ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Ghettoisation, Crime and Punishment in Mumbai

The entrenchment of neoliberal policies and a deepening social and economic divide are the primary reasons for the exacerbation of crime and social conflict in cities such as Mumbai. The very same reasons work in the intensification of social divides through selective punishment of the weaker sections which are already facing the brunt of such policies.

NOTESaugust 16, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly68Ghettoisation, Crime and Punishment in MumbaiAbdul ShabanAbdul Shaban ( is with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. The entrenchment of neoliberal policies and a deepening social and economic divide are the primary reasons for the exacerbation of crime and social conflict in cities such as Mumbai. The very same reasons work in the intensification of social divides through selective punishment of the weaker sections which are already facing the brunt of such policies.Amajority of the countries over the last decade or so have undergone drastic economic changes in rela-tions of production. They have seen an entrenchment of neoliberalism and a withering away of the welfare state. The class relations have further accentuated the amplifying of caste, gender, religious, regional and similar divides. The divides have become visible at two levels. At the class level within communities or groups (defined on the bases of some similarities/homogeneities such as geographic, or belief) and other at the national level. Both the vertical and horizontal schisms in a country like India have come to the fore quite glaringly. The communities have been trying to protect their economic interest from others, but simultaneously within communities the upper classes gar-ner maximum benefits. The manipulations and divisions have been led by the economic and social inter-ests of the bourgeoisie in each of the groups, and the splits and conflicts have been generated by misusing and exploiting the sentiments and emotions of weaker sections through the creation of a false consciousness of community loyalties. New geographies are being created which carry the social attributes and are graded and referred so. This, in turn, reinforces the social and spatial divisions. The emerging social conflicts manifesting in spatial con-tradictions, disputes, and fracas are endan-gering the basic human rights and security of individuals. The spaces have become more defined in “their” and “our” forms. Even public spaces have become domi-nated by a few, and without secure public space, personal and private freedom can-not exist. One of the characteristics of a properly functioning society is that it pro-vides a degree of security to its members. But these are the basic securities that have been jeopardised by economic interests through social engineering and political manipulation. The world has also seen the unprecedented expansion of punishment practices that intensify social divisions rooted in class, race, religion and caste. The gargantuanisation of cities has fur-ther expanded the divide, conflict and segregations. This has led to a special emphasis on physical planning to create secure spaces and streets in cities. Criminality is a social construction. Criminals are imminently social creations and are conditioned by an array of social dynamics. Among others, one needs, there-fore, to take into account (1) the dynamics of capitalist accumulation and that of the neo-liberal project, (2) content and operation of criminal laws, (3) ethnic segregation in urban space, and (4) manufacturing of pho-bias to understand crime, criminality and criminogenesis in contemporary societies. The present paper attempts to explore and explain contemporary forces behind social division and their linkage with emerging crimes and punishments in India and specifically in Mumbai. The glo-bal and national issues shape the social and spatial formations at local levels. Mumbai being a major city in the country, important to capitalistic formations, is widely influenced by such forces and often in amplified ways.The Neoliberal Project The most fundamental feature of peoples’ lives is their relationship to the mode of production. Capitalism is a system of accu-mulation that organises production and social reproduction to extract surplus value. As it does so, accumulation gener-ates such behaviour registered as crime by the state [Humphries and Wallace 1980]. In the capitalist system, where the means of production are in private hands and where there invariably develops a division between the class that rules (the owners of the means of the production) and the class that is ruled (those who work for the ruling class), creates substantial amount of crime, often of the most violent sort, as a result of the contradictions that are inherent in the structure of social relations [Chambliss 1975, p 150]. As capitalism develops, con-flicts between social classes become more
NOTESEconomic & Political Weekly EPW august 16, 200869frequent, pronounced and violent (as a result for example, increasing proletariani-sation), and more and more acts are defined as criminal [Chambliss 1975]. In the process, the cultures and social groups which stand against these formation get designated as blighted and perverted.The strikes by the textile mill workers in Mumbai in the 1980s for raising wages and against closure of the mills exemplify this. The state, colluding with owners of the mills, used its machinery to drive the work-ers out, which led to the penury and pov-erty of the families of workers resulting in entry of many youth and the mill workers in unlawful activities for survival. The withdrawal of welfare schemes in the neoliberal regime and the amplifica-tion of wants has led to lumpenisation of a section of the proletariat. The greed for wealth and income in both the rich and the poor has only risen. These have often led to the subversion of established rules and their manipulation – both by the rich and the poor, and those part of govern-ment machinery. A policeman will not hesitate to take a bribe to register even suchhorrendous case as rape, a loss of life, or murder. The system punishes those who are weak, and empowers those who are already numerically or economically ahead.The neoliberal environment and the social conflicts engineered by it need to be looked through alternative paradigms for explanation. The contemporary theories of criminal etiology (such as “family background”, “differential association”, “cultural deprivation”, “opportunity theory” and host of other theories) are not adequate to the task unless Marxist expla-nations are taken into account. Gambling, prostitution, drug distribution, pornogra-phy, and usury (high interest loan) flour-ish in lower class areas of the country and the city with encouragement by the major political and law enforcement officials in the city. Criminal behaviour in upper class sections seldom gets exposed. Criminal behaviour is not concentrated in the lower class and among minorities only. Miscar-riage of justice due to differential access to information and resources which means that it is only the weak who get punished and jailed. In a situation where law enforcement agencies themselves suffer from class, race and ethnic biases, justice for weaker sections cannot be expected. In Mumbai about 60 per cent of the population lives in slums and shanties and is often looked upon with division and suspicion. The people living in these slums and shanties are considered as illegal resi-dents and are forever threatened, thrown out or their properties destroyed/confis-cated. It is an irony that these threats per-sist despite such people constituting a majority of the city’s population, indicat-ing a democratic deficit in lawmaking and institution of regulations.Spatiality of NeoliberalismThe spatiality of neoliberalism is quite dis-cernable in the cityscape of Mumbai as also in the other cities in India. In Mumbai, on one side there are Manhattan-type sky-scrapers (mainly in the main city and along the coast in western suburb) while at the same time there are slum-dwellings on thousands of acres mainly inswampy lands and garbage dumps (inGovandi-Shivaji Nagar, Mankhurd and Dharavi). Neoliber-alism also advocates “smart growth”: anti-sprawl development that is environmen-tally, fiscally and economically smart and involves innovative land-use planning tech-niques and a range of housing for providing shelter for all economic groups. Yet, since neoliberalism is based on the premise of increasing consumption and an inevitable generation of wastes, the logic of smart growth is an untenable one. By dumping wastes in someone else’s courtyard, “smart growth” cannot be created. Further, given the presence of a distorted real estate mar-ket, the question of provision of a range of housing becomes irrelevant. “Smart growth” is a terminological innovation like many others created for deception. In Mumbai, resettlement and rehabilitation of the slum-dwellers from railway lines and roads (that are often needed to be widened to facilitate the flow of private cars and vehicle) have been taken up by the government of Maharash-tra with the help of World Bank loans. But the whole exercise seems to be of isolating a certain group of the population at one place without even providing basic social and physical infrastructure like schools, hospitals, and transport facilities. The lack of basic amenities and job opportunities (due to odd locations) at new sites is resulting in social disorganisation and pushing youth towards crime, drug addic-tion and prostitution. Even those who are retaining their earlier jobs have faced ero-sion in their income due to increased cost of transport and payment of high electric-ity bills, which has been privatised recently. Thus, poverty and vulnerability has been reintroduced into thousands of slums-dwellers through the policy of pro-viding substandard flats for the purpose of residence. Planners need to understand that spatial contexts do matter in the con-duct of social action. Geography is a con-stituent of social behaviour and not just its backdrop [Herbert and Brown 2006]. By cornering the poor to odd locations, the state has made them more vulnerable.GhettoisationThe spatiality of neoliberalism gets alsomanifested through: (1) hyper- punitiveness, mass incarceration, and catastrophic impacts of these punitive policies on communities of disadvantage; (2) spatialised entrenchment (neoliberal-ism conceals inequality while simultane-ously promoting it). Thousands of citizens living in slums of Bandra and Jogeshwari, for example, were rounded off by the police after bomb blasts in local trains in the city on July 11, 2006 on the suspicion that some of them had participated in the act. The suspicion was based on no other ground except that these slums largely house Mus-lim populations. Hundreds were taken to the police stations and arrested and were let off only after demonstrations and agita-tions by human rights activists. Biases exist during provision of basic amenities and facilities to slum-dwellers. Slums are places where entrenchment of poverty is acute, and these dwellings are dominated by minorities and other disadvantaged sec-tions such as dalits. Thus social divisions are mirrored in spatial ones.The expansion of and growth within cities is necessary for the health and fate of the economy dominated by capitalism. The expansion of cities is often based on the planned usurpation of lands of farmers and the capture of water resources used for sub-sistence by local communities. The creation and expansion of Navi Mumbai as an exten-sion of Mumbai was possible only due to
NOTESaugust 16, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly70capture of land and water resources owned by farmers and fishermen. The planned Maha Mumbai and Navi Mumbai special economic zones (SEZs) on the southern edge of the Navi Mumbai as centres of “rec-reation” and “consumption” with periph-eral manufacturing are other examples of the grand capitalist initiative to expand the city bounds and to grab land for real estate profiteering. About 1,25,000 people resid-ing in 54 villages are going to be affected by the SEZs [Shaban and Sharma 2005]. Dis-placed people are bound to be affected by the vagaries of the new economy and it is but obvious that these sections would be indeed further pushed into slums and perhaps into the “world of crime”.BeautificationBesides outer expansion, cities are also reinventing and restructuring their existing land use. This is known as “gentrification”, through which the so-called “blighted” areas, often the city centre and poor locali-ties, are restructured to facilitate real estate realisation. Demolition of the old city for creation of newer buildings has become a reality in the city of Mumbai. The slums are being grabbed and slum-dwellers displaced due to the nexus of builders, politician and the bureaucrats. Profiteering by builders, and rent-seeking by the politicians and bureaucrats has become a norm. Politicians in the city have accrued for themselves crores of rupees through such rent-seeking. The expansion of malls, neo-rich housing colonies and eviction of slum-dwellers, are leading to shrinkage of spaces of the poor in the city. The entire operation is about not removing poverty but the poor. The consumption economy has become the basis for economic policymaking in Mumbai. The increased gaps between the rich and the poor, the ostentatious lifestyle of the rich in contrast to the shabby exist-ence of the poor, has resulted in increased involvement of the youth from the poorer sections in crimes related to property and “quick money”.Incarceration of MinoritiesThe economic transformations due to neo-liberalism translates into cultural anxieties that fuel exclusionary tendencies, crimes and conflicts [Herbert and Brown 2006]. To contain this, expansion of criminal justice apparatus has taken place. Impris-onment is now the principal strategy for controlling and regimenting people of a certain class origin. Police lock-ups and jails in the country are overcrowded with a 141 per cent jail occupation rate [National Crime Report Bureau 2006], and in Mum-bai city there is hardly any room in jails to house newly arrested people.The national and state level data on jail capacity and inmate occupancy presented in Table 1 show the sad state of affairs. A background check on the inmates warehoused in jails across the country is constitutive. Data presented in Table 2 (p 71) for the year 1999 and 2004 show that people belonging to religious minori-ties, particularly Muslims, and those from scheduled castes (SCs) and scheduled tribes (STs) “contribute” most of the members of inmates in Indian jails. Muslims constitute about 13.4 per cent of the total population in the country, but their share in total jail inmates is about 21.5 per cent. The share of Muslim prisoners was 28.4 per cent and 22.5 per cent of the total detenues and un-dertrials, respectively, in jails in 2004. The bias among the police, executive organs and politicians against Muslims has been an open secret and the global and local incidences are further reinforcing the bias and hate. Further, given the economic and social vulnerability faced by minorities, particularly Muslims, it is easy to jail them and apply tough and draconian laws like Terrorist and Disrup-tive Activities (Pre-vention) Act (TADA), 1987, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002 and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against them. In fact, these are the factors responsible for their higher share in total prisoners and the community-wise lop-sided prison statis-tics. Almost similar are the fate of other weaker and margin-alised sections – SCs and STs. Further, more than two-thirds of those in jails are either illiterate or educated under 10th standard in schooling. Thus, the prison statistics show enough evidence of class, caste and religion based criminality/incarceration that the neoliberal policies and cultural and religious intolerance/bi-ases have contributed to.In almost all the states, the share of Muslim jail inmates is higher than the share of their population in total state population. However, as shown in Figure1 (p 72), the difference is much higher in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Punjab. Table 3 (p 73) further shows that in almost all the states, the share of Muslims in total convicts, under-trials, detenues and other jail inmates is substantially higher than their share in total population in the respective states. In 2004, Muslims constituted as much as 54.5 per cent of undertrial jail inmates in West Bengal, and 33.1 per cent and 29.5 per cent in Maharashtra and Gujarat, respectively. Criminal LawThe rules and laws are made by the bour-geois and majority groups to contain the protests and resistance by the proletariat and numerically weaker. Criminal behav-iour is a product of the economic and political system [Chambliss 1975]. It first creates criminals and then tries to contain Table 1: Inmates in Jails in IndiaSN States/UTs 1999 2004 AnnualGrowth Available Inmate Occupancy Available Inmate Occupancy Rate (%) of CapacityPopulationRate CapacityPopulationRate Inmates 1 Andhra Pradesh 11347 12668 111.6 12270 13881 113.1 1.9 2 Assam 6041 6358 105.2 6215 7828 126.0 4.6 3 Bihar 26138 46168 176.6 21575 33073 153.3 1.9 4 Chhattisgarh – – – 4563 8873 194.5 – 5 Gujarat 5353 8284 154.8 5543 11570 208.7 7.9 6 Jharkhand – – – 5814 17497 300.9 – 7 Karnataka 7718 8370 108.4 9271 11542 124.5 7.6 8 Kerala 5659 5139 90.8 5859 7194 122.8 8.0 9 MadhyaPradesh 19150 35121 183.4 17374 28932 166.5 1.510 Maharashtra 16621 20805 125.2 16216 24922 153.7 4.011 Orissa 7513 10923 145.4 8006 13158 164.4 4.112 Punjab 9569 10752 112.4 10754 15064 140.1 8.013 Rajasthan 15653 10458 66.8 15778 13171 83.5 5.214 Tamil Nadu 18135 16410 90.5 18152 21102 116.3 5.715 Uttar Pradesh 33430 51427 153.8 33868 51706 152.7 1.016 West Bengal 19644 11360 57.8 19721 16319 82.7 8.717 Delhi 3237 10512 324.7 5050 12610 249.7 4.0 All-India 219844 281380 128.0 235012 331391 141.0 3.6Data for Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttarakhand have been clubbed with their parent states, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, respectively, while calculating growth rate.Source: NCRB various years.
NOTESEconomic & Political Weekly EPW august 16, 200871them through the application of criminal law. Criminal law is thus not a reflection of customs, but is a set of rules laid down by the “state” in the interest of ruling class and the majority. There is a little evidence to support that the criminal law is a body of rule which reflects strongly held moral dictates of the society, but there is consid-erable evidence showing the critically important role played by the interest of the ruling class as a major force in the cre-ation of criminal law. The class structure of a society acts as an important force for legal innovation. These innovations and designs are created by the ruling class in order to protect and perpetuate its posi-tion. Some hit and run cases of cars driven by the elites are suitable examples in this context. Even after killing a number of people sleeping on footpaths, the offend-ers wander scot-free. The same applies to the perpetrators of riots in Mumbai, Gujarat and elsewhere in the country. A person with money can pay to be excused from any type or amount of crime. Simi-larly, an improper dance by a film actor invites appreciation, but a similar per-formance by a poor girl for meeting day to day needs and basics for survival is termed vulgar and banned by the state. Usurious moneylenders in villages are punished but the usurious bankers are appreciated as economic giants and pillars of social and economic development. Usurious money-lenders take the law into their hands to punish non-payers, but to assist usurious bankers the police go to arrest defaulters and confiscate his/her property.In India, and particularly in Mumbai, the police has been actively involved in prosecuting the weaker sections and minority groups as also is the judiciary, whose decisions are based on the collected information from the police and investi-gating departments. Those from dominant and numerically powerful group go scot-free.In the police firing that took place atRamabai Chawl in 1997, following the desecration of Ambedkar’s statue, 11 inno-cent dalits were killed. Similarly, in riots between Hindus and Muslims in the city, the police has been taking partisan roles and had killed a significant number of Muslims. The police act in reactive instead of being a force preventive. The rioters of some political parties are allowed to cre-ate mayhem and destroy properties of mil-lions of rupees. These facts are well brought out by the justice B N Srikrishna Commission Report on the Mumbai riots in 1992-93. Several other judicial commis-sions on riots have also indicted leaders of majoritarian groups and question the role of sectarian political groups.The July 2007 judgment of TADA court about the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993 has further created suspicions about the neutrality of the political, police and the judicial system. Those responsible for organising riots in 1992-93 in the city and killing hundreds of people from the minor-ity groups (the death as per official figures are of 575 Muslims and 275 Hindus) are free and most of the cases against them have been dropped because of the active involvement of the state government, poli-ticians, bureaucrats, and the police in strategy justice. Those responsible for the serial bomb blasts and belonging to the minority community have been severely punished; a total of 12 death penalties have been awarded against members of the minority community.Dynamics of Ethnic SegregationSeveral spatial pockets can be identified in Mumbai city which are housing only members of the wretched sections of soci-ety. These spaces mirror the social prod-ucts and processes at work. These are the lower class, caste and minority groups of the population who generally occupy the worse off locations in the city and often these locations are marginally served by the civic amenities that modern cities otherwise are tented for. Although a mix of areas of high and low income, caste and religious groups can be found everywhere, the city of Mumbai can be divided into three main areas: (1) the main city – which largely houses the high and middle income groups and the major commercial and financial services, (2) the western suburb – the abode of business areas and residential location for high and middle income groups, (3) the eastern suburb, largely an area where the lower classes live and from where they mainly commute from to work in the main city and the western suburbs. About 60 per cent of the total popula-tion live in slums and shanties in the city. As per the City Development Plan 2005-2025 report by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), these slums cover only 7 per cent of the total 437.71 sqkm of area of the city. Thus there is a very high concentration and congestion in Table 2: Socio-Religious Group-wise Distribution (%) of Prisoners in Jails in IndiaClassification Share(%) As on December 31, 1999 As on December 31, 2004 inTotal ConvictsUndertrial Detenues OthersTotal ConvictsUndertrialDetenuesOthersTotal PopulationA Religion-wise Distribution (%) of Jail Inmates Hindus 80.5 71.1 66.3 73.8 74.5 67.7 70.7 69.9 56.0 65.8 69.6Muslims 13.4 16.5 23.2 18.1 15.9 21.4 19.1 22.5 28.4 20.3 21.5Sikh 2.3 4.0 2.8 1.2 0.6 3.1 4.2 3.8 4.1 0.0 3.7Christian 1.9 3.6 3.7 4.9 3.0 3.7 4.8 3.0 0.3 13.4 4.1Others 1.9 4.8 3.9 2.0 6.0 4.1 1.2 0.8 11.2 0.4 1.0Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0B Caste-wise Distribution (%) of Jail Inmates SC 16.2 22.0 22.5 19.9 36.5 22.4 21.2 21.6 23.4 35.4 22.0ST 8.2 14.1 13.2 7.9 11.3 13.3 16.3 12.2 11.6 12.3 13.4OBC NA 32.0 34.7 32.5 21.4 33.9 29.4 26.8 28.8 30.5 27.7Others NA 31.8 29.6 39.8 30.8 30.4 33.1 39.4 36.2 21.8 36.8Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0C Educational Standard-wise Distribution (%) of Jail Inmates Illiterate 45.5 37.2 35.0 29.0 54.6 35.5 38.5 34.0 38.6 31.8 36.9Below class X 46.8 41.7 38.9 48.6 31.3 39.8 41.0 44.2 31.7 41.8 41.9Above class X but below graduate 3.7 15.9 22.1 16.9 11.8 20.4 15.7 16.1 25.7 25.3 16.2Graduate 3.7 3.6 2.9 4.5 2.3 3.1 3.7 4.1 3.3 0.7 3.7Postgraduate 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.8Diploma,tech degree 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.5Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Total (No) 1028,610,328 70252 204480 5360 1288 281380 217130 98527 4491 11243 331391Sources: (1) Share of population for various religions, caste and educational standard are taken from Census of India 2001.(2) Inmate population has been computed for the year 1999 and 2001using data from NCRB, New Delhi.
38.7 24.2 39.0 34.5 28.8 28.2 9.5 21.4 16.4 26.0 29.4 11.6 10.3 1.7 4.5 54.0 33.9 32.8 30.6 28.0 26.3 25.1 22.7 21.5 20.2 19.6 17.0 13.5 13.1 12.3 10.6 7.9 4.0 % of jail inmates in 1999 % of jail inmates in 2004 % of Muslim population
NOTESEconomic & Political Weekly EPW august 16, 200873the creation of some of the TV channels and newspapers. So, instead of promoting inte-gration, the handling of news and their dramatisation and sensationalisation is cre-ating social divides in the country and act towards generating and furthering the ten-dencies of Islamophobia and collective fear.The city spaces are also glamorised or demonised. The areas dominated by mem-bers of the high classes are often depicted as safer spaces and those inhabited by the poor are presented in a negative light: they are shown as areas of criminals, grime, filth, dirt and life-threatening. The images which are created are often far from reali-ties. These images determine the socio-economic processes and reinforce the eco-nomic consequences – keeping their resi-dents in vicious circle of poverty as inves-tors do not want to go there and the gov-ernment hardly bothers to perform any improvement work. Govandi, Kurla, Nag-pada, Chembur, Behrampada, Anik, Antop Hill, etc, are examples of such places in Mumbai city. Thus, the spatial reality of cit-ies and pervasive social constructions of reality are generated by a broad array of processes. The construction of apprehen-sion of space is not natural, inevitable occurrence, but is social creation worthy of critique [Herbert and Brown 2006].ConclusionsNo one is biologically born as criminal. It is society which creates criminals. It is the relationship of individuals with the mode of production which largely determines the social outcomes like crime. In societies which are oppressive and pervaded by inequalities, poverty, and discrimination, crime is often high. The capitalistic mode of production which is based on the premise of accumulation and usurpation often generates behaviour which is termed as crime. The entrenchment of neoliberal-ism in recent decades has further exacer-bated the social conflicts and criminality in societies and more so in the wonders of capitalist formation – cities. Crime theo-ries often ignore dynamics critical to urban criminality: uneven development, racial segregation, and social production of fear [Herbert and Brown 2006, p 757]. In fact without taking these into account, a complete understanding of criminality and criminal law can hardly be had.Exclusionary tendency is a core compo-nent of neoliberalism. It divides people and excludes them on the basis of economic and social achievements. It creates fear in the weak about the processes of usurpation of their limited and traditional resources by the rich and dominant. The differences and schism created by it and amplified by the political class for furthering their own inter-est entrenches the collective fears and sus-picions of one class about the other, one community about the other, one caste about the other, and one region about the other. Neoliberalism promotes and seeks to satisfy individual objects, and defeats the forma-tion of collective goals. It works to generate economic and cultural anxieties and fears, and the fears reverberate throughout minority communities and the vulnerable. Though it generates growth, it also intensi-fies economic disparities. Mass incarcera-tion and hyper-punitiveness are justified by neoliberal rationalities of state-society rela-tionships and dynamics of urban capitalism [Herbert and Brown 2006]. The dynamics of (urban) capitalism, ethnic segregation, and manufacturing of phobias are complex process that transcend neighbourhood, and also critically shape the pattern of crime, much visible on cityscapes.ReferencesChambliss, William J (1975): ‘Towards a Political Economy of Crime’,Theory and Society, Vol 2, No 2,pp149-70.Feldman, L (2004): Citizens without Shelters: Home-lessness, Democracy and Political Exclusion, Cor-nell University Press, Ithaca, New York.Felson, M (2002): Crime and Everyday Life, Sage Publi-cations, Thousand Oaks, California.Friedman, Thomas (2000):The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Anchor Press, New York.Government of India (2006):Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community of India, Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi, November.Harvey, David (2000):Spaces of Hope, University of California Press, California. – (2005): A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Herbert, Steve and Elizabeth Brown (2006): ‘Concep-tion of Space and Crime in the Punitive Neoliberal City’,Antipode, Vol 38, No 755-77.Herman, Edward S and Noam Chomsky (1988): Manu-facturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media, Pantheon Books, New York.Humphries, D and Wallace Don (1980): ‘Capital Accu-mulation and Urban Crime’, Social Problems, Vol28, No 2, pp 179-93.Larner, W and W Walters (2004): ‘Globalisation as Governmentality’, Alternatives, Vol 29, No 5, pp 495-514.MCGM: Mumbai City Development Plan 2005-2025, available at mno128ver2eng.pdf, accessed on August 17, 2007. Mitchell, D (2001): ‘The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Antihomeless Laws in the United States’ in N Blomley and R T Ford (eds), The Legal Geographies Reader, Blackwell Publications, Malden, Massachusetts.NCRB: Prison Statistics-India, various years, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.Pollin, Robert (2003): Contours of Descent: US Eco-nomic Fractures and the Landscape of Global Aus-terity, Verso, New York.Shaban, Abdul (2006): City, Space and Crime: A Case of Mumbai Megapolis, Research Report, Tata Insti-tute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai.Shaban, Abdul and R N Sharma (2005): Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of Maha Mumbai Special Eco-nomic Zone (MMSEZ), Project Report, Tata Insti-tute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai.Sharma, R N (2007): ‘The Housing Market in Mumbai Metropolis and Its Relevance to the Average Citizen’ in Annapurna Shaw (ed), Indian Cities in Transition, Orient Longman, Hyderabad, pp 383-13.Wilson, J and G Kelling (1997): ‘Broken Windows’ in R Dunham and G Alper (eds),Critical Issues in Policing, Waveland Press, Illinois, pp 424-37. Table 3: Share (%) of Muslim Inmates as per Different Categories in Major States in IndiaStates/UTs ConvictsUndertrialsDetenuesOthersTotal 1999 2004Change1999 2004Change1999 2004Change1999 2004Change1999 2004Change 1999-04 1999-04 1999-04 1999-04 1999-04Andhra Pradesh 11.2 8.9 -2.3 11.7 15.3 3.6 0.0 18.4 18.4 19.0 0.0 -19.0 11.6 13.1 1.6Assam 37.2 32.3 -4.8 40.0 34.7 -5.3 23.9 7.5 -16.5 36.1 42.9 6.7 39.0 32.8 -6.2Bihar 30.2 11.6 -18.5 25.3 18.2 -7.1 18.6 10.8 -7.8 26.3 8.8 -17.5 26.0 17.0 -9.0Chhattisgarh 0.0 4.8 – – 11.2 – – 0.0 – – 0.0 – – 7.9 --Gujarat 28.0 25.3 -2.8 29.2 29.5 0.3 29.4 27.5 -1.8 0.0 0.0 28.8 28.0 -0.8Jharkhand 0.0 23.0 – – 19.0 – – 100.0 – – 0.0 – – 20.2 --Karnataka 41.9 22.0 -19.9 25.3 9.8 -15.5 34.9 11.5 -23.5 10.3 27.3 16.9 29.4 13.5 -15.9Kerala 24.8 33.0 8.2 23.5 34.4 10.9 86.4 100.0 13.6 0.0 33.3 33.3 24.2 33.9 9.8MadhyaPradesh 8.0 10.0 2.0 12.4 14.3 1.9 25.0 60.0 35.0 1.0 16.7 15.6 10.3 12.3 2.0Maharashtra 26.5 26.2 -0.4 38.9 33.1 -5.8 21.6 41.8 20.1 15.4 13.5 -1.9 34.5 30.6 -3.8Orissa 0.4 2.4 1.9 5.9 4.7 -1.3 3.9 0.0 -3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.0 -0.5Punjab 2.1 9.0 6.8 1.5 11.4 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 10.6 8.9Rajasthan 14.9 19.4 4.5 16.8 19.4 2.6 80.6 100.0 19.4 12.9 19.0 6.1 16.4 19.6 3.2Tamil Nadu 9.0 28.9 19.9 11.0 17.4 6.4 5.7 13.9 8.2 2.5 20.8 18.2 9.5 22.7 13.2Uttar Pradesh 20.4 25.5 5.0 29.3 25.4 -4.0 27.6 20.7 -6.9 25.8 3.4 -22.4 28.2 25.1 -3.1West Bengal 32.7 52.3 19.6 40.5 54.5 14.0 100.0 0.0 -100.0 46.5 55.6 9.0 38.7 54.0 15.4Delhi 0.0 26.4 – – 26.2 – – 86.7 – – 0.0 – – 26.3 –All-India 16.5 19.1 2.6 23.2 22.5 -0.7 18.1 28.4 10.3 15.9 20.3 4.5 21.4 21.5 0.1Source: NCRB various issues.

To read the full text Login

To know more about our subscription offers Click Here.


(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top