Last week, in Mumbai, Campa Cola residents got a reprieve from the impending demolition of their flats. In Delhi, Mayawati got permission to join three bungalows to create a super bungalow in the tony capital district without anyone raising any objections. A case of who has better clout? No, I think, it is a tale of two cities and their different cultures.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Having lived in Delhi for a better part of my life, I came to Mumbai 17 years ago and it took me some time to understand the difference in Mumbaikars’ lifestyle, their approach to life and their lingo. I still remember the day I asked a Mumbaikar for directions to a place that I could not find after 20 minutes of going round in my car. And here’s what I was told very gently and in a very understanding way: “Madam, aap yeh road seedha pakado, phir pehele signal se right kaato.

Wahan pe left mein ek badi si building giregi ...uske khatam hote hi daba dena ...bas aap pahunch jaoge.”

Not having spent enough time in Mumbai at the time, I was perplexed. Why is it that each word had a violent veneer... ‘pakado’, ‘kaato’, ‘giregi’, ‘daba dena’. The same directions if said in the Delhi language would have sounded polite... “Behenji, aap is road pe seedhe le lo, phir pehele signal se right jab logey toh left side par ek badi si building dikhegi ...us building ke ekdam baad apka pata hoga.” Sure, the language would be civil, but whoever would have given me those directions in Delhi would have said it in the most lewd manner, especially to a woman driver who has lost her way and could do with some ‘extra help’.

Why was this so? A polite sentence spoken by an uncivil tongue in one city and a lingo sprinkled with violence delivered gently in another. One wonders if the city’s historical past and cultural moorings had anything to do with this.

But for the similarity of number seven shared by the two cities, the two are like chalk and cheese in the annals of Indian history. Mumbai is an archipalego of seven small islands and Delhi comprises of remnants of seven ancient cities. The similarity ends there. After this, one only witnesses diametrically opposed happenings.

Etymologically too, Bombay comes from the words Good Bay and Mumbai from the revered deity of the Kolis – Mumba Devi. Delhi is said to have been derived from Dhillu, a king, or ‘Dhillika’, which has its Sanskrit root in the word ‘dhili’, to loose.

In Mumbai, as far back as the 3rd century BC, under the Mauryan Empire and during the reign of emperor Ashoka, the rapid spread of Hinduism and Buddhism was evident in what we know as Kanheri, Elephanta, Jogeshwari and Mahakali caves. After the Mauryas, the Gupta and the Silhara dynasties left their indelible imprints in what we know as the Mahim mosque, Banganga tank and Walkeshwar temple. Much later, under British rule, the city got its name and was given as a dowry gift to Charles II. So many rulers. So many change of hands.

Not once did the city witness any siege or plunder. Mumbai was always a centre for trade and prosperity, with an immense capacity to absorb all cultures and religions. It was indeed a city that wore each new patina as a fabric of life and depended on it for its sustenance. It was a city that gave to its people and the people wanted to give it back, just as they would give their mothers.

Delhi on the other hand has not been as fortunate or fecund. It has witnessed far more violence than Mumbai. Delhi always remained the object of desire for its ancient rulers and dynasties. It was the well-endowed courtesan who begged to be plundered. Indeed, it is said that Nadir Shah got so much wealth from plundering Delhi that he didn’t have the wherewithal to carry it all back home. In fact, despite being plundered so many times, Delhi has had the amazing resilience to regain its glory, only to become a victim of greed again. All the monuments are a testimony to the pillage it has suffered.

Whether it was the barren gift to the Pandavas that transformed into a haven in Indraprastha.

Whether it was under the Mauryan Empire, or even the Tomar dynasty, or later with Prithviraj Chauhan or Qutb-ud-din Aibak, all Delhi ever saw was a series of forts and townships that became part of the seven cities. Even the Qutub Minar was built as a watchtower or a symbol of victory. Delhi has been a lustful territory to be possessed. It was attacked and plundered as a symbol of conquest.

So the same issue may be dealt with differently in the two cities. Mumbaikars make themselves heard differently from Delhiites. The piece of land they are fighting for must be earned in the right manner, while acknowledging that they might have gone wrong somewhere. Delhi, on the other hand, only understands the language of power and gives in without a murmur when the powerful so desire.

So the next time you read about ‘illegal’ structures and their outcome, look closely at the context of the decision.

Shalini Rawla(The writer is managing consultant of The Key Consumer Diagnostics Pvt Ltd, a Mumbai-based qualitative research company)