http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/indian-tvs-unsound-fury-20100106-lu8y.html
Indian TV's unsound fury January 7, 2010 Comments 297 In 2007, according to India's National Crime Records Bureau, 32,318 people were murdered in India. Another 3644 were victims of ''culpable homicide'', roughly equating to manslaughter. In a category of its own, 8093 brides or their relatives were killed in ''dowry deaths'' - murdered by greedy grooms and in-laws angry over the amount of dowry paid by the bride's family. And there were a further 27,401 attempted murders. By contrast, in 2007, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports, 255 people were murdered in Australia. Another 28 were victims of manslaughter, and 246 survived attempted murders. No dowry deaths were recorded. India, of course, is a very big country. But the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that relative to population, its homicide rate is more than twice that of Australia. It is a country in which violent crime is commonplace - so commonplace that every day more than 100 Indians are murdered by other Indians, yet their TV news channels treat this as humdrum unless it involves some celebrity or unusual features. Indian student murder furore. Photo: Spooner Yet when an Indian is murdered overseas, these news channels whip themselves and their viewers into a froth of indignation at the country concerned. How can this happen?, they thunder. How can any civilised nation fail to protect its residents? What kind of racist country is this? How does this happen? Well, it happens because human beings are imperfect creatures. They can be selfish, they can be hateful, they can enjoy hurting, even killing, other humans. It happens here, it happens in India, it happens everywhere. Governments can't stop it because they can't control what their citizens do 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Governments can't monitor every suburban park in Melbourne at night to ensure that no teenagers with knives have gathered for an illegal drinking binge. They can't monitor every dark street in India's cities, or every home in its villages, to stop people killing each other. Australians instinctively know that their parks are not safe places at night, and avoid using them as short cuts. Tragically, Nitin Garg did not know that. And so he has become another victim of our epidemic of alcohol abuse, our tolerance of extreme violence in films and screen games - and yes, of Romper Stomper racism that seems to live on among teenagers in the western suburbs, now directed against Indians instead of Vietnamese. Does that mean Australia is unsafe? No. Relative to most countries, it is very safe. But you can be unlucky. Like Nitin Garg, you can be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and come up against the worst characteristics of a society. This was highlighted in the calm, sensible advisory notice on Tuesday by India's Ministry of External Affairs. It warns intending students of the rise in violent attacks on the streets of Melbourne. But it notes that these are occurring all over Melbourne ''without any discernible pattern or rationale behind them . . . often accompanied by verbal abuse, fuelled by alcohol or drugs''. The offenders are ''mainly young people in their teens or early 20s''. Importantly, the ministry points out that most Indian students ''have a positive experience of living and studying in Australia''. So rather than urging Indians not to come here, it urges them to take ''certain basic precautions'': don't travel alone late at night, and try to stick to ''well-lit, populated areas'', conceal expensive items and tell others where you're going. It is street-smart survival-kit stuff, as relevant in Delhi or Mumbai as Melbourne. And thank God for some common sense after all the hyperventilating by the humbugs on India's news channels or by the Minister of External Affairs, S.M. Krishna, who called the murder a ''heinous crime against humanity''. Well, yes. But what of the 32,318 murders, 3644 culpable homicides and 8093 dowry deaths committed in his own country in 2007? Are they not equally ''heinous crimes against humanity''? What is Mr Krishna doing about them? What are the Indian TV networks doing about the huge death toll of Indians killed in India itself (where the annual road toll is now tipped to reach 150,000)? The networks don't have to make a direct comparison. Urban Delhi spills into the state of Haryana, which is relatively well-off and with a population slightly larger than Australia's. In 2007, Haryana had 1252 homicides/manslaughters/dowry deaths, compared with 283 in Australia. More people were murdered in Haryana over dowries than in Australia for all causes. Why aren't India's TV networks campaigning against the epidemic of death all around them? Why does it take a murder of an Indian overseas to stir their moral outrage? Were they equally outraged 10 years ago when Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons were burnt alive in their car by Hindu extremists in Orissa? Or in 2004 when Australian tourist Dawn Griggs was robbed, raped and murdered by two taxi drivers after arriving late at night at Delhi airport? Those murders don't mean India is unsafe for Australians. Rather, we all need to be wary, wherever we are. This time last year, I was in India with the family on holiday, and the worst danger we faced was trying to cross the road. I hope Indians thinking of studying in Australia listen to their diplomats, not to their TV humbugs. Tim Colebatch is Age economics editor. Source: The Age
