If Delhi Metro had a soul, and the beautiful moving thing is fully qualified to possess one, it would have been very distressed to make an appearance at Delhi. The way it was first subjected to a tug of war by the opposing politicians and then vandalised by unruly crowds was something unfortunate. Delhi’s shame was there for all to see—in newspapers and on television screens. Seats and panels were damaged, overhead handgrips broken and even used as gymnastics rings and high-tech pneumatic doors jammed. That it could be a transitory and spontaneous reaction is not the point; the sad fact was that there was absolute lack of pride in something that was such a beautiful public utility and pioneering infrastructure of the highest technical order.

Comparisons with the only other Metro in India have become inevitable and many questions of far-reaching importance do arise. How is that the Calcuttans, the Kolkata Bhadralok, collectively ensured that their Metro is not only welcomed in a most dignified and loving manner but is maintained as a spic and span showpiece? In fact, the Kolkatans have almost included it as a cultural heritage and tourist destination. The habitually paan-chewing and spitting individual restricts his habit inside the Metro. The volatile and aggressive people of Kolkata are known to have gone on rampage on the slightest provocation, be it an overdue increase in bus fares or the prospect of India losing a cricket match at Eden Garden, but they do not defile their Metro. So why did the Delhiites slip so badly while welcoming their Metro? I am no social scientist but an attempt to analyse the causes will both be topical and worthwhile.

What perhaps is the biggest contributing cause is that Delhi does not have its own cultural heritage roots. No doubt, there are grand monuments of stone and brick; there is even a certain charm in its durbari traditions, music and dance forms. And the extremely poetic language, Urdu, also evolved in Delhi. But for the common folk, there hardly exists any socio-cultural roots to draw and sustain ethical and moral values, so important for a civil society. The flip side of this synthetic culture is sycophancy and individualism. It is, therefore, not surprising that the Delhiites appear to be lacking in community spirit and we often want to put ourselves first, even if it means pulling down the one ahead. This trait is reflected in our behaviour, too. Thus, we look around to see if the traffic policeman is present at the crossing, and if not, have no compunction in jumping the red light or changing lanes, often creating traffic jams. Even when we are forced to live in a community environment in group housing complexes, we hardly ever think that some of our actions may be causing inconvenience to our neighbours. Keeping our house clean but throwing out litter in front of other houses or on the roads or parks appears to be our habit.

Municipal Commissioner Mehta has recently rated Hyderabad residents 8 while Delhi got only 3 on a scale of one-to-ten for their civic sense. Volumes and volumes of laws and rules are made in Delhi but we are masters when it comes to breaking or circumventing them. We are required to be ‘policed’ always and we often want to be so policed, especially when our own co-citizen’s behaviour irritates us. No wonder that some commuters of the Metro have complained that, "implementation of security and other norms is not very strict. Nobody is telling people to mind the yellow line" (Times of India, 26.1.02). This lack of self-discipline and responsibility towards society, as also our non-caring attitude, brings disgrace to Delhi. Poor Metro! It had a taste of these qualities on its very first run!