Understanding Bullying and Ragging, and What Actually Curbs Them

Share it on Social

Most institutions respond to bullying and ragging the same way: write a policy, set a punishment scale, and hope the threat of consequences does the rest. It rarely does, on its own.

Decades of research on school and campus violence point to something less comfortable but more useful: these behaviours are not random cruelty from a few “bad” students. They are predictable outputs of specific group dynamics, power structures, and unmet developmental needs. If an institution wants to actually reduce bullying and ragging, rather than just punish it after the fact, it needs to understand why these behaviours happen in the first place. That understanding is what this article is for.

What Bullying Is, and How Ragging Fits Inside It

Psychologists generally define bullying by three features, established most influentially by Dan Olweus, the Norwegian researcher whose work founded the modern field of bullying prevention:

Intent to harm. The behaviour is not accidental or a misunderstanding.

Repetition over time. A single unpleasant interaction is a conflict, not bullying. Bullying is a pattern.

A power imbalance. The person doing the bullying has more social status, physical size, seniority, numbers, or some other form of leverage that the target cannot easily counter.

Ragging, as practiced in Indian higher education, is essentially bullying with a specific institutional shape: it is organized around seniority (the power imbalance is structural, not just personal), it clusters around the start of an academic year (freshers are especially vulnerable because they lack social capital, allies, or familiarity with the environment), and it often gets defended as tradition, an “initiation,” or a way of building camaraderie, language that would sound strange applied to workplace bullying, but somehow survives in campus culture. Underneath the different label, the psychological mechanics are the same as any bullying dynamic.

Why It Happens: The Psychology Underneath

Power and status maintenance. Seniors who rag freshers are often, consciously or not, reasserting a hierarchy that felt threatening to lose. A new batch of students represents a shift in who “belongs” and who doesn’t yet, and ragging is one of the crudest ways a group re-establishes who is in charge of that boundary.

Deindividuation and group dynamics. People do things in a group they would not do alone. When ragging happens in a crowd, in a dark hostel corridor, at night, with everyone egging each other on, individual responsibility diffuses.

Psychologists call this deindividuation: the sense of being an anonymous part of a group weakens a person’s normal restraint and empathy. This is precisely why the UGC Regulations’ emphasis on identifying and punishing all participants, not just the ringleader, matters; diffused responsibility is part of what makes the behaviour possible.

Intergenerational transmission (“I went through it, so should you”). A significant driver of ragging’s persistence is that many seniors were themselves ragged as freshers. Rather than this producing empathy, it frequently produces a normalization effect: having survived it, they reframe the experience as valuable, even necessary, and pass it on. Breaking this cycle requires more than banning the act; it requires changing what the institution rewards and models as belonging.

Belonging, and the specific vulnerability of freshers. Adolescents and young adults have a strong, developmentally normal need to belong to a group. Ragging exploits this directly: freshers are told, implicitly or explicitly, that enduring humiliation is the price of acceptance. This is also why ragging can look, from the outside, like it has willing participants. It rarely does; it has frightened participants who have been told that compliance is the only path to social safety.

The bystander effect. Most bullying and ragging happens with witnesses. Research consistently finds that up to 80% of students report having witnessed bullying, but only 20 to 30% intervene, and for cyberbullying the intervention rate can drop as low as 10%. This is not primarily a failure of character. It reflects diffusion of responsibility (assuming someone else will act), fear of becoming the next target, and simple uncertainty about what to actually do. This gap, between witnessing and acting, is one of the single most productive places to intervene, and the evidence below shows why.

What It Costs

The scale of the problem, globally, is larger than most people register. UNESCO’s most recent global data finds that roughly one in three students has experienced bullying in the past month, with physical bullying most common in most regions and psychological bullying more prevalent in North America and Europe. Students perceived as different in any way, physical appearance, race, nationality, or economic background, are disproportionately targeted, which is precisely why India’s 2016 legal expansion of “ragging” to explicitly include identity-based discrimination reflects real evidence, not just cautious drafting.

For the person targeted: anxiety, depression, disrupted sleep, academic decline, social withdrawal, and in the most severe cases, self-harm or suicide. These are not exaggerations for effect; they are the consistent findings across decades of bullying-victimization research, and they are precisely why Aman Kachroo’s death in 2009 is remembered as the case that forced India’s regulatory framework into existence.

For the person doing the bullying: this is the part institutions tend to overlook. Longitudinal research (again, much of it from Olweus’s own body of work) links habitual bullying perpetration in adolescence to a meaningfully elevated risk of later antisocial and even criminal behaviour in adulthood. Punishing the act without addressing what’s driving it, insecurity, a need for status, modeling from older students, or from home, leaves that underlying trajectory largely untouched.

For bystanders: students who witness bullying repeatedly and don’t intervene show their own elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and (in some studies) suicidal ideation, even though they were never directly targeted. Watching cruelty and feeling unable to stop it is its own psychological burden.

For the institution: a campus or hostel where ragging is tolerated develops what researchers call a poor “school climate.” This shows up as lower trust in authority, worse academic outcomes across the board (not just for targeted students), higher dropout, and, eventually, reputational and legal exposure of exactly the kind covered in Sections 8 and 9 of the companion legal document.

What Actually Works: The Evidence

This is the part most policies skip. Here is what controlled research, not intuition, says reduces bullying and ragging.

1. The whole-institution approach, not isolated rules

The most rigorously studied bullying prevention program in the world, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), is built on one core premise: bullying is a systemic problem reflecting the culture of an institution, not simply the character of a few bad actors. It works simultaneously at the:

– Institution level (policy, climate, leadership),

– Classroom or hostel-block level (supervision, discussion, clear norms),

– Individual level (direct intervention with those bullying and those targeted), and the

– Community level (parents, wider stakeholders).

Large-scale evaluations have found reductions in bullying perpetration of roughly 19 to 20% and in victimization of roughly 15 to 16% across well-implemented anti-bullying programs generally, with the original Norwegian OBPP trials showing even larger effects, up to a 64% reduction in being bullied and 53% reduction in bullying others in the initial large-scale study. Long-term follow-up, up to eight years later, found that institutions that sustained the program kept bullying rates roughly 25 to 40% lower than institutions that let it lapse. The clear lesson: this only works as a sustained institutional culture, not a one-time orientation lecture.

2. Training by standers to act, specifically and concretely

Given how large the “witnessed but didn’t act” gap is, several programs now train bystanders in specific, low-risk intervention strategies rather than just telling them “speak up.” One well-studied model, STAC (Stealing the show, Turning it over to an adult, Accompanying the targeted student, Coaching compassion toward the person doing the bullying), gives students concrete scripts rather than vague encouragement, and has shown measurable reductions in both bullying victimization and perpetration, along with reduced anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation among the bystanders themselves.

A broader meta-analysis of bystander interventions across bullying and cyberbullying contexts found a positive overall effect and specifically found that programs building empathy and concrete social skills, not just awareness, were the most effective. For a campus, this suggests that “see something, say something” posters accomplish very little on their own; what moves the needle is training seniors, mentors, and even faculty in exactly what to say and do in the moment.

3. Restorative approaches alongside, not instead of, formal punishment

Pure punishment sends an important signal, but on its own it does little to repair the underlying dynamic, especially in a residential, ongoing-relationship setting like a hostel, where the same students continue living alongside each other after the punishment concludes. Restorative practices, structured conversations that require the person who caused harm to understand its impact and take responsibility, paired with support for the person harmed, are increasingly used alongside formal discipline because they address what punishment alone cannot: the ongoing relationship and the campus climate around it. This does not mean going easy on serious harm; it means recognizing that suspension and fines control behaviour, while restorative processes are what actually change norms.

4. Structured mentoring, done early and consistently

This is one of the reasons India’s UGC Regulations specifically mandate a Mentoring Cell with senior student volunteers assigned to small groups of freshers (see the companion legal document, Section 6.3, for the required 1:6 ratio). Positive, structured contact with seniors who are explicitly framed as supporters rather than authority figures gives freshers an alternative source of belonging that doesn’t run through ragging. This only works if mentors are genuinely trained and if the relationship starts before the vulnerable period, not after an incident has already occurred.

5. Reporting systems that are actually psychologically safe to use

Research on why students underreport is consistent: they don’t believe adults will handle it effectively, they fear social retaliation, or they don’t trust confidentiality. UNESCO’s cross-country analysis found that institutions with a real reduction in bullying shared a specific combination: a commitment to a positive climate, effective reporting and monitoring systems, evidence-based programming, trained staff, and genuine support and referral pathways for affected students, not just a complaint box. A reporting mechanism that isn’t paired with visible, fast, protective follow-through teaches students not to use it.

6. Leadership modelling and consistent adult response

Students, across multiple studies, report being far more likely to intervene or report when they believe the adults around them will respond competently and consistently. Where staff are seen as low in self-efficacy for handling bullying, or inconsistent in how they respond, reporting rates drop and bullying rates rise. This means training wardens, faculty, and squad members isn’t a formality; it directly shapes whether students trust the system enough to use it.

Psychosocial Anchors for a Grievance Redressal Role

The Regulations give you a procedure. They don’t fully tell you how to sit across from a frightened first-year student, or how to run an enquiry that is fair to the accused without re-traumatising the person who reported it. These aren’t legal requirements in themselves, though several connect directly to the “natural justice” language already built into Regulation 6.3(e). Treat this as practice guidance layered on top of the legal minimum, and understanding the psychology well enough to intervene early is what actually keeps the law from ever needing to be invoked in the first place.

The complainant’s experience comes first, structurally: Ragging often carries shame and self-blame, especially where it involved humiliation, sexual elements, or coercion into acts the student wouldn’t normally do. Expect disclosure to be partial, delayed, or inconsistent in small details; this is a normal trauma response, not evidence of an unreliable account. Offer a private, unhurried first conversation before any formal statement-taking, since where the complainant lands emotionally in that first contact often decides whether they engage with the process at all or withdraw. Avoid asking a student to repeat their account to multiple people in sequence; a single, well-documented interview shared appropriately across the Squad and Committee is kinder and more accurate than several separate retellings. Make the non-retaliation guarantee explicit and concrete, since freshers weighing whether to report are often more afraid of social consequences from seniors than of the incident itself. State clearly what protective steps (hostel reassignment, no-contact directions, academic accommodation) are available; the Regulations themselves require that a reporting student’s identity be protected and that they face no adverse consequence for reporting (Reg. 6.2(g)).

Running a fair enquiry without losing the human thread: Natural justice for the accused and psychological safety for the complainant are not in tension if the process is designed well: separate waiting areas, staggered interview times, and written statements reduce the chance of an accidental confrontation in a corridor. Be alert to power dynamics inside the accused group too. Ragging is frequently a group activity where one or two students led and others went along under peer pressure; understanding who initiated versus who complied changes both the fairness and the proportionality of any punishment recommendation. Document facts, not clinical impressions, noting behaviour and stated experience (“student described difficulty sleeping since the incident”) rather than assigning a diagnosis (“student is traumatised”) you aren’t qualified to make. If there are signs of significant distress, refer to a counsellor rather than characterising it yourself in the file.

Referral, not just record-keeping: A grievance process that only produces a punishment, and never a warm handoff to counselling support, leaves the actual harm unaddressed. The Regulations require every institution to have professional counsellors engaged before the academic session starts (Reg. 6.1(o)); use that resource the same day a complaint is received, not after the enquiry concludes. Watch for indirect signs in a fresher’s behaviour that may not come with an explicit complaint: withdrawal from hostel common areas, sudden requests to change rooms or leave the hostel, drop in academic engagement, or reluctance to be alone with certain seniors. These are worth a gentle, private check-in even without a formal report. If at any point a student’s distress suggests risk to their own safety, this takes priority over the procedural timeline; continuing an enquiry on schedule is never a reason to delay getting a student urgent mental health support.

Protecting yourself and the committee from the same strain: Hearing repeated accounts of humiliation, assault, or abuse across cases produces real secondary or vicarious trauma in committee and squad members, particularly student and faculty representatives who weren’t trained for this. Rotate intensive interviewing duties where possible, and normalise debriefing after a difficult case. Guard against two opposite drift patterns over time: becoming numb and procedural, or becoming overcorrective, assuming guilt before the Squad’s enquiry is done. Both compromise fairness, just in different directions.

Contextual sensitivity, now backed by the Regulations themselves: Since the Third Amendment (2016), ragging explicitly includes discrimination or exclusion based on caste-adjacent and identity markers, colour, race, gender, appearance, sexual orientation, nationality, regional origin, linguistic identity, place of birth or residence, and economic background. This isn’t just good practice to keep in mind; it is now part of the legal definition, which is useful leverage if a Squad is reluctant to treat an identity-based incident as “real” ragging. Language and literacy matter in practice too: a first-generation college student, or one more comfortable in a regional language than English, may struggle to write a formal complaint in the format an institution expects. Offer to take a statement verbally and read it back before asking for a signature.

A practical summary, if your time is limited

Build the mentoring relationship before the vulnerable period starts, not as a reaction to an incident.

Train bystanders with specific scripts, not general appeals to conscience.

Make sure every adult likely to receive a report knows, concretely, what to do with it, and follows through visibly and quickly.

Pair punishment with a restorative conversation where safe and appropriate, especially where the people involved will keep living or studying together.

Treat this as an ongoing culture-building project, not a one-time orientation session; sustained, whole-institution effort is what separates programs that work from ones that don’t.

Watch your own institutional narrative around “tradition.” If ragging or hazing is still spoken about with any nostalgia by staff or seniors, that’s a culture problem the policy alone cannot fix.

None of this replaces the legal framework in the companion document on Indian anti-ragging law. The law sets the floor, what must happen after harm occurs. This is about the ceiling.

*Note: This article is written for general understanding and institutional planning. It is not a substitute for professional mental health assessment or crisis support. If you or someone you know is in distress related to bullying or ragging, India’s National Anti-Ragging Helpline (1800-180-5522, 24×7) is available, and a school or campus counsellor should be involved directly rather than relying on this document alone.

Written by: Mental Health at Work team