Opinion Peeling the onion
Mumbai has not,thankfully,totally swallowed Bombay
A year back I might actually have agreed that Raj Thackerays goons had a point in protesting the use of the word Bombay in a Hindi movie,while referring to Indias commercial capital. I believed that the Bombay of my childhood,a beautiful,tolerant,cosmopolitan city by the sea,had in any case vanished. Every time I returned to the city I searched in vain for many of the old landmarks,only to be confronted by a disturbing reality which had no connection with the past.
For instance,the gracious Victorian villas on New Marine Lines,a sleepy,shady lane behind Churchgate station where I grew up,have disappeared. Now when you enter the street during office hours you are overwhelmed by the stench of rotting garbage,teeming humanity,cars honking away and traffic jams. All the houses have long since been pulled down for high-rise offices,though adequate civic amenities are totally absent.
All cities change with time. One cannot continue to dwell in the past. The difference is that the rapid metamorphosis of Bombay altered not just its physical exterior but corroded its soul. The Shiv Sena and others of its ilk,determinedly hammered away at the cosmopolitan,secular character of the city,in a bid to assert the primacy of Maharashtrians. Non-Maharashtrians were all lumped together as outsiders. The irony is that the Marathi-speakers,who come from other parts of Maharashtra state and who now claim to be the true inheritors of the city,are themselves carpet-baggers.
The seven islands named in honour of the goddess Mumbadevi were originally inhabited by Koli fisherfolk. In the mid sixteenth century,the Portuguese captured the island. A century later it was handed over to the East India Company. With the British developing Bombay as a major harbour and commercial hub,it attracted a large number of Gujaratis and Parsis by the eighteenth century. The Marathi-speakers who came from the hinterland as labourers in the factories,started trickling in only by the late nineteenth century. In fact,before the division of Bombay state in 1960,the numbers of Gujaratis and Maharashtrians in the city were probably equal.
When exactly did Bombay change its identity and transform into Mumbai? Officially in 1995. No one objected to the re-christening,since in Gujarati and Marathi the city was always called by that name. Bombay was simply an anglicised mispronunciation. But Mumbai is not just another return to the correct indigenous pronunciation of the name,as with Chennai or Kolkata. The term unfortunately has come to have another connotation,because of the intolerant,Marathi chauvinism associated with the name. The Gujarati-speakers,Parsis,Bohras,Khojas and others who played a major role in building the citys important institutions and giving the city its cosmopolitan character are today made to feel like
second-class citizens by the Marathi-speakers who used their political clout and numbers to terrorise. The liberal and secular character of Bombay turned insular and parochial.
The physical decline of the city started around the same time. Urban planning was ignored by greedy politicians who looked upon Mumbai as a milch cow for party coffers and their own pockets. Ironically,those who began the process of destroying the citys harmonious social fabric were the first ones to point a finger at new migrants from the south,Bihar and UP that started arriving in large numbers by the end of the century. Today,according to Suketu Mehta in Maximum City,two-thirds of the citys population is crowded into just five per cent of the total area of the island,while the rich or covenanted old tenants monopolise the remaining 95 per cent. In part of the city the density is as high as 15,000 per square kilometre.
Mehta went on to make another point: he said Mumbai should not be described as a melting pot but rather an onion with endless layers,each representing a totally different world. And happily,the events of the last year have shown us that pockets of the true Bombay still exist. This was brought home by the heroic response of Bombayites to the 26/11 terrorist attack and its aftermath. The courage displayed by hotel employees,firemen and policemen,the manner in which concerned residents rallied to the defence of their city and ensured communal amity,the display of public outrage against opportunistic politicians,were all reflective of the spirit of Bombay. Spontaneous citizen movements,such as cleaning the beaches,fighting to improve the environment,restoring the citys old monuments and buildings,reviving the museums,the illumination of south Bombays landmarks and instituting vibrant new folk festivals,testify to the fact that Bombay is still alive. If Bollywood yet to be re-christened Mollywood director Karan Johar felt the need to apologise for using the term Bombay in his film,it was simply because he was intimidated by the spirit of Mumbai,which does not have the same tolerance as its earlier avatar.
coomi.kapoor@expressindia.com