There was a time when theft required presence. The thief had to come near the victim and risk being seen. But the modern criminal, armed not with a knife but with a smartphone, steals from the shadows. He does not break a lock; he breaks trust. He does not enter a home. He enters a message thread, a payment request, a false call, a fake police warning, a counterfeit customer-care link. This is the reality of our age: technology-enabled crime is a rapidly growing epidemic.
India’s digital revolution has been rightly celebrated. UPI has changed the way the country pays, shops, borrows, and transfers money. From the city mall to the village corner shop, from the salaried employee to the vegetable vendor, digital payments have become routine. But every great public convenience creates a corresponding public vulnerability. The same phone that enables instant payment enables instant fraud. The same trust that powers digital commerce can be weaponised by deception. In such a landscape, cybercrime is not merely a law-and-order problem. It is a test of the rule of law.
The latest numbers emerging from Delhi offer a warning that should not be ignored anywhere in India. Parliamentary and media reports have shown that the capital has suffered massive losses to digital fraud in recent years, running into thousands of crores, while only a fraction has been recovered. Reports have also documented a sharp escalation in cyber-related financial losses over the past decade. These figures are scary not simply because they are large, but because they reveal the scale at which digital theft now operates. It has become organised, repeatable, and industrial.
Yet if Delhi’s numbers are to instruct us, they must also be interpreted carefully. Delhi is urban, highly digitised, and institutionally concentrated. It has a relatively high degree of police visibility, faster access to banks and investigators, and a stronger tendency toward formal complaint registration. It is a compact administrative unit in which both crime and reporting are more visible and connected. Bihar, by contrast, is vast, populous, and uneven in digital literacy, access, and reporting behaviour. To compare Delhi with Bihar in the context of cybercrimes is analytically lazy and administratively dangerous. Indeed, the more plausible inference may be the opposite.
Delhi may appear to lose more because it can count more. Bihar may appear to lose less because much of its loss is still not fully counted. In cybercrime, a lower visible number from a larger and more dispersed state is not reassuring. It may be evidence of under-reporting, under-detection, or delayed registration. An urban victim may know where to complain and act quickly. A rural victim may lose crucial hours in confusion. By the time the system acts, the trail is cold.
This is why the comparison between Delhi and Bihar must not be reduced to a contest of raw statistics. The real issue is state capacity. Cybercrime is a crime of velocity. In conventional crime, the first day and the first hour matter. In cybercrime, the first minutes matter. The moment a fraudulent transfer is made, the clock begins to run. If the complaint is not registered instantly, if the bank is not alerted immediately, if the suspect account is not frozen without bureaucratic delay, if the police station lacks trained personnel to recognise the fraud pattern, then the money can be moved and withdrawn before governance has begun.
That is why Bihar must think about cybercrime not as a niche technical cell within the police system, but as a mainstream policing priority. It is now a district and village-level problem. The fraudster does not want the victim to become digitally literate. She exploits precisely the gap between adoption and awareness. She thrives where payment becomes easy, but protection remains weak.
And here lies the central policy truth: underfunded policing in the digital age is surrender. A state as large, dense and poor as Bihar cannot confront an international cyber-fraud ecosystem with underfunded, understaffed units, occasional awareness drives, and knee-jerk responses after headlines appear. It needs money, manpower, training, and permanent architecture. If the State encourages citizens to embrace digital payments, welfare transfers, app-based services, online banking, and e-governance, then the State also incurs the responsibility to defend citizens within that digital marketplace. The right to sell carries the duty to stand behind what was sold.
What would that duty require in practical terms? First, Bihar needs a dedicated cybercrime budget line. Cybercrime cannot remain an incidental sub-head buried inside general expenditure. If the threat is structural, the funding must be structural. Second, every district requires responsive units. They must be staffed, trained, and linked in real time with banks, telecom providers, and national reporting systems. Third, complaint intake must be treated as an emergency function. Every police station must intake and escalate complaints immediately. Fourth, the State must invest in training. Traditional policing skills fail against phishing chains, mule accounts, impersonation scams, remote-access fraud, fake KYC links, digital arrest rackets, social-media frauds, and UPI traps. Officers must be trained not only to register cases but to understand typologies, preserve digital evidence, platform coordination, and money trail pursuit. Fifth, Bihar needs stronger public awareness at the block and panchayat level. Awareness is not ornamental. An enormous share of cyber fraud succeeds not because the criminal is brilliant, but because the citizen is isolated, rushed, frightened, or misled. It is preventive policing. Sixth, the State should build a public cybercrime dashboard tracking complaints, golden-hour action, frozen accounts, recoveries, and district response times. What is measured can be improved, and what is hidden often gets neglected.
A modern cybercrime response cannot be built on selective outrage. It requires data, dashboards, and accountability. The moral and political stakes are higher than they first appear. It is not only a threat to savings; it is a threat to trust. And it does not distinguish. It steals from the MP, the widow, the trader, the student, and the migrant worker. It damages dreams and punishes aspiration. It converts inclusion into vulnerability. A society that digitises without protecting its users risks creating fear, not confidence.
Bihar, therefore, must resist the false comfort of incomplete numbers. It must not ask merely whether its visible totals are lower than Delhi’s. It must ask a more serious question: are its people better protected? If complaints are not promptly registered, if victims are not quickly guided, if criminals are not quickly grounded, if district units remain thin, if technical staff are scarce, if recoveries are low, and if cyber policing remains underfunded, then the answer is plain no. The threat is already larger than the record.
Cybercrime is no longer a specialised luxury of policing. In the age of UPI, it is a basic state capacity. A government that invites the citizen into the digital economy must also defend them there. If this is now an epidemic, then Bihar must treat cyber policing as public infrastructure. Bihar must fund cyber policing, expand units, train investigators, and act at digital speed. For in the age of instant payment, defeat lies in delayed governance.
No comments:
Post a Comment