Statistics indicate a downward decadal trend in the crime rate in India, but there is a case for more effective policing with a firm application of the law.
THE National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has just released its statistics for 1999. Its annual publication Crime in India, however, raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps the most startling claim is that the total of cases of cognizable crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) came down by 0.8 per cent during the year. More specifically, violent crime (such as murder, robbery, and rape) and offences against property, each fell by 6 per cent. Against the overwhelmingly frequent and sensational media reports of gory street crime, how many of us are willing to buy this? If there has been a drop in the incidence of crime, how was this brought about?
On no account can the NCRB, which has built for itself quite a reputation for professionalism, be faulted for any fudging of figures in order to pander to the establishment. It merely assembles statistics collected from all over the country and tries to make sense out of them. (Figures are collected from 55 centres by means of 21 prescribed forms.) The problem lies elsewhere.
Intentional under-reporting - thro-ugh non-registration of crime and fobbing off of complainants - by the police and a positive disinclination on the part of many victims of crime to approach the authorities, for a variety of reasons, are universal phenomena. What should actually cause us concern are any alarming rise or fall of in the crime rate and a sudden rash of violent incidents igniting panic in the community. Any marginal fluctuation is only of academic significance.
The fall in violent crime in India is somewhat analogous to the situation in the United States and is well brought out in a recent book (The Crime Drop in America, Cambridge University Press, 2000) by Prof. Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie Mellon University, an authority on crime measurement, criminal careers and so on. The homicide rate (that is, offences per 100,000 of the population) in the U.S. stood at 10.2 in 1980. It came down to 6.3 in 1998 after certain fluctuations in between. The same is true of robbery. The picture is striking if we remember that homicides and robberies alone are most relevant for any comparative study of crime. As Blumstein says, they are fairly well defined universally and by nearly the same parameters. Also, they are the best reported, which means that suppression and non-reporting by victims are minimal.
In India, incidents of total violent crime came down from about 246,000 in 1991 to about 238,000 in 1999. In terms of rate per 100,000 of the population, homicide stood at a constant 3.8 per cent during the past 10 years. (It is cool comfort that the rate is nearly twice as much in the U.S.) During this period, the robbery rate in India registered a 0.5 per cent fall.
HOW do we look at these figures? Unlike me, Prof. Blumstein is not sceptical of his country's statistics carried by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) presented to the Department of Justice. Proceeding on the premise that they represent the actual reality, he seeks to explain the downward crime through factors such as more effective policing (of the 'zero tolerance' variety launched in New York by Commissioner William Bratton), the drive against handgun-carrying youth who contribute to a sizable percentage of homicides and the sustained operations to incapacitate drug peddling gangs.
Unfortunately, unlike in the U.S., we do not have tightly researched studies of India's crime scene. Ours are more impressionistic, backed very often by dubious statistics. We have to be content with broad statements such as "crime is generally under control" presented by governments in State Assemblies while seeking funds for the police. What makes me queasy are certain unexplained phenomena. For instance, during 1999, the Indian police had to contend with nearly 25,000 unidentified bodies. We do not know how many were subsequently identified. We are therefore unenlightened as to how many of those 25,000 could have been the victims of murder. In such a situation, can we be smug that the homicide rate is a stable 3.8 per cent?
Any study of a fluctuation in the crime rate has a lot to do with the effect of sentencing and incarceration. It is in this context that we often debate the wisdom of retaining capital punishment as a means to deter potential murderers. The recent execution in the U.S. of Timothy McVeigh for causing the Oklahoma explosion has once again brought into focus the utility of state-ordained death as a means to bring down terrorism and individual homicides. Prof. William Spelman of the University of Texas at Austin (again in Crime Drop in America) is reasonably certain that at least a part of the drop in violent crime could be linked to the deliberate policy pursued by several states in the U.S. to expand prison capacity. An annual increase in expenditure of $20 billion is reported. Should we ponder this with a view to bringing down crime in India? Do we need this at all?
Any suggestion that we could build more prisons and that the judiciary should be tougher in slapping sentences on violent criminals is likely to invite the ire of human rights activists. But, is there not a case for at least speedier disposal of cases, especially murder cases? According to Crime in India, more than 143,000 such cases were pending trial at the end of 1999. If I remember right, the Chief Justice of India has repeatedly pointed out the woeful inadequacy of the number of courts for a country of India's size and population. A simultaneous increase in prison accommodation is called for if we should have more than a symbolic control over crime. This has been the U.S. experience and we can ignore it only at our peril.
Finally, a word about the role of the police in directly bringing down crime. There are rival points of view. Prof. David Bayley of the State University of New York (SUNY), Albany, is categorical that it is a "myth" and one of the "best kept secrets of modern life" that the "police do not prevent crime". (Police for the Future, Oxford University Press, 1994). Bayley's thesis is that giving more resources to the police would not automatically bring down crime. While partly agreeing with this, another authority on policing, Prof. Lawrence Sherman of the University of Maryland, believes, however, that direct patrols, proactive arrests and problem-solving at spots prone to high crime do have an impact.
I am of the view that the truth lies somewhere in between. William Bratton's aggressive policing ("zero tolerance") had many admirers and no doubt an equal number of detractors. Basically he created a stir in the Big Apple by stepping up arrests even for minor offences and cleaned up many areas, including Times Square. The psychological impact this had on both the law-abiding citizens and potential law-breakers was immense. The point is that there is a case for continual innovation laced with firm application of the law.
This is very often missed in our country. It is not uncommon for motorists in our cities getting away after ignoring the traffic lights and not stopping when asked to do so by the beat constable. Violating traffic rules and going scot-free may be a trivial matter when viewed in isolation. But it sends out the wrong message that graver infractions of the law could also similarly go unpunished. This is how the police ultimately lose control over the crime situation.
I would like to see an enlightened public debate over the crime situation in India. Crime in India could provide the needed framework. I am appalled that this vital subject does not figure at all on election platforms. As a citizen I am concerned. Is anybody listening?
Dr. R.K. Raghavan is a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE