|  
             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  |