Is North India more violent?
The latest tragic event of worker anger resulting in the death of an HR manager at Allied Nippon comes close to the heels of another similar incident of loss of life at RICO at Guragaon. Having lived in Delhi for a couple of years and having seen violence at close quarters, I was tempted to ask if North India is more violent as a society in comparison with other states and if there's a reason to it. I must add that management-worker disputes resulting in a tragedy was also witnessed at Coimbatore in South India.
Does increased 'masculinisation' of a society have anything to do with violence that's witnessed there? This paper titled, 'Is North India violent because it has a surplus of men?' concludes thus.
'The striking predictions by presented Hudson and den Boer in Bare Branches that highly masculine sex ratios tend to have violent consequences find, at best, mixed confirmation in the available Indian data which we have examined. Many of the predicted relationships are too weak to pass the test of statistical significance. A few, most notably the correlation with homicide, are strong and in the predicted direction. Others of nearly equal strength, most notably female suicide rates, are lowest in the most masculine states, the opposite of what was predicted. On the whole, then, the Indian evidence does not support the strong claims that highly masculine sex ratios pose major threats to state security which Hudson and den Boer advance.
In addition, we have offered evidence, historical, anthropological and statistical which has led us to see merit in the argument that political insecurity and the exercise of violence are more reasonably seen as causes, rather than effects, of North India’s masculine sex ratios. In other words, in India at least, it seems to make better sense to invert the causal sequence proposed by Hudson and den Boer and argue that it because of a deeply embedded history and culture of violence in North India that there is an excess of males, rather than the reverse.'
Read the complete paper here.
Does increased 'masculinisation' of a society have anything to do with violence that's witnessed there? This paper titled, 'Is North India violent because it has a surplus of men?' concludes thus.
'The striking predictions by presented Hudson and den Boer in Bare Branches that highly masculine sex ratios tend to have violent consequences find, at best, mixed confirmation in the available Indian data which we have examined. Many of the predicted relationships are too weak to pass the test of statistical significance. A few, most notably the correlation with homicide, are strong and in the predicted direction. Others of nearly equal strength, most notably female suicide rates, are lowest in the most masculine states, the opposite of what was predicted. On the whole, then, the Indian evidence does not support the strong claims that highly masculine sex ratios pose major threats to state security which Hudson and den Boer advance.
In addition, we have offered evidence, historical, anthropological and statistical which has led us to see merit in the argument that political insecurity and the exercise of violence are more reasonably seen as causes, rather than effects, of North India’s masculine sex ratios. In other words, in India at least, it seems to make better sense to invert the causal sequence proposed by Hudson and den Boer and argue that it because of a deeply embedded history and culture of violence in North India that there is an excess of males, rather than the reverse.'
Read the complete paper here.
Comments
stock market intraday tips
multibagger tips
In Alliance University, boys are more than girls its the management and disciplinary committee that scares the hell out of us(boys) or there were so many fights that would have occurred inside our own campus had our disciplinary committee let loose!! In any state its how stringent the law enforcement agency is that matters. U may even consider Bihar(most violent) fr dat matter.
I might be wrong in my opinion.