Something of Myself

What strikes me about Calcutta, New Delhi, and London is that each of these cities leave an indelible and everlasting mark on anyone that has lived in these places for some years. Yet, this mark is not a stamp - unfixed and changing, the impressions are, at best, personal.

There is something about cities which moves me. In Calcutta, it's the warmth - food, places, people, taxis, trams, metros, hawkers, tea-shops, tubewells, and even the bureaucratic system that pervades the city, is at some point warm to the one who settles here and makes it his own home. Delhi presents history, and presently displays the logic behind the changing face of India. Delhi's history is evident in its people, its roads, signages, lanes, mosques, debris, monuments, and of course its politics. However, unlike Calcutta, Delhi is caught between two worlds - the old and the wanting-to-be-new-and-fresh-and-all-that! London leaves me confused. At times, the buildings remind me of Calcutta (You got to compare West Minister with Writer's, albeit forgetting the scale and maintenance), the people remind me of Delhi (cold, untouched, reclusive, only unwinding on designated days meant for binge drinking), and the general smell of the air, somehow takes me back to the Empire. These cities speak. And I am sure, so does all the others that I have never had the fortune to live in.

Whenever I have played with the idea of writing a book (unashamedly), I have considered two subjects of interest; and one of them have clearly been the idea of cities, and what it does/means to different people living (perhaps even) in the same neighbourhood. I guess this is the reason why I can so easily fit into any city that I visit. Hostile, cold, unwelcoming, sweet, sultry, hot, tempting, inviting...whatever it might be, I tend to think of it not as a 'place' but as a living being. I have often wondered if cities would remain the same, and retain their characteristics if her people moved out. If I were to put the entire population of Calcutta onto Mumbai, would the latter still remain the same? I wonder.

As I was driving in the morning, and stopped by the crossroad, I saw the gushing of auto-rickshaws, cars, buses, bicycles, motorbikes, vans, trucks, and police cars. That fine moment, when the lights turned green and these vehicles made for their destination, something happened. I felt this sudden gush (which is seemingly the same all over the world) was so different. In Delhi, the point is to go ahead and reach fastest, giving a damn about traffic rules, driving etiquettes or anything related to all that. In Calcutta, it's about the honking - the lights turn green and the honks go off! In London, everyone times their journey so well that the change from red to green really does not make much difference - the stiff upper lips do not twitch, no rush of adrenalin, just a steady, programmed movement (yeah, you can call it discipline).

After having lived across three major cities of the world, my heart still craves for Calcutta, closely followed by London...but I am beginning to like Delhi - for I am not the kind who will turn his back towards the future. I understand Delhi's dilemma, its struggle to bring together two worlds, to cease illiteracy, to eradicate poverty, to buy foreign cars, to wear branded clothes, to use fish knives, to go global, to be international...but, trouble is, we are what we are, and Delhi's biggest tryst begins with just this: attempting to being something that she is not. Personally, I think I'd rather that she be the embodiment of history that she is, that she retains the value that brought independence to this country, that she holds on to the culture that at one time, brought down the Empire. It's powerful and does not need a UN stamp of approval. Therein lies the success of Kolkata - although the communists renamed her, she still retains the value and rewrites the rules.