Paper short abstract:

A comparison of how theft and robbery are policed in an Indian and black township in kwaZulu Natal, South Africa.

Paper long abstract:

Policing in South Africa is not, nor has it ever been, the sole remit of the state. An expanding literature on the country explores how crime is defined and policed by those who are positioned inside, outside and in the contested zone between state and society.

Currently, however, there is little work on approaches to crime within Indian townships, and barely any work that comparatively analyses approaches in Indian townships with approaches to crime elsewhere.

In this paper, I explore how residents in an Indian township and in a black township tackle theft and robbery. My paper draws on 80 qualitative, in-depth interviews, media analysis and participant observation conducted over the course of seven months of fieldwork.

Implicitly and explicitly, residents in the Indian township framed their approach to crime as being clearly distinct from that of the nearby black township. And, indeed, these two townships have divergent socio-political histories that reflect their place within the racialized political order of apartheid. Consequently, everyday policing in both areas draws on different historical 'repertoires' or 'templates'. Whilst recognising these differences, I also explore the similarities in approaches between the two townships, and the divergence of approaches that exist within them. These two case studies confirm that'multiply positioned citizens' (Gupta and Sharma 2002) in South Africa variably use, transfigure and reject the language, resources and authority of the state (see Hansen and Stepputat 2001). Crucially, though, I argue that a comparative lens can strengthen our appreciation of how, when and why these strategies are used, and with what consequences.