On January 20, a journalist with The Print, Sanya Dhingra, tweeted a picture of a woman and a child occupying a seat on the Delhi Metro and the child’s nanny sitting on the floor. The caption read: “Seen in Delhi metro: Mother and child take seats while the child’s nanny sits on the floor on a fairly empty train. Caste/class discrimination really is space-agnostic”, making a case of class inequality.

The picture went viral, with Twitterati shaming such practices and, in turn, the woman in the picture.

Subsequently, on January 22, Shekhar Gupta, The Print’s founder and editor-in-chief, wrote a think-piece (which was published along with the picture tweeted out by Dhingra) pointing out at class divide. Gupta’s piece also stated that middle-class Indians made their maids sit on the floor, despite the Metro being empty.

He further wrote that “in no other urban Indian situation does class inequality show up as starkly as in employer-domestic worker” dynamic. Using anecdotes and other reference material, the piece went on to speak, at large, about the problematic malik-naukar relationship in a “servant-dependent” India.

But there seems to be another side to the story. It appears now that the picture (indicative of the apparent class inequality) was used out of context.

On January 23, Kshitij Dhamija, who has stated that he is the brother of the woman in the picture, published a post on his sister’s behalf. In the post, the woman, a doctor at Delhi’s AIIMS hospital, states that not only was the picture used in an “incorrect context” but also creates “the most repulsive impression” of her family.

In the post titled ‘Discrimination in Metro: The Whole Story’, the woman goes on to narrate the entire sequence of events – from all of them sitting on the floor to her walking around with the baby when he got restless, to the journalist’s brief interaction with them and the picture going viral on social media.

Clarifying the sequence of events that led her to occupy the seat from her earlier place (which was on the floor along with her baby and her help), she stated: “My baby dislikes being seated when he has the opportunity to interact with so many people, so my nanny sat there with the bags and I started taking a walk with my baby in the coach… When there was space in between two women, I made him stand there to see the lights and traffic outside to distract him briefly but to no avail. Eventually, I decided to feed him. As he has recently learned to eat by himself, he happily opted for the option and sat next to one of the girls (there was no vacant seat, only space created by the girl). Soon, that girl de-boarded and I sat there continuing to feed him as we were just four stations away.”

The woman’s clarification put the picture in a different light. If seen in that context, the photo is no longer indicative of class discrimination.

Writing about the way the picture was being portrayed, the woman goes on to state: “She (the reporter) took advantage of the situation, took our picture without our knowledge and proceeded to accuse us of something we didn’t even do.”

Newslaundry reached out to Dhingra for her response to the woman’s statements and her blog.

Dhingra said: “The picture I tweeted out had nothing to do with the woman. A lot of people are saying that it was my attempt to malign her. I don’t know her and I have no reason to malign her. The picture is calling out a very harsh kind of discrimination that is making a lot of us uncomfortable.”

Dhingra added: “There are certain things in the woman’s statement that are factually incorrect and I will be commenting on them in a counter that will be published on our website.” She did not detail what the inaccuracies were.

Speaking of the woman, who was the subject of the picture, becoming collateral damage, Dhingra said: “It is unfortunate that people, instead of seeing the larger problem, are pinning it down on one person. I am extremely sorry she has to feel that way. But I would like to re-emphasise that was not my intention.”

Further, Dhingra said, “When we perpetrate any kind of discrimination we don’t see ourselves as any kind of villain. We don’t even realise we are actively doing this against someone and that was exactly my intention – to point out that it has become so routinised and normal that you don’t find it as problematic.”

Following the woman’s statement, Dhingra and The Print faced much criticism for “yellow journalism”.

Responding to this, Dhingra said: “I don’t understand comments such as ‘the woman’s version has proved my statements to be incorrect’. What were we expecting this woman to say – that she is sorry? That she did discriminate based on caste or class?”

She added, “Even though I hate to make it a me-versus-her kind of thing, there are factual inaccuracies which have compelled me to come forward and we will be publishing it shortly.”

Update: The Print has put out a response to the AIIMS doctor’s blog, headlined “Uncovering class bias is good journalism. Don’t paint it as a click-bait trick“.