His approach was unique in dealing with the criminals or perpetrators of the crime. He never hated criminals. He condemned the ideology of Naxalism but he never hated them, rather he preferred to understand the forces which propelled many of them to indulge in destructive activities. His sincere efforts and humane appeal demonstrated his unique approach for solving the dacoity problem in Chambal Valley through peaceful ways. His approach towards the dacoity problem in Chambal valley opened a new vista in the criminological thought. This is also an example of the fact that the mind of the perpetrators can be changed, if their conscience is roused and their loss values and ethics are restore in a humane and serene manners.

A criminologist is a person “ who is trained in the field of Criminology. Also, who studies crime, criminals, and criminal behaviour”. The origin of crime, the roots of criminal tendency and allied topics. Criminologists also study the working of the criminal’s mental processes. Since the very beginning with the advent of the civilization a major concern for the criminologists has been of crime prevention. There are four major strategic approaches to crime prevention viz., Community based prevention, situational crime prevention, developmental prevention, and law enforcement. These four approaches provide the framework to describe the theory and practice of the crime prevention. A close look on the activities of Jayaprakash Narayan reveal that he was a great social reformer, freedom fighter, statesman, criminologist, visionary leader, and concern to fulfill the aspiration of the Indian people. Here, I would confine only on his activities related to criminals on perpetuators of crime, violence and crime prevention.

Jayaprakash Narayan was a firm believer of equity and social justice in a society, which have direct bearing on the crime situation of the country. In delivering these basics to the people of India his efforts is well known. He has the distinction of having led two great Movements for a total change in a social life: one in the forties and another in the seventies”. In 1942 Mahatama Gandhi gave a call for ‘Quit India Movement’ against the brutal British rule running in India. It was JP who led this movement through non-violent means very successfully at every nook and corner in the country. In 1974, he fought against the undemocratic and dictator Government. In fact, this movement was aimed to correct the political system which was perpetrating political violence and were not fulfilling the aspirations of the people. It is said that these two movements in their contents and contexts possess such importance in the contemporary history that have drawn the global attention not less than the Chinese Revolutions. The other uniqueness of these movements is that both the movements have been guided by a person who never hold a post of power and humbly called himself a social worker. It has been observed by an American Political Scientist that the number of people participated in these movements were the bigger in terms of participation of common people as an open rebellions. The movement of seventies was called as ‘Non-Violent Civil Right Movement’, and a Movement against ‘Anti-System’, which was mainly concerned with the changing values and modes of control of the elite class of the society. Response of the common people participation in the movements strengthen the idea of developmental approach of crime prevention which says that without the social equity, and distributive justice crime prevention is not possible.

JP has not only concerned about the violence and crime taking place in India but also for the abroad. While extremely busy in the Movements for social reconstruction and crime prevention through various activities, he never missed any opportunity to react sharply on the issues involving violence, crimes, and injustices in foreign countries. In 1956, when he heard about the Soviet attack on Hungary and the failure of India’s representative at United Nations to condemn it, he said “as an Indian I hang my head in shame that a Spokesman of my country (Krishna Menon) has gone so far in cynical disregard of the truth and the fundamental principles of freedom and peace . In March 1959, when China occupied Tibet he said, “we cannot physically prevent the Chinese from annexing Tibet, but we are not serving the cause of peace by slurring over aggression. To give the popularity of the issues related to Tibet he organized an International Seminar in Delhi. Being a thoroughly gentleman and a man of principles he didn’t take up only the popular issues rather small one that affect the people of India as well as the other countries. He never failed in criticizing the Government of India and the Foreign Governments whenever they resorted to violence. Weather it is the case of Goa in 1961 when India send troops there or China marched its forces across the Himalayas towards Assam and Ladakh in 1962. In both the cases he became anxious over the developments and tried to settle issues peacefully. In 1962 he undertook an endeavor by organizing a ‘friendship march’ from New Delhi to Peking supported by some foreign pacifists. Unfortunately he was not given permission to enter into China. To build up a better relationship between India and Pakistan he set up An India-Pakistan Conciliation Group. After two years, he visited Pakistan to craft a bond between eminent persons of the both sides. A good response was given by the then President of Pakistan Shri Ayub Khan. He was very hopeful about the result, but again this was subverted because of the sudden spate of war between the two countries in 1965.

Naga Issues

The Government of India extended its administration in the area adjacent to its boarder with Burma owing the strategic importance of this area for the China. This administrative extension was resistant by the many of the Naga’s people and they turned violent to the extend that army had to be called on to maintain law and order. On the issue Lok Nayak became concerned and took a ‘Peace Mission’ into the troubled area in 1964. And this mission really managed to bring out a ceasefire. This became possible because Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayan was the only person who was trusted by both the parties. This is the another matter that the peace mission ultimately failed due to some combination of factors which was beyond of him.

After the failure of this mission Jayaprakash Narayan blamed both the Nagas and the Government of India. Naga’s were blamed for their misunderstanding the issues and the Government of India for its clumsy handling. Nagas failed to appreciate the changes and treated their relations with the rest of India on the some basis as they had treated their lessons with Britain. Making the issues crystal clear JP explained, “ The Nagas were a subject people; now and in the Independent India they are a part, of the free and Democratic Republic of India. Nagaland is not a colony or dependency of India and not ruled and exploited by India, but just like any other Indian state, it is self governing with its proportionate (or even more than proportionate) share in the affairs of the Indian Government”.

Naxal Violence

India has been experiencing a wide spread terrorism and insurgency in many forms since a long time. This is an age old problem of the country. It starts from conventional insurgency to modern day urban terrorism utilizing sophisticated weapons. Among others, the magnitude and impact of Naxal violence are so high that it has become the biggest threat for our internal security. It attracted attention of the academicians, politicians and the social thinkers. Lok Nayak JayaPrakash Narayan having sensed the reality of Naxal Violence he tried his best to solve the problem through socio political means. It was May 31, 1970 when Lok Nayak was at Pauri in Uttaranchal, he received a letter in which there was a mention of the elimination of the two Gandhian workers namely Badri Narayan Sinha and Gopalji Mishra. Immediately he and his wife rushed to that area which was located in the remote part of North Bihar. After reaching there he announced that they will stay in that block (Musahari development block) till the crisis is over. The threat of killing Gandhian workers proved to be empty. He toured everywhere in North Bihar, worst affected by Naxalism in 1970 just to know the first hand information about the situation. He experienced the miserable conditions of the people living in the remote part of the country. He found that the people were deprived of the fruits of Independence, especially in terms of socio-economic development. Immediately, he issued a statement stating that Nexalism was ‘primarily a social, economic, political and administrative problem’ and secondarily ‘a law and order problem’. There were enough reasons for rural frustration that explode into crime and violence. He boldly announced there that violence could not be a remedy to face violence. During the stay, he also found that the miserable failure of the local administration to redress the grievances of local people through legal means. His feelings were expressed in a pamphlet at Musahari as “my first reaction on coming face to face with this reality was to realize how remote and unreal were the brave pronouncement of Delhi and Patna from the actuality of the ground level, high sounding words, pompous plans, reforms and galore. But somehow they all, or most of them remained suspended somewhere in mid air”.

Having field experience like a true researcher he tried to find out the possible solution of crime and violence emerged from Naxal violence. The main factors according to Lok Nayak responsible for the Naxal and other rural violence were 'not the so-called Naxalites who have fathered this violence, but those who have persistently defied and defeated the reform laws for the past so many years-be they politicians, administrators, landowners or money-lenders. The big farmers who cheated the ceiling law through benami and fictitious settlement; the gentlemen who grabbed government lands and village property; the landowners who persistently denied the legal rights of their share-croppers and evicted them from their holdings or underpaid their labourers and threw them out from their homestead; the men who by fraud or force took the lands from the weaker sections; the so-called upper-caste men who looked down upon their harijan brethren; the money-lenders who charged exorbitant interest rates and seized the lands of the poor and the weak; the politicians, the administrators and all the others who aided and abetted these wrongs- it is they who are responsible for the accumulated sense of injustice, grievance and hurt among the poor downtrodden that is now seeking its outlet in violence.
“Also responsible are the courts of law where the procedures and costs of justice have conspired to deny a fair deal to the weaker sections of our society. Responsible again is the system of education and the kind of planning that is producing and ever-expanding army of ill educated, frustrated and unemployed youth, and which accentuates economic disparities and leads to further polarizations of classes. Responsible yet again are the politicians, whose self-seeking has reduced democracy, the party system, and the ideologies to a farce”.

Lok Nayak equally emphasized that violence was no remedy for the problem. It did not necessarily lead to social revolution. It could only produce a reaction and end up in chaos, mass misery, disintegration of the nation and fascist dictatorship: “when power comes out of the barrel of a gun and the gun is not in the hands of the common people... That is why a violent revolution has always brought forth dictatorship of some kind or the other. And that is also why after a revolution a new privileged class of rulers and exploiters grows up in the course of time to which the people at large are once again subject”.

Human Angle

The human angle, in controlling crime and violence is equally important like other crime prevention approaches. This human angle can broadly be categorized as the cadres and active supporters, civil population pro-anti or neutral towards the violence, etc. The major contributory factors for crime and violence in our country are widespread poverty, communalism, poor moral health, poor democratic institutions, administrative failure and the secessionist aspiration. With regard to Naxal Violence above mentioned factors, more or less seems to be responsible.

Jayaprakash Narayan was of the view that including socio-economic factors, lack of community support or people’s participation played big role in controlling the crime and violence in general and in Naxal violence in particular. In this backdrop, he went to meet Gandhiji and took his important advice in search of a solution to the problem. That was a period when except Gandhiji, the rest of the national leaders were solely relied upon the power of the State to accomplish their task of nation building. But Gandhiji was clear in his approach that the State could never be the sole instrument for creating India of his dream. He did not under estimate the role of the State, nor was uninterested in its proper and effective working. But he was in firm belief that the best of the policies and the best of personnel available with the state, the state by itself could not deliver the desired result. Lok Nayak's solution of the Naxal violence was based on the Gandhian philosophy. It is to create the power of the people along with the power of the State. Lok Nayak prepared a large band of revolutionary workers who could serve the people, to educate and change them, to make them stand up on their feet, and to involve them directly in the process of social change and re-construction. His means of change were service, constructive work, gentle persuasion, and when the situation demands non violence, non cooperation and resistance.

While seeking advice and exploring all possible measures to cope up the menace of Naxal violence, he showed anger with the method chosen and pursued by the Naxalites. He criticized the Naxalites for their method “terroristic violence, which in fact, is more likely to provoke counter-violence from the stronger sections of society, leading eventually to some form of despotism”. Despite, he found “the very impatience of the Nexalites with the existing state of affairs had an appealing quality. Moreover, their attempt to precipitate a revolution here and now has rendered at least one service, in that it has aroused the social consciousness of the people in general and prodded the powers that be, in particular, to hasten the implementation of the land and other socio-economic reforms”.

Dacoity in Chambal Region

Jayaprakash Narayan’s contributions to the society as a criminologist have been the issues of crime and violence related to Chambal Ghati specifically, and Naxal violence in the Indian States in general. For generations, the dacoits have been using the Chambal region as its base of their operation. Police and paramilitary forces were failed to flush out them from their hiding places. A small group of dacoits, in the year 1960, had surrendered on the appeal of Vinobha Bhawe. But there was no follow-up. Their terror and devastations were continued. After a gap of almost 11 years one of the most notorious dacoit Madho Singh, having price of Rs. 1,50,000 on his head approached the Lok Nayak. Identifying himself, he wished to surrender and wanted him to arrange the surrender ceremony in such a way so that dacoits would not loose face and also get reprieve from the death sentences. After listening him, JP agreed to contact the State Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the regions infested with the dacoits.

Accordingly, Jayaprakash Babu contacted the concerned government for the surrender arrangements. The governments of Rajasthan, MP and UP responded favourably. He even went into the dense forest, the hide out of dacoits to negotiate with them without any guards. He was accompanied by the unarmed Gandhian workers. He pursued the outlaws not only to surrender their arms but also to repent their crimes. Loknayak succeeded in doing what the Government could not. In a touching gesture, notorious outlaw Mohar Singh bowed before Mrs. Prabhawati (wife of Loknayak), touched her feet, and she placed the auspicious vermilion tilak on his forehead. Mohar Singh surrendered before the police in a dramatic way. In the next few days, following Mohar Singh, around 400 wanted outlaws surrendered. A declaration was also read out on their behalf that said: “We the inhabitants of the Chambal valley, whose activities until now have brought much suffering to all the people, today surrender ourselves for the service of society from now onwards. We are starting an altogether new life with the blessing of Baba Vinoba and Babu Jayaprakash Narayan.

We have committed many mistakes and misdeeds for which our hearts are full of genuine remorse. We ask forgiveness from all those who had to suffer some loss or the other on our account. Our only prayer to God Almighty is may He grants us the moral strength to walk on the path of righteousness, and may He make us worthy members of this society in this life itself.”

Democratic Deviance

The parliamentary form of government is considered to be the best system of governance in the world. Theoretically, in this system of governance ‘citizen’ possesses very high power and plays an important role in shaping the system. It can be said that citizen is more important and invaluable ingredient of the system than the people's representative. A citizen is not made by anybody but a representative is made by the citizen. All the pomp and grandeur attached with the people's representatives are derived from the citizen. Thus, the people's power is the source of all power including the power of army and the government. That is why, it is said that any bad situation in a democracy is better than the dictatorship.

The rule of a dictator is worse than any crime situation prevailing in the state. Dictatorship breeds state sponsored criminals, crimes and chaos. The situation, before emergency, in Bihar was like this. The movement in Bihar led by JP was spontaneous mass upsurge against all sorts of miseries. The people had started not tolerating these miseries. “The recent price rise has been the cause of the immediate outburst. But at the route, it is an economic movement par excellence” . This price rise had two fold effects, one it affected the poor people most and it changed the income distribution in favour of the affluent. The number of landless rural workers had gone from 11.3 percent in 1961 to 19.35% in 1971 in UP, from 23-38 percent in Bihar, from 28.6-37.4 percent in Andhra Pradesh, from 18.4-29.1 percent in Tamil Nadu and from 15.3-25.7 percent in West Bengal. In India, the total number of agricultural workers grew from 23.5 million in 1951 to 31.5 million in 1961 and 45.4 million in 1971.
Another important factor at that time was the corruption that was deeply rooted in the social system. This was so stratified at the various levels of administration that it not only had given and impetus to the widespread corruption but also eroded the very ethos of the economic development. All the strikes erupted during the period were dubbed as ‘political motivated by the then Government. The BSF, CRPF, the Territorial Army, the MTSA, and the BIR were the sources of strength for the Government. These all actions had, in fact, undermined the very foundation of democracy. The situation was described as “In Srikakulam district seven out of 11 talukas were notified as ‘disturbed areas’ in 1969. About 50,000 people are still herded together in Vietnam- type ‘strategic hamlets’ ... the police and para-military have fanned out in the tribal tracts as part of the Government's anti-Naxalite operations.” This is the tip of the iceberg. There are many such examples in the list. The Gaya firing on March 11, the shooting on the procession on June 5 at Patna by members of the Indira Brigade, and the bomb explosion in the circuit house in Patna reveal the fascist tendencies. One can understand what is the role of the Nehru Brigade and the Indira Brigade? These organizations were working as paramilitary organizations patronized by Congress leaders. There was no justification in the democratic setup like ours to keep 30,000 young men in prison for years together. The only fault of these young men was fighting for a change in the tyrannical system.

State directed violence and crime even did not spare the personalities like JP, Nanaji Deshmukh and Shri Haidar Mi. As JP recalled “If Shri Nanaji Deshmukh, Shri Haidar Ali and others of the Bihar police deputed to secure my personal safety had not physically intervened, receiving the CRP lathi blow aimed at me, I would have been a dead man on that day. It happened at the instance of the Central Government”. While the Government version was different. She (Indira Gandhi) blamed JP for all this happening and working for the CIA. But the fact remained as “JP had prepared a list of questions to make sure that the Chhatra Sangharsh Samittee (CSS) was not involved in the violence. Only when satisfied did he agree to ‘guide and direct’ them, but on two conditions. One, that they remained peaceful; the other that those that had affiliations with political parties should sever them.” JP was fighting against the rule of misgovernment and corruption, black marketing, profiteering and hoarding which directly or indirectly breed crime and violence in the society.

Communal Violence

India being a country of many religions, almost every religious community has its own brand of communalism. Communal violence has been a very common feature of the Indian society. Even before the Independence the communal conflict was taking place that was a constant source of anxiety for JP. He was one of the few, who with Gandhiji didn’t celebrate the Independence Day on 15ih August, 1947. While confined in Lahore jail, he opposed any negotiation with the Muslim League and predicted that partition would be no solution. After Independence, a national party always negotiated with the party like Muslim League in order to continue in power. JP, since very beginning has been active to pacify and inquire into major communal outbreaks in the country. He blamed both the communities: majority and minority. So, he did at his level best to pacify and control the communal violence. Even his political philosophy was also based upon the non-violence. As he said “I have no faith in violence and it is so because I believe in democracy. I have faith in the people. I do not want those who have guns to sit on the backs of the people and rule in their name.”

Conclusion

The life journey of Jayaprakash Narayan was dedicated to make the society just, prosper and crime free. His concern towards these goals was not limited to India but in the other countries also. The proper approach for these purposes, the human appeal, persuasion, non-violence, good governance etc. he had chosen as important elements of his approach. Many issues relating to the crime and violence that are piercing and destroying the very ethos of our democratic socialism were solved by his untiring efforts. Many a times he was jailed, tortured, crippled, and even attacked deadly for the common cause of Indian people. But unfortunately, his dream making India a communitarian and crime-free society based on the Lok Shakti and people’s participation, is still to gain a ground.#