Old Nagpur Vs New Nagpur! -- IV

 

 

 

 

ALL those hundreds of readers who responded positively and personally to the current series Old Nagpur Vs New Nagpur! in this column deserve a heartfelt gratitude. Because the readers respond positively, understand why certain issues are picked up in this column, the loosefooter gets a booster dose to keep doing his job relentlessly. Of course, he knows his limitations as a journalist -- as a watcher of events from the sidelines, and a commentator. Yet, he has a simple -- or naive -- desire to be heard by the authorities, something that does not happen. This is where we enter the subject of the difference between old Nagpur and new Nagpur. In New Nagpur -- that is the Nagpur of today -- the authorities have no time and inclination, or possibly mandate to pay attention to what the people have to say about developmental process in progress. Only occasionally -- which comes only rarely -- do the authorities find time to take a look at what people have to say about what is happening around in the city.

 

And a good proof of this comes from the brazen and shameless manner in which the authorities have allowed destruction of our water-bodies, for example, in the past few years. Another proof comes from the manner in which the authorities have ignored over time the beautiful green cover the city often boasts of. In ‘old’ Nagpur, things were absolutely different, in sharp contrast to what is happening today. The authorities were very responsive, and attended to people’s grievances, published in the media or complained about personally by individual citizens, far, far, far more quickly than does today’s civic officialdom. Of course, we must admit that the citizens, too, have become equally irresponsible, equally brazen about not following rules, equally arrogant to match the administration’s officers at almost all levels. We must also admit that there still are a few good officers who respond to public sentiment quite responsibly. Yet, their numbers as very small and their total impact on the overall administrative is almost negligible. This difference between the old and the new Nagpur is very glaring. And yet, the people in power -- political or administrative -- feel that the common public should be a mute spectator to happenings and must not complain. That is the culture Nagpur demonstrates today. Thanks, however, to many activists, the city has still not lost its voice. These activists must be saluted for their alertness. They raise voice, they raise issues, they raise concern -- and make thing as difficult as possible for the authorities, whether political or administrative.

 

They go to courts to challenge official conduct. They dare the political leadership. Therefore, at least to some extent, there is a check on the official brazenness in today’s Nagpur. In the Nagpur of yesteryears, such an activity was not needed at all since the civic authorities were far more alert then than their successors of today. The problem with the Nagpur of the present day is that there is not enough people who are willing to take ‘panga’ with the authorities. They watch helplessly the declining condition of Nagpur despite the so-called development, but do not dare to raise their voice. They see the mess in the name of development, but do not go beyond discussing it in their drawing rooms over coffee. It is against this backdrop that the importance of the activists is immense. They are possibly the last hope of something good taking place in the city. Media, too, has a major role to play, of course. The loosefooter will confine his comments about the media only to ‘The Hitavada’ whose team is all the time raising issues and alarm. But otherwise, the overall atmosphere is one of despair rather than hope.