SPECIAL ARTICLE

Gender-based Crime and Gender Inequality in India

A Subnational Analysis
Paribhasha Sharma

This study, using health, empowerment and labour

market metrics, reviews gender inequality and
gender-based crimes in India at the subnational level.
The findings show that gender-based crime rates have
grown while general crime rates have decreased over
the years. Further, the distribution of states by the
gender inequality index does not follow a pattern. States
with low and high GII show similar average rates for
gender-based crimes while moderate GII states show the
highest average rates for gender-based crimes. The
growth rates for gender-based crimes, however, are
lowest for low GII states but continue to be the highest
for moderate GII states.

The author is grateful to an anonymous referee and to Annapurna Shaw

for valuable suggestions that helped improve the paper. The author
also thanks her colleagues (Debarati Basu, Srujana Pinjala, Sankalpa
Satapathy and Ambuj Anand) at the Indian Institute of Management
Calcutta for their insights that helped shape the paper.
Paribhasha Sharma (paribhashaks10@iimcal.ac.in) is a doctoral student
at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.

48

ender-based crime, particularly sexual violence in

India has captured national and international attention.
The rising graph of various gender-based crimes
(National Crime Records Bureau 2011) poses a serious question on the safety of women and girls at homes as well as
in public spaces. According to the National Crime Records
Bureau (hereafter, NCRB), the rate of total crime in 2011
reported a decrease by 7.4% while that against women
increased by 7.1% over 2010. Incidents like the Park Street
rape in Kolkata,1 Nirbhaya gang rape2 in New Delhi and
Shakti Mills gang rape3 in Mumbai have created headlines in
the last two years and remain afresh in public memory. The
Nirbhaya case which involved the brutal gang rape and death
of a college student in Delhi (rechristened Nirbhaya by the
media) generated nationwide protest and called for reforms
in rape laws. Baxi (2014) observes that the Nirbhaya case
brought sexual violence against women, which had largely
remained confined to feminists and queer movements, to the
public discourse.
The examples stated above show that such violence is widespread and takes multiple forms. It happens at home, on the
streets, in schools, colleges, at workplace, during conflict
(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 protection from violence or crime4 as one of the capabilities that
contribute to the quality of life.
Gender inequality has been consistently cited as an underlying 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
between men and women was also an important point of
observation by the United Nations General Assembly, in its
1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against
Women (Wall 2014). With this understanding, international
organisations like World Health Organization (hereafter,
WHO) have focused on promoting gender equality as a critical
preventive measure against gendered violence (WHO 2009).
NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

However, academic evidence on the association between

gender inequality and violence against women remains inconclusive. While some empirical studies find a positive relationship (backlash hypothesis; Gartner et al 1990; Whaley and
Messner 2002), some find a negative relationship (see ameliorative hypothesis; Bailey and Peterson 1995) and some others
find no significant relationship (Brewer and Smith 1995; Lee
and Stevenson 2006). The lack of clear and definite conclusions about different aspects of gender inequality and different kinds of gender-based violence indicate the need for more
research, especially of the societal level factors (Wall 2014).
Literature on this association has also remained limited in
India (Dalal 2011; Sabarwal et al 2013). This analysis seeks to
fill this gap by analysing the association between gender
inequality and crime against women in India in a bid to identify
whether equality can be a policy response to reducing gendered violence in India.
Though gender-based violence encompasses violence
against all gender, this paper is focused on women. So, for the
purpose of the present study, gender-based violence is defined
as crime against women (hereafter, CAW) particularly. The
present study is based on analysis of secondary data from the
annual reports of NCRB. Data on reported incidences of CAW in
India for the period 19952012 is analysed. United Nations
Development Programmes (hereafter, UNDP) gender inequality
index (hereafter, GII) is reconstructed for the 15 large states of
India.5 The aim is to examine whether (a) gender inequality is
associated with CAW and (b) the association, if any, differs
across diverse Indian states.
The findings show that at the national level, CAW is rising
while all India total crime rate is declining. CAW consistently rises
during the period of analysis (19952012). At the subnational
level, the southern states of Tamil Nadu and Kerala rank lower
on GII indicating lower gender inequality in the south than all
other regions of the country. It is also found that the states
with moderate GII have the highest rate of reported CAW while
the states in low and high GII category do not differ much in
CAW rates. This indicates that changing gender inequality is
unrelated to the existing level of CAW but plays a key role in
controlling the growth rate of CAW. The moderate group however, remains an anomaly as despite being better on GII, it has
the highest CAW rate. Overall, the results show that reducing
gender inequality has a positive association with decreasing
CAW growth rates.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 1
reviews the literature on gender-based violence and gender
inequality. This is helpful in understanding the relationships
examined. Section 2 discusses data and methodology adopted
for the study. The findings of the study are detailed in Section 3.
Section 4 concludes the paper.
1 Gender Inequality and Violence: Complex Relationship

Gender-based violence, despite being a pervasive phenomenon, is one of the most ignored and normalised form
of abuse, affecting lives of millions of women and girls
(Bhatla 2012). Gender-based violence refers to any physical,
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

sexual or psychological violence against women either inside

or outside home and family. According to Ellsberg and Heise
(2005), there is increasing international consensus that the
abuse of women and girls, regardless of where it occurs,
should be considered as gender-based violence, as it largely
stems from womens subordinate status in society with
regard to men. This subordinate status reflects gender
inequality, which is a universal phenomenon in most of the
societies of the world. In simple terms, it means unequal perceptions or treatments meted out to men and women based
on their gender.
Gender inequality and gender-based violence against women
share a complex relationship. According to the WHO and the
United Nations, domestic and other forms of gender-based
violence are inextricably linked to each other and are the key
obstacles to gender equality; the lack of which increases the
risk of violence by men against women and inhibits the
ability of those affected to seek protection (Smit 2012). Watts
and Zimmerman (2002) contend that violence against women
is not only an expression of gender inequality but also helps
maintain this power imbalance. It manifests as a vicious
loop where women do not challenge the power imbalance (out
of fear), and this unequal status increases their vulnerability
to violence, which in turn fuels the violence perpetrated
against them.
Feminist theory is the dominant model for explaining gender-based violence (Gelles 1993). It contends that genderbased violence is rooted in gender inequality at the societal
level (Bograd 1988; Ellsberg 2006). One feminist approach,
namely ameliorative hypothesis (Whaley and Messner 2002),
argues that gender-based violence against women can be
reduced by eliminating patriarchy, enhancing womens socioeconomic status and increasing gender equality. Thus, females
access to education, employment, income and legal assistance
may lead to a reduction in female victimisation (Straus 1994;
Baron and Straus 1987; Peterson and Bailey 1992; Bailey
and Peterson 1995; Vieraitis et al 2007). The other feminist
approach, backlash hypothesis (Brownmiller 1975; Russell 1975;
Williams and Holmes 1981) counters ameliorative hypothesis
with the argument that uplifted female socio-economic and
gender equality statuses escalate violence against them rather
than reducing it (Gartner et al 1990; Vieraitis and Williams
2002; DeWees and Parker 2003; Iyer et al 2011). Some research
does not align with either of the feminist approach and shows
no significant relationship (Brewer and Smith 1995; Lee and
Stevenson 2006).
In the Indian context, Dreze and Khera (2000) hint at a
strong link between gender relations and criminal violence
(including violence against women). They find that areas of
high violence are associated with high gender inequalities. In
another study on the relationship between rural womens
autonomy and risk of marital violence in India, Sabarwal,
Santhya and Jejeebhoy (2013) find mixed results. According to
their results, womens financial autonomy reduces the risk of
marital violence in more gender equitable settings of south
India while in areas of more gender-stratified settings of
49

SPECIAL ARTICLE

north India, it has no such effect. Economic empowerment or

financial autonomy cannot solely reduce marital violence but
needs to be supported by higher female education and modified cultural norms against women (Dalal 2011).
Thus, empirical studies to test the relationship between
gender inequality and female victimisation have reached no
consensus. It is in this context that the paper studies association between gender inequality and CAW in India. The next
section discusses the data and outlines the methodology used
for the analysis.
2 Data and Methodology

There are two levels of analysis in this papernational (or

country) and subnational (or state) level. To analyse genderbased crime in India at the national level, NCRB data on CAW is
used. Crime rate, that is the total incidences of crime as a proportion of total population for a particular year, is used for the
current analysis. It is important to mention here the limitations of using NCRB data. In India, it is a widely accepted fact
that CAW is under-reported (Mukherjee et al 2001; Hackett
2011; Bhattacharya 2013; Rukmini 2013, 2015; Gupta 2015).
This is due to the social stigma attached particularly to sexual
assault, distrust in legal mechanisms, attitude and apathy of
the police, fear of retaliation and the like (Mukherjee et al
2001). But whatever is reported indicates the gravity of the
problem. Since there is no other data source on the whole
array of CAW, it is useful in studying the subnational variation
in crime rates.
Although women may be victims of any of the general
crimes such as robbery, murder, cheating, etc, only the crimes
which are directed specifically against women are characterised as Crimes against Women. Since the full array of data on
CAW is available from 1995, the period 19952012 is chosen for
the present analysis.
For the subnational analysis, UNDPs GII6 is adopted to
examine whether gender inequality is associated with CAW
rates and if this association differs across Indian states.
In the Indian context, diversity across states with respect to
gender inequality makes a study of state-level GII very interesting.
A large country like India displays sharp regional variations
across states, woing to cultural, social, economic and political
differences. Yet, there has been a lack of attention on creating
a subnational level GII. There appears to be only one such
attempt by the Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Government of India in collaboration with UNDP (2009).
Although this report did help in understanding the importance
of a state-level GII, it provided only a limited comparison of
all Indian states. A closer examination of CAW and several
other demographic indicators across the largest 15 states may
be more useful in understanding how gender sensitive the
governance in states is. This paper attempts to do such an
analysis. The analysis is restricted to the 15 largest states of
India due to data availability constraints.
UNDPs GII is adopted to create a state-level GII. The index
is replicated with some minor modifications to obtain a
subnational index. To maintain comparability, the indicators
50

used for creation of the subnational level GII are the same as
those used at the national level by UNDP. These include
maternal mortality ratio (MMR) and adolescent fertility rate
(AFR) for the health dimension, political participation at the
state level and educational attainment for the empowerment
dimension and labour force participation rate (LFPR) for the
labour market dimension (see Appendix 1 (p 54) for components and calculation of GII). However, instead of proportion
of seats held by women in Parliament, proportion of seats held
by women in state assemblies is taken as one of the indicators
of empowerment. This takes into account womens political
leadership at the state level.
After calculating the state-level GII for the 15 states,
the states are ranked in ascending order of GII, where the
lowest GII value is assigned rank 1 (a lower GII implies more
gender equality). This is followed by sorting of the states into
terciles to generate three categories of states: high GII states
(worst off; GII greater than 67 percentile of all GII values),
moderate GII states (GII value between 33 and 67 percentiles)
and low GII states (best off; GII below 33 percentile of all GII
values). Appendix 2 (p 55) outlines the final rankings and lists
the categories.
The analysis further reviews the five-year average (200812)
CAW rate and the five-year average growth in CAW rate against
the GII categories identified earlier to understand their
association. The paper considers five-year averages for the
level and change variables to override any sudden social or
political effects. The correlation coefficient between these
variables is analysed to understand if reducing gender
inequality is associated with reducing CAW.
The latest available data is used for every variable in the
construct. The data for related indicators of gender inequality
is sourced from various government publications like the
Census of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, the Lok Sabha website and Election Commission
of India. Latest data for MMR is available for the period 200709
but MMR is available only for bigger states (SRS Estimates,
Census 2011). For the Empowered Action Group of Jharkhand,
Chhattisgarh, Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Odisha
and Bihar, MMR data is taken from Annual Health Survey
(201011). Data on AFR is also available only for the bigger
states. Data for secondary education is available for the period
200506 from the National Family Health Survey, 200506
(see Appendix 3 (p 55) for details).
3 Findings

(a) National-level Analysis: Since crime data against women

is available only from 1995, the national level analysis is
done from 1995 to 2012. Figure 1 (p 51) compares the all India
crime rate (IPC and L&SL) with the total population of India.
Crime rate is defined as the total incidences of crime as a
proportion of total population for a particular year.7 While total population shows a rising trend for the period 19952012,
crime rate shows a declining trend. However, the crime rate
shows a more erratic trend with periods of increase between
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
highest at 675 in 1996 but has since then declined to about
500 in 2012. The lowest crime rates have been reported for
2005 and 2006. There is no empirical evidence of factors
attributing to decline of crime rates in India. The steady decline
in total crime rate, particularly in the late 1990s can be attributed to improvement in muscular policing-led governance,
increase in the incarceration rate and capital punishment,
stronger economy, and dressing up of crime figures/cases
and the polices failure to file first information reports (FIR s)
(Shaban 2010).
Figure 1: All India Crime Rate Plotted against Total Population (19952012)
12,500
Population (in lakhs)

650
Population (in lakhs)

11,000

600

10,500

550

Crime rate

11,500

10,000
500

9,500

2011

2012

2010

2009

2007

2008

2005

2006

2003

2004

2001

2002

1999

2000

1997

1998

Crime rate (IPC + S & SL)

1996

1995

Table 1: Percentage Growth of Different IPC Crimes against Women during

19712012
Year

Domestic
Violence

1971
NA
1995
36,219
2012
1,14,760
Percentage growth (19712012)
NA
Percentage growth (19952012) 217%

Sexual Assault and Related Crimes

Rape Other Sexual
Total
Crimes

2,487
13,754
24,923
902%
81%

NA
33,231
54,524
NA
64%

Others

NA
NA
46,985 26,055
79,447 50,063
NA
NA
69%
92%

Source: Compiled from Annual Reports of National Crime Records Bureau (19712012).

700

12,000

9,000

Based on data availability on different crimes published by

NCRB, percentage growth is calculated across various periods
and categories and presented in Table 1.

450

It can be observed from Table 1 that domestic violence has

been increasing over a period of 18 years. It has increased by
217%, thereby constituting the highest percentage increase
amongst all crimes against women. During 19712012, rape
registered a growth rate of 902%. The period 19952012 saw it
growing by 81%. Sexual assault and related crimes constitute
the second highest proportion of all CAW. Other CAW has
shown an increase of 92% over the period of analysis.

Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Annual Reports (19952012).

While all India crime rate shows a declining trend over

time, CAW has consistently risen during the period of analysis
(Figure 2). The rate of crime in 1995 was 12.1 while it was 20.13
in 2012 showing an increase of 66% during the period under
analysis. From Figures 1 and 2, it is evident that with rising
population, CAW is also increasing. There is no large-scale
empirical study on the factors that have led to an increase in
CAW despite the decline in total crime rate in India. The plausible explanations proposed for such a rise include increased
reporting and increased number of cases given womens
empowerment through education, employment and political
representation (Shaban 2010; Mukherjee et al 2001; Iyer
et al 2011).

21
Crime against women (Rate )
19

650
600

17

Crime rate (IPC + S & SL)

2012

2011

2010

2009

2007

2008

2005

2006

2003

2004

2001

2002

1999

11
2000

450
1997

13

1998

15

1995

550
500
1996

Total Crime rate (All India)

700

Crime rate against Women (All India)

Figure 2: All India Crime Rate and All India Crime Rate against Women
(19952012)

Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Annual Reports (19952012).

For further analysis, only IPC CAW are analysed as they

constitute more than 90% of total CAW while L&SL account for
less than 5% (NCRB 2011). The different types of IPC CAW are
categorised under three heads: (1) Domestic violence
includes IPC crimes like homicide for dowry and torture;
(2) Sexual assault and related crimeincludes IPC crimes like
rape, molestation and sexual harassment; and (3) Others
include IPC crimes like kidnapping and abduction and importation of girls.
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

(b) Subnational Analysis: At the subnational level, the value

of GII ranges from a value of 0.439 (best) to 0.691 (worst), with
an average value of 0.55 (Table 2). Ranking and categorising
the states by GII (with the Table 2: Ranking of States by Gender
best GII being rank 1 and Inequality Index
GII Value GII Rank Category
the lowest GIIs forming State
Tamil
Nadu
0.439
1
Low
category Low) reveals
Kerala
0.465
2
that the southern states
Punjab
0.477
3
of India rank much lower
Andhra Pradesh 0.493
4
on GII. This indicates that
Maharashtra
0.521
5
south India, particularly Gujarat
0.524
6
Moderate
Tamil Nadu, with GII of Haryana
0.533
7
0.439, has lower gender Rajasthan
0.563
8
inequality than all other Odisha
0.564
9
0.573 10
regions across the coun- West Bengal
try. The northern states Madhya Pradesh 0.579 11 High
0.603 12
primarily fall in the last Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
0.607 13
category with Madhya
Assam
0.652 14
Pradesh, Bihar and Uttar
Bihar
0.691 15
Pradesh dispalying high
Source: See Appendix 2 for calculation of GII.
gender inequality (except
Rajasthan which falls in the moderate category). The states
with moderate GII are Gujarat, Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha
and West Bengal.
The five-year average CAW rate and the five-year average of
year-on-year growth in CAW rate are analysed against the GII
categories next (Table 3 and Table 5, p 52). It shows that the
states with moderate GII have the highest rate of reported
CAW (23.10) while the states in low (18.80) and high (18.70) GII
category do not differ much in CAW rates. It is also surprising
to find that Andhra Pradesh and Kerala, which have very low
GIIs, have much higher CAW rates (third and fourth highest,
only after Assam and West Bengal). One possibility to explain
these conflicting figures might be more reporting of CAW by
51

SPECIAL ARTICLE

the victims in these otherwise better states. The other explanation hinted at by Bhaskaran (2011) in her paper on Kerala is
the backlash effect. She contends that the mere participation
of women in public forums and development activities has
challenged the patriarchal norms and this in turn has triggered violence. West Bengal has the highest rate of CAW in the
moderate group followed by Rajasthan. This is clearly visible
in Table 3 which shows the distribution of states according to
their GII category and average rate of CAW category. Tamil
Nadu, Punjab and Maharashtra are the best states with low GII
and low average rate of CAW while Assam is the worst state on
this account. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh show high GII but low
average CAW rate.
Table 3: Distribution of States by GII Category and Average CAW Rate
GII Category

States

Low

Tamil Nadu
Kerala
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Haryana
Rajasthan
Odisha
West Bengal
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Assam
Bihar

Moderate

High

Average Rate of CAW (200812) Category Average

10
27.81
10.22
31.71
14.23
14.73
22.16
27.01
22.64
28.97
22.45
11.42
14.67
35.33
9.65

All India

Avg CAW (200812)

CAW growth rate (200812)

18.7

Avg CAW
(200812)

CAW Growth Rate

(200812)

1
0.58***
(0.01)

*The p-value for the coefficient is mentioned in parentheses. p-value<=0.10 (***) implies
that the correlation is significant at 10% level. Similarly, p-value <= 0.05 (**) implies
significance at 5% level and p-value <= 0.01 (*) implies significance at 1% level.

CAW year-on-year growth rates are also analysed since level

values of CAW rates may be misleading. This is because states
with very high CAW levels to start with might continue to show
high levels at later periods as well even if growth rates of CAW
have been curbed over time. As expected, a more interesting
pattern emerges from the average CAW growth rates (Table 5).
While the low GII states have an average CAW rate almost equal
to that of high GII states, their average CAW growth rate is
almost half that of the high category (2.98% for low vs 5.74%
for high). What stands out though is that the highest CAW rate and
52

Low

Tamil Nadu
Kerala
Punjab
Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra
Gujarat
Haryana
Rajasthan
Odisha
West Bengal
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Karnataka
Assam
Bihar

Moderate

Average Growth Rate

of CAW (200812) (%)

Category Average
(%)

0
8
5
3
-1
1
2
8
9
10
2
-1
10
13
6

All India

Table 4: Correlation Coefficients

1
0.98***
1
(0.00)
0.06
0.07
(0.42)** (0.40)**
0.39*
0.39*
(0.08)
(0.08)

States

23.1

To further test this association statistically, a correlation

analysis is done. Table 4 presents the results for the correlation
analysis. However, no significant association is found between
average CAW rate and GII.

GII value
GII rank

GII Category

High

18.29

GII Rank

Table 5: Distribution of States by GII Category and Average Growth Rate of CAW

18.8

Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Data on Crime against Women
(200812).

GII Value

highest CAW growth rate (6.10%) are found in the moderate category. More importantly, correlation analysis (Table 4) reveals
a significant association between average CAW growth rate and
GII implying that a higher GII state shows higher CAW growth
rate. This indicates that reducing gender inequality has a positive association with decreasing CAW growth rates.

2.98

6.10

5.74

Source: Compiled from National Crime Records Bureau Data on Crime against Women
(200812).

However, the moderate group remains an anomaly with the

highest CAW rates despite moderate GII rankings. To further
examine this, a few additional factors are assessed to understand this anomaly. An analysis of other parameters like state
contribution to national gross domestic product (GDP), female
participation in governance and sex ratio reveals very little
difference between the moderate and high GII states (Table 6).
Moreover, other than Gujarat and West Bengal, moderate GII
Table 6: GII Comparatives
Averages for GII States

Low
Moderate
GII State GII State

High
GII State

Sex ratio (number of female per 1,000 males)1

979.4
931
938.4
Workforce participation
(% female workers in total population)2
26.24
24.4
24.56
Political participation (% female in state assembly,
average of three elections)3
8.21
10.00
9.67
74.24
64.44
60.46
% Female literacy4
Police strength (no of policemen
per 1,00,000 population)5
163.6
120.8
113.6
Conviction rate of total IPC crimes in 2012
(the ratio of cases convicted to the total cases tried)6
39.7
30.02
31.66
Conviction rate of rape in 2012 (the ratio of cases
convicted to the total cases tried)7
20.68
20.56
24.74
Gross state domestic product (GSDP)
at current prices in 201011 (In Rs crores)8
53,4430 3,53,984 3,16,382
7.47%
4.95% 4.42%
% Contribution to all India GDP (200405 base)9
Source: 1 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in
2 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in, Primary Census Abstract-Data Highlights.
3 Election Commission of India http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/ElectionStatistics.aspx
4 Census of India, 2011, www.censusindia.gov.in
5 Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in
6 Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in
7 Crime in India, 2012, National Crime Records Bureau, www.ncrb.in
8 Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments, and for All-India
-- Central Statistics Office.
9 Computed from Directorate of Economics & Statistics of respective State Governments,
and for All-IndiaCentral Statistics Office.

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE

states have lowest GDP contribution indicating these are poorer

states and therefore, may have lesser capability to deal with
CAW. On the other hand, moderate GII states also have higher
female participation in politics and lowest conviction rate.
This can be interpreted in two ways, (a) more empowered
female population should imply higher CAW reporting which
may cause the higher growth rate or (b) more females in public spaces may result in more CAW due to backlash effect. These
may be the possible reasons behind the anomaly but it requires
more detailed future research.
4 Conclusions

The focus of this paper has been to identify the association between GII and CAW and highlight the regional variations in this
association. Present analysis of CAW data with respect to GII
shows that CAW rates have grown while general crime rates
have decreased over the years. Further, the distribution of
states by GII does not follow a pattern. States with lower and
higher index value show similar average rates of CAW while
moderate index value states show the highest average rates of
CAW. The CAW growth rates, however, are lowest for low gender inequality states but continue to be the highest for moderate gender inequality states. A correlation analysis though reveals no significant association between average CAW rate and
GII. However, a significant association is found between average CAW growth rate and GII implying that a higher GII state
shows higher CAW growth rate. This indicates that changing
gender inequality is unimportant for the existing level of CAW
but plays a key role in controlling the growth of CAW rates. The
7

Notes
1

Refer Park Street rape case in 2012 in Indian

Express, dated 19 February 2012, Times of India
dated 22 February 2012, Times of India dated
4 August 2014.
Refer Nirbahaya Delhi gang rape case in 2012
in Hindu, dated 23 December 2012, New York
Times, dated 3 January 2013, Times of India
dated 14 July 2014
Refer Shakti Mills gang rape case in 2013, in
The Telegraph, dated 23 August 2013, Times of
India, dated 23 August 2013.
Violence and crime are overlapping domains.
Crime involves rule breaking while violence involves intentional harmdoing using physical
means (Felson 2009). This paper, thus, uses violence and crime interchangeably.
The 15 large states have been identified on the
basis of data available on the indicators required
for calcuating GII and include Andhra Pradesh,
Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka,
Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh
and West Bengal.
UNDPs GII is a composite measure reflecting
inequality in achievements between women
and men on three dimensions: reproductive
health, empowerment and the labour market
(UNDP 2011). The index measures the loss in
potential human development due to inequality
between female and male achievements on
these dimensions. It varies between 0, where
men and women fare equally, and 1, where either gender fares as poorly as possible in all
measured dimensions (see Technical Notes,
UNDP Human Development Report, 2011).
UNDP calculates this only at the national level.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

moderate group however, remains an anomaly as despite being

better on the inequality index, it has the highest rate of crime
against women.
In summary, it can be said that gender equality has a significant negative association with CAW rates. However, the diminishing rate of growth in average rates of CAW, as we move up
the GII ranks, shows that a lot of reform is still required to
bring about a decline in growth rates. Increasing equality, that
is, lowering the index value, has a two pronged effect on rates
of CAW. On one hand it increases rates of CAW due to tangible
reasons like higher reporting by more empowered women or
higher backlash effect arising from more women being drawn
into the public sphere which changes their status quo within
the family. On the other hand, increasing gender equality
decreases CAW rates due to intangible reasons like reinstating
of the gender-power balance. This should result in an inverted
U-shaped relationship between equality and growth of CAW; as
equality increases, CAW initially increases and then peaks at a
threshold level of equality, post which it starts to decrease.
This is because the intangible benefits of reducing inequality
take longer to reap.
These results open up more avenues for further research in
this area. Some key questions remain: Is the association between gender inequality and CAW simply downward sloping or
a more complicated inverted-U? Are equality thresholds identifiable and theoretically useful? Are moderate gender inequality index value states worse off because of an increase in
CAW incidences or merely because of higher reporting of such
incidences? What role does governance play in curbing CAW?

In 2012, for calculation of Crime Rate of CAW,

NCRB has used female population instead of
overall total population of India. While in the
present analysis, CAW rate has been calculated
using total population. Thus, the data for 2012
cannot be compared to NCRB 2012 data on
crime rate of CAW.

References
Bailey, W C and R D Peterson (1995): Gender Inequality and Violence against Women: The Case
of Murder, Crime and Inequality, J Hagan and
R D Peterson (eds), Standford, CA: Standford
University Press, 174205.

Baron, Larry and Murray A Straus (1987): Four

Theories of Rape: A Macrosociological Analysis,
Social Problems, 34: 46789.
Baxi, Pratiksha (2014): Public Secrets of Law: Rape
Trails in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bhaskaran, S (2011): Informed by Gender? Public
Policy in Kerala, Economic & Political Weekly,
46(43): 7584.
Bhatla, Nandita (2012): Gender-based Violence in
Public Spaces: Consequences and Cost in
Pilot, The Fear That Stalks: Gender-based Violence in Public Spaces, Sarah and Lora Prabhu
(eds), New Delhi: Zubaan.
Bhattacharya, Pramit (2013): An Epidemic of
Crimes against Women?, LiveMint, 13 September,

Complete Annual EPW Sets Available

At Nominal Rates

L
Pr ow
ice
s

EPW has a few complete sets of the journal for 1986, 1988, 2001, and from 2003 to 2014
that are available at nominal rates.
The entire set for each year is available for just Rs 100 plus postage and packing charges.
(The cost of postage for each setweighing around 10 kgby registered parcel will be
around Rs 400 to Rs 500. Packing charges will be Rs 100).
The total payable amount is Rs 700. Interested buyers can also call and visit our office in
Mumbai and collect the volumes by paying just Rs 100 each.
There are only a limited number of these unbound sets available. Institutions and
individuals interested in buying any of the sets can call the Circulation Department for
further details. Phone: 022-40638282
vol l no 45

53

SPECIAL ARTICLE
viewed on 13 September 2015 (http://goo.gl/
JxLsW1).
Bograd, M (1988): Feminist Perspectives on Wife
Abuse: An Introduction, Feminist Perspective
on Wife Abuse, K Yllo and M Bograd (ed),
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1126.
Brewer, V E and M D Smith (1995): Gender Inequality and Rates of Female Homicide Victimisation Across US Cities, Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 32(2): 17590.
Brownmiller, Susan (1975): Against Our Will: Men,
Women and Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dalal, K (2011): Does Economic Empowerment
Protect Women from Intimate Partner Violence?, Journal of Violence and Injury Prevention, 3: 3544.
DeWees, Mari A and Karen F Parker (2003): Urban
Homicide: Assessing the Relative Impact of
Gender Inequality on Sex-Specific Victimisation, Violence and Victims, 18: 3554.
Drze, Jean and Reetika Khera (2000): Crime,
Gender, and Society in India: Insights from
Homicide Data, Population and Development
Review, 26: 33552.
Ellsberg, M and L Heise (2005): Researching Violence against Women: A Practical Guide for Researchers and Activists, Washington DC, United
States: World Health Organization, PATH.
Ellsberg, M (2006): Violence against Women and
the Millennium Development Goals: Facilitating Womens Access to Support, International
Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 94: 32532.
Felson, R B (2009): Violence, Crime and Violent
Crime, International Journal of Conflict and
Violence, 3(1): 2339.
Gartner, Rosemary, K Baker and F C Pampel
(1990): Gender Stratification and the Gender
Gap in Homicide Victimisation, Social Problems, 37(4): 593612.
Gelles, R (1993): Through a Sociological Lens: Social Structure and Family Violence, Current
Controversies on Family Violence: R Gelles and
D Loseke (eds), 3146, London: Sage.
Gupta, Ashish (2015): Reporting and Incidence of
Violence against Women in India, Rice Institute for Compassionate Economics, Working
Paper, viewed on 13 September 2015, http://
goo.gl/1oEZPi.
Hackett, M (2011): Domestic Violence against Women:
Statistical Analysis of Crimes across India,
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 42(2): 267.
Iyer, Lakshmi, Anandi Mani, Prachi Mishra and Petia Topalova (2011): The Power of Political
Voice: Womens Political Representation and
Crime in India, Harvard Business School BGIE
Unit Working Paper No 11092.
Lee, Matthew R and Ginger D Stevenson (2006):
Gender-Specific Homicide Offending in Rural
Areas, Homicide Studies, 10(1): 5573.
Martin, K, L Vieraitis and S Britto (2006): Gender
Equality and Womens Absolute Status: A Test
of the Feminist Models of Rape, Violence
against Women, 12(4): 32139.
Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India (2009): Generating Human
Development Indices: Recasting the Gender
Development Index and Gender Empowerment
Measure for India: Summary Report.
Mukherjee, Chandan, Preet Rustagi and N Krishnaji
(2001): Crime against Women in India: Analysis
of Official Statistics, Economic & Political
Weekly, 36(43): 407080.
Peterson, Ruth D and William C Bailey (1992):
Rape and Dimensions of Gender Socioeconomic Inequality in US Metropolitan Areas,
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
29: 16277.
Rukmini, S (2013): India Officially Undercounts all
Crimes Including Rape, Hindu, 20 October,
viewed on 13 September 2013, http://goo.
gl/6JXhU2.

54

(2015): A Crime Well Reported is Half Solved,

Hindu, 22 August, viewed on 13 September
2013, http://goo.gl/6N7qUG
Russell, Diana E H (1975): The Politics of Rape: The
Victims Perspective, New York: Stein & Day.
Sabarwal, S, K G Santhya and S J Jejeebhoy (2013):
Womens Autonomy and Experience of Physical Violence Within Marriage in Rural India:
Evidence from a Prospective Study, Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(2): 33247.
Shaban, Abdul (2010): Mumbai: Political Economy of
Crime and Space, New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.
Sen, Amartya (1985): Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam: North Holland.
Smit, Auke (2012): Resisting Modernity? The Performance of Gender Based Violence in Contemporary India, Position Paper, Premaster Cultural Paper, Muliticulturalism in Comparative
Perspective, Utrecht University.
Straus, Murray A (1994): State-to-state Differences in Social Inequality and Social Bonds in Relation to Assaults on Wives in the United
States, Journal of Comparative Family Studies
25:724.
UNDP Human Development Report (2011):
Gender Inequality Index and Related Indicators, Statistical Table, Human Development
Report.
Vieraitis, Lynne M and Marian R Williams (2002):
Assessing the Impact of Gender Inequality on

Female Homicide Victimisation Across US Cities: A Racially Disaggregated Analysis, Violence against Women, 8: 3563.
Vieraitis, Lynne M, Tomislav V Kovandzic and Sarah Britto (2007): The Impact of Womens Status and Gender Inequality on Female Homicide Victimisation Rates: Evidence from US
Counties, Feminist Criminology, 2007: 5773.
Wall, L (2014): Gender Equality and Violence
against Women: Whats the Connection?, Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault,
Research Summary, 7(14).
Watts, C and C Zimmerman (2002): Violence
against Women: Global Scope and Magnitude,
Lancet, 359:12327.
Whaley, Rachel B and Steven F Messner (2002):
Gender Equality and Gendered Homicides,
Homicide Studies, 6(3): 188-210.
Williams, Joyce E and Karen A Holmes (1981): The
Second Assault: Rapeand Public Attitudes,
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
World Health Organization (2009): Violence Prevention, the Evidence: Promoting Gender
Equality to Prevent Violence against Women,
Series of Briefings on Violence Prevention.
Yodanis, L C (2004): Gender Inequality, Violence
against Women, and Fear: A Cross-National
Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence against
Women, Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
19:655.

Appendix 1: UNDP Gender Inequality Index (GII)

Gender
Inequality
Index (GII)

Dimensions
Indicators

Dimension
Index

Health
Empowerment
Labour Market
Maternal Adolescent Female and male
Female and male
Female and male
mortality
fertility
with at least
share of
labour fource
ratio
ratio
secondary education parliamentary seats participation rates

Female
reproductive
health index

Female
empowerment
index

Female
Male
Male
labour market empowerment
labour
index
index
market index

Female gender index

Male gender index

Gender Inequality Index (GII)

Source: GII Construction and Analysis, Human Development Report, 2013, UNDP Technical Notes (http://hdr.undp.org/
sites/default/files/hdr_2013_en_technotes.pdf).
Steps to calculating the GII (as taken from the UNDP 2011 Technical Notes for GII calculation)
Step 1 Treating zeros and extreme values
Because a geometric mean cannot be computed from a zero value, a minimum value of 0.1% is set for all component
indicators. In this subnational GII for India, the maternal mortality ratio is truncated at 10 (minimum) and at 1,000
(maximum). Because of the minimum MMR being set at 10, the MMR has to be rescaled by 10 so that the GII takes values
between 0 and 1.
Step 2 Construction of Dimension Index
The indicators are first aggregated to construct three dimensions indices for each group which are then aggregated using a
geometric mean to obtain an overall index for each gender.
Reproductive health index, RF = (10/MMR)*(1/AFR)
Empowerment Index, EF= (PRF * SEF)
Labour Market index = LFPR
Aggregation across dimension in each group
Female Gender Index, GF = 3(10/MMR)*(1/AFR)* (PRF * SEF)*LFPRF
Male Gender Index, GM = 31* (PRM * SEM)*LFPRM
Step 3 Aggregating across genders, using a Harmonic Mean to create the equally distributed gender inequality index.
H(GF,GM) = 2/(1/GF + 1/GM) = [(1/GF + 1/GM)/2]-1 ={ [(GF)-1+(GM)-1]/2}-1 * 4
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
are aggregated across dimensions. The average achievements in three dimensions are denoted by H, E and L, respectively.
H= [(10/MMR)*(1/AFR) + 1]/2
E = [ (PRF * SEF)+ (PRM * SEM)]/2
L = (LFPRF + LFPR M)/2
GF, M = 2 H x E X L
Step 5 Calculating the GII
H(GF, GM)
GII = 1
GF, M

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly

SPECIAL ARTICLE
Appendix 2: GII at the State Level, India
States

GII
Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Andhra
Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya
Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh
West
Bengal

MMR AFR
Political
(2007 09) (2011) Representation
Value
Male
Female

Secondary
Education
Male Female

LFPR (%)
(201112)
Male Female

RF

RM

EF

EM

GF

GM

H(GF, GM)

GF, M

GII

4
16
17
6
7
14
2

0.4926
0.65198
0.69116
0.52398
0.53336
0.60702
0.46512

134 38.8 0.90 0.099773 0.18 0.13 0.830 0.501

347 45.8 0.90 0.097884 0.14 0.09 0.854 0.182
294
33 0.91 0.085048 0.14 0.08 0.785 0.090
148 23.4 0.92 0.080586 0.15 0.10 0.867 0.321
153
17 0.91 0.088889 0.24 0.15 0.783 0.211
178 35.8 0.98 0.022321 0.17 0.14 0.833 0.349
81 20.3 0.95 0.052381 0.23 0.23 0.824 0.354

0.043856
0.025084
0.032105
0.053735
0.062005
0.039614
0.077985

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0.113
0.094
0.085
0.091
0.117
0.056
0.11

0.399
0.353
0.363
0.375
0.465
0.405
0.47

0.13541
0.07553
0.06251
0.11626
0.11512
0.09209
0.14471

0.69196
0.67041
0.65804
0.68766
0.71391
0.6963
0.72885

0.2265
0.1358
0.1142
0.1989
0.1983
0.1627
0.2415

0.5219
0.5125
0.5161
0.5269
0.531
0.5198
0.539

0.2561
0.2236
0.2238
0.2331
0.2907
0.2309
0.2898

0.666
0.518
0.438
0.594
0.497
0.591
0.589

0.4464
0.3901
0.3697
0.4178
0.4249
0.4139
0.4515

0.4926
0.652
0.6912
0.524
0.5334
0.607
0.4651

12
5
10
3
9
1

0.57948
0.52076
0.56396
0.47666
0.56259
0.43926

277
104
237
172
264
97

0.033329
0.057983
0.037629
0.074769
0.034035
0.072898

1
1
1
1
1
1

0.069
0.076
0.073
0.126
0.063
0.108

0.288
0.431
0.3
0.468
0.311
0.384

0.09063
0.12235
0.09846
0.13898
0.099
0.14927

0.6206
0.70495
0.64535
0.72886
0.62392
0.68726

0.1582
0.2085
0.1708
0.2334
0.1709
0.2453

0.5167
0.529
0.5188
0.5374
0.517
0.5364

0.1782
0.2538
0.1867
0.2973
0.1868
0.2457

0.578
0.614
0.621
0.556
0.618
0.635

0.3761
0.4351
0.3918
0.4461
0.3907
0.4374

0.5795
0.5208
0.564
0.4767
0.5626
0.4393

13

0.60317 300

26.1 0.93 0.069479 0.13 0.08

11

0.57254 145

55.4 0.89

32.5
28.6
29.8
10.4
32.7
19.4

0.91 0.090851 0.09 0.05 0.831

0.96 0.040509 0.19 0.14 0.812
0.93 0.070295 0.10 0.08 0.895
0.92 0.082793 0.24 0.19 0.827
0.91
0.09 0.11 0.04 0.782
0.91 0.091168 0.16 0.13 0.846

0.325
0.415
0.347
0.284
0.453
0.424

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

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 (India)

Source

Maternal mortality Ratio of the number of maternal

ratio (MMR)
deaths to the number of live births
in a given year, expressed
as per 1,00,00 live births

Number of women aged 1549 years

dying due to maternal causes
per 1,00,000 live births

Adolescent
fertility rate (AFR)

No of live births to women aged 1519/

Mid year female population in the age
group 1519)*1000
Proportion of seats held by women in state
assemblies expressed 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.
Percent distribution of the population
aged 1549 that have completed 1011 years
of education, by state, India, 200506
Proportion of persons/person-days in the
labour force to the total person/person-days.
These ratios are given in per 1,000 of person/
person-days. This estimate of LFPR approach
provides information on number of persons in
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 201112.

Special bulletin on maternal mortality, Office of the

Registrar General of India, June 2011 (SRS Estimates)
MMR for Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand,
Rajasthan, Odisha, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Assam and
Uttarakhand have been taken from Annual Health
Survey 201112
(Source: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_
statistics/AHSBulletins/ahs2011.html)
Census of India
http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_statistics/
Definitions/Definitions.aspx
Election Commission of India http://eci.nic.in/
eci_main1/ElectionStatistics.aspx

Seats in national
parliament

Population with
at least secondary
education
Labour force
participation
rate (LFPR)

Definition (UNDP)

Number of births to the women

aged 1519 per 1,000 women
aged 1519
Proportion of seats held by women
in a lower or single house or an
upper house or senate, expressed
as percentage of total seats

Percentage of the population aged

25 and older that have reached
secondary education
Proportion of a countrys working
age population that engages in the
labour market, either by working or
actively looking at work, expressed
as percentage of the working-age
population

NFHS 3
http://www.rchiips.org/nfhs/NFHS-3%20Data/
VOL-1/chapter%2003.pdf, pp 62, 63
http://www.mospi.gov.in
http://data.gov.in/dataset/labour-forceparticipation-rate-1000-persons-age-15-59-yearsaccording-usual-status-taking-b

MEN DOING FEMINISM

May 16, 2015
Men Doing Feminism in India: An Introduction
Masculinity Studies and Feminism: Othering the Self
Embracing Feminism
Disrupting Coherence: Self Reflections of a Male Ethnographer
Doing and Undoing Feminism: A Jurisdictional Journey

Romit Chowdhury, Zaid Al Baset

Sanjay Srivastava
Sibaji Bandyopadhyay
Pushpesh Kumar
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: circulation@epw.in
Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

NOVEMBER 7, 2015

vol l no 45

55