To keep our kids safe, all have a role to play

Crimes against children increased from 14,975 in 2005 to 94,172 in 2015. Over the same period, violent crimes increased at the rate of 5.5% per year — much faster than the growth of the population.

Violent crimes against children are grabbing headlines. The latest is the sexual assault and murder of a student in a private school’s toilet in Haryana’s Bhondsi, near Gurgaon. However, Haryana is not the most dangerous state for kids. That dubious distinction belongs to Delhi, with a crime rate (crimes against children per 100,000 population) of 169. Chandigarh follows at 68. The safest states for kids, per the National Crime Records Bureau data, are Jharkhand, with a child crime rate of just three, followed by Bihar, at four.

The World Health Organisation estimates that in developed countries, six per cent of adult depression, alcohol and drug abuse; eight per cent of suicide attempts; 10 per cent of panic disorders and 27 per cent of post-traumatic stress disorders are due to abuse during the first decade of the victim’s life.

But there is scanty scientific evidence, in developing countries, of the drivers — the sources and location — of child abuse. David Finkelhor, a sociologist, tellingly comments that “there is more experimental science in the toilet paper we use every day, than in what we have to offer abused children or families at risk of abuse”.

In India, where the general standards of personal security and protection of human rights are low and public resources are stretched, child abuse can easily become just another statistic. Crimes against children increased from 14,975 in 2005 to 94,172 in 2015. Over the same period, violent crimes increased at the rate of 5.5 per cent per year — much faster than the growth of the population. Sadly, the proportion of crimes against children to total violent crimes, increased from seven per cent in 2005 to 28 per cent in 2015. Our children are increasingly more unsafe.

Preventing such crimes is a shared responsibility. Initiatives include regular oversight and counselling of risky families by specialised agencies; early identification of highrisk adolescents to aid them through high school; imparting life skills training to make children streetsmart and reducing access to alcohol, drugs and weapons.

Inevitably, poorer kids are more at risk than rich kids. The same applies to other population segments at risk — senior citizens and women. The well-off can cocoon themselves from a prevailing ecosystem of insecurity. But for other vulnerable groups, it is the State which must step in to offer protection.

First, increasing the effectiveness of policing aimed specifically at controlling crime on the street and in public spaces is the key. Predators seek out low-security havens — parks, lonely lanes and unoccupied spaces to strike. India is historically under-policed. The UN standard is 222 police personnel for every 100,000 population. India has never crossed 140. Singapore — that haven of orderliness, which all Indians marvel at — has 1,074; disciplined Japan has 207; the European Union has around 347 policemen per 100,000 population.

Even this aggregate data exaggerates the level of police available for citizen centric, local policing — beat patrols, traffic management, crime prevention, detection and investigation. In India 60 per cent of the police are occupied guarding government buildings and assets (such as CISF & RPF); patrolling the borders (BSF, ITBP, SSB); quelling riots, fighting insurgency or doing VIP bandobast (CRPF and state armed police). Local policing must be strengthened much, much more.

Comprehensive police reform has never been tackled seriously despite a series of commissions — starting with the National Commission on Police Reform, 1978, and ending with the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2007, all of which recommend broadly similar measures. The police mandate is fractured between states and the Centre, leading to silo functioning. The Central police forces are significantly better resourced than the state police forces, though the latter are directly concerned with controlling crime. The buck often stops with the police. But they are poorly led. Senior police officers skip from helming one complex area to another, where they may have no prior experience and no longterm allegiance to the specialised force they command. Even junior officers and constables are neither specifically recruited nor are they permanently slotted in specialised areas, like crime detection and investigation; communications; community policing; traffic management; cyber security or intelligence and riot control.

Second, the use of technology to identify highrisk locations and victim behaviour and profile potential predators is constrained by the low educational qualifications of the personnel. 86 per cent of the force consists of constables who have merely passed their Class 10 or at best Class 12 exams. The officer cadre is thin and inadequately skilled. Service conditions are terrible. Police personnel regularly do 10-hour to 14-hour long shifts, with no weekly time off. Police housing, of indifferent quality, is available only for just onethird of the personnel. Worse, the police force is highly politicised and tends to rely on fear and the use of brute force, rather than by earning the respect of citizens — a colonial hangover. These conditions are not conducive to attract committed, qualified recruits.

Third, improving the first responder reaction, can save lives and minimise damage by getting victims to healthcare facilities. But there are just 15,500 police stations across more than 650,000 villages and road links may not be the best. Of these nearly 10 per cent lack even a wireless link. There are only 164,000 vehicles with the state police forces. Their spread across locations is likely to be highly uneven and concentrated in the major cities.

Other than improving policing, viable shortterm options include better oversight by the government education departments over school administrations. Valueadd community participation, like authorising Parent Teacher Associations to certify the school’s adherence to minimum safety and security standards, can help.

But the biggest bang for the buck is if kids themselves use technology to collaborate and collectively enhance their own security. Readers may remember the captivating proactivity of kids in outwitting, admittedly bumbling, adult, minor criminals from the 1950s era, in Enid Blyton’s Secret Seven and Famous Five series. Fiction can become a reality — once the imagination and interest of the kids is ignited. Herein lies the fastest and most effective route to making our kids safe.