Panel Debate – It’s not about ragging
On November 4, 2008, InsIghT conducted a Panel Debate on senior – freshie interaction, on whether there was a better way to curb ragging than the method currently being used. The panelists who held that the current method is efficient were Prof. N. B. Ballal (Head, Anti – ragging squad), Tarun Mathur and Manasvi Srivastava. The panelists who tried to suggest an alternate method were Prof. P. Banerji (Dean, AIR), Rahul Dash and Shashwat Gandhi. Prof. D. K. Ghosh, ex – Deputy Director, was the moderator. Prof. P. Gopalan, Dean SA and Prof. V. M. Gadre, Head, Institute Student Mentor Programme, were the guests of honour.
The discussion started with each side presenting its points. The main argument put forth by the proponents of the current method was that ‘interaction’ can only be between equals, and that senior-freshie interaction as it currently happens is an oxymoron. The alternate method suggested by the other side was that there should be a set of 10 student representatives of the Anti-ragging squad (which currently comprises only professors) in each hostel. They could ensure that serious cases are brought to light, and that the difference between healthy interaction and ragging is well understood.
There was then a 90 – minute long question and answer session with the members of the audience. Many questions concerned the model proposed to curb ragging – there was a feeling that it would be extremely difficult to find 10 members of a hostel who would act impartially to identify a case of interaction fairly as ragging. There were also multiple questions on whether curbing interactions between seniors and freshies would not lead to the death of the ‘hostel spirit’, but Prof. Ballal and team made the point that too much interaction would lead to a loss of creativity.
The debate saw many moments of heated discussion, but it also had its lighter side. Prof. Ghosh, the moderator, kept the audience entertained with his classy one-liners, while Prof. Gopalan almost outdid his illustrious predecessor as the audience heckler.
The broad consensus reached at the end of the debate was that the Institute Student Mentor Programme should be strengthened to ensure that freshies do not miss out because of a total lack of interaction, and that they are also not harmed by some students who take interactions to unacceptable limits. After the debate, the feeling among everyone who attended was that there should definitely be more such faculty – student interaction.
(The video of the Panel Debate is up here, along with highlights from the debate.)