New York, like every city in America, provides an emergency 911 hotline to its citizens to report life threatening dangers or conditions. These helplines are staffed and geared to respond to emergencies. But, if you call 911 and your situation is not a true emergency, meaning life threatening, you are firmly directed to contact your neighborhood police precinct or the general helpline 311.
The idea is that resources of any city, including a rich city like New York, are finite. If emergency hotlines get busy handling non-emergency issues, then real emergencies might go unanswered leading to loss of life. We know of no one in New York who does not understand this. We dare say that is true of any city in the United States and indeed of any responsible civilized city in the world.
1. Don’t Delhites get it?
Last week, we found out this not true of Delhi. To be specific, we found a Reuters journalist who does not seem to understand this. How do we know? From Anuja Jaiman’s own article on Reuters India Insight titled Delhi police helpline: if your stalking case is not urgent, please press 1.
Ms. Jaiman jeers at this “if your stalking case is not urgent, please press 1” message in her article. We don’t get her attitude at all. This is exactly the difference between 911 & 311 helplines in New York. But Ms. Jaiman doesn’t understand that. She writes as if this is a breach of promise to Delhi’s citizens. That is why her opening paragraph reads:
- “Citizens First: those are the two words at the top of the Delhi Police department’s website. An alternative could be: “first come, first served.”“
This is bizarre. Does this woman even understand what a police department does? She seems to suggest that the police should set aside murder, arson, armed robbery to serve a lesser claim just because that complainant was first in line.
What was the Ms. Jaiman’s complaint? Why did she call the anti-stalking helpline of the Delhi police? Ms. Jaiman explains in her article:
- “I called the stalker line after receiving some text messages and telephone calls that made me feel unsafe.”
We completely understand and sympathize with Ms. Jaiman’s feelings. Such calls and texts can unnerve anyone and make them feel at risk besides feeling violated. But she, according to her own words, was not being physically stalked and there was no imminent threat to her person.
A stalking
emergency to us is being stalked physically where you feel there is
present & imminent danger of being physically attacked. That also
seems to be the feeling of Delhi police based on the visual below from
their website:
We wondered how Ms. Jaiman’s complaint would be handled in New York. So we called our cellular provider and our police precinct. The cellular company told us that they can block both calls & texts from a number for a fee. The police said “don’t answer the phone” and told us that they would not do a thing because there was no physical threat. Comparatively, Delhi police seemed much more understanding and helpful to Ms. Jaiman.
2. Sense of Entitlement in Ms. Jaiman?
But Ms. Jaiman was severely dissatisfied. She felt entitled to speedy police action to find the person who texted and called her anonymously. She wrote:
- “This is happening when the police are under intense criticism for not doing enough to prevent rape, harassment and assault, not to mention reports of their views on women. This latest incident was not an inspiring episode.”
Frankly, we discern in Ms. Jaiman the same feeling of entitlement that we discussed in our articles about two other Delhi-based women journalists, a New York Times India Ink reporter and a CNN-featured business editor. In fact, Ms. Jaiman, a Reuters journalist, was not above throwing the weight of her journalistic reach at the police officer. As she writes:
- “so I tell him I’m a journalist and plan to write a story. He mumbles
something about swift action and getting back to me A.S.A.P.”
We disapprove of this. A journalist cannot use the power given to her by her job for her own personal benefit. We wonder whether Thomson Reuters has a policy in place governing such behavior.
In exchange for the freedom it delivers, a democracy expects a sense of responsibility, a feeling of commitment to the fellow citizens, a commitment to act for society above each citizen’s self interest. We cannot find even a trace of such responsibility in Ms. Jaiman’s article in Reuters India Insight.
No democracy can succeed when citizens like Ms. Jaiman are unwilling to accept that their own complaints may not be as urgent as those of her fellow citizens and that she should press 1 when her case was not urgent.
3. What did Ms. Jaiman do next?
Then Ms. Jaiman did what connected Indians do. Read her own words:
- “Then, last Friday, a contact of a friend of mine forwarded my story to Neeraj Kumar, Delhi’s police commissioner…. That made a difference. I’ve received a bunch of calls, including from Special Commander TN Mohan. Someone from the women’s helpline then asked me for details about my complaint, which of course I’d given already.”
- “I also got a call from Arti Sharma of the Crime Branch, who gave me her personal number and said that I could call her about anything regarding the enquiry into the calls and messages, which indeed has been initiated.”
To her credit, Ms. Jaiman did not gloat about her special access. Instead, she wondered:
- “My main question now is: how would my situation look if I didn’t have a friend of a friend?”
Kudos, Ms. Jaiman. It shows you don’t consider as “entitled” as some of your EE-Indian colleagues do.
Unfortunately her update also shows the dark side of Delhi’s police who tend to shower attention on the connected Delhites and ignore the ordinary, unconnected, poor citizens of Delhi.
4. What about Ms. Jaiman’s Editor?
The self-described “Blog editor” for Reuters India is Robert MacMillan, a man familiar with New York, the city that hosts the World Head Quarters of Thomson-Reuters. He must be familiar with the difference between a 911 emergency and a 311 complaint. So, why didn’t he educate Ms. Jaiman? And why did he approve the publication of
Ms. Jaiman’s article?
Robert MacMillan did not merely approve of Ms. Jaiman’s article. He celebrated it and broadcast it via his tweets. That makes us wonder about him. Does he have different standards for New York
City and Delhi? He knows that the Delhi police force is inadequately staffed. Doesn’t he understand that forcing Delhi police, through personal connections, to focus on a non-threatening case could take away resources from helping a less connected Delhi woman with a real emergency? Has he morphed into a self-entitled EE-Indian Delhite?
We do not wish
to be unfair to either Ms. Jaiman or Mr. MacMillan. Possibly, we are
wrong in our own analysis. So we invite feedback from Ms.
Anuja Jaiman, Mr. Robert MacMillan or both. We will print that verbatim.
Regarding
our main point about the democratic responsibilities of citizens, we recommend that Ms. Jaiman & Mr. MacMillan think, both personally & as journalists,
about the words of a man who remains popular and highly respected in
both America and India, words below of John F. Kennedy:
- Ask Not what your Country can do for you. Ask what You can do for your Country.
That, Ms. Jaiman & Mr. MacMillan, is the essence of a true functioning democracy.
Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter
