In recent years, the topic of jati-based crimes and atrocities in Bharat has garnered significant media attention and public discourse. However, a closer examination of crime statistics and their interpretation reveals a complex picture that challenges some commonly held perceptions. This article delves into an analysis of National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from 2019 to 2022, focusing on crimes against Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the country.
We’ll explore how these statistics compare to overall crime rates, examine the proportion of crimes filed under the SC/ST Act, and discuss various interpretations of this data. Additionally, we’ll look at studies that offer alternative perspectives on the narrative surrounding jati-based atrocities, including work by researchers Sufiya Pathan, Dunkin Jalki, and Nihar Shashittal.
The article also addresses how media representation and activist narratives might influence public perception of these issues.
According to NCRB 2019 data, a total of 5,156,172 crimes were recorded across Bharat. Of these, 45,935 crimes were against Scheduled Castes (SC), accounting for 0.9% of the total, while 8,257 crimes were against Scheduled Tribes (ST), making up 0.16%. Combined, crimes against SCs and STs totaled 54,192, representing 1.05% of all crimes, despite these groups comprising 25% of the population. This suggests that approximately 1% of crimes were committed against the SC/ST population, while the remaining 99% were against the non-SC/ST population.
The NCRB 2019 data reveals that the national crime rate stands at 385.5. In comparison, the crime rate against Scheduled Castes (SC) is significantly lower at 22.8, and even lower against Scheduled Tribes (ST) at 7.9. This means that the crime rate within the SC population is 17 times lower than the national average, and for the ST population, it is 49 times lower than the average national crime rate.
In 2019, out of a total of 45,935 crimes reported against the Scheduled Caste (SC) population, only 9% (4,129 cases) were registered under the SC/ST Act. This implies that a mere 0.08% of all reported crimes were jati-based in nature. Notably, nearly 90% of crimes against the SC population did not involve any jati angle and were likely committed by individuals from the same or similar communities.
Furthermore, other reports suggest that 70-90% of the cases filed under the SC/ST Act are false. If this estimate holds, out of the 4,129 cases registered, only around 800 might be genuine jati-based crimes. When considered against Bharat’s total population of 143 crore (1.43 billion), this brings the number of verified jati-related crimes to a relatively small figure.
According to the NCRB 2020 data, a total of 6,601,285 crimes were recorded across Bharat. Out of these, 50,291 crimes were committed against the Scheduled Caste (SC) population, representing 0.8% of the total, while 8,272 crimes were recorded against the Scheduled Tribes (ST) (janjatiya), accounting for 0.13%. Together, crimes against SCs and STs totaled 58,563 cases, or 0.89% of all crimes, even though SCs and STs make up 25% of Bharat’s population. This translates to about 0.9% of crimes targeting this 25% of the population, compared to 99.1% of crimes committed against non-SC/ST populations.
In terms of crime rates, the national crime rate in 2020 was 487.8 per 100,000 people. The crime rate for the SC population was much lower, at 25 per 100,000, and for the ST population, it was even lower, at 7.9. This means that the crime rate in the SC population was 20 times lower than the national average, while the crime rate in the ST population was 62 times lower.
When it comes to jati-based crimes, only 8-10% of the total crimes against SC/ST individuals were filed under the SC/ST Act, which accounts for just 0.08% of all recorded crimes in 2020.
For the year 2021, NCRB data shows a total of 6,096,310 crimes. Of these, 50,900 were committed against the SC population, which made up 0.83% of the total, and 8,802 were against the ST population, accounting for 0.14%. In total, crimes against SCs and STs amounted to 59,702 cases, or 0.98%, even though they represent 25% of the population. This reflects a similar pattern, where only about 1% of crimes were against the SC/ST population, while 99% were against the non-SC/ST population.
The national crime rate in 2021 was 445.9 per 100,000 people, with the SC crime rate at 25.3 and the ST crime rate at 8.4. This indicates that the crime rate in the SC population was 18 times lower than the national average, and the crime rate in the ST population was 53 times lower.
As in previous years, around 10% of crimes against SC/ST individuals were filed under the SC/ST Act in 2021, meaning that only around 0.1% of total crimes were jati-based.
According to the NCRB 2022 data, a total of 5,824,946 crimes were recorded across Bharat. Of these, 57,582 crimes were committed against the Scheduled Caste (SC) population, representing 0.99% of the total, while 10,064 crimes were recorded against the Scheduled Tribe (ST) population, accounting for 0.17%. Together, crimes against SCs and STs amounted to 67,646 cases, or 1.16% of all crimes, despite SCs and STs making up 25% of Bharat’s population. This shows that around 1.2% of crimes were against this group, while 98.8% of crimes were committed against the non-SC/ST population.
The national crime rate in 2022 was 422.2 per 100,000 people. The crime rate for the SC population was significantly lower, at 28.6 per 100,000, and for the ST population, it was 9.6. This means that the crime rate in the SC population was 15 times lower than the national average, while the crime rate in the ST population was 44 times lower.
As with previous years, only 8-10% of the total crimes against SC/ST individuals were filed under the SC/ST Act, which accounts for just 0.12% of all recorded crimes in 2022.
In summary, the NCRB data consistently shows that crimes against SC/ST individuals make up only around 1% of total crimes in Bharat, even though their population constitutes 25%. Conversely, 99% of total crimes are against the non-SC/ST population, which represents about 75% of the total population. Moreover, the crime rates against SCs and STs are significantly lower than the national average crime rate. It’s also important to note that only 10% of the crimes against SC/ST individuals are filed under the SC/ST Act, suggesting that in 90% of cases, the accused are likely from the same communities. Additionally, various reports indicate that a large number of cases filed under the SC/ST Act turn out to be false, meaning the actual number of jati-based crimes may be even smaller.
Studies on the topic
Apart from the report by Sufiya Pathan and Dunkin Jalki, other articles also challenge the prevailing narrative of high jati-based atrocities. One such article by Nihar Shashittal, referenced in Pathan’s report, offers a critical examination of NCRB data from 1975 to 2019. This analysis reveals significant conceptual errors and fallacies in defining what constitutes an atrocity, suggesting that the narrative of excessive violence against SC/ST communities is flawed.
Key conclusions from Shashittal’s article include several critical points. First, the current definition of atrocity is criticized for being faulty and manipulated, which leads to an inflated perception of violence. The article argues that all crimes involving SC/ST individuals are often categorized as “atrocities” and are misleadingly equated with hate crimes due to ulterior motives.
Evidence and motive analysis of these so-called atrocity incidents typically reveal mundane disputes, such as road rage, petty quarrels, failed relationships, or business and land disputes, rather than instances of targeted hate crimes as portrayed by the media, activists, and politicians.
Furthermore, the article highlights that most incidents classified as atrocities are isolated and cannot be generalized to depict widespread violence.
The conflation of all crimes against SC/ST individuals with violence has led to a collapse in the gradation of crimes, resulting in disproportionate and harsh legal measures, such as those under the SC/ST Act.
The data concerning these crimes is not subjected to statistical or comparative analysis with other communities, and there is a serious error in not accounting for the jati of perpetrators when counting crimes.
Shashittal’s article also points out that 70% of crimes against SC/ST individuals are non-violent in nature. Historical data from 1975 to 2019 reveals that the crime rate against SC/ST communities is below average and relatively low compared to other groups.
Additionally, 70-78% of crimes against SC/ST individuals are of lesser severity but are still categorized as atrocities. This article also disputes claims that the low number of reported cases and convictions is due to partiality in the police or courts against SC/ST individuals.
Actual comparative data analysis reveals that there is no evidence of court or police partiality against SC/ST individuals. In fact, both the police and courts prioritize crimes against SC/ST communities and often achieve higher conviction rates when the victims belong to these groups. This indicates that the system is providing preference and not neglecting SC/ST cases, contrary to the portrayal in many media reports.
How media portrays the jati atrocities
To illustrate how media can distort the perception of jati-based crimes, consider the typical headlines and data presentation. For example, a headline might read, “Rise in Dalit Atrocities!” The accompanying data might highlight that there were 46,000 crimes against Dalits in 2019, representing a 7% increase from 2018. Additionally, it may mention that nine states reported a higher-than-average rate of crimes against Dalits.
However, what is often omitted from this portrayal is crucial context. The total number of crimes reported in 2019 was 5,156,172. The national average crime rate mentioned in these reports is the rate for crimes against SC individuals, which was 22.8. In contrast, the actual national average crime rate across all categories was 385.5, which is 17 times higher than the rate for SC crimes.
This selective presentation of data by media reporters and activists often involves highlighting only partial figures while neglecting comparative data that could debunk the narrative of “excessive atrocities” against SC/ST communities. By focusing on a limited set of statistics, the media can create a misleading impression of the prevalence and severity of jati-based crimes.
The media and activists often use various misrepresentation techniques to create an exaggerated narrative of Dalit atrocities. For instance, the 2019 NCRB data shows a total of 5,156,172 crimes, with crimes against SC individuals numbering 45,935. This translates to a crime rate of 22.8 per 100,000 SC individuals, which is significantly lower than the national average crime rate of 385.5. The data indicates that crimes against SC individuals constitute only 0.9% of total crimes, highlighting that 99% of crimes occur among other populations.
Despite this, media headlines often proclaim a “Rise in Dalit Atrocities!” and emphasize that there were 46,000 crimes against Dalits in 2019, marking a 7% increase from the previous year. They may also highlight that nine states reported higher-than-average crime rates against Dalits. However, they omit crucial information such as the fact that crimes against SC individuals are less than 1% of the total, and that the actual national crime rate is 385.5, not 22.8. Additionally, nine states with 54% of Dalits are not accounted for in this narrative.
Another misrepresentation technique involves highlighting the low conviction rate under the SC/ST Act, claiming it is only 32% while chargesheeting rates are high. The reality is that 70-80% of cases under the SC/ST Act are considered fake, with high chargesheeting rates due to the ease of filing FIRs, whereas convictions require substantial proof, which is often lacking.
Dalit activists may present data such as “13 Dalits Murdered Each Week!” while ignoring the broader context. The national average is 82 murders per day, equating to 574 murders per week. Thus, 13 murders of Dalits represent a very small fraction of the total, indicating that the rate of Dalit murders is relatively low.
Furthermore, media outlets often use different reporting techniques based on the identity of the accused. For example, a crime involving a Scheduled Tribe (ST) might be reported with a neutral headline like “Man Rapes Woman,” whereas a similar crime involving a Scheduled Caste (SC) victim might be highlighted as “Dalit Girl Raped.” This selective reporting creates a misleading impression of the prevalence and severity of jati-based crimes.
Another technique involves hiding the identity of the accused when they are from a reserved category and projecting all crimes as atrocities against Dalits, falsely insinuating that they are committed by general category individuals. Cases involving relatives who are also from the same community as the victim are often misrepresented as jati-based atrocities.
Additionally, unrelated issues and petty disputes are sometimes given a “jati-discrimination” angle, further distorting the narrative. For example, incidents like thieves being beaten by the public or disputes over entry in certain places are sometimes framed as jati-based issues, despite having no clear jati angle.
Media and activists may also highlight crimes or name accused individuals if they are from general category communities while concealing the accused’s identity if they are from reserved communities. This selective emphasis creates a skewed narrative, with the narrative changing based on the victim’s identity.
Finally, despite claims that the justice system neglects Dalits, data shows that police and courts prioritize crimes against SC/ST individuals and have higher conviction rates for these cases. This preference contradicts the claims of neglect and highlights how media and activists selectively present data to maintain a narrative of high atrocities against Dalits.
In summary, the media and activists often use selective data presentation and misrepresentation techniques to create an exaggerated narrative of Dalit atrocities. A comprehensive comparative analysis can reveal the inaccuracies in these claims, which is why complete data is rarely presented.
This article is based on an X thread by Dr Neha Das.
Academics and journalists will claim the crime statistics reflect severe underreporting of crimes against Dalits and tribals due to distrust in policemen or being threatened, harassed, or fear of retaliation. How would you respond to this?
Academics and journalists can give their findings and data.
If found wrong will be but behind bars for 10 years…then lets see how many academics and journalists will claim the crime statistics reflect severe under reporting of crimes against Dalits and tribals due to distrust in policemen or being threatened, harassed, or fear of retaliation. I know a brahmin girl was harassed her dalit seniors telling her all the non-sense while she was simply working there struggling for her family and life….she didn’t report but got herself transferred while no action against dalit….will academics and journalists also report such cases.
Nice article. Thank you!