What can be said about a place that rejected B.R. Ambedkar?

In 1952, in independent India's first election, the only election he ever fought for the Lok Sabha, Bombay decided Ambedkar wasn't good enough for them.

Also read: The megapolis that lost its way



I'd say it all goes downhill from there politically. Not that Mumbaikars (I like that word-it locates the citizens as being parochial and bucolic) care about such things. Visit the place and you'd think it was the centre of the earth, with its "we mean business" briskness and the self-congratulatory references to the "spirit of Mumbai".

But it is of course an insignificant place despite the bombast. This is revealed immediately when the place is inspected from the outside. Airplanes flying south from Mumbai take off from Santacruz and bank left over the ocean. At this point passengers on the port side can see the island city in full. It is a depressing sight: small, dusty and hardly the great metropolis its inmates think it to be.

Aakar Patel Aakar Patel

Mumbai is in every way overrated, and its contribution either to global economics or domestic politics not much. It is not in the league of New York, London, Singapore or Hong Kong, all smaller than Mumbai, as a financial centre, not even close. Does it have any of New York's political liberalism? Of course not. Its contribution to our political debate is mainly negative and we'll take a look how.

Also read: A victim of divisive politics



It has one standout feature: it is home to the world's biggest entertainment industry. By way of bums on seats, mind you, and not revenues. On this latter function it will never outdo Hollywood because of the overly sentimental desi mush it produces and it doesn't even have the universalism of Hong Kong's kung fu movies.

However, Bollywood's greatest crime is to be apolitical. Ever heard about Hindutva-style McCarthyism against our stars and directors and writers? No? That's because resistance doesn't exist.

Also read: The case for more space



Bollywood, even if it could, can produce no artist of the courage and quality of Ai Weiwei. It has little interest in political content and many Bollywood people reading this would be surprised that artists would be expected to do this.

Except for a little kiss and grab, these movies would have been no different had they been made in any other Indian city or, indeed, in Lahore. Its mix of communities makes Mumbai a little (only slightly) more socially liberal than our other cities. That is what makes it the locus for popular entertainment.

Also read: Parochial trumps plural



Here, the Marathi manoos and his politics have a negative contribution to make. If we think about it, popular entertainment can only be produced on the cusp of immorality. Bollywood's content keeps pushing social boundaries out, slowly making India more socially tolerant through stories about unwed mothers and bar dancers. But the politicians who control the state respond to their constituency in the village, which is moral. And so issues such as bans on dance bars keep coming up in Mumbai. Such acts pull the cusp back inward.

Why is Bollywood apolitical? It is craven out of wisdom. It cannot express strong political opinion because Mumbaikars patronise the most illiberal political party in the country and farther afield.

Also read: Still the queen of the night



Actually I may have made a mistake in ascribing a quality to it, because the Shiv Sena would be happy with any adjective one cares to append to it-loutish, nationalistic, dictatorial-as long as there is some reference to it. It is an organisation put together by the genius of one man, whose chief talent lay in speaking well.

Few who heard him speak would deny that Bal Thackeray was one of the three best orators our popular politics has produced (the other two being Lalu Yadav and Narendra Modi).

Also read: Dumb city, smart people



Thackeray's language was colloquial, his humour lowbrow and giggle-inducing and his speeches animated with mime. For the enormous mob he gathered at Dussehra every year in Shivaji Park, he was pure entertainment. Unsophisticated, yes, but very good.

Thackeray had few other talents. He had zero interest in serious policy and couldn't be bothered to read any legislation. His strength was his wit and humour and his readiness to speak strongly on all subjects, particularly those about which he knew little. Happily for Mumbaikars, this talent has passed on to his nephew and to some extent to his son.

Also read: City of our blighted future



Till recently (and I do not know if this has changed) the Shiv Sena's election manifestos did not have any reference to economic policies. Such things are unimportant to the Shiv Sena.

The Shiv Sena's issues are always those where they can demonstrate to Marathis their ability to block events-we won't allow Pakistani singers, we won't allow Valentine's Day, we won't let this function happen, we won't allow that movie to be released and so on. Shiv Sena has nothing constructive to offer Marathis, nor is it expected: someone else will do all that.

All these events blocked eventually come to pass anyway, because the Shiv Sena's control is cosmetic, and it wilts when the state decides to apply rule of law. But that moment of theatre-when the media exhibits anguish-produces the spotlight that nourishes the Thackerays. This is the pattern to Shiv Sena's actions.

Also read: Let's recapture the resilience



The Marathi manoos (as he is referred to in the generalised sense) isn't bothered about a book launch or a particular film being released, and by itself such matters are irrelevant, but he's impressed by the Thackerays' ability to make Bollywood stars grovel. It reassures him that Marathis control Mumbai.

It might appear that these actions are irrational, but the Thackerays' method is cold and reasoned to squeeze out advantage.

There is a second reason why the Thackerays are compelled to make a nuisance of themselves ever so often. Unlike other parties, the Shiv Sena has a physical presence in most Mumbai suburban neighbourhoods. These offices, called shakhas or branches, are run by local toughs, and are self-funded, meaning that they approach businesses and residents for 'donations'.

Also read: Life... in a metro



Long years out of power in the state have meant that such decentralised funding is the only way the party can remain intact.

This activity can be smooth only so long as Shiv Sena radiates menace. I need not explain why. The Shiv Sena, the army of Shivaji, is not effective if it isn't feared, and the grassroots reminds the leadership of this.

There is constant pressure on the Shiv Sena leadership from its shakha pramukhs (and on them from the foot soldiers) to keep a sharp, rough and menacing profile. This is why there is no end to the nuisance of the Shiv Sena: such nuisance is good for business.

This then is the premier political party of the city of Mumbai. It is remarkable to me that there is no political resistance from Mumbaikars to it. It shows the selfishness and inward-looking features of Indians generally and Mumbaikars particularly. As long as they can get to work on time (the most important aspect of the "spirit of Mumbai") they are fine with everything else.

Aakar Patel is a writer, columnist, and former newspaper editor.

