SPECIAL ARTICLE

Gender-based Crime and Gender Inequality in A Subnational Analysis

Paribhasha Sharma

This study, using health, empowerment and labour ender-based crime, particularly sexual violence in market metrics, reviews gender inequality and India has captured national and international attention. The rising graph of various gender-based crimes gender-based crimes in India at the subnational level. G (National Crime Records Bureau 2011) poses a serious ques- The findings show that gender-based crime rates have tion on the safety of women and girls at homes as well as grown while general crime rates have decreased over in public spaces. According to the National Crime Records the years. Further, the distribution of states by the Bureau (hereafter, NCRB), the rate of total crime in 2011 reported a decrease by 7.4% while that against women gender inequality index does not follow a pattern. States increased by 7.1% over 2010. Incidents like the Park Street with low and high GII show similar average rates for rape in Kolkata,1 Nirbhaya gang rape2 in New Delhi and gender-based crimes while moderate GII states show the Shakti Mills gang rape3 in Mumbai have created headlines in highest average rates for gender-based crimes. The the last two years and remain afresh in public memory. The Nirbhaya case which involved the brutal gang rape and death growth rates for gender-based crimes, however, are of a college student in Delhi (rechristened Nirbhaya by the lowest for low GII states but continue to be the highest media) generated nationwide protest and called for reforms for moderate GII states. in rape laws. Baxi (2014) observes that the Nirbhaya case brought sexual violence against women, which had largely remained confi ned to feminists and queer movements, to the public discourse. The examples stated above show that such violence is wide- spread and takes multiple forms. It happens at home, on the streets, in schools, colleges, at workplace, during confl ict (ethnic or wars) and in time of peace. It is most apparent as domestic and sexual violence. But there are less visible forms of gender-based violence like female foeticide and infanticide, child marriage, female genital mutilation, honour killing and other forms. Gender-based violence against women and girls prevents them from living a life of dignity without any fear, violates their fundamental human rights and restricts them from achieving their full potential. Sen (1985) thus sees pro- tection from violence or crime4 as one of the capabilities that contribute to the quality of life. Gender inequality has been consistently cited as an underly- ing determinant of violence against women. Feminists have long argued that inequality between men and women on the basis of their gender leads to such gendered violence (Bograd 1988; Yodanis 2004; Ellsberg 2006). Violence against women as a manifestation of historically unequal power relations The author is grateful to an anonymous referee and to Annapurna Shaw between men and women was also an important point of for valuable suggestions that helped improve the paper. The author observation by the United Nations General Assembly, in its also thanks her colleagues (Debarati Basu, Srujana Pinjala, Sankalpa 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Satapathy and Ambuj Anand) at the Indian Institute of Management Women (Wall 2014). With this understanding, international Calcutta for their insights that helped shape the paper. organisations like World Health Organization (hereafter, Paribhasha Sharma ([email protected]) is a doctoral student WHO) have focused on promoting gender equality as a critical at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta. preventive measure against gendered violence (WHO 2009).

48 NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE However, academic evidence on the association between sexual or psychological violence against women either inside gender inequality and violence against women remains incon- or outside home and family. According to Ellsberg and Heise clusive. While some empirical studies fi nd a positive relation- (2005), there is increasing international consensus that the ship (backlash hypothesis; Gartner et al 1990; Whaley and abuse of women and girls, regardless of where it occurs, Messner 2002), some fi nd a negative relationship (see amelio- should be considered as gender-based violence, as it largely rative hypothesis; Bailey and Peterson 1995) and some others stems from women’s subordinate status in society with fi nd no signifi cant relationship (Brewer and Smith 1995; Lee regard to men. This subordinate status refl ects gender and Stevenson 2006). The lack of clear and defi nite conclu- inequality, which is a universal phenomenon in most of the sions about different aspects of gender inequality and differ- societies of the world. In simple terms, it means unequal per- ent kinds of gender-based violence indicate the need for more ceptions or treatments meted out to men and women based research, especially of the societal level factors (Wall 2014). on their gender. Literature on this association has also remained limited in Gender inequality and gender-based violence against women India (Dalal 2011; Sabarwal et al 2013). This analysis seeks to share a complex relationship. According to the WHO and the fi ll this gap by analysing the association between gender United Nations, domestic and other forms of gender-based inequality and crime against women in India in a bid to identify violence are inextricably linked to each other and are the key whether equality can be a policy response to reducing gen- obstacles to gender equality; the lack of which increases the dered violence in India. risk of violence by men against women and inhibits the Though gender-based violence encompasses violence ability of those affected to seek protection (Smit 2012). Watts against all gender, this paper is focused on women. So, for the and Zimmerman (2002) contend that violence against women purpose of the present study, gender-based violence is defi ned is not only an expression of gender inequality but also helps as crime against women (hereafter, CAW) particularly. The maintain this power imbalance. It manifests as a vicious present study is based on analysis of secondary data from the loop where women do not challenge the power imbalance (out annual reports of NCRB. Data on reported incidences of CAW in of fear), and this unequal status increases their vulnerability India for the period 1995–2012 is analysed. United Nations to violence, which in turn fuels the violence perpetrated Development Programme’s (hereafter, UNDP) gender inequality against them. index (hereafter, GII) is reconstructed for the 15 large states of Feminist theory is the dominant model for explaining gen- India.5 The aim is to examine whether (a) gender inequality is der-based violence (Gelles 1993). It contends that gender- associated with CAW and (b) the association, if any, differs based violence is rooted in gender inequality at the societal across diverse Indian states. level (Bograd 1988; Ellsberg 2006). One feminist approach, The fi ndings show that at the national level, CAW is rising namely ameliorative hypothesis (Whaley and Messner 2002), while all India total crime rate is declining. CAW consistently rises argues that gender-based violence against women can be during the period of analysis (1995–2012). At the subnational reduced by eliminating patriarchy, enhancing women’s socio- level, the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala rank lower economic status and increasing gender equality. Thus, females’ on GII indicating lower gender inequality in the south than all access to education, employment, income and legal assistance other regions of the country. It is also found that the states may lead to a reduction in female victimisation (Straus 1994; with moderate GII have the highest rate of reported CAW while Baron and Straus 1987; Peterson and Bailey 1992; Bailey the states in low and high GII category do not differ much in and Peterson 1995; Vieraitis et al 2007). The other feminist CAW rates. This indicates that changing gender inequality is approach, backlash hypothesis (Brownmiller 1975; Russell 1975; unrelated to the existing level of CAW but plays a key role in Williams and Holmes 1981) counters ameliorative hypothesis controlling the growth rate of CAW. The moderate group how- with the argument that uplifted female socio-economic and ever, remains an anomaly as despite being better on GII, it has gender equality statuses escalate violence against them rather the highest CAW rate. Overall, the results show that reducing than reducing it (Gartner et al 1990; Vieraitis and Williams gender inequality has a positive association with decreasing 2002; DeWees and Parker 2003; Iyer et al 2011). Some research CAW growth rates. does not align with either of the feminist approach and shows The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 1 no signifi cant relationship (Brewer and Smith 1995; Lee and reviews the literature on gender-based violence and gender Stevenson 2006). inequality. This is helpful in understanding the relationships In the Indian context, Dreze and Khera (2000) hint at a examined. Section 2 discusses data and methodology adopted strong link between gender relations and criminal violence for the study. The fi ndings of the study are detailed in Section 3. (including violence against women). They fi nd that areas of Section 4 concludes the paper. high violence are associated with high gender inequalities. In another study on the relationship between rural women’s 1 Gender Inequality and Violence: Complex Relationship autonomy and risk of marital violence in India, Sabarwal, Gender-based violence, despite being a pervasive pheno- Santhya and Jejeebhoy (2013) fi nd mixed results. According to menon, is one of the most ignored and normalised form their results, women’s fi nancial autonomy reduces the risk of of abuse, affecting lives of millions of women and girls marital violence in more gender equitable settings of south (Bhatla 2012). Gender-based violence refers to any physical, India while in areas of more gender-stratifi ed settings of

Economic & Political Weekly EPW NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 49 SPECIAL ARTICLE north India, it has no such effect. Economic empowerment or used for creation of the subnational level GII are the same as fi nancial autonomy cannot solely reduce marital violence but those used at the national level by UNDP. These include needs to be supported by higher female education and modi- maternal mortality ratio (MMR) and adolescent fertility rate fi ed cultural norms against women (Dalal 2011). (AFR) for the health dimension, political participation at the Thus, empirical studies to test the relationship between state level and educational attainment for the empowerment gender inequality and female victimisation have reached no dimension and labour force participation rate (LFPR) for the consensus. It is in this context that the paper studies associa- labour market dimension (see Appendix 1 (p 54) for compo- tion between gender inequality and CAW in India. The next nents and calculation of GII). However, instead of proportion section discusses the data and outlines the methodology used of seats held by women in Parliament, proportion of seats held for the analysis. by women in state assemblies is taken as one of the indicators of empowerment. This takes into account women’s political 2 Data and Methodology leadership at the state level. There are two levels of analysis in this paper—national (or After calculating the state-level GII for the 15 states, country) and subnational (or state) level. To analyse gender- the states are ranked in ascending order of GII, where the based crime in India at the national level, NCRB data on CAW is lowest GII value is assigned rank 1 (a lower GII implies more used. Crime rate, that is the total incidences of crime as a pro- gender equality). This is followed by sorting of the states into portion of total population for a particular year, is used for the terciles to generate three categories of states: high GII states current analysis. It is important to mention here the limita- (worst off; GII greater than 67 percentile of all GII values), tions of using NCRB data. In India, it is a widely accepted fact moderate GII states (GII value between 33 and 67 percentiles) that CAW is under-reported (Mukherjee et al 2001; Hackett and low GII states (best off; GII below 33 percentile of all GII 2011; Bhattacharya 2013; Rukmini 2013, 2015; Gupta 2015). values). Appendix 2 (p 55) outlines the fi nal rankings and lists This is due to the social stigma attached particularly to sexual the categories. assault, distrust in legal mechanisms, attitude and apathy of The analysis further reviews the fi ve-year average (2008–12) the police, fear of retaliation and the like (Mukherjee et al CAW rate and the fi ve-year average growth in CAW rate against 2001). But whatever is reported indicates the gravity of the the GII categories identifi ed earlier to understand their problem. Since there is no other data source on the whole association. The paper considers fi ve-year averages for the array of CAW, it is useful in studying the subnational variation level and change variables to override any sudden social or in crime rates. political effects. The correlation coeffi cient between these Although women may be victims of any of the general variables is analysed to understand if reducing gender crimes such as robbery, murder, cheating, etc, only the crimes inequality is associated with reducing CAW. which are directed specifi cally against women are character- The latest available data is used for every variable in the ised as “Crimes against Women.” Since the full array of data on construct. The data for related indicators of gender inequality CAW is available from 1995, the period 1995–2012 is chosen for is sourced from various government publications like the the present analysis. Census of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Imple- For the subnational analysis, UNDP’s GII6 is adopted to mentation, the Lok Sabha website and Election Commission examine whether gender inequality is associated with CAW of India. Latest data for MMR is available for the period 2007–09 rates and if this association differs across Indian states. but MMR is available only for bigger states (SRS Estimates, In the Indian context, diversity across states with respect to Census 2011). For the Empowered Action Group of Jharkhand, gender inequality makes a study of state-level GII very interesting. , Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha A large country like India displays sharp regional variations and Bihar, MMR data is taken from Annual Health Survey across states, woing to cultural, social, economic and political (2010–11). Data on AFR is also available only for the bigger differences. Yet, there has been a lack of attention on creating states. Data for secondary education is available for the period a subnational level GII. There appears to be only one such 2005–06 from the National Family Health Survey, 2005–06 attempt by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, (see Appendix 3 (p 55) for details). Government of India in collaboration with UNDP (2009). Although this report did help in understanding the importance 3 Findings of a state-level GII, it provided only a limited comparison of all Indian states. A closer examination of CAW and several (a) National-level Analysis: Since crime data against women other demographic indicators across the largest 15 states may is available only from 1995, the national level analysis is be more useful in understanding how gender sensitive the done from 1995 to 2012. Figure 1 (p 51) compares the all India governance in states is. This paper attempts to do such an crime rate (IPC and L&SL) with the total population of India. analysis. The analysis is restricted to the 15 largest states of Crime rate is defi ned as the total incidences of crime as a India due to data availability constraints. proportion of total population for a particular year.7 While to- UNDP’s GII is adopted to create a state-level GII. The index tal population shows a rising trend for the period 1995–2012, is replicated with some minor modifi cations to obtain a crime rate shows a declining trend. However, the crime rate subnational index. To maintain comparability, the indicators shows a more erratic trend with periods of increase between

50 NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE 1995 to 1996, 1999 to 2004 and 2006 to 2009. Crime rate was Based on data availability on different crimes published by highest at 675 in 1996 but has since then declined to about NCRB, percentage growth is calculated across various periods 500 in 2012. The lowest crime rates have been reported for and categories and presented in Table 1. 2005 and 2006. There is no empirical evidence of factors Table 1: Percentage Growth of Different IPC Crimes against Women during attributing to decline of crime rates in India. The steady decline 1971–2012 s Year Domestic Sexual Assault and Related Crimes Others in total crime rate, particularly in the late 1990 can be attrib- Violence Rape Other Sexual Total uted to improvement in muscular policing-led governance, Crimes increase in the incarceration rate and capital punishment, 1971 NA 2,487 NA NA NA stronger economy, and dressing up of crime fi gures/cases 1995 36,219 13,754 33,231 46,985 26,055 and the police’s failure to fi le fi rst information reports (FIRs) 2012 1,14,760 24,923 54,524 79,447 50,063 (Shaban 2010). Percentage growth (1971–2012) NA 902% NA NA NA Percentage growth (1995–2012) 217% 81% 64% 69% 92% Figure 1: All India Crime Rate Plotted against Total Population (1995–2012) Source: Compiled from Annual Reports of National Crime Records Bureau (1971–2012). 12,500 700 12,000 It can be observed from Table 1 that domestic violence has 650 11,500 been increasing over a period of 18 years. It has increased by Population (in lakhs) 11,000 600 217%, thereby constituting the highest percentage increase

10,500 550 amongst all crimes against women. During 1971–2012, rape Crime rateCrime 10,000 registered a growth rate of 902%. The period 1995–2012 saw it 500 Population (in lakhs) (in Population 9,500 Crime rate (IPC + S & SL) growing by 81%. Sexual assault and related crimes constitute 9,000 450 the second highest proportion of all CAW. Other CAW has 2011 2012 2010 1997 1995 1998 1996 1999 2001 2002 2007 2003 2005 2008 2009 2006 2000 2004 shown an increase of 92% over the period of analysis. Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Annual Reports (1995–2012). While all India crime rate shows a declining trend over (b) Subnational Analysis: At the subnational level, the value time, CAW has consistently risen during the period of analysis of GII ranges from a value of 0.439 (best) to 0.691 (worst), with (Figure 2). The rate of crime in 1995 was 12.1 while it was 20.13 an average value of 0.55 (Table 2). Ranking and categorising in 2012 showing an increase of 66% during the period under the states by GII (with the Table 2: Ranking of States by Gender analysis. From Figures 1 and 2, it is evident that with rising best GII being rank 1 and Inequality Index population, CAW is also increasing. There is no large-scale the lowest GIIs forming State GII Value GII Rank Category empirical study on the factors that have led to an increase in category “Low”) reveals Tamil Nadu 0.439 1 Low CAW despite the decline in total crime rate in India. The plau- that the southern states Kerala 0.465 2 sible explanations proposed for such a rise include increased of India rank much lower Punjab 0.477 3 Andhra Pradesh 0.493 4 reporting and increased number of cases given women’s on GII. This indicates that 0.521 5 empowerment through education, employment and political south India, particularly Gujarat 0.524 6 Moderate GII representation (Shaban 2010; Mukherjee et al 2001; Iyer Tamil Nadu, with of Haryana 0.533 7 et al 2011). 0.439, has lower gender Rajasthan 0.563 8 inequality than all other Figure 2: All India Crime Rate and All India Crime Rate against Women Odisha 0.564 9 (1995–2012) regions across the coun- West Bengal 0.573 10 700 21 try. The northern states Madhya Pradesh 0.579 11 High Crime against women (Rate ) primarily fall in the last Uttar Pradesh 0.603 12 650 19 category with Madhya Karnataka 0.607 13 600 17 Assam 0.652 14 Crime rate (IPC + S & SL) Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Bihar 0.691 15 550 15 Pradesh dispalying high Source: See Appendix 2 for calculation of GII. 500 13 gender inequality (except Rajasthan which falls in the moderate category). The states Total Crime rate (All India) 450 11 with moderate GII are Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha 2011 2012 2010 1997 1995 1998 Crime rate against Women (All India) 1996 1999 2001 2002 2007 2003 2005 2008 2009 2006 2000 2004 and West Bengal. Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Annual Reports (1995–2012). The fi ve-year average CAW rate and the fi ve-year average of For further analysis, only IPC CAW are analysed as they year-on-year growth in CAW rate are analysed against the GII constitute more than 90% of total CAW while L&SL account for categories next (Table 3 and Table 5, p 52). It shows that the less than 5% (NCRB 2011). The different types of IPC CAW are states with moderate GII have the highest rate of reported categorised under three heads: (1) Domestic violence— CAW (23.10) while the states in low (18.80) and high (18.70) GII includes IPC crimes like homicide for dowry and torture; category do not differ much in CAW rates. It is also surprising (2) Sexual assault and related crime—includes IPC crimes like to fi nd that Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, which have very low rape, molestation and sexual harassment; and (3) Others— GIIs, have much higher CAW rates (third and fourth highest, include IPC crimes like kidnapping and abduction and impor- only after Assam and West Bengal). One possibility to explain tation of girls. these confl icting fi gures might be more reporting of CAW by

Economic & Political Weekly EPW NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 51 SPECIAL ARTICLE the victims in these otherwise better states. The other expla- highest CAW growth rate (6.10%) are found in the moderate cat- nation hinted at by Bhaskaran (2011) in her paper on Kerala is egory. More importantly, correlation analysis (Table 4) reveals the backlash effect. She contends that “the mere participation a signifi cant association between average CAW growth rate and of women in public forums and development activities has GII implying that a higher GII state shows higher CAW growth challenged the patriarchal norms and this in turn has trig- rate. This indicates that reducing gender inequality has a posi- gered violence.” West Bengal has the highest rate of CAW in the tive association with decreasing CAW growth rates. moderate group followed by Rajasthan. This is clearly visible Table 5: Distribution of States by GII Category and Average Growth Rate of CAW in Table 3 which shows the distribution of states according to GII Category States Average Growth Rate Category Average their GII category and average rate of CAW category. Tamil of CAW (2008–12) (%) (%) Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra are the best states with low GII Low Tamil Nadu 0 2.98 and low average rate of CAW while Assam is the worst state on Kerala 8 Punjab 5 this account. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh show high GII but low Andhra Pradesh 3 CAW average rate. Maharashtra -1 Table 3: Distribution of States by GII Category and Average CAW Rate Moderate Gujarat 1 6.10 GII Category States Average Rate of CAW (2008–12) Category Average Haryana 2 Low Tamil Nadu 10 18.8 Rajasthan 8 Kerala 27.81 Odisha 9 Punjab 10.22 West Bengal 10 Andhra Pradesh 31.71 High Madhya Pradesh 2 5.74 Maharashtra 14.23 Uttar Pradesh -1 Moderate Gujarat 14.73 23.1 Karnataka 10 Haryana 22.16 Assam 13 Rajasthan 27.01 Bihar 6 Odisha 22.64 All India 4 West Bengal 28.97 Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Data on Crime against Women High Madhya Pradesh 22.45 18.7 (2008–12). Uttar Pradesh 11.42 However, the moderate group remains an anomaly with the Karnataka 14.67 highest CAW rates despite moderate GII rankings. To further Assam 35.33 examine this, a few additional factors are assessed to under- Bihar 9.65 stand this anomaly. An analysis of other parameters like state All India 18.29 GDP) Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Data on Crime against Women contribution to national gross domestic product ( , female (2008–12). participation in governance and sex ratio reveals very little To further test this association statistically, a correlation difference between the moderate and high GII states (Table 6). analysis is done. Table 4 presents the results for the correlation Moreover, other than Gujarat and West Bengal, moderate GII analysis. However, no signifi cant association is found between Table 6: GII Comparatives average CAW rate and GII. Averages for GII States Low Moderate High Table 4: Correlation Coefficients GII State GII State GII State 1 GII Value GII Rank Avg CAW CAW Growth Rate Sex ratio (number of female per 1,000 males) 979.4 931 938.4 (2008–12) (2008–12) Workforce participation GII value 1 (% female workers in total population)2 26.24 24.4 24.56 GII rank 0.98*** 1 Political participation (% female in state assembly, (0.00) average of three elections)3 8.21 10.00 9.67 Avg CAW (2008–12) 0.06 0.07 1 % Female literacy4 74.24 64.44 60.46 (0.42)** (0.40)** Police strength (no of policemen CAW growth rate (2008–12) 0.39* 0.39* 0.58*** per 1,00,000 population)5 163.6 120.8 113.6 (0.08) (0.08) (0.01) 1 Conviction rate of total IPC crimes in 2012 *The p-value for the coefficient is mentioned in parentheses. p-value<=0.10 (***) implies (the ratio of cases convicted to the total cases tried)6 39.7 30.02 31.66 that the correlation is significant at 10% level. Similarly, p-value <= 0.05 (**) implies Conviction rate of rape in 2012 (the ratio of cases significance at 5% level and p-value <= 0.01 (*) implies significance at 1% level. convicted to the total cases tried)7 20.68 20.56 24.74 CAW year-on-year growth rates are also analysed since level Gross state domestic product (GSDP) 8 values of CAW rates may be misleading. This is because states at current prices in 2010–11 (In Rs crores) 53,4430 3,53,984 3,16,382 % Contribution to all India GDP (2004–05 base)9 7.47% 4.95% 4.42% with very high CAW levels to start with might continue to show Source: 1 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in high levels at later periods as well even if growth rates of CAW 2 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in, Primary Census Abstract-Data Highlights. 3 have been curbed over time. As expected, a more interesting Election Commission of India http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/ElectionStatistics.aspx 4 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in pattern emerges from the average CAW growth rates (Table 5). 5 Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in 6 While the low GII states have an average CAW rate almost equal Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in 7 Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in to that of high GII states, their average CAW growth rate is 8 Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments, and for All-India almost half that of the high category (2.98% for low vs 5.74% -- Central Statistics Office. 9 Computed from Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments, for high). What stands out though is that the highest CAW rate and and for All-India—Central Statistics Office.

52 NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE states have lowest GDP contribution indicating these are poorer moderate group however, remains an anomaly as despite being states and therefore, may have lesser capability to deal with better on the inequality index, it has the highest rate of crime CAW. On the other hand, moderate GII states also have higher against women. female participation in politics and lowest conviction rate. In summary, it can be said that gender equality has a signifi - This can be interpreted in two ways, (a) more empowered cant negative association with CAW rates. However, the dimin- female population should imply higher CAW reporting which ishing rate of growth in average rates of CAW, as we move up may cause the higher growth rate or (b) more females in pub- the GII ranks, shows that a lot of reform is still required to lic spaces may result in more CAW due to backlash effect. These bring about a decline in growth rates. Increasing equality, that may be the possible reasons behind the anomaly but it requires is, lowering the index value, has a two pronged effect on rates more detailed future research. of CAW. On one hand it increases rates of CAW due to tangible reasons like higher reporting by more empowered women or 4 Conclusions higher backlash effect arising from more women being drawn The focus of this paper has been to identify the association be- into the public sphere which changes their status quo within tween GII and CAW and highlight the regional variations in this the family. On the other hand, increasing gender equality association. Present analysis of CAW data with respect to GII decreases CAW rates due to intangible reasons like reinstating shows that CAW rates have grown while general crime rates of the gender-power balance. This should result in an inverted have decreased over the years. Further, the distribution of U-shaped relationship between equality and growth of CAW; as states by GII does not follow a pattern. States with lower and equality increases, CAW initially increases and then peaks at a higher index value show similar average rates of CAW while threshold level of equality, post which it starts to decrease. moderate index value states show the highest average rates of This is because the intangible benefi ts of reducing inequality CAW. The CAW growth rates, however, are lowest for low gen- take longer to reap. der inequality states but continue to be the highest for moder- These results open up more avenues for further research in ate gender inequality states. A correlation analysis though re- this area. Some key questions remain: Is the association be- veals no signifi cant association between average CAW rate and tween gender inequality and CAW simply downward sloping or GII. However, a signifi cant association is found between aver- a more complicated inverted-U? Are equality thresholds iden- age CAW growth rate and GII implying that a higher GII state tifi able and theoretically useful? Are moderate gender ine- shows higher CAW growth rate. This indicates that changing quality index value states worse off because of an increase in gender inequality is unimportant for the existing level of CAW CAW incidences or merely because of higher reporting of such but plays a key role in controlling the growth of CAW rates. The incidences? What role does governance play in curbing CAW?

Notes 7 In 2012, for calculation of Crime Rate of CAW, Baron, Larry and Murray A Straus (1987): “Four 1 Refer Park Street rape case in 2012 in Indian NCRB has used female population instead of Theories of Rape: A Macrosociological Analysis,” Express, dated 19 February 2012, Times of India overall total population of India. While in the Social Problems, 34: 467–89. dated 22 February 2012, Times of India dated present analysis, CAW rate has been calculated Baxi, Pratiksha (2014): Public Secrets of Law: Rape 4 August 2014. using total population. Thus, the data for 2012 Trails in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2 Refer Nirbahaya Delhi gang rape case in 2012 cannot be compared to NCRB 2012 data on Bhaskaran, S (2011): “Informed by Gender? Public in Hindu, dated 23 December 2012, New York crime rate of CAW. Policy in Kerala,” Economic & Political Weekly, Times, dated 3 January 2013, Times of India 46(43): 75–84. dated 14 July 2014 Bhatla, Nandita (2012): “Gender-based Violence in 3 Refer case in 2013, in References Public Spaces: Consequences and Cost in The Telegraph, dated 23 August 2013, Times of Bailey, W C and R D Peterson (1995): “Gender Ine- Pilot,” The Fear That Stalks: Gender-based Vio- India, dated 23 August 2013. quality and Violence against Women: The Case lence in Public Spaces, Sarah and Lora Prabhu 4 Violence and crime are overlapping domains. of Murder,” Crime and Inequality, J Hagan and (eds), New Delhi: Zubaan. Crime involves rule breaking while violence in- R D Peterson (eds), Standford, CA: Standford Bhattacharya, Pramit (2013): “An Epidemic of volves intentional harm–doing using physical University Press, 174–205. Crimes against Women?,” LiveMint, 13 September, means (Felson 2009). This paper, thus, uses vi- olence and crime interchangeably. Low 5 The 15 large states have been identifi ed on the Complete Annual EPW Sets Available Prices basis of data available on the indicators required for calcuating GII and include Andhra Pradesh, At Nominal Rates Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, EPW has a few complete sets of the journal for 1986, 1988, 2001, and from 2003 to 2014 Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. that are available at nominal rates. 6 UNDP’s GII is a composite measure refl ecting The entire set for each year is available for just Rs 100 plus postage and packing charges. inequality in achievements between women and men on three dimensions: reproductive (The cost of postage for each set—weighing around 10 kg—by registered parcel will be health, empowerment and the labour market around Rs 400 to Rs 500. Packing charges will be Rs 100). (UNDP 2011). The index measures the loss in potential human development due to inequality The total payable amount is Rs 700. Interested buyers can also call and visit our office in between female and male achievements on Mumbai and collect the volumes by paying just Rs 100 each. these dimensions. It varies between 0, where men and women fare equally, and 1, where ei- There are only a limited number of these unbound sets available. Institutions and ther gender fares as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions (see Technical Notes, individuals interested in buying any of the sets can call the Circulation Department for UNDP Human Development Report, 2011). further details. Phone: 022-40638282 UNDP calculates this only at the national level.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 53 SPECIAL ARTICLE

viewed on 13 September 2015 (http://goo.gl/ — (2015): “A Crime Well Reported is Half Solved,” Female Homicide Victimisation Across US Cit- JxLsW1). Hindu, 22 August, viewed on 13 September ies: A Racially Disaggregated Analysis,” Vio- Bograd, M (1988): “Feminist Perspectives on Wife 2013, http://goo.gl/6N7qUG lence against Women, 8: 35–63. Abuse: An Introduction,” Feminist Perspective Russell, Diana E H (1975): “The Politics of Rape: The Vieraitis, Lynne M, Tomislav V Kovandzic and Sar- on Wife Abuse, K Yllo and M Bograd (ed), Victim’s Perspective,” New York: Stein & Day. ah Britto (2007): “The Impact of Women’s Sta- Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 11–26. Sabarwal, S, K G Santhya and S J Jejeebhoy (2013): tus and Gender Inequality on Female Homi- Brewer, V E and M D Smith (1995): “Gender In- “Women’s Autonomy and Experience of Physi- cide Victimisation Rates: Evidence from US equality and Rates of Female Homicide Victim- cal Violence Within Marriage in Rural India: Counties,” Feminist Criminology, 2007: 57–73. isation Across US Cities,” Journal of Research in Evidence from a Prospective Study,” Journal of Wall, L (2014): “Gender Equality and Violence Crime and Delinquency, 32(2): 175–90. Interpersonal Violence, 29(2): 332–47. against Women: What’s the Connection?,” Aus- Brownmiller, Susan (1975): Against Our Will: Men, Shaban, Abdul (2010): Mumbai: Political Economy of tralian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Women and Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster. Crime and Space, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan. Research Summary, 7(14). Dalal, K (2011): “Does Economic Empowerment Sen, Amartya (1985): Commodities and Capabili- Watts, C and C Zimmerman (2002): “Violence Protect Women from Intimate Partner Vio- ties, Amsterdam: North Holland. against Women: Global Scope and Magnitude,” lence?,” Journal of Violence and Injury Preven- Smit, Auke (2012): “Resisting Modernity? The Per- Lancet, 359:1232–7. tion, 3: 35–44. formance of Gender Based Violence in Contem- Whaley, Rachel B and Steven F Messner (2002): DeWees, Mari A and Karen F Parker (2003): “Urban porary India,” Position Paper, Premaster Cul- “Gender Equality and Gendered Homicides,” Homicide: Assessing the Relative Impact of tural Paper, Muliticulturalism in Comparative Homicide Studies, 6(3): 188-210. Gender Inequality on Sex-Specifi c Victimisa- Perspective, Utrecht University. Williams, Joyce E and Karen A Holmes (1981): The tion,” Violence and Victims, 18: 35–54. Straus, Murray A (1994): “State-to-state Differenc- Second Assault: Rapeand Public Attitudes, Drèze, Jean and Reetika Khera (2000): “Crime, es in Social Inequality and Social Bonds in Re- Westport, CT: Greenwood. Gender, and Society in India: Insights from lation to Assaults on Wives in the United World Health Organization (2009): “Violence Pre- Homicide Data,” Population and Development States,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies vention, the Evidence: Promoting Gender Review, 26: 335–52. 25:7–24. Equality to Prevent Violence against Women,” Ellsberg, M and L Heise (2005): Researching Vio- UNDP Human Development Report (2011): Series of Briefi ngs on Violence Prevention. lence against Women: A Practical Guide for Re- “Gender Inequality Index and Related Indica- Yodanis, L C (2004): “Gender Inequality, Violence searchers and Activists, Washington DC, United tors,” Statistical Table, Human Development against Women, and Fear: A Cross-National States: World Health Organization, PATH. Report. Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence against Ellsberg, M (2006): “Violence against Women and Vieraitis, Lynne M and Marian R Williams (2002): Women,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, the Millennium Development Goals: Facilitat- “Assessing the Impact of Gender Inequality on 19:655. ing Women’s Access to Support,” International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 94: 325–32. Appendix 1: UNDP Gender Inequality Index (GII) Felson, R B (2009): “Violence, Crime and Violent Crime,” International Journal of Confl ict and Gender Dimensions Health Empowerment Labour Market Violence, 3(1): 23–39. Inequality Indicators Maternal Adolescent Female and male Female and male Female and male Gartner, Rosemary, K Baker and F C Pampel Index (GII) mortality fertility with at least share of labour fource (1990): “Gender Stratifi cation and the Gender ratio ratio secondary education parliamentary seats participation rates Gap in Homicide Victimisation,” Social Prob- lems, 37(4): 593–612. Gelles, R (1993): “Through a Sociological Lens: So- cial Structure and Family Violence,” Current Controversies on Family Violence: R Gelles and Dimension Female Female Female Male Male D Loseke (eds), 31–46, London: Sage. Index reproductive empowerment labour market empowerment labour Gupta, Ashish (2015): “Reporting and Incidence of health index index index index market index Violence against Women in India,” Rice Insti- tute for Compassionate Economics, Working Paper, viewed on 13 September 2015, http:// Female gender index Male gender index goo.gl/1oEZPi. Hackett, M (2011): “Domestic Violence against Women: Statistical Analysis of Crimes across India,” Gender Inequality Index (GII) Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(2): 267. Source: GII Construction and Analysis, Human Development Report, 2013, UNDP Technical Notes (http://hdr.undp.org/ Iyer, Lakshmi, Anandi Mani, Prachi Mishra and Pe- sites/default/files/hdr_2013_en_technotes.pdf). tia Topalova (2011): “The Power of Political Voice: Women’s Political Representation and Steps to calculating the GII (as taken from the UNDP 2011 Technical Notes for GII calculation) Crime in India,” Harvard Business School BGIE Step 1 – Treating zeros and extreme values Unit Working Paper No 11–092. Because a geometric mean cannot be computed from a zero value, a minimum value of 0.1% is set for all component Lee, Matthew R and Ginger D Stevenson (2006): indicators. In this subnational GII for India, the maternal mortality ratio is truncated at 10 (minimum) and at 1,000 “Gender-Specifi c Homicide Offending in Rural (maximum). Because of the minimum MMR being set at 10, the MMR has to be rescaled by 10 so that the GII takes values Areas”, Homicide Studies, 10(1): 55–73. between 0 and 1. Martin, K, L Vieraitis and S Britto (2006): “Gender Step 2 – Construction of Dimension Index Equality and Women’s Absolute Status: A Test The indicators are first aggregated to construct three dimensions indices for each group which are then aggregated using a of the Feminist Models of Rape,” Violence geometric mean to obtain an overall index for each gender.

against Women, 12(4): 321–39. Reproductive health index, RF = (10/MMR)*(1/AFR) Ministry of Women and Child Development, Gov- Empowerment Index, EF=  (PRF * SEF) ernment of India (2009): “Generating Human Labour Market index = LFPR Development Indices: Recasting the Gender Aggregation across dimension in each group 3 Development Index and Gender Empowerment Female Gender Index, GF = (10/MMR)*(1/AFR)* (PRF * SEF)*LFPRF 3 Measure for India: Summary Report.” Male Gender Index, GM = 1* (PRM * SEM)*LFPRM Mukherjee, Chandan, Preet Rustagi and N Krishnaji Step 3 – Aggregating across genders, using a Harmonic Mean to create the “equally distributed gender inequality index.” (2001): “Crime against Women in India: Analysis H(G ,G ) = 2/(1/G + 1/G ) = [(1/G + 1/G )/2]-1 ={ [(G )-1+(G )-1]/2}-1 * 4 of Offi cial Statistics,” Economic & Political F M F M F M F M Weekly, 36(43): 4070–80. Step 4 – Calculating the geometric mean of the arithmetic means for each dimension Here female and male indices are aggregated using equal weights (thus treating the genders equally) and then the indices Peterson, Ruth D and William C Bailey (1992): are aggregated across dimensions. The average achievements in three dimensions are denoted by H, E and L, respectively. “Rape and Dimensions of Gender Socioeco- H= [(10/MMR)*(1/AFR) + 1]/2 nomic Inequality in US Metropolitan Areas,” E = [ (PR * SE )+  (PR * SE )]/2 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, F F M M L = (LFPRF + LFPRM)/2 29: 162–77. 2 G =  Rukmini, S (2013): “India Offi cially Undercounts all F, M H x E X L Crimes Including Rape,” Hindu, 20 October, Step 5 – Calculating the GII H(G , G ) viewed on 13 September 2013, http://goo. GII = 1 – F M gl/6JXhU2. GF, M

54 NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 EPW Economic & Political Weekly SPECIAL ARTICLE

Appendix 2: GII at the State Level, India

States GII MMR AFR Political Secondary LFPR (%) RF RM EF EM GF GM H(GF, GM) H E L GF, M GII (2007– 09) (2011) Representation Education (2011–12) Rank Value Male Female Male Female Male Female 1 Andhra Pradesh 4 0.4926 134 38.8 0.90 0.099773 0.18 0.13 0.830 0.501 0.043856 1 0.113 0.399 0.13541 0.69196 0.2265 0.5219 0.2561 0.666 0.4464 0.4926 2 Assam 16 0.65198 347 45.8 0.90 0.097884 0.14 0.09 0.854 0.182 0.025084 1 0.094 0.353 0.07553 0.67041 0.1358 0.5125 0.2236 0.518 0.3901 0.652 3 Bihar 17 0.69116 294 33 0.91 0.085048 0.14 0.08 0.785 0.090 0.032105 1 0.085 0.363 0.06251 0.65804 0.1142 0.5161 0.2238 0.438 0.3697 0.6912 4 Gujarat 6 0.52398 148 23.4 0.92 0.080586 0.15 0.10 0.867 0.321 0.053735 1 0.091 0.375 0.11626 0.68766 0.1989 0.5269 0.2331 0.594 0.4178 0.524 5 Haryana 7 0.53336 153 17 0.91 0.088889 0.24 0.15 0.783 0.211 0.062005 1 0.117 0.465 0.11512 0.71391 0.1983 0.531 0.2907 0.497 0.4249 0.5334 6 Karnataka 14 0.60702 178 35.8 0.98 0.022321 0.17 0.14 0.833 0.349 0.039614 1 0.056 0.405 0.09209 0.6963 0.1627 0.5198 0.2309 0.591 0.4139 0.607 7 Kerala 2 0.46512 81 20.3 0.95 0.052381 0.23 0.23 0.824 0.354 0.077985 1 0.11 0.47 0.14471 0.72885 0.2415 0.539 0.2898 0.589 0.4515 0.4651 8 Madhya Pradesh 12 0.57948 277 32.5 0.91 0.090851 0.09 0.05 0.831 0.325 0.033329 1 0.069 0.288 0.09063 0.6206 0.1582 0.5167 0.1782 0.578 0.3761 0.5795 9 Maharashtra 5 0.52076 104 28.6 0.96 0.040509 0.19 0.14 0.812 0.415 0.057983 1 0.076 0.431 0.12235 0.70495 0.2085 0.529 0.2538 0.614 0.4351 0.5208 10 Odisha 10 0.56396 237 29.8 0.93 0.070295 0.10 0.08 0.895 0.347 0.037629 1 0.073 0.3 0.09846 0.64535 0.1708 0.5188 0.1867 0.621 0.3918 0.564 11 Punjab 3 0.47666 172 10.4 0.92 0.082793 0.24 0.19 0.827 0.284 0.074769 1 0.126 0.468 0.13898 0.72886 0.2334 0.5374 0.2973 0.556 0.4461 0.4767 12 Rajasthan 9 0.56259 264 32.7 0.91 0.09 0.11 0.04 0.782 0.453 0.034035 1 0.063 0.311 0.099 0.62392 0.1709 0.517 0.1868 0.618 0.3907 0.5626 13 Tamil Nadu 1 0.43926 97 19.4 0.91 0.091168 0.16 0.13 0.846 0.424 0.072898 1 0.108 0.384 0.14927 0.68726 0.2453 0.5364 0.2457 0.635 0.4374 0.4393 14 Uttar Pradesh 13 0.60317 300 26.1 0.93 0.069479 0.13 0.08 0.821 0.253 0.035737 1 0.073 0.344 0.08693 0.65595 0.1535 0.5179 0.2082 0.537 0.3869 0.6032 15 West Bengal 11 0.57254 145 55.4 0.89 0.112245 0.11 0.07 0.873 0.277 0.035283 1 0.089 0.305 0.09533 0.64355 0.1661 0.5176 0.197 0.575 0.3885 0.5725

Appendix 3: Definitions of Indicators Used GII Calculation Indicator Definition (UNDP) Definition (India) Source Maternal mortality Ratio of the number of maternal Number of women aged 15–49 years Special bulletin on maternal mortality, Office of the ratio (MMR) deaths to the number of live births dying due to maternal causes Registrar General of India, June 2011 (SRS Estimates) in a given year, expressed per 1,00,000 live births MMR for Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, as per 1,00,00 live births Rajasthan, Odisha, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and Uttarakhand have been taken from Annual Health Survey 2011–12 (Source: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_ statistics/AHSBulletins/ahs2011.html) Adolescent Number of births to the women No of live births to women aged 15–19/ Census of India fertility rate (AFR) aged 15–19 per 1,000 women Mid year female population in the age http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_statistics/ aged 15–19 group 15–19)*1000 Definitions/Definitions.aspx Seats in national Proportion of seats held by women Proportion of seats held by women in state Election Commission of India http://eci.nic.in/ parliament in a lower or single house or an assemblies expressed as percentage of eci_main1/ElectionStatistics.aspx upper house or senate, expressed total seats as percentage of total seats Political situation is prone to quick changes unlike demographic indicators. So, average three successive elections is taken to control for bias. Population with Percentage of the population aged Percent distribution of the population NFHS 3 at least secondary 25 and older that have reached aged 15–49 that have completed 10–11 years http://www.rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-3%20Data/ education secondary education of education, by state, India, 2005–06 VOL-1/chapter%2003.pdf, pp 62, 63 Labour force Proportion of a country’s working Proportion of persons/person-days in the http://www.mospi.gov.in participation age population that engages in the labour force to the total person/person-days. http://data.gov.in/dataset/labour-force- rate (LFPR) labour market, either by working or These ratios are given in per 1,000 of person/ participation-rate-1000-persons-age-15-59-years- actively looking at work, expressed person-days. This estimate of LFPR approach according-usual-status-taking-b as percentage of the working-age provides information on number of persons in population labour force according to the usual status (taking both principal and subsidiary status together) that is, by considering usual principal and subsidiary economic activity together. For the year 2011–12. MEN DOING FEMINISM May 16, 2015

Men Doing Feminism in India: An Introduction – Romit Chowdhury, Zaid Al Baset Masculinity Studies and Feminism: Othering the Self – Sanjay Srivastava Embracing Feminism – Sibaji Bandyopadhyay Disrupting Coherence: Self Reflections of a Male Ethnographer – Pushpesh Kumar Doing and Undoing Feminism: A Jurisdictional Journey – Oishik Sircar For copies write to: Circulation Manager, Economic and Political Weekly, 320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. email: [email protected]

Economic & Political Weekly EPW NOVEMBER 7, 2015 vol l no 45 55