By Swaansh Mahat
An emergency is probably the worst possible time to remember a phone number.
There may be smoke coming from a building. Someone may have collapsed. A vehicle may have crashed. A family may be trapped after a landslide. In that moment, nobody should have to stop and ask which government service to call, search through a phone, or depend on somebody nearby to know the right number.
Yet Nepal still expects people to remember several of them.
Police can be reached at 100. Fire services use 101. Ambulance support is available through 102. Traffic Police use 103. There are other specialised short codes too.
Separate services make sense. Making a frightened citizen figure out the system before the system can help does not.
Think about a road accident in which a vehicle catches fire and passengers are injured. Is it a traffic emergency, a police matter, a fire emergency or a medical one? It is all of them. The person standing beside the wreck should not have to coordinate four institutions from a mobile phone.
That coordination should already exist.
Nepal needs one clearly recognised national emergency number that works as the front door to the major emergency services. A caller should be able to say what happened and where, and a trained operator should decide who needs to respond.
The existing numbers do not need to disappear. Someone who knows they need the police can still dial 100. The same can remain true for fire, ambulance and traffic services. But there should also be one number for the person who only knows that something has gone badly wrong and help is needed.
The idea has been sitting in Nepal’s own emergency planning for years. A Health Ministry emergency-care assessment called for a single, toll-free, three-digit nationwide access number for emergency care and better coordination of dispatch. The point was simple: reaching help should be easier and the response behind the call should be organised.
A new number by itself would solve very little. If a caller reaches another desk that must then tell them to call somewhere else, Nepal would simply have added one more number to remember.
The person answering should be able to identify the emergency, record the location, alert the right unit and, when necessary, bring several services into the same response. A serious road crash may need police, traffic officers, an ambulance and firefighters at the same time. One call should be enough to start that chain.
Location is part of the problem. In Kathmandu, we still often explain where we are through a chowk, a school, a temple, a petrol pump or the building next door. Outside the Valley, an exact address can be even harder to communicate. An emergency system should therefore be able to receive mobile location information where possible while still allowing people to describe nearby landmarks in plain language.
A few saved minutes can matter much more in an emergency than they do in an ordinary government service.
Nepal’s geography makes the case stronger. Floods, landslides, road crashes, fires and earthquakes can turn a normal day into a rescue operation very quickly. During a large disaster, communication systems themselves may be under pressure. The public should not be learning how to reach emergency services for the first time while the emergency is already happening.
We often discuss the visible parts of disaster response: helicopters, ambulances, hospital beds, rescue equipment and budgets. All of them matter. But the chain begins before any vehicle moves. Somebody has to ask for help, and the request has to reach the right people quickly.
If that first step is confusing, the response starts late.
There is also a simple public-awareness advantage. Many people know 100 because it has been familiar for years. The other numbers are not always remembered as easily. Children, elderly citizens, tourists and people travelling outside their home district may know even less about which service uses which code.
One national number would be easier to teach and harder to forget. It could be printed in school textbooks, displayed inside buses, posted at petrol stations, hospitals and government offices, shown in public-service announcements and included in information given to visitors arriving in Nepal.
A child should be able to learn one emergency number at school. A tourist should be able to see the same number at the airport. A driver who comes across a crash on an unfamiliar highway should not need local knowledge to call for help.
The difficult part is not choosing three digits. It is connecting the institutions behind them.
Police, traffic police, fire services, ambulance providers, hospitals, disaster-response agencies and local governments do not become a coordinated emergency system simply because each has a telephone. They need common procedures, trained operators, reliable communications, backup power and clear responsibility for what happens after a call is received.
Those are practical problems, but they are solvable ones. Nepal does not need to shut down every existing helpline or rebuild the whole emergency system in one day. It can begin by agreeing on one national access point, building a proper dispatch structure behind it and testing it district by district before wider expansion.
What should disappear is the assumption that citizens must first understand which institution owns their emergency.
When somebody is frightened, injured or watching a disaster unfold, the government should not require them to understand its organisational chart.
They should need to remember one thing: the number for help.
Login to add a comment