The dehumanising metropolis

The dehumanising metropolis

(Published in 'The Hitavada' on January 5, 2012)

By Kartik Lokhande 

‘Maximum City, Minimum Response’, read a ticker on a news channel after low turnout of Mumbaikars at MMRDA Ground in Mumbai for anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare’s fast. Later, when the news was on air, the anchor wondered, why was there so little response from Mumbaikars to the fast against corruption. Probably, he did not know answer to the question.

Answer to this question is a complex one. To explore the answer, one needs to think deeper about psyche of Mumbai, factors affecting that, and the much-touted ‘resilience’. In physical terms, the city has everything. It is among the world cities, commercial capital of India, city offering maximum employment opportunities, city with maximum inflow and outflow of money, house for most of the rich persons or firms across the globe, and what not. Sadly, though, the Maximum City has mental, psychological, and spiritual hollow also.
The hollow on these counts makes any city merely a place for human race, where space for humanity no longer exists. As a result, there are a lot many herds of people but not many closely-knit friends. Friendships are at professional levels and for professional purposes only. People find themselves isolated in crowd. Hence, such cities earn a name for maximum frustration, maximum suicides, and maximum psychiatrists. Such cities see maximum loyalty switch-overs, breaches of trust, cheating, duping, fraud; all for money. Mumbai has maximum number of dons and cops, and their unholy nexus. The city presents too many contrasts -- maximum properties and maximum number of shelter-less people; maximum pubs, hotels, restaurants, liquor and food joints, but maximum number of people who cannot afford access to these. Of course, there are certain good things also, but their quantum is minimum.
Many relate all these things to population that has come from outside. But then, the question remains, why does population get attracted to such cities? Money is the sole reason for almost all the people who migrate to such cities. These cities offer not only maximum opportunities, but also maximum brutalities. As for Mumbai, so many movies have been made on the topic by Mumbaikars themselves. The jungle rule of survival of the fittest is order of the day here. This itself proves that social animal has lost social touch, and only animal part of him comes to the fore for survival while being in the Maximum City.
Against this backdrop, it is but obvious that many are indifferent to others and their concerns. In Mumbai, indifference is a general characteristic and anger against such indifference is an exception. For instance, anger against politicians and their abject failure in making the police machinery efficient was visible only for a certain span after 26/11 terror attack on Mumbai. Then, so many people had gathered at Gateway of India, organized candle light vigils, had raised slogans against politicians in power as well as opposition. Then Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh and Home Minister R R Patil had to quit after the outburst, and everything went silent. Mumbai got back to work again. It was dubbed as resilience, a characteristic of the Maximum City that never stopped at any thing.
However, indifference was clear soon. Within a short span of time, Vilasrao Deshmukh and R R Patil both got rehabilitated politically. Deshmukh was made a minister in Union Cabinet, Patil again returned to State Cabinet as Home Minister. And, there were no candle-light marches, no voice of anger, no reaction at all by the same Mumbaikars who were so infuriated some time back. The same Mumbai that had devised derogatory phrases for these politicians, got busy with the same politicians. There was a convenience part served well by these and other politicians. The anger over 26/11 attack faded away with every passing day. The anger was momentary and it did not bring about any fundamental change, because the Maximum City’s another characteristic was expression of anger only when it was ‘trendy or fashionable’. Moving on indifferently was, thus, given a new name – resilience – after every human tragedy in Mumbai.
Hence, when Mumbai again came together to raise pitch against corruption last year, it was bound to get back to work again soon. Poor Anna Hazare did not understand this. In December, Anna decided to sit on fast in Mumbai. The man did not realize that Mumbai, with its inherent indifference towards any issue, would not respond to his call for a cause. There was another reason also. The commercial capital has another characteristic – lack of human face to growth. As Anna’s agitation was against psyche of corruption, which is a child of greed and lust, and also against politicians who were deep into it; there was nothing fashionable and convenient for Mumbai to respond to.
Once again, Mumbai proved that it was a fine example of symbolism of development and modernism without a human face, human values, human emotions. On every such occasion, Mumbai failed national causes and those who fought for them. On every such occasion in future, Mumbai will do the same. It is not to criticize a city in particular. It is to point out what the islands of development in modern India lack. It is to appreciate critically the minimum response islands like Mumbai give when they are required to lead by example. It is to suggest that course-correction is need of the hour for such cities. It is to lament that the Maximum City has ‘Max’ of ‘Mum’ and expression of emotions is just an exception.
One will like Mumbai to be called a ‘Maximum City’ in true sense of the term. For the purpose, it needs to get to the roots of indifference and bring about a change from there. If that happens, the commercial capital of the country will be a fine example of growth with human face and then it will be a model of development to be followed by other emerging metro cities. Then, causes of national interest will get maximum response from Mumbai. And, then, tickers like ‘Maximum City, Minimum Response’ will not be seen...