The good, bad and ugly of ragging: should the NDA alumni condone it?

From the debate about ragging so far, it is evident that many contradictory perspectives have emerged. We have a definition from the dictionary, we have another from the supreme court and we had one participant even arguing that it is a good thing. And then there is this dichotomy whether ragging is the same as unstructured training or not. And then there are arguments that what may be ragging in a civil set up, could actually be a much-wanted thing in a military context. Where does the truth lie? And emerging from this debate how do we take a stance in a military setting as to what is good to go and what is not?

Let’s look at it this way: The good, bad and ugly part of ragging

The good part of ragging, is that, in its most innocent form, it is used as a tool for juniors to get to know their seniors, to establish hierarchy, to release the oil of friendship into the demographic of an institution so that the institution can better achieve its aims. No harm is meant, and it is all about good natured pranking, and it would lay the foundations for valuable interaction between juniors and seniors where there is a lot of scope for mutual learning, even as there is opportunity to further the institution’s goals.

The bad part of ragging would include those initiatives that are deliberate in their intended harm to the junior/victim. For some reason the senior is angry or antagonistic towards the junior and he uses the opportunities that are available in the senior-junior relationship to harm the junior either physically, mentally, emotionally … may be to the extent that he wants to ensure that the junior faces adversity in the institution and may be suffer temporary or even permanent damage.  

The ugly part of ragging would be in the sadism and wicked indulgence of seniors who simply take pleasure in troubling a fellow human. And they would use the opportunities available in the system/institution to satisfy their pleasure-seeking tendencies.

Would any civilized person, who considers himself an aspirant to the status of officer and gentleman, ever want to participate, either as junior or senior, in a ragging session that would pass for ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’? No question of it… The only exception being, that a senior has identified a junior as having a tendency for bad or ugly and so, feeling that the person does not deserve to be a leader in the armed forces, uses ragging as a means to correct or take that person out of the system… This is the only instance when an officer and gentleman aspirant would want to use ‘bad’ ragging.  

So, it boils down to identifying the true nature of a given instance of ragging. Does it classify as good, bad or ugly? And if it happens to be either ‘bad’ or ‘ugly’ appropriate action should be taken.

But with a little thought, it will become obvious that those on the outside the community, for example a Squadron Officer, a Battalion commander or Dy Commandant can only act on the outcomes of a reported incident. And it becomes difficult for them to establish whether an instance of ragging is good, bad or ugly. This distinction happens at the level of ‘intention’ and it is not easily established. Maybe an external agency would not know, but the squadron community would know. Batchmates of the senior would best be able to say what was really on in that instance of ragging. When their batchmate was taking on a junior, what was it that was in his mind, selfless care or unconditional love or the Chetwood-defined wellbeing of the junior, or then were his intentions bad and/or ugly?    

This is probably handled through some form of code red in US military institutions, or may be honor code systems or student councils. But for a cadet body to take action in such instances, they need to be empowered in the first place. And in the US such cadet bodies are empowered to even show misfits the door.  

But when that power is not given to the cadet things will be difficult and challenging. What does a cadet do when he sees something in the category of bad and ugly happening in his squadron? It becomes his moral dilemma. And it takes courage to take it on. The challenge is that, through whatever means he has, he must ensure that his squadron family is free from such nonsense. He should stand his ground if he believes heart-of-heart that a particular ragging action, taken on the junior by a batchmate, will in no way make a good soldier out of the junior. After all, going back to Chetwood, the Nation comes first. Of what use to the nation is a defective officer coming out of his squadron?    

That was for the bad and the ugly part which is relatively easily resolved. The problem in NDA is also with the ‘good ragging’ part.

In their sheer enthusiasm to train their juniors and to make them better soldiers the senior cadet have a free hand—too free a hand in fact. With very little knowledge of the way the human body functions, they could be putting their junior’s bodies and their own through unnecessary harm. In their enthusiasm to win the inter-squadron championship they could be simply going overboard. In their imagined notions of the difficulties of war and terror fighting they could resort to toughen up their juniors using all kinds of funny punishments. These punishments being those that were passed down through tradition or may be sometimes innovated; and it being unlikely that they are aware of the consequences. Then again, with no clear line of command, a cadet finds numerous authorities passing orders on him with his ‘welfare’ in mind, but almost none checking on him, ensuring that he has had his rest and nutrition for the day. Besides, using the new opportunity of command a senior cadets may have come to possess, he would experiment upon his own notions of leadership and command. This is good in the sense this cadet is discovering what works and what does not. But it could also translate sometimes to harassment of juniors till the juniors start obeying in fear. And when ragging incidents happen on the sly, away from the eyes of the authorities, coupled with a pattern of giving scant regard to written orders, extremes can and do happen… And one can see that the starting point for all this happening is the idea of ‘good ragging’ and ‘unstructured training’ and welfare of the junior.  

How does one solve this?

This much complexity, regarding ragging, does not exist in the civil street. And defining ragging in its own manner, the Supreme Court and UGC have simply gone about banning anything and everything coming under that definition.  

But maybe the military must think differently. In a profession where ‘the Charge of the light Brigade’ is the honor standard. And where victory or loss could read life or death. Where a well-coordinated team, operating on smooth command and obey, can attain victory with greater probability, a different standard may need to operate…

But whatever it may be, the best of kshatriya tradition, the best of warriors the world over, are those who rise to excellence on the wings of selfless courage and unconditional love for nation and the junior. The Indian armed forces, that aims at excellence, essentially continues to believe that the Chetwood Moto must reign supreme every time. If such be the pre-condition then there is no question of there being any scope for bad and ugly ragging nor for the careless handling of the welfare of juniors.