The Kerala government has deposited ₹7 lakh (approximately $8,400) with the Kerala High Court as directed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). This payment is intended for the family of Sidharthan J.S., a 20-year-old student who tragically died at the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in Wayanad, allegedly due to ragging. The NHRC had issued this order following Sidharthan's death in February of the previous year.

On July 2, a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basanth Balaji instructed the state government to make this deposit within ten days after it challenged the NHRC's directive from October 2024.

Original article

This article is like a puzzle piece that doesn't quite fit. It tells a story about something sad that happened, but it doesn't give us any super helpful information. It doesn't teach us anything new or exciting, and it's not like we can do something right away because of it. It's just a bunch of words about a problem, but it doesn't tell us how to fix it or make it better. It's not very useful for us to know about this story, because it doesn't help us in our daily lives or make us feel better. It's just a story, and it doesn't really do anything to make our world a better place. So, it's kind of like a puzzle piece that's missing something important, and it doesn't really add up to anything helpful or fun.

In evaluating the described event, it's crucial to focus on its impact on family, community trust, and the protection of the vulnerable. The tragic death of Sidharthan J.S., allegedly due to ragging, highlights a severe breakdown in community responsibility and trust. Ragging, or hazing, is a behavior that undermines the safety and well-being of individuals, particularly young people who are vulnerable and in need of protection.

The financial compensation deposited by the Kerala government for the victim's family may provide some immediate relief but does not address the underlying issues that led to this tragedy. It is essential to recognize that such incidents erode trust within educational institutions and communities, making them less safe for children and young adults.

Moreover, this event underscores a critical failure in the social structures that are supposed to protect and nurture young people. Educational institutions have a duty to provide a safe environment for their students, and when they fail to do so, it reflects a broader societal failure in upholding responsibilities towards the vulnerable.

The long-term consequences of such incidents can be profound. They can lead to increased fear and mistrust among families regarding the safety of their children in educational settings. This mistrust can weaken family cohesion as parents become more anxious about sending their children away from home for education, potentially leading to decreased participation in higher education.

Furthermore, repeated instances of ragging can diminish the sense of community responsibility towards protecting younger generations. When communities fail to safeguard their youth effectively, it jeopardizes the continuity and strength of these communities over time.

In conclusion, while financial compensation may offer some solace to the grieving family, it does not rectify the fundamental issue of community failure to protect its young members. If such behaviors and failures continue unchecked, they will lead to further erosion of trust within communities and educational institutions. This could result in increased isolation among families, decreased participation in communal activities like education, and ultimately threaten the very fabric that holds communities together.

The real consequence if these ideas or behaviors spread unchecked is a decline in community cohesion and an increase in vulnerability among young people. Families will become more protective and less likely to engage with communal activities due to fear for their children's safety. This will weaken local kinship bonds and reduce overall community survival capabilities.

Ultimately, addressing these issues requires a return to emphasizing personal responsibility within local communities towards protecting their members, especially the vulnerable. Educational institutions must be held accountable for providing safe environments for all students. By focusing on rebuilding trust through actions like enhanced supervision, counseling against harmful behaviors like ragging, and fostering an environment of mutual respect among students from different backgrounds can help mitigate such tragedies.

Restoring ancestral principles that prioritize deeds over identity or feelings—such as taking concrete steps towards ensuring student safety—can help heal fractured relationships within affected communities. Apologies from those responsible followed by tangible actions towards change can also play a significant role in mending broken bonds within these groups.

However it is done must be grounded firmly on principles prioritizing procreative continuity (ensuring future generations), protection of vulnerable populations (like students), local accountability (communities taking responsibility), without which no society survives intact over time

The text shows a bias towards the Kerala government and its actions. It uses positive words to describe the government's deposit, calling it an "intended payment" for the family. This phrase suggests a sense of responsibility and care. The government is portrayed as responsive to the NHRC's directive, with a "challenged" directive being a softer way to describe an order they disagreed with. This bias helps the government's image.

There is a potential bias in the use of the word "allegedly" when describing Sidharthan's death due to ragging. This word suggests uncertainty and could imply that the cause of death is not yet proven. It might create doubt and shift focus away from the seriousness of the incident. This bias could downplay the impact of ragging and its consequences.

The text exhibits a bias towards the NHRC by presenting its directive as a just and necessary action. The commission is portrayed as taking a strong stand, issuing an "order" following Sidharthan's death. This language emphasizes the NHRC's authority and its role in seeking justice. The bias supports the NHRC's image as a powerful advocate for human rights.

A bias in favor of the Division Bench is evident in the description of its instructions. The bench is given an active role, "instructing" the government to make the deposit. This wording highlights their authority and decision-making power. The bias presents the bench as a key player in ensuring justice is served.

The text shows a bias towards the state government by describing its challenge to the NHRC's directive as a simple "disagreement." This word choice softens the government's opposition and presents it as a reasonable action. The bias portrays the government as engaging in a civil process rather than actively resisting a directive.

The text conveys a range of emotions, primarily centered around sadness and anger. These emotions are expressed through the tragic circumstances surrounding Sidharthan J.S.'s death, which is described as an alleged result of ragging. The use of the word "tragically" emphasizes the unexpected and unfortunate nature of the event, evoking a sense of sorrow and empathy for the victim and their family.

The strength of these emotions is heightened by the specific details provided, such as Sidharthan's age (20 years old) and the location of his death (College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in Wayanad). These details personalize the story, making it more relatable and impactful. The emotion of anger is implied through the mention of "ragging," suggesting that the incident was not an accident but a result of harmful and potentially criminal behavior.

These emotions are strategically employed to guide the reader's reaction by fostering a sense of sympathy and indignation. By presenting the story in a way that highlights the victim's youth and the alleged injustice of the situation, the writer aims to evoke an emotional response from the reader. This emotional connection is likely intended to build support for the family's cause and to encourage a sense of justice-seeking behavior.

To enhance the emotional impact, the writer employs several persuasive techniques. One notable strategy is the use of descriptive language, such as "allegedly due to ragging," which implies a sense of uncertainty and adds a layer of complexity to the narrative. This phrasing may suggest that while the cause of death is suspected, it is not yet proven, thus creating a sense of intrigue and encouraging further engagement with the story.

Additionally, the repetition of the victim's name, "Sidharthan J.S.," serves to humanize the tragedy and remind the reader of the individual at the heart of the story. This personal touch helps to build a connection between the reader and the victim, further intensifying the emotional response. By skillfully weaving these emotional elements into the narrative, the writer effectively guides the reader's interpretation and response, ensuring that the story's impact is not solely reliant on factual information but also on the powerful emotions it evokes.