An
all-pervading sense of panic seems to have gripped our cities and
their populations. No one, it appears, feels safe. The frantic whipping
up of frenzy by the media - hysterical homilies on TV or headlines
emblazoned on front pages with news of gruesome murders, rapes and
sensational crimes - heightens public insecurities to a pitch, creating
an insidious culture of fear. We are at risk from strangers, domestic
help, terrorists, drunkards, 'monkey men', and leopards, who stalk
the cities or the imagination of their populations, creating a mentality
akin to being perpetually holed-up in a bunker.
Urban
crime and its severity is an undisputable fact, but the truth is
that, as urbanization increases dramatically, the levels of crime
have not increased in proportion. It is interesting that, in a listing
of the twenty most dangerous metropolii of the world (based on crime-population
ratios) not a single Indian city finds mention. Crime in urban India
is of a much lower intensity than is the general perception, and
despite the enormous constraints the police operate under, policing
has largely been responsible for this.
So
what is it that drives people into believing and living in an atmosphere
that is never free from fear? The news of dozens of people being
gunned down or blown up in a remote hamlet in Chhattisgarh or Bihar
does not strike terror in the heart of an urbanite; but the murder
of an elderly couple or a lone woman in her flat in a 'gated' enclave
creates a round rush of panic that only shifts when another 'sensational'
murder takes place. Apart from an inability to understand the compulsions
that make news 'news', it is perhaps the very character of the Indian
city that drives people into seeing their imagined demons completely
surround them.
Delhi,
by all standards, is a relative safe city, with a crime rate of
261 cognizable offences per 100,000, in 2004, compared to the 441
per 100,000 'violent crime' rate for the 'very safe' post-Mayor
Giuliani New York. Yet nothing can convince the general public that
this is, in fact, the case. By 11'O Clock in the evening - early
hours in any civilized city - India's capital is cloaked in a shroud.
Shops down shutters at 7.30 and most pubs and restaurants are off
limits an hour before midnight. Everyone must run home to the 'safety'
of their cocooned colonies.
This,
precisely, is what leads to the beginnings of fear. Telling people
to clear the streets, to lock themselves in their homes, is telling
them that all is not well. The desire to control and dictate a lifestyle
to the people, to adopt an authoritarian stance in order to 'impose
safety' not only sends out the wrong message - it creates the very
conditions for crime to thrive. With little public circulation,
the city is virtually abandoned to criminals in the night. It is
interesting that Bombay - a city with a nightlife that thrives in
comparison to Delhi - has a crime rate less than a third of the
national capital.
Clampdowns
never work in sending out a message of peace and security. In Punjab,
after nearly a decade and a half of militancy, a conscious strategy
was worked out to let the people know that peace had returned. Popular
concerts with prominent artistes were held in different parts of
the State, and deliberately started much later than was usual, to
continue well into the early hours of the morning. Within days these
concerts were flooded with people who poured out of their homes,
shrugging off the years of sorrow and the very real dangers they
had been subjected to. Soon, Punjab was once again the land of the
Bhangra and the dhol. It was these very concerts and the joy and
revelry that attended them that symbolized the end of the age of
terror.
At
another plane, London was a city that had not changed its drinking
laws since the First World War, with the curfew hour for pubs fixed
at 11:00 pm. Recently, however, despite strong criticism, the Government
decided to introduce a new '24-hour' drinking policy. Many sundry
and dire pronouncements were made, as critics argued that there
would be a sharp increase in crime, in the consumption of alcohol,
and in teenage drinking. Yet, a month into the new law, it has been
found that, far from an increase in crime there was a dramatic drop,
and there was no significant rise in liquor sales! In fact, the
total number of drunks that staggered out at the same time, tanked
to the gills as they tried to imbibe as much as they could before
closing time under the old dispensation, now dispersed in a discrete
stream, and were not as drunk or looking for a fight. The new policy,
which allowed people greater freedom to drink when they pleased,
was actually more sensible, even more humane and civilized.
A
wise and informed administration is able to distinguish between
times of stress and strife and times of peace, and to recognize
that different situations require different regulations. The Delhi
of the Sixties and early-Seventies underwent a drastic change after
the imposition of the Emergency, but Governments thereafter have
done little to return the life of the city to normal.
Today,
India's cities are thriving as they embrace the ethos of 'liberalization',
yet city life is far from modern or cosmopolitan. If anything, the
shadows of fear have lengthened, and numerous 'gated' colonies have
been built over the last decade, manifesting the emerging metropolitan
culture and psyche. The increasing popularity of gated colonies
and communities policed by private security guards reveals and augments
the inherent insecurities held in the citizens' hearts. Unfortunately
these colonies have not proved to be much safer than 'open' colonies,
though the clamour for higher walls and more security guards continues.
We
now see municipal government functions - including aspects of security
- being given over to private players and citizens or 'civil society'.
This fragmentation, this changing dynamic, adds to the insecurities
of strangers who have to share a city. Are we ready, as citizens,
to function in a coherent and mutually beneficial manner? Will the
empowering of residents' welfare associations (RWAs) help a city
as a whole? Who and what is 'civil society' - the 126 members of
Delhi's social elite who sat at Tamarind Court, in an illegal bar,
witnessed the murder of Jessica Lall, and without exception, failed
to give honest testimony, with many perjuring themselves under oath?
It is the culture of the city, a culture within which the application
of the rule of law is arbitrary and skewed, that allows people with
such a tenuous social conscience to get away. Can they be expected
to take charge of and contribute to the welfare of the city? Handing
over governance to the people at the present stage of civic and
social underdevelopment is premature and constitutes an abdication
of necessary responsibilities by government.
It
is when our citizens learn to walk over an over-bridge rather than
dash across the road; when they learn to drive on the correct side
of the road and not whimsically change lanes; when no drunken youngsters
can crash their cars through people on the roads simply because
it is so easy to drink and drive, and expect to safely escape the
consequences of law; when temples, mosques and gurudwaras shut off
their loudspeakers at the designated hour and don't disturb the
peace by assuming divine right; and when the law holds people responsible
for violating these seemingly small but nevertheless very important
rules, that the city will become safer. It is not the grand, sweeping
laws or silly intrusive moral codes that secure the city. It is
when the basic vocabulary of city life is learnt by the state and
the citizen alike that we will be able to create cities that are
free from fear.
Chitvan
Gill
Published in The Pioneer, March
23, 2006
BACK
TO LIST |