We know about the loyalty bonus points as one of the marketing strategies in the commercial world. So from car manufacturers to airliners to credit card companies, frequent announcements are made to provide mileage points to their users as reward. Brands are also associated with loyalty and prides. Places, on the same analogy, attract or dispel loyalty worldwide. But, we in India have little to commend on this aspect. Does a Dilliwala (Delhiite), a Hyderabadi or a Mumbaikar show sense of place loyalty as would be depicted by a londoner, a New Yorker or a TokyoiteIJ Unfortunately, no! our cities would be much more livable if that was so.
The lack of a strong sense of belongingness to a place as reflected by us in our acts and deeds should be the subject of an objective research. But even without that scholastic support, we may observe a general apathy about that aspect — noticeable even at the national level except by way of righteous noises due to compelling competitive politics against adversaries. There are larger issues involved and can be debated at length.
However, let us restrict our discussion to an out of focus area, as one of the possible elements that militates against the development of place loyalty. The sense of belongingness comes from attachment, good feeling, prestige, social bonding, environment and the totality of positive vibrations about a place. These feelings and emotions in the long run build place identity and loyalty. But we have been fed on personality cult for too long as against a ‘place cult’ — if such a term is acceptable — to the extent that we begin resembling a North Korean establishment or the erstwhile propagandist State of USSR. Idol worship is the hallmark of our politico-cultural life. There is hardly any place loyalty per se. What is visible sometimes and mistaken as loyalty is nothing but acrimonious aggression towards ‘others’, which then permeates the social life as well.
Historically, our social reformists spoke against idol worship. From Bhakti cult to Sufi sisilah, the emphasis was on self-effacement, intended to deconstruct individualism and promote social bonding. But these proponents, as also Kabir, Guru Nanak, Swami Vivekanad, Dayanand Saraswati were all made into idols and objects of worship. We thus got entangled with the form rather than the content of their teachings. So the loyalty riveted around the persona as against the philosophy that these great spiritual leaders sought to propagate. This mind-set shuts itself about the significance of an institution or even an idea as the other appeal is more emotive and overpowering.
The national leaders are honoured the world over by naming some important institutions or organisations after their names. But we have gone overboard in this matter. Every institution, university, road, airport, station, bus stand, park, colony has to be named after a personality — worthy or unworthy is not really the question here — it is about the psychology or the mindset. This unreasonable adulation and sycophancy kills the identification with that institution or place.
Are not our IIMs and IITs great institutionsIJ In fact they are the only ones, which really count the world over, but better off without those name tags with good bonding among the alumni, many of whom have contributed to its richness out of loyalty. This is because central to the thoughts of an alumnus is the institution and not a person. If we want to downgrade them, we need not do much except appending names of these institutions with prefix of some ‘worthy’ individual and measure the loyalty scale in a few years.
Involvement with names of individuals and not places is highly pronounced in our naming policy. We are so obsessed with this naming business that we invent heroes from history and thrust them upon the signboards of every possible body. The height of heights is now naming cities after cult figures — there are plenty of them in UP and may be many elsewhere. What kind of place loyalty do we expect from such figures with which people are not able to relate personally or at an intellectual level.
I was born and raised in a particular town and grew up loving its name and recounting it to myself, my friends and associates and children later. My identity to that place would be disturbed if that name were to be changed. What is being missed is that instead of the place or the organisation, the attention is diverted to that perceived or real hero who starts beckoning at us from various circles, junctions or the reception desk of an office, overshadowed by his/her elegantly (un-artistically) framed silhouette. An artistically designed frame of the institution, highlighting the vibrancy of its environmental and cultural ethos would give a better sense of association and recall value than the picture of a political stalwart about whom one has neither heard nor is there anything to be proud of.
Meanwhile, one’s focus to the institution/place is blurred by this unsolicited visual assault and invasive and surreptitious entry of a character. How would one internalise and talk of an institution/place to one’s friends or about that framed celebrity who has suddenly appeared like a step-mother to a newly orphaned child, causing dis-orientation. Forgive me; if it sounds trivial, it is not. It would offend any one’s sensibilities to be hammered by the names and fames (often fictitious) of these worthies. One would rather swear by the intrinsic worth of a place or institution.