although corporal punishment in schools is officially banned, it continues to occur at home [ 40 ]. Child maltreatment contributes to a child’s normalization of violence according to studies conducted globally [ 41 , 42 ]. Several other studies on intimate partner violence in Sri Lanka have shown violence rates to be between 17–72% [ 43 , 44 ], these permissive attitudes towards violence against women also demonstrate societal perceptions of violence [ 10 ]. Normalization of violence distorts ragging as harmless. This has been described in other studies where students don’t acknowledge these practices as harmful or deny having experienced what they consider to be ‘violence’ [ 7 , 38 ].

Another aspect contributing to student ragging is the rapid expansion of government funded universities and the influx of diverse student populations that came along with this. It did not go hand in hand with sufficient infrastructure, accommodation, leisure activities and sports for students [ 18 ]. This could be attributed to slow growth of the economy and the lack of public funds to finance educational institutes [ 14 ]. The scarcity of funding has also resulted in shortcomings such as a lack of lecturers, decreased quality of teaching and poor security within the university and surroundings [ 13 ]. The participants indicated that these unsatisfactory conditions and inadequacies at the system level contribute to student rebellion, which is in line with Galtung’s structural violence [ 25 ]. Societal structures that honor certain groups and not others, contribute to the invisible violence level, in this case, manifested as ragging.

The spectrum of ragging

The students’ ambivalence revealed that ragging is seen on a spectrum with both positive and negative attributes. Students who saw ragging as more of a bonding experience, were proponents for ragging; they experienced it as a part of university life and a rite of passage all new entrants must undergo in order to belong [ 17 ]. Ragging can range from performing trivial tasks such as singing songs to extreme physical and sexual harassment [ 10 ]. Other studies also showed that these practices increase group cohesiveness [ 45 , 46 ]. Participants claimed that certain ragging practices were constructive and helpful, especially milder forms have been shown to have positive effects on students similar to other studies [ 10 ]. Students entering university from rural areas or disadvantaged backgrounds could be timid, making it difficult for them to engage and communicate with other students and lecturers. By performing simple ragging tasks helping them overcome shyness and experience a sense of belonging [ 17 ]. Due to the cited shortcomings or absence of university administration support, newcomers felt more reliant upon senior students for support/guidance.

The participants of our study mentioned several negative effects of ragging, which were similar to findings in other studies that show severe forms of ragging result in adverse consequences for their victims, such as physical and emotional problems [ 20 , 47 ]. Ragging disrupts the education of the 1 st year students since it mostly occurs during this period. Similarly, students have recounted in an UGC report, to be unable to concentrate due to stress and sleep deprivation [ 48 ] leading to poor exam performance, delays in graduating and entering the job market [ 13 ]. The negative impression generated by ragging in state-funded universities, has been shown to impede the chances of graduates gaining employment in the private sector [ 32 ].

Strengths and limitations

There were several limitations to our study. Ragging victimization mostly occurs in the 1 st year and since the participants were 2 nd and 3 rd years students there may have been a recall bias as they could have been victims, perpetrators or by-standers as well as affected by the cultural tendency to trivialize/normalize ragging. As this is a sensitive topic and victims can become future perpetrators, they may have refrained from revealing information.

The FGDs were conducted after a severe ragging incident in the Technology faculty which led to the closure of this faculty for several weeks which could have made the students more reluctant to discuss ragging. There is the possibility that students provided what they assumed to be desirable answers, though our experience was that they were eventually quite forthright about positive and negative issues.

The research team did have only female members; this could have affected the information divulged by male students. It would be difficult to say if males would have been more or less comfortable sharing females considering the gendered expectations upheld in society.

The main strength of our study was that our findings focused upon students’ perspectives. Assisted through the chosen theoretical lenses, a more nuanced view of students’ behaviour was illuminated. Most existing information on ragging in Sri Lanka is derived from reports and studies that lack a rigorous research methodology. This study is at the forefront of including students in the analysis of this very sensitive and multi-layered social problem.

Further research is needed to better understand the practice of ragging. Replicating this methodology focusing on student voices is essential, as there is a dearth of research concerning students’ perspective. As in most qualitative studies, transferability to other settings is possible but must be done with caution as context plays such an important role. Participatory action research could be useful in providing agency to those implicated on the front lines of ragging. The perceptions of lecturers and key persons in positions of authority in the university as well as parents’ perceptions would also enhance a more comprehensive picture of ragging.

This study suggests students use ragging as an expression of power in a highly competitive societal context which includes the educational system. Some of the contributing factors towards this practice are normalization of violence, the acceptance of ragging as part of the university subculture, gender norms and socioeconomic class disparities. These factors, when combined, provides a breeding ground for student unrest, violence and insubordination, manifesting as ragging. This study has illuminated a wider picture by providing students’ insights, which are a fundamental part of a multisectoral approach towards solutions; one that involves university administration, the UGC, student unions and university students themselves. A proactive approach is needed; one that creates awareness about ragging’s harmful effects, while promoting a more positive interaction between students and those in positions of authority. This long-standing problem has reached a critical juncture of doing more harm than good to young people while acquiring education and developing skills for life, so important to the future of their country. Therefore, all efforts must be used to eliminate ragging and its deleterious effects. There is a serious need for deep reforms within universities and a critical look at the role of structural violence, to successfully address ragging.

Supporting information

S1 file. focus group discussion interview guide..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.s001

S2 File. COREQ (Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research) checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.s002

S3 File. Types of ragging and incidents of ragging.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.s003

S4 File. Transcripts of FGDs.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271087.s004

Acknowledgments

Rajendra Surenthirukumaran, Kumudu Wijewardana, Shajeetha Thurauappah are thanked for their time and effort in making this study possible.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 5. University grants commission. Information for students on ragging and gender based violence in universities. Center for gender equity/eqality, University Grants Commission; 2017.
• 6. Hettiarachchi KI. Can Ragging in Higher Education Institutes in Sri Lanka Be Eradicated Only by Legislative Reforms: A Comparative Analysis with India [Internet]. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2017 Aug [cited 2021 Jan 14]. Report No.: ID 3011822. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3011822
• 15. Department of Census and Statistics. Census of Population and Housing 2011 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2021 Mar 12]. Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.lk/PopHouSat/CPH2011/index.php?fileName=Activities/TentativelistofPublications
• 18. Samaranayake G. Changing University Student Politics in Sri Lanka: From Norm Oriented to Value Orient Student Movement. Sri Lanka. 2013;8.
• 21. Sri Lankan government. Prohibition of Ragging and Other Forms of Violence in Educational Institutions Act | Volume VI [Internet]. 1998. Available from: https://www.srilankalaw.lk/Volume-VI/prohibition-of-ragging-and-other-forms-of-violence-in-educational-institutions-act.html
• 22. Prevalence of Ragging and Sexual and Gender Based Violence.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2022 Mar 22]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/srilanka/media/2431/file/Prevalence of Ragging and Sexual and Gender Based Violence.pdf
• 23. Senanayake H. ‘Ragging’ is dragging Sri Lanka down | Daily FT. 2020 Jun 10 [cited 2020 Dec 9]; Available from: http://www.ft.lk/columns/-Ragging—is-dragging-Sri-Lanka-down/4-701376
• 30. Adaderana. Technology Faculty of Jaffna University temporarily closed. 2019 [cited 2020 Dec 9]; Available from: http://www.adaderana.lk/news/53475/technology-faculty-of-jaffna-uni-temporarily-closed
• 32. Gunatlilaka R, Mayer M, Vodopivec M. Challenge of Youth Unemployment in Sril Lanka [Internet]. Herndon, UNITED STATES: World Bank Publications; 2010 [cited 2021 Mar 10]. Available from: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uu/detail.action?docID=589800
• 37. Tong R. Feminist Thought, Student Economy Edition: A More Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge; 2018. 441 p.
• 43. Lanka S, Department of Census and Statistics. Sri Lanka: demographic and health survey 2016. 2017.
• 48. UGC U grants commission. Redressing victims of Ragging & providing a regulatory mechanism to prevent Ragging related abusive conduct in Sri Lankan State Universities and Higher Education Institutes [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.ugc.ac.lk/downloads/publications/Report of the Rag Reliaf Committee/Report of the Rag Reliaf Committee.pdf

Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

UK Edition Change

• UK Politics
• News Videos
• Paris 2024 Olympics
• Rugby Union
• Sport Videos
• John Rentoul
• Mary Dejevsky
• Andrew Grice
• Sean O’Grady
• Photography
• Theatre & Dance
• Culture Videos
• Fitness & Wellbeing
• Food & Drink
• Health & Families
• Royal Family
• Electric Vehicles
• Car Insurance Deals
• Lifestyle Videos
• UK Hotel Reviews
• News & Advice
• Simon Calder
• Australia & New Zealand
• South America
• C. America & Caribbean
• Middle East
• Politics Explained
• News Analysis
• Today’s Edition
• Home & Garden
• Broadband deals
• Fashion & Beauty
• Travel & Outdoors
• Sports & Fitness
• Climate 100
• Sustainable Living
• Climate Videos
• Solar Panels
• Behind The Headlines
• On The Ground
• Decomplicated
• You Ask The Questions
• Binge Watch
• Travel Smart
• Watch on your TV
• Crosswords & Puzzles
• Most Commented
• Newsletters
• Ask Me Anything
• Virtual Events
• Wine Offers
• Betting Sites

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in Please refresh your browser to be logged in

Royal news live: Harry visa ‘drugs’ row update as ‘judge decides case’ as Charles meets Southport survivors

Prince harry’s visa application has been reviewed following drug-taking revelations in spare, article bookmarked.

Find your bookmarks in your Independent Premium section, under my profile

Get the free Morning Headlines email for news from our reporters across the world

Sign up to our free morning headlines email, thanks for signing up to the morning headlines email.

A judge is understood to have completed their review of Prince Harry’s visa application to the US following revelations about his past drug use in his bombshell 2023 memoir Spare .

The Duke of Sussex ’s visa came under scrutiny following his recollections of taking several illegal substances, including cocaine and magic mushrooms.

Judge Carl Nichols submitted his decision to a court in Washington DC in a sealed document after spending four months reviewing Harry’s visa, The Sun reports.

The judge’s decision could be made public in the coming days, and should it emerge that the duke lied, his continued residence in the US could be at risk.

The think tank group the Heritage Foundation brought about the case after suing the Department of Homeland Security for denying a Freedom of Information request to see Harry’s application.

This comes as King Charles is set to privately meet with the bereaved families from the Southport attack in London today.

The monarch yesterday visited Southport to express his “sympathy and empathy” for the town, which is still in a state of shock following the 29 July stabbing that left three children dead.

Prince Andrew could move to Frogmore Cottage

Following the news that King Charles has stripped Prince Andrew of his privately funded security at the Royal Lodge , the disgraced Duke of York could be forced to leave.

One of the potential new homes for Andrew could be Frogmore Cottage , which is in good condition thanks to the £2.4 million renovations carried out when Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were living there.

However, Andrew is reported to have already turned down the cottage, deeming it too much of a “demotion” from the 30-room mansion he has occupied since 2003.

Prince Harry ‘outrageously disloyal'

One of Prince Harry ’s former friends has branded the Duke of Sussex “outrageously disloyal” for his actions after stepping down as a working royal.

Speaking to The Times ahead of Harry’s 40th birthday next month, they said: “I can’t believe he’d stoop so low. It’s outrageously disloyal. Oprah, Netflix and then the book? Three strikes and you’re out.”

King Charles thanks Southport first repsonders

King Charles met with first responders in Southport yesterday as he visited the town following last month’s devastating attack .

A video of the meeting was shared to the official royal family Twitter/X account with the following statement: “Thank you to the frontline emergency services for your selfless dedication to protect the people of Southport and nearby communities.”

🩷 Thank you to the frontline emergency services for your selfless dedication to protect the people of Southport and nearby communities. The King met community leaders and Merseyside’s Police, Fire & Rescue and Ambulance services to hear about their response to recent events. pic.twitter.com/97jdG51xiM — The Royal Family (@RoyalFamily) August 20, 2024

Judge ‘files decision’ on Prince Harry’s visa application

A judge is understood to have filed their decision on Prince Harry’s US visa application .

The document was subject to a four-month review following revelations about the Duke of Sussex ’s prior drug use in his 2023 memoir Spare .

While the decision has not yet been made public, it could be released in the coming days.

Former president Donald Trump said that he would treat Harry like any other citizen should he be reelected in November and it emerges that the royal lied.

Prince William ‘irritated’ by Harry and Meghan’s well wishes for Princess of Wales

Prince William was reportedly “irritated” by a subtle detail of Harry and Meghan’s public well-wishes for the Princess of Wales following her cancer diagnosis.

Following the March announcement, the Sussexes released a statement that read: “We wish health and healing for Kate and the family, and hope they are able to do so privately and in peace.”

“William takes offence at people calling Catherine ‘Kate,’ because she has asked to be known as Catherine. It’s a fairly simple wish to respect,” a friend told the Daily Beast.

“[The] fact that Harry and Meghan were unable to bring themselves to use her chosen name, even when they were sending her get-well-soon messages after her cancer diagnosis, was noted.”

Princess Lilibet’s ‘great tragedy'

Following the news that Princess Lilibet has “found her voice” when speaking, a royal expert has said there is a “great tragedy” in her life.

News of the youngster’s development was revealed by the Duchess of Sussex on her recent tour of Colombia.

“She has found her voice,” Meghan said at an event for women. “And we’re so proud of that because that is how we, as I was saying, create the conditions in which there’s a ripple effect of young girls and young women knowing that if someone else is encouraging them to use their voice and be heard, that’s what they’re going to do.”

Reacting to the revelation, former BBC royal correspondent Michael Cole said: “I think what that little child won’t be saying is ‘hello, grandpa’, which is a great, great tragedy, because she hasn’t met King Charles, she hasn’t met Thomas Markle, her maternal grandfather – it’s such a shame.

“They go around the world, and they’re trying to do good, and we welcome the good, but you’ve got to actually take that home.”

King Charles shares ‘sympathy and empathy’ for Southport victims

King Charles expressed his “sympathy and empathy” for the victims of the Southport attacks yesterday.

The monarch yesterday visited the town to meet with survivors and first responders from the July atrocity which shook the nation.

Patrick Hurley, a local MP, who met with the king, said: “The town’s emotions were raging and they still are very raw and he was very empathetic.

“He was very keen to express his sympathy and empathy. Very keen to make sure the people of Southport know that from the symbolism perspective, the country’s heart goes out to the people here.”

King Charles axes Prince Andrew’s private security

King Charles has axed the security he was privately funding for Prince Andrew at the Royal Lodge .

According to reports, this will likely hasten the disgraced Duke of York ’s departure from the mansion, which has an estimated private security bill of £3m a year.

Andrew has lived in the property since 2003, when he was given a 75-year lease on the lodge by the late Queen Elizabeth for £250 a week.

Staff at the Royal Lodge have been told their contracts will not be renewed in November.

King Charles to meet with bereaved Southport victims

King Charles will privately meet with the families whose children were tragically killed in the Southport attacks in London today.

This comes after he visited Merseyside yesterday to hear firsthand from the victims and first responders.

The monarch took the opportunity to lay flowers for the three victims – Bebe King, six, Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven, and Alice Dasilva Aguiar, nine.

Prince William does not want Prince Harry at his coronation

Prince William does not want his younger brother Harry to attend his coronation when the time comes, it has been claimed.

A close friend of the royals told The Sunday Times : “They are estranged, which is dreadfully sad.”

The insider said that the heir to the throne wants his coronation to “look and feel different” from his father’s.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.

New to The Independent?

Or if you would prefer:

Hi {{indy.fullName}}

• My Independent Premium
• Account details
• Help centre

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Ragging in India: How to prevent?

Last updated on September 12, 2023 by ClearIAS Team

Read further to know more.

Table of Contents

What is ragging?

Ragging is defined as an act that violates or is perceived to violate an individual student’s dignity. Done in pretext of ‘welcoming’ the fresher, ragging is an emblem of how far the pervasive human imagination can extent. True, human imagination knows no bounds, so does the diabolic Ragging acts.

Psyche behind Ragging

• Sense of Authority: By having the freshmen always at his command, a senior student nurtures a sense of authority which boasts his morale and puts him on a high.
• Means of Retaliation: A senior who has some previous history of ragging may like to get back by venting his frustrations on the
• Sadistic Pleasures: A potential ragger sees ragging as a good opportunity to satiate his sadistic pleasures all at the cost of a poor freshmen’s imagination.
• Peer Pressure : It is also a reality that not all seniors who commit ragging enjoy doing it at their sweet will. Seeing most of their batch mates indulging in ragging, they fear being left out. So in order to avoid isolation, they too join the herd.
• Tangible benefits: in the form of money, new dress, rides etc.
• Fashion Statement: Many senior students live under the misconception that ragging makes a style statement and thus will put them in the ‘influential crowd’ of their college.

Role of different stake-holders to prevent ragging

To create a Ragging free environment and prevent grievous physical injuries and fear psychosis, it requires a concerted action from all stakeholders. Some of their roles are:

Governments:

A strong anti-Ragging legislations with firm yet reformative punishment system is a duty of both Central and State governments. Following Supreme Court judgement in Aman Kachroo death , the government operates toll-free number of 1800-180-5522 and e-mail complaint service [email protected] ; which registers complaints of students while maintaining anonymity. The government in 2007 had set up Raghavan Committee to study on the Ragging issue; and many of its recommendations have been implemented in a phased manner. Further, the government can use NGOs, print media, TV, radio etc. to spread awareness among the students. On a wider canvas, the government must rein in on use of alcohol and addictive drugs in the campus, which feeds into Ragging incidents.

So far there have been two landmark judgments prohibiting ragging. These are:

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims cum Mains

(2) ⇒ UPSC 2025: Prelims Test Series

(3) ⇒ UPSC 2025: CSAT

Note: To know more about ClearIAS Courses (Online/Offline) and the most effective study plan, you can call ClearIAS Mentors at +91-9605741000, +91-9656621000, or +91-9656731000.

• Ragging of Freshers in Thiruvananthapuram Government Engineering College vs. State of Kerala.
• Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President vs. Central Government through Cabinet Secretary.

Regulatory Bodies:

The UGC as well as sectoral bodies like AICTE, MCI etc. needs to send in timely reminders about role of institutions in curbing the menace and ways and means to do the same. The fact that the UGC guidelines of 2009 remains the only comprehensive anti-Ragging policy in India cements this thought. Further, NCERT & SCERTs can include a chapter on Ragging, in school textbooks so that the children are moulded in budding stage itself

College Authorities:

With roles on both prevention and affirmative action on default, college authorities are the most effective cog in anti-Ragging mechanism. Proactive monitoring can be done by forming teachers’ collegium who undertake surprise visits and anonymous surveys. Authorities are also bound to set up anti-Ragging cells at the college, which can offer counselling and human rights lessons. College can organise interactive sessions between senior and junior students to build a rapport. Adverse spots mapping, staggered entry of fresher and seniors, setting up Drop Boxes, awareness classes etc. are novel ways to reduce adversities. Teachers need to have personal rapport with students to understand their problem.

Parents need to look for signs like refusing to talk, injuries, crying spells etc. They can liaise their action with class teacher or college authorities or in extreme cases with the police.

Senior students:

Besides human conscience, the senior students are also bound by an undertaking, which they sign up on admission, to refrain from Ragging. The students union and other bodies can also form anti-Ragging squads to persuade their peers to keep away from Ragging and make them aware of the Anti-Ragging laws.

They must be aware of what constitutes ragging and also about their rights . Knowledge about anti-Ragging cells, helpline numbers, counselling centres etc. is mandatory and they mustn’t hesitate use them, if need arises. Further they can use RTI methods to get parents’ contact number of the seniors ragging them, and ask them to intervene on their behalf.

Civil Society

NGOs like CURE, SAVE, Aman Movement etc. must be made part of anti-Ragging mechanism of the college and allowed to use their niche knowledge to curb the malice.

Article by: Jishnu J Raju

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000   rs.29000, upsc prelims marks booster + 2025 (online), rs.19999   rs.14999, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999   rs.4999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025 (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), upsc interview marks booster course (online), rs.9999   rs.4999.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

April 17, 2016 at 9:46 am

This app is awosome, I need previous papers exam of preliams&mains

April 19, 2016 at 8:59 pm

Great to hear that you are one of the happy users of our app. Link for previous year papers are given in the footer links of this website. You have also the option to re-attempt the previous paper in a timed atmosphere in our mock test platform. Check cleariasexam.com.

April 21, 2016 at 1:36 am

will u please suggest me that how could i cover all the chapters of upsc exam

May 11, 2016 at 11:43 pm

I’ve been following clearias for quite a while now. I must say, its a pleasure to go through the concepts, which are covered in depth. I’m a first year Geology student, and will most likely appear for UPSC Civil Services after graduation. I would like to know whether I should take up Geology as my optional subject or any other related subject?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

• Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
• Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
• Indian Police Service (IPS)
• IAS Exam Eligibility
• UPSC Free Study Materials
• UPSC Exam Guidance
• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Syllabus
• UPSC Online
• UPSC Prelims
• UPSC Interview
• UPSC Toppers
• UPSC Previous Year Qns
• UPSC Age Calculator
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• About ClearIAS
• ClearIAS Programs
• ClearIAS Fee Structure
• IAS Coaching
• UPSC Coaching
• UPSC Online Coaching
• ClearIAS Blog
• Important Updates
• Announcements
• Book Review
• ClearIAS App
• Work with us
• Advertise with us
• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

Subscribe ClearIAS YouTube Channel

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.