The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Power of the khap
If only it connected with reality

The Supreme Court has been told by khap representatives and police officials of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh that khaps have played no direct or indirect role in honour killings or other extreme measures to direct social conduct. Claims of neither party can be taken at face value for the simple reason both have vested interest. Khaps, being the ones in the dock, obviously don’t want to condemn themselves by pleading guilty. The police, on the other hand, works for politically elected governments, which cannot upset the powerful khaps that have direct influence over people’s lives. The apex court, however, has initiated a fair process of examining the alleged role played by khaps in violent retribution against people not following certain norms set by the social groupings.

An affidavit filed by khaps of Rohtak, however, is quite damning for them. They have said the “main culprits for honour killings are... the relatives of the girls when they cannot resist social pressure.” By any assessment, khaps are nothing but supreme social pressure groups. Families whose members are in violation of advisories issued by them are under the threat of social boycott. If the khaps have any sincerity in not bringing upon families pressure that leads to honour killings, they could in the least issue a diktat telling their communities not to indulge in any such acts. In fact, they could even issue a threat of social boycott in case anyone killed for honour in cases of marriage. Every individual or society has the right to propagate their thought, but not force it on anyone.

It is also a sad commentary on our instruments of governance that the only effective agency the court could identify to get reliable information on khaps and take suggestions on ways to make amends was the police. There are actually few other effective means to interfere in the matter, which is otherwise purely social; the law and order issue is only a fallout. In a world changing fast, elders, who often find it a challenge to even make a call on a mobile phone, would do well to also take into account what the young in their community have to say.

A spiritual high
River pollution touches a low

The largest congregation of humanity at Mahakumbh, Prayag, commenced on the auspicious day of Makar Sankranti, and went off peacefully. Keeping one of the oldest religious traditions of Kumbh mela alive turns out to be an administrative nightmare in its modern avatar, with swelling populations and rising pollution levels in the Ganga and Yamuna rivers. Taking care of a gathering that crosses one million mark in a single day and keeping the ritual of river bathing free of any untoward incident is a Herculean task. But, more than that, keeping the rivers, if not free, at least under tolerable levels of pollution is an issue that needs to be treated with seriousness. This requires a time-bound dedicated plan for controlling the dumping of industrial waste and effluents in our rivers. This is global knowledge; the presence of pollutants in our rivers goes much beyond the prescribed norms.

Industrial development is inevitable, but it should take place keeping in mind the relevance of our rivers which are revered not only for their mythical origin but also for their life giving resources. Fortunately, the mela administration has banned the use of polythene and soap on all the auspicious dates of snan, and pilgrims are told not to throw flowers or incense into water. But these are temporary measures to control an immediate calamity of higher levels of pollution. The sacred rivers are treated with complete irreverence to their well-being at all times, despite hundreds of crores being spent on the river cleaning projects. This should worry the holy men as well as the pilgrims who come in millions celebrating the significance of these sacred but polluted rivers.

Despite spending close to Rs 1,700 crore on the management of the Maha Kumbh, it is learnt that the National Ganga River Basin Authority (NGBRA), which is headed by the Prime Minister, has met only thrice since it was constituted in 2009. It is sad that the government shows lack of seriousness towards following a strategy for keeping our rivers clean and flowing.

Thought for the Day

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, that held its ground. —David Icke

ARTICLE

An insensitive political class
Public anger at the decline of governance
by G Parthasarathy

While the world celebrated the advent of the New Year and firecrackers lit the skies, people across India heaved a sigh of relief that the year 2012 had finally ended. The last year was marked by a declining economic growth rate, continuing high inflation, anger at growing corruption and a gang rape in Delhi that shamed the country, for being insensitive to the safety and security of women. More importantly, what irked people most was the belief that they were being ruled by a government and a political class, insensitive to their aspirations and concerns on corruption, inflation and the growing crimes against women. The credibility of the political class was not enhanced by the fact that 162 Members of Parliament face criminal charges, including two charged with sexual assault and abuse.

While public anger at the decline in the standards of governance grew, India saw a decline in its own international standing as a fast-growing, “emerging” economy. There was considerable international attention focused on corruption scandals like “Coalgate”. But, India had to face the ignominy, for the first time in its history, of a virtual censure by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, who condemned violence against women and called for “steps and reforms to deter such crimes and bring perpetrators to justice”. This was all the more agonising as it came for an individual who had lived three years in India and has an Indian son-in-law. The New York Times described India as a country “which basks in its growing success as a business and technological Mecca, but tolerates shocking abuses of women”. But, the most telling comment came from Pakistan’s “Braveheart,” the 15 year old Malala Yousufzai. Alluding to the suffering of the victim, Malala remarked: “The rapists dumped her on the road. The Government dumped her in Singapore. What’s the difference?”

The year 2012 also saw the lustre of being an “emerging economic powerhouse” that India had assiduously built up over the last decade, fade. In June last year, Moody’s scaled down its forecast of India’s economic growth to 5.5% as against 6.5% in the last fiscal year. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh responded by saying: “I am hopeful we will do better than the 6.5% growth performance of last year”. With the RBI forecasting a growth of less than 6%, even the most optimistic today will acknowledge that growth this year is going to be well below last year.

More importantly, those who look at the economic scene in India are convinced that with elections due in 2014, the government will return to its propensity for fiscal profligacy, with schemes like food security, and that it will not be able to reach its target of reducing the fiscal deficit. On December 11, international ratings agency Standard and Poor’s warned that India still faced a one in three chance of a downgrade of its sovereign rating to “junk grade” in the next 24 months, citing its high fiscal deficit and debt burden.

The fiscal profligacy is telling adversely on national security. It has been reported that essential capital acquisitions of fighter aircraft, mountain artillery, night fighting capability, anti-tank missiles and even in the raising a Strike Corps for deployment on the eastern borders, are being postponed. In the run-up to the next elections, populism will inevitably prevail over national security -- a development which would be carefully noted in Beijing and Rawalpindi.

Added to this, one cannot but be shocked at the ineptitude with which events leading to the slap on the face administered by the Maldives by its annulling the $ 500 million contract to the Indian GMR company have been handled. Things have certainly changed from 1988, when the Maldives requested India for assistance in the face of a takeover by Sri Lankan Tamil mercenaries and India responded with a clinical military intervention within twelve hours. Were our spooks and diplomats sleeping over what was going on internally in the Maldives and the growing Male-Beijing nexus?

The implications of the growing Maldives-China relationship should have been evident when China set up a resident diplomatic mission in Male in March, 2012. Maldivian President Mohamed Waheed thereafter met Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Urumqi, on September 2. Just prior to the meeting, Waheed proclaimed that “unlike other influential countries,” China did not interfere in the internal affairs of small countries. Agreements involving $ 500 million of Chinese assistance to the Maldives were inked at Urumqi.

Just prior to the Maldivian decision to terminate the GMR contract, Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guangli visited the Maldives. This was followed by a visit to Beijing by Mohammed Nazim the Maldives Minister for Defence, National Security and Transport. Mr. Nazim was the minister who dealt with the GMR airport modernisation and maintenance contract. Not only did Mr. Nazim meet his Chinese counterpart, but was also received by General Xu Qiliang, Vice Chairman of China’s Central Military Commission, and a member of the Standing Committee of the new party Politburo.

India’s National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon was in Beijing around the same time as the Maldives Defence Minister. Before the visit of the NSA, reports appeared in the media that he would meet the incoming President Xi Jinping. This soon changed and “informed sources” were telling the press that he would meet Premier Designate Li Keqiang. What ultimately transpired was a meeting with his “lame duck” counterpart Dai Bingguo. The Chinese message was loud and clear. While the Defence Minister of the Maldives would be received by a high-ranking member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, the Indian National Security Adviser had to be content with meeting his lame duck counterpart.

Close on the heels of these developments came the visit of Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik, who advised India to forget about 26/11, while lecturing us on the Babri Masjid. After the Sharm el Sheikh fiasco, our “composite dialogue at all costs” policy, and readiness to accord a red carpet welcome for Javed Miandad, Pakistan has no reason to take our concerns on terrorism seriously. Chinese assistance is, meanwhile, enabling Pakistan to develop more lethal plutonium-based nuclear weapons. Has any high-ranking Indian dignitary, while on an official visit to Beijing recently, told the Chinese bluntly what we feel about such nuclear proliferation? One recalls the consequences of Neville Chamberlain’s policies of appeasement of Nazi Germany, whose territorial ambitions were akin to China’s land and maritime boundary claims today. Will Indian VIPs also be carrying an umbrella, Chamberlain style and proclaiming “peace in our lifetime”, when visiting the middle kingdom, despite Beijing’s territorial “assertiveness”?

MIDDLE

Aam aadmi as a VIP
by Brig A.N. Suryanarayanan

Three headlines were prominent recently: three cops per 16,788 VIPs, but just 174 per lakh for citizens. Noted lawyer Harish Salve wrote: “If the PM can’t travel the short distance from his residence to office, without locking down all roads around, how about us lesser mortals? ... Those in office think they are here to RULE and not to SERVE”. Then there was the unfortunate gang-rape in Delhi, which created a Tahrir Square at India Gate for security for “mango man and woman”.

Compare it with the UK, where a new ministerial code states:"... we are not masters but servants ... ministers should use public transport whenever practicable". The PM practised it by taking the Tube in Oct 2011 to reach his destination faster and commuted regularly during Olympics. Olaf Palme of Sweden could often be seen without any bodyguard protection. Such a practice is normal in Australia!

Frankensteins have been created with ulterior motives by the politicos in many border-states. In 1954, Rajaji as the CM of Madras state, visiting towns, used to pass through slowly on roads, in official Studebaker, followed by three policemen in one jeep. As 12-year-old, I have spoken to him! His son employed with The Hindu in Madras would commute by bus, as Rajaji’s strict instruction was never to use his name for any favour from any source. The very next year, on 04 Oct 1955, I was one of just four NCC cadets on the high rostrum, ‘guarding’ Nehru, while he addressed lakhs in Mahe Grounds. As a young Captain in 1966, on leave, when Indira Gandhi, as the PM, came to inaugurate a plant in BHEL, Trichy, I too was there just like the many uninvited.

In November 1979, with a family pass for Vyjayantimala’s dance in Delhi, we had seats immediately behind President Reddy, such that if I had coughed or sneezed, he might have got infected. The Vice President and the CJI too were alongside the President. During the interval, getting up, he adjusted his “sherwani”, looked behind and folded hands in Namaste to everyone! My wife in a Kanjeevaram sari stood up with a Namaste, while I had sprung to attention and wishing him, moved aside. My four-year-old daughter in a silk blouse and 'pavadai' wished him: "Good evening President Uncle!" He made us out to be Tamils and asked her: "Peru enna?" (What is your name?). The reply was prompt: "Vinita". He pinched her cheek and she immediately asked him for his autograph! He signed, pointed to the VP and told her to get his too. She replied her elder sister had already taken "Hidayatulla Uncle's autograph".

Very recently in April, Manohar Parrikar, the CM of Goa was on a flight to Delhi from Goa; and from the time he boarded the aircraft till he exited the airport, he went by the ‘aam aadmi’ gate and carried his own luggage. In Mumbai, the same month as the chief guest, he attended a dinner by taking a taxi: no cavalcade, no bodyguards and no entourage.

OPED SOCIETY

Death penalty can’t prevent rapes
Several women and human rights organisations, unimpressed by official promises of action, have demanded the death sentence for rape crimes. However, as a society we must take a reasoned view.
Ram Singh

It seems only a crisis or a tragedy can wake us out of a deep slumber of inaction. The recent spate of unspeakable tragedies involving rape and brutalisation of women has forced us to recognise the endemic trampling of women’s right to life and dignity. The actors of the state have all swung into action. Politicians have promised tougher laws against rape crimes. The police has assured proactive nabbing of criminals. The judiciary is for expeditious adjudication of crime against women (CAW) cases.

The desirability of capital punishment for rapists has come to be shared by society at large, several experts of crime, law and sociology included. On the face of it, the demand is quite appealing. After all, rape is the most heinous of crimes and what could deter potential rapists more than the fear of death. Moreover, it appears plausible on the ground of retributive justice; brutal rapists deserve nothing less.

Disastrous on all counts

The death penalty can aggravate the problem of under reporting of some categories of crime.

Its instinctive appeal notwithstanding, death penalty can fail not only to ensure retributive justice but also as deterrence against crimes. Several things can go wrong when it comes to enforcement of death penalty for rape.

For rape crimes the victim’s statement is very crucial for identifying the culprits; in many cases it is the only source of information. But for the testimony of the victims, many rapists would not be punished. However, from the perspective of criminals, death penalty for rape would mean the same punishment for one crime of rape, and also for rape followed by murder of the victim (two crimes). So, death penalty may induce some brutal rapists to kill the victim so as to exterminate the evidence of crime. In such cases, the consequent outcome would be disastrous on all the counts. The victim would have lost her life, and society would have missed crucial proof of crime. But, the perpetrators would go scot-free.

Human errors cannot be ruled out even when THE police, forensic experts and judges all work assiduously. At times victims make mistake in identifying the criminal. Indeed, wrongful convictions are a well-known fact of criminal law – at times, instead of the real criminal, some innocent gets punished. The wrongful conviction rate is estimated to be in the range of 3-10 percent for the USA, a country with A well-functioning judicial system. But, death penalty is an irreversible process.

In contrast, to rigorous imprisonment of wrongdoers, it spares no chance to the criminal to reform himself, and to the system to rectify erroneous convictions. Guided by this concern, judges expectedly would demand conclusive evidence before sending the accused to gallows. However, in many cases decisive evidence is not always easy to come by. Therefore, death penalty can further reduce the conviction rate which is already very low (26 percent).

Moreover, death penalty can further aggravate the problem of under reporting of some categories of crime. Some studies suggest that in a significant fraction of the rape cases, the perpetrator is someone known to the victim - a family-member, relative, or friend. Most of such crimes go unreported.The problem of under-reporting is acutest for adolescent and teenage victims. Due to the misplaced social stigmas and pressure from relatives, many victims choose to live with the trauma rather than bring the guilty to the book. Death penalty will further aggravate under-reporting of such crimes.

Certainty of punishment

It is worth emphasising that as many as 141 countries have abolished capital punishment from their legal systems. However, there is no evidence to show that in these countries, the crime rate has increased post-abolition. As the empirical research in law-and-economics shows, for the purpose of deterrence, ceteris-paribus the certainty of punishment matters more than the severity of penalty. Moreover, punishment should increase with the intensity of crimes. Therefore, death penalty should be restricted to the rarest of rare cases.

It will be a mistake to attribute the current state of affairs to the leniency of the law. In India, in cases either victims do not report the crime, or the police does not file FIRs. Moreover, the judicial process is protracted. Therefore, punishment for the guilty is anything but certain.As a result, the law has lost its deterrence power.

An examination of CAW cases reported by the media during the month of December 2012 offers some guidance as what can be done. Compared to the first half, in the second half of the month the number has more than doubled. See Figure 1/Table 1. This is true for most categories of CAW. This finding is somewhat peculiar. Since, due to the public outrage in the aftermath of the Nirbhya tragedy on December 16 and enhanced vigilance by the police and the media, one would have expected a larger number of potential criminals to desist from crime.

On a closer look, it makes sense. Earlier, media reports on CAW were small pieces generally tucked away on the back page. In contrast, post-December 16 reporting has been much more prominent. This along with the condemnation of sex crimes by a wider section of society has encouraged several victims to come out and reveal hitherto unreported crimes. Moreover, a sizable number of such crimes though reported in December, were actually committed earlier. The message is clear: Many more victims can be encouraged to come forward by proactive but truthful reporting by the media, and by changing the victim-blaming attitude of society.

Besides, comprehensive police reforms are indispensable. Media stories on reluctance of the police to register CAW cases and hostile attitude toward victims are abounding. At the same time, some innovative police officers have shown that it is possible to transform police from an ineffective entity into a protective force. Contributions of two IPS officers in reducing CAW are notable.

Dr. Sagar Preet Hooda of UT cadre pioneered a game-changer initiative in Delhi, called “Privartan”. This multi-pronged programme resulted in a significant and persistent decline in CAW under his stewardship..Similarly, Mr Rakesh Arya of the Haryana cadre, when serving as the SP in Karnal undertook initiatives that led to an immediate and significant decline in crime. Such individual creativities are very welcome. However, the imperative is to institutionalise the lessons learnt from such initiatives. Otherwise, the effects of innovative policing start to peter out soon after the transfer of the initiator officer.

Are criminals born or made?
Many criminologists and scientists believe that a person’s proclivity towards crimes is a matter of genetic fate. Similarly, it is argued that orientation towards sex-crimes gets determined before birth. In contrast, majority of sociologists believe that crimes against women (CAW) are a matter of social attitude toward women. Also, legal jurisdictions provide for severe punishment for heinous crimes. The use of penalty as a deterrence is intuitive as well as historic. Therefore, the question is: “What is responsible for endemic crimes against women in India; criminal genes, social attitude or a dysfunctional legal system?”
Earlier research suggested that genes are the determining factors. For example, a study based on identical twins – people with the highest probability of having matching genes – concluded that compared to the others,a man whose twin has criminal record is 50 percent more likely to be a criminal himself. Some psychologists found that compared to the other children, a child whose biological parents are criminals is much more likely to end up a criminal, even if his adopted parents are not.
However, on scrutiny these findings were found to be simplistic. Presumably, a criminal is a bad influence on his siblings and children. So, rather than the ‘bad genes’, the home environment may be driving the above mentioned correlations. Today, most geneticists agree that even strong genetic traits are amenable to social environment. The sociologists have a point. Studies also show that several factors determine the level of criminality; such as gender and economic inequality, poor law enforcement, corruption in the police and the judiciary.
At times, peculiar factors can work. For instance, many crimes in America are attributed to the so-called “weekend-fever”, crimes induced by heavy drinking. But, weekends marked by the release of block-buster movies tend to experience fewer crimes. Criminals get busy watching movies!
Empirical research shows that knowledge and severity of consequences do impact individual behaviour. Moreover, an increase in the certainty of punishment provides a greater deterrence than a commensurate increase in the penalty. New technology – cell phones, CCTV cameras – can also be used to reduce response time to rescue calls and apprehend the criminals.
The message: it is possible to reduce crime significantly. Civil society organisations should not rest until the state delivers a system in which punishment is certain and increases in proportion to the severity of crime. —R.S.

The writer is a teacher in the Department of Economics, University of Delhi