India’s Persistent Caste Violence Demands A National Reckoning With Social Justice – OpEd
The data speaks with a harrowing clarity that can no longer be ignored. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report “Crime in India, 2019,” across India, 45,935 crimes were committed against Scheduled Castes in a single year, with a national crime rate of 22.8 per 100,000 Scheduled Caste population. Behind these numbers lies a disturbing reality that cuts to the core of India’s struggle with its social fabric—a reality where certain states have become hotspots of caste-based violence while others report suspiciously low numbers that raise questions about reporting mechanisms rather than actual safety.
Rajasthan tops the list with 6,794 reported crimes against Scheduled Castes and an alarming rate of 55.6 per 100,000 population, followed by Madhya Pradesh with 5,300 crimes at a rate of 46.7. Bihar, often discussed for its complex socio-political landscape, reports 6,544 crimes with a rate of 39.5. These figures don’t merely represent statistical outliers; they reflect deeply entrenched systems of discrimination that continue to plague Indian society despite constitutional guarantees and legislative protections.
What makes these numbers particularly troubling is their persistence decades after India’s independence and the constitutional abolition of untouchability. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the architect of India’s constitution and himself a Dalit, once warned that political democracy would be meaningless without social democracy. The data before us suggests his concerns remain valid—formal equality has not translated into substantive protection for some of India’s most vulnerable communities.
The regional variations tell a complex story about India’s caste dynamics. Gujarat, often showcased as a model of development, reports a crime rate of 34.8, significantly above the national average. Telangana and Uttar Pradesh follow closely with rates of 31.1 and 28.6 respectively. This disparity challenges simplistic narratives that economic development necessarily leads to social progress or that certain regions have moved beyond caste considerations.
Perhaps equally concerning are the states reporting suspiciously low numbers. West Bengal shows a mere 119 cases with a rate of 0.6, while Assam reports just 21 cases with a rate of 0.9. Jammu & Kashmir, with only 2 reported cases and a rate of 0.2, raises serious questions about whether these figures reflect an absence of crimes or failures in documentation, reporting, and registration of cases. The dramatic differences between neighboring states with similar demographic profiles cannot be explained by cultural or social factors alone.
These disparities point to a critical aspect of addressing caste-based violence: the mechanisms for reporting and registering cases significantly impact the official figures. States with higher numbers may paradoxically reflect stronger institutional responses—police willing to register First Information Reports (FIRs), administrative systems that acknowledge rather than suppress complaints, and a civil society that supports victims in coming forward. Conversely, low numbers might indicate institutional apathy or active suppression of reporting rather than genuine safety.
The Prevention of Atrocities Act, designed specifically to address crimes against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, provides enhanced penalties and special provisions for investigation. Yet its implementation varies dramatically across states. In regions where political will is lacking or where dominant castes exercise significant influence over local administration, the law remains underutilized. Even when cases are registered, conviction rates remain dismally low, creating a culture of impunity that emboldens perpetrators.
Urban-rural divides further complicate this picture. While metropolitan areas often claim to have transcended caste considerations, the reality is more nuanced. Urban settings may offer anonymity that mitigates the most visible forms of discrimination, but systemic exclusion persists in housing, employment, and social interactions. Meanwhile, rural India continues to witness more explicit forms of violence, from physical attacks to social boycotts and economic exclusion.
Education, long viewed as the great equalizer, shows mixed results in addressing caste discrimination. Higher literacy states do not necessarily report lower rates of crimes against Scheduled Castes. Kerala, with its near-universal literacy, still reports 858 cases with a rate of 28.2. This suggests that formal education alone, without critical engagement with issues of social justice and equality, may be insufficient to challenge deeply held prejudices.
The economic dimension cannot be overlooked. Land ownership patterns, access to resources, and employment opportunities remain heavily influenced by caste identities. Economic reforms have created new avenues for mobility but have also introduced new forms of exclusion. The informalization of labor has particularly affected Dalit workers, who often find themselves in precarious employment without social security or legal protections.
Political representation, while important, has shown limitations in addressing structural discrimination. States with significant representation of Scheduled Castes in legislative bodies and local governance still report high rates of violence. This underscores that representation alone, without corresponding changes in administrative practices and social attitudes, offers incomplete protection.
Media coverage of caste-based violence reveals troubling patterns of selective attention. High-profile cases occasionally capture national headlines, but thousands of incidents receive minimal coverage. The media’s reluctance to engage with caste as a fundamental aspect of Indian society contributes to public apathy and allows policymakers to treat these as isolated incidents rather than symptoms of a systemic problem.
The judicial response has been similarly uneven. While landmark judgments have affirmed constitutional principles of equality and dignity, the everyday functioning of the legal system often fails Dalit victims. Delays in trials, intimidation of witnesses, and biases within the judicial process contribute to low conviction rates. When perpetrators walk free, it sends a devastating message about the value placed on Dalit lives and dignity.
International human rights mechanisms have repeatedly expressed concern about India’s response to caste-based discrimination. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has urged stronger implementation of protective legislation and more comprehensive data collection. These recommendations often meet with defensive responses that frame caste as an internal matter beyond international scrutiny—a position that prioritizes sovereignty over accountability.
Civil society organizations and Dalit movements have been at the forefront of documenting violations and supporting victims. Their advocacy has been crucial in pushing for policy reforms and keeping these issues on the national agenda. However, they increasingly face restrictions on funding and operations, limiting their capacity to provide essential support services and advocacy.
The intersectionality of caste with gender, religion, and economic status creates particularly vulnerable situations for specific groups. Dalit women face multiple forms of discrimination and are often targeted for sexual violence as a means of asserting caste dominance and punishing communities. Children from Scheduled Castes encounter barriers in accessing quality education, with segregation and discrimination in schools reinforcing social hierarchies from an early age.
Technology presents both challenges and opportunities in addressing caste violence. Social media has amplified Dalit voices and created spaces for solidarity and organizing. At the same time, digital platforms can become vehicles for caste-based hate speech and harassment. The digital divide also means that many Dalit communities remain excluded from these new forms of advocacy and support.
What, then, does an effective response to this national crisis look like? First, it requires acknowledging the severity and systemic nature of the problem. The variation in crime rates across states should prompt a national conversation about best practices in implementation and reporting. States with higher reporting rates might offer lessons in institutional responsiveness, while those with suspiciously low numbers need scrutiny regarding their registration and investigation practices.
Strengthening implementation of existing legislation must be a priority. This includes ensuring that special courts function effectively, that investigations proceed without interference, and that victims and witnesses receive adequate protection. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes requires greater resources and independence to fulfill its mandate of monitoring and intervention.
Data collection and analysis need significant improvement. The current classification system for crimes against Scheduled Castes often fails to capture the caste dimension of incidents. More detailed and transparent data would allow for better targeted interventions and more effective policy design. Independent social audits could provide critical insights into the functioning of protection mechanisms.
Educational interventions must go beyond increasing enrollment numbers to address the quality of education and the experiences of Dalit students. Curriculum reform that honestly engages with caste history and contemporary realities can help challenge prejudices among younger generations. Teacher training programs should explicitly address unconscious biases and discriminatory practices in classrooms.
Economic empowerment remains crucial. Land reforms, skill development programs, and entrepreneurship support tailored to Scheduled Caste communities can create pathways out of traditional occupations often associated with ritual pollution and social stigma. The private sector must also be engaged in creating more inclusive workplaces and supply chains.
Media organizations have a responsibility to provide more nuanced and consistent coverage of caste issues. This means moving beyond sensationalist reporting of individual atrocities to exploring systemic factors and highlighting community resilience and agency. Representation of Dalit journalists in newsrooms would bring essential perspectives to reporting on these issues.
The judiciary needs to address its own biases and delays in handling cases related to atrocities against Scheduled Castes. Sensitivity training for judges and prosecutors, expedited processing of cases, and stronger witness protection would significantly improve access to justice for Dalit communities.
Civil society must be allowed to operate freely in documenting violations and supporting victims. Rather than viewing these organizations as adversaries, government agencies should develop collaborative approaches that leverage their expertise and community connections.
International cooperation, including engagement with UN human rights mechanisms and sharing of best practices with countries facing similar challenges, can strengthen domestic efforts. This requires moving beyond defensive sovereignty arguments to recognize that the protection of human dignity transcends national boundaries.
Most fundamentally, addressing caste violence requires confronting deeply held beliefs about purity, pollution, and social hierarchy that persist despite modernization and urbanization. Religious and community leaders have a particular responsibility to challenge interpretations that justify discrimination and to promote messages of human equality and dignity.
The data on crimes against Scheduled Castes represents not just a law and order challenge but a profound moral reckoning for Indian society. The promise of constitutional equality remains unfulfilled for millions of citizens who continue to face violence and discrimination based on their birth. The regional variations in crime rates remind us that different futures are possible—that with political will and social commitment, the cycles of caste violence can be broken.
Dr. Ambedkar famously said, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated.” The cultivation of this sentiment—a deep commitment to equality, dignity, and justice regardless of caste—remains the unfinished project of Indian democracy. The statistics before us are not merely numbers but a call to renew this commitment with urgency and determination. The true measure of India’s progress lies not in economic indicators or global standing but in its ability to ensure that its most vulnerable citizens can live with safety and dignity. On this measure, the data suggests, we still have a long way to go.
Source: Crime in India, 2019, National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB)
