The intriguing case of data on ‘Communal Incidents’ in India
Sai Krishna Muthyanolla
November 8, 2019
Year after
year, there is discrepancy between the data on communal incidents reported by
the Home Ministry & the NCRB. In this story, we look the numbers, the
discrepancies and the way forward.
After adelay of 1.5 years, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) has recentlypublished Crime
in India-2017 report.  Thereport furnishes the statistics of the various crimes committed in India during2017. This annual report from NCRB acts as the main reference as far as thecrime statistics in India are concerned.
Over thepast few years, the debate over communal incidents in the country hasn’tstopped. While political parties and groups trade charges over one another, welook at the state of data related to communal incidents in the country and ifthe past discrepancies have been corrected in 2017.  Multiple times in the past, Factly has
written about such discrepancies and how the data from NCRB didnot match with the data from the Home Ministry.
NCRB
reports 723 riots of Communal nature in 2017
As perNCRB’s Crime
in India -2017 report, the number of riots of communal/religious nature was723 for the year 2017. Since 2014, the riots of communal/religious nature arebeing reported separately. Prior to that, NCRB’s crime in India categorized anyriots under one larger head ‘Riots’, which also included Industrial, Political,sectarian, caste related etc. among others.
Over this4-year period, since the NCRB report has been categorizing thecommunal/religious riots separately, 2017 reported the least number of suchincidents.  As per NCRB’s data, thehighest number of such riots were reported in the year 2014 (1227 incidents).
Bihar reported
the highest such riots followed by Karnataka and Odisha.
Of the 723incidents such riots of communal nature in the country as per NCRB report, 163are from Bihar. Karnataka and Odisha rank next with 92 and 91 incidentsrespectively. Maharashtra with 71 incidents and Jharkhand with 66 incidentscomplete the top 5 states with the highest incidents of communal/religiousriots in 2017. Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand along all theNorth-Eastern states and all the Union Territories have reported zeroCommunal/Religious riots in 2017.
In
2016, Haryana with 250 such incidents reported the highestnumber of communal/religious riots followed by Jharkhand (176), Bihar (139),Maharashtra (57) and Karnataka (42). While the overall such incidents fell downfrom 869 in 2016 to 723 in 2017, the number of states which reported anincrease in the number of such riots compared to 2016, has gone up. The overalldip in the national figure was due to the fall in the numbers for Haryana andJharkhand in 2017.
Number of
instances higher in 2017 according to the information provided by the Home
Ministry
As per thedata provided in response
to a question in Lok Sabha on 06 February 2018, by the Ministry of Home Affairs(MHA) , the number of Communal incidents recorded for 2017 was 822. TheInformation provided by Home Ministry in Lok Sabha, also differs from the NCRBnumbers in the earlier years.
If onecompares the data for the four years (2014, 2015,2016,2017) where in NCRBreport has specifically categorized ‘Communal/Religious’ riots, reveals thatthere is a difference between the NCRB data and the information provided by theHome Ministry every year.  The number of incidentsreported by Home Ministry in Lok Sabha for 2014, 2015, 2016 are 644, 751 and703 respectively. In fact, this is the first time in these 4 years when the MHAreported higher numbers compared to the NCRB.
Large State
wise variance between NCRB and Home Ministry Data
A largervariance exists when the state wise data provided by NCRB and Home Ministry iscompared.
It wasnoted earlier that as per NCRB data, Bihar reported the highest number ofincidents for 2017 with 163. However as per the data
provided by MHA in Lok Sabha, Uttar Pradesh leads the listwith 195 incidents. As per NCRB data, Uttar Pradesh had only 34 instances ofcommunal riots.
Rajasthanalso have large variance between NCRB data and MHA’s data. In the former, thereported incidents for 2017 were only 16, while in later it is 91. Odisha isanother state with a large difference between the two sources of Informationwith NCRB data reporting 91 instances and the MHA’s data reporting only 4instances.  In the case of West Bengal also,only 6 incidents were reported by NCRB, while as per MHA’s data provided in LokSabha, the number of communal incidents were 58.
2008 had
the highest number of communal incidents in 10 years as per MHA
If onecompares the data provided by the MHA for the last 10 years, the year 2008 hadthe highest number of communal incidents with 943  as per information provided in the Lok
Sabha.
The nexthighest as per MHA was 823 incidents in 2013 followed by 2017 with 822incidents.
However asper NCRB report, 1227 communal riot incidents were reported in 2014 which ishigher than the highest number of incidents reported by Home Ministry over thelast decade.
As per HomeMinistry’s data, the number of such incidents recorded have reduced over thenext three years after the high of 2008. After the lowest number of communalincidents (580) recorded in 2011, the number of incidents has fluctuated overthe last few years.
Is there an
explanation such large variance between the data of NCRB & MHA?
If onelooks at the definition of what constitutes a riot in the NCRB data, bothin  2016 & 2017 report of the NCRB,riots were categorized as those crimes recorded under sections 147 to 151 ofthe Indian Penal Code (IPC). Apart from riots of communal/religious nature,there is another set of information provided in the NCRB Report, ’Promoting enmity between groups
(Sec.153A & 153B IPC)’. Section 153 A of IndianPenal Code (IPC), deals with incidents promoting enmity between differentgroups based on religion, race, place of birth etc. The number of crimes underthis section are reported separately.
If oneadds the numbers reported under riots as well as those reported under Sec 153Aof the IPC, the difference between the NCRB data and the MHA data would furtherincrease.
The MHAdata is collected from state governments and the intelligence bureau. Incidentally,the NCRB also functions under the Home Ministry. NCRB comes under the aegis ofMinistry of Home Affairs and is tasked to functionas a repository of information on crime and criminals. The data for the annualCrime in India report is based on the information furnished by the law enforcing departments at
State/UT level. Furthermore, the data reported followsthe ‘Principal Offence Rule’, in which the most heinous of the crime (maximumpunishment), is considered for counting, even though there could be multiple offencesreported in the First Information Report (FIR).
Forexample, an instance of communal riot which leads to murder would be counted as‘Murder’ case as it the most heinous of the crimes reported in the FIR. Thiscould result in under reporting in few instances wherein a case is notregistered as a communal riot. This partially explains the scenario for thosestats where in the NCRB data reports fewer communal riot instances compared tothe data that the Ministry provides in the parliament.
However, sinceNCRB data is dependent on the FIRs, there could be occasions where multipleFIRs are registered for a single communal incident by opposing parties. Thiscould result in the number of communal incidents reported being higher in theNCRB data compared to the actual incidents as per Home Ministry.
Anotherscenario could be a case for non-filing of a FIR even though an incident hastaken place. This could result in fewer numbers being reported by the NCRB. Forexample, Uttar Pradesh has 195 communal incidents in 2017 as per HomeMinistry’s information, but NCRB data shows only 34. While we cannot ascertainif it is because of not filing FIRs or the cases being counted for anothercrime, it reflects large variance. The NCRB also captures communal/religiousmotive for murder. In the case of Uttar Pradesh in 2017, only one case wasreported to have a communal/religious motive for murder. Adding these numbersup also does not explain the large discrepancy between the two sets of data.
Since NCRB is under aegis of Home Ministry, aprocess which to reconcile the differences of the data has to be established toget the real picture of not only the number of incidents occurring but also theincidents which the law enforcing authorities have taken cognizance of throughfiling a FIR. Such discrepancies year after year undermine the sanctity of dataand the institution.
Unlessthere is a reform in the way crime reporting & data collation is done, asnoted by Factly earlier, thesediscrepancies are here to stay.