State and crime

From 'The Sulur horror story of child sexual assault and murder', The Hindu, May 31, 2026:

Mr. Vijay, who sent Director-General of Police Sandeep Rai Rathore and Additional DGP (Law and Order) Maheshwar Dayal to Coimbatore after the crime, said the murder had caused immense pain and shock. …

Leader of the Opposition Udhayanidhi Stalin alleged that 30 major incidents of crime, including the murder of the girl, were reported within 12 days of Mr. Vijay assuming office, casting serious doubts about the State’s law and order situation. AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami accused the government of not taking swift action after receiving a complaint about the girl’s disappearance.

Udhayanidhi's criticism seems misguided. A single murder, however horrific, is not a good basis on which to judge the State's overall law and order situation or the safety of women and girls. Whether a crime occurred says nothing about law and order because serious crimes occur in every society, including those with highly capable police forces and governments. The more meaningful questions are whether crime rates are falling, whether the State can prevent foreseeable risks, how quickly it responds when a serious crime does occur, how effectively it investigates them, and whether the perpetrators are punished. A good law and order apparatus could never promise to prevent crime.

It is even more absurd that Tamil Nadu's law and order situation deteriorated within 12 days of a new government taking office — when it will have had little time to review and institute changes (as necessary) to policing, prosecution, the administration of criminal justice, urban planning, social services, and the many other factors that influence crime. In fact, one crime committed shortly after an election almost certainly originated in conditions that predated that government. In fact, the risk of sexual violence — as at Sulur — at large also depends on several factors, including the offender's behaviour, family and neighbourhood networks, policing practices, urban design, alcohol use, social norms, reporting rates, court effectiveness, school systems, and — like it or not — sheer chance.

No chief minister who has been in power for just under a fortnight can directly control these factors on a daily basis. This individual can effectively influence how the State reacts to crime, much less so whether a particular crime occurs. But over five years, a State government — like the one Udhayanidhi was until recently part of — can matter substantially because they can hire more police officers, improve the State's forensic capacity, expand CCTV coverage, redesign unsafe public spaces, strengthen survivor support services, accelerate trials, improve conviction rates, regulate alcohol sales, improve public transport safety, and invest in education and social welfare.

Yet again, even if these changes can alter the probability that such crimes occur and the likelihood that offenders are caught and punished, these changes will not eliminate crimes against women and girls with certainty. But even more: a government should be judged less by a handful of shocking cases than by long-term trends. If crimes against women, child sexual offences, murder rates, conviction rates, response times, and public perceptions of safety improve (or do not) over several years, then it is reasonable to attribute some responsibility to the government. Otherwise, it is just bickering.

Featured image credit: Joshua Coleman/Unsplash.