|
The
rebirth of Surat reveals the power of one
Can
one man make a difference? Last week, the Jindal Arts Creative Interaction
Centre hosted a panel discussion among eminent citizens following
a screening of the documentary, Blessed By The Plague, at the NCPA.
And this was one of the more significant issues that cropped up.
The inspiration for the question was of course, the depiction of
the dynamic S R Rao who became municipal commissioner of Surat eight
months after the occurrence of the ‘plague’ (experts are
still not sure if the Surat epidemic was really plague) and turned
it from an open sewer into what INTACH described as the ‘second
cleanest city in the country’.
So
can one man really make all the difference? In Mumbai we have seen
our share of messiahs. Julio Rebeiro the plainspeaking cop, his
deputy Y C Pawar who took on the mighty Vardarajan, Arun Bhatia
and T Chandrashekhar are some names that come to mind. The most
prominent of all needless to say, would be our doughty Demolition
Man, G R Khairnar. These days Khairnar has an almost Superman like
presence. Passersby crane their necks for a glimpse when the rumour
spreads that ‘Khairnar is here’ and an awed crowd surrounds
the shattered remains of his work hours after his departure.
With
such adulation it seems as if even a single person in a powerful
position could wreak miraculous change. Yes and no. There is little
doubt that individuals can and do make a difference. They can make
a difference in various ways. In small but effective ways such as
by suggesting innovative solutions to intractable problems, supporting
sincere initiatives, providing information and so on. They can also
be pro-active, vigorously pursuing wrong doers and pushing through
change in the face of opposition. The latter can undoubtedly leave
them vulnerable to all sorts of intimidatory tactics : protests,
court cases,suspension, vilification campaigns and the ever present
threat of transfer.
What
is the solution? The one that seems obvious is citizens’ involvement.
If people want their city to improve then it is essential that they
pay for it - and not just in monetary terms but by actively supporting
the individuals they feel have been acting in their interest. One
constantly hears talk of the overpowering ‘system’; the
fact is the system is a democratic one and whatever its flaws, public
opinion is a significant part of it. Politicians, the bane of middle
class existence, can only ignore an awakened citizenry at their
own peril. What makes this process simpler is the emergence of myriad
citizens’ movements in the city in recent times.
That
apart, there are other factors to be considered. The one thing that
is clear in the Surat experience is that it needed something as
terrifying and huge as the ‘plague’ to rouse people out
of their complacency. Till then the people of the town were unmoved
by and even contributing to an unimaginable state of squalour despite
their thriving businesses and upward mobility. The media also helped
create a favourable climate for drastic action.
But
what emerges with striking force is Rao’s own personality.
Mild mannered,unassuming he makes an unlikely crusader. And yet
what emerges from the film is the effectiveness of teamwork. Rao
took care to involve politicians and to ensure a generous share
of the limelight for his staff. In fact, his assistants were clearly
so involved that they would point out a stray plastic bag and tell
an urchin at a road stall to cut his nails. The other factor that
seems striking inconsistency. The clean up drive gives the impression
not of sporadic bursts of enthusiasm but of a permanent raising
of standards. All this probably helped Rao’s successor the
equally determined S Jagdeesan, to continue the drive. As she suggests
at one point : once change is integrated into the system, the comings
and goings of individuals ceases to matter.
|
