Tut tut. NYT chooses to frame the problem of rapes in the New Delhi region as "a clash between old and new India". Sure, that makes the narrative easy to understand (Sarson ke khet! Software! Cow dung! Oh, Timeless India, you!) but what does the story really tell us?
Not much, really.
For example, the writer does not ask why Bombay and Kolkata, two cities that are also home to "new India" (city people) and "old India" (villagers, people from small towns and suburbs) have less (reported) crime than New Delhi? Or how New Delhi compares to Bangalore and Hyderabad, two cities that have also witnessed significant Old India/New India transition in the last two decades. Or what the crime rates are like in "Old India"?
So, yeah, it's still all the news that fits the convenient story arc.