Uber-reaction

The Delhi government’s reaction to the outrage triggered by the horrific rape of a woman passenger by the driver of a cab operated by ride aggregator Uber has been along predictable lines. Instead of trying to address the real issues thrown up by the incident, it has summarily tried, sentenced and shot the messenger. The government has banned not only Uber, but also other disruptive players in the call-taxi segment such as Ola and TaxiForSure. The Centre may well go a step further, with home minister Rajnath Singh hinting at a nationwide ban. But will banning the likes of Uber, which ironically until recently was regarded as a safe mode of transport for women in our cities, check sexual assault or rape? Doesn’t the ban merely paper over the gaping holes in the system governing licences and permissions for operation of public service vehicles? Media investigations have revealed, for instance, that the driver accused of the crime had not only been arrested on a rape charge earlier, but was out on bail after spending several months in jail. This was clearly unknown to the licensing authorities, who issued him a cab driver’s licence on the basis of a ‘character certificate’ signed by no less than an Assistant Commissioner of Police.

Prima facie, this seems to undermine the charge that Uber was culpably negligent in employing such a person. But if the facts after a thorough investigation suggest otherwise, then the company must be proceeded against, and stringently, under the relevant provisions of the criminal law. Uber, and for that matter other similar taxi services, should not be allowed to distance themselves from culpability on the ground that they are mere aggregators and not taxi services. That simply doesn’t wash. But the answer does not lie in banning all new-age cab services, which is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is asinine to believe that such a ban will mitigate the problem of rape. Moreover, there is no case for believing that passengers using other public transport – black and yellow taxis or autorickshaws, for instance — are less prone to criminal attacks or sexual assault.

The real issues thrown up the latest attack are ensuring better safety for women through more effective policing and tighter systems, to prevent criminal elements from acquiring legal sanction to operate. That means revamping our police force and using technology to ensure more effective and transparent functioning of civic transport authorities. Uber has been opposed in many cities around the world — but most of the opposition has come from entrenched taxi unions, which have seen their cosy, controlled-access market disrupted by a player offering a better product at a cheaper price. Civic authorities have also tended to side with such unions, since ensuring status quo protects their opportunities for rent seeking. A blanket ban will only deter further investment in an area where the government has blatantly failed, and rob consumers of the freedom of choice.

COMMENT NOW