Resources

Crime against Women (CAW) in Delhi increased significantly by 42% between 2020 and 2021. What does this statistic suggest? On one hand, an increase in CAW may suggest that women are more vulnerable to crimes in the city. On the other hand, it might signal better response services for victim-survivors of violence, given most such cases go unreported.

In the aftermath of Jyoti Singh's gang rape and murder in Delhi in 2012, the Usha Mehra Committee was constituted to recommend measures for improving safety in Delhi and the National Capital Region. Of its several recommendations, one was to implement a comprehensive hub providing services such as shelter, psycho-social counselling, medical, police, and legal assistance for victim-survivors of violence in every district of the country. In 2015, the Government of India, under the aegis of the Ministry of Women and Child Development, launched the One Stop Centres (OSCs). After initially implementing 36 OSCs on a pilot basis, today, there are 802 operational OSCs in India.

Since its inception, more than 10 lakh women have sought assistance at OSCs. The number of women seeking help has been steadily increasing year-on-year too. However, in a study conducted by my colleagues and me, we found that the number of OSCs operational in the country is grossly inadequate. We found that this has led to a vicious cycle in which under-investment in such facilities manifests into low redressal and perpetuates under-reporting of violence.

An important question, however, persists: If the objective of an OSC is to ease victim-survivor's access to redressal by pooling in different actors, authorities, and services, why are they still under-resourced? To answer this question, I am undertaking a study on the functioning of OSCs. There have been several media reports about the ineffective functioning of OSCs in the country. But if we were to reimagine women"s safety, their access to safety, and why gaps in the delivery of response-based services like OSCs persist, it is important to unpack the layers of its service provisioning.

Here's an example. Describing the domestic violence cases coming to her centre in Delhi, the caseworker told me,

" It is easy to leave [a marriage] and women come with that intention. We work on the problem because otherwise, my job is meaningless."  [translated from Hindi]

This has a few implications. One, the caseworker, who is, in most cases, the first point of contact for a victim-survivor, is looking to find meaning in her job by ensuring that families are not broken up. Second, dealing with over 40-50 cases coming to her centre every month suggests the high workload and, perhaps, an inability to correctly assess what a victim-survivor may truly need as state redressal mechanisms are geared towards reconciliation.

As I mentioned earlier, there are several layers to institutionalised redressal. No one actor can be held accountable for its gaps. It is, thus, important to understand the capabilities of different actors to perform their roles, their workload, centre's existing referral systems, and finances, among others. In my study, therefore, I combine ethnographic observations with administrative data collection to locate gaps in response through OSCs. I highlight how the response mechanism works, why it works the way it does, and discuss the larger issue of centering violence against women as a public health concern which needs coordinated efforts of government actors, authorities, civil society, and citizens.

The original version of this blog was published as a part of Prajnya Trust's blog symposium on '25 Years: Review of Gender Equality Progress' in November 2024. Tanya is the recipient of 2024 Rajaram GRIT Research Fellowship by the Trust.