MovieChat Forums > Salaam Bombay! (1988) Discussion > Has Bombay improved since 1988?

Has Bombay improved since 1988?


In reading the comments about this wonderful movie on imdb, I noticed that one person wrote "Bombay is much improved since this movie" and another wrote "Nothing has changed at all in Bombay." I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, but I was interested in what people who know Bombay (Mumbai) have to say. I've heard it's the worst place in the world and the movie makes it seem so, but India's economy is much better these days.

As a comparison, the Ireland shown in The Commitments movie was horrible. Poverty stricken with slummy areas and rampant unemployment. Now it's the Celtic Tiger--one of the best economies in Europe. What about Bombay? Have things improved?

_____________________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

reply

Yes, if u compare it with what was shown in the movie. As you said, u deem it to be in between the said situations, it is like a sprawling city.
It is the financial capital of India, still to date, despite the growth of many IT cities, and also the hub of Bollywood. So, it can't be worst. The problem is the population and lack of land. So, even a heavy downpour can bring life to a standstill.
So, it is a mixture. But as economy grows and plannings better, it would improve. If not to Sanghai, then at least near to it, as promised by our politicians.

reply

[deleted]

What's with all the negativity here? Bombay is a wonderful city. Sure, people live in filth and squalor, but it is not out of choice. Bombay is a city that people from all parts of India come to, in order to earn a better living, and with stars in their eyes. Oft, these dreams remain unfulfilled, as one gets used to the ridiculously hectic life of Bombay, the daily grind, the traffic, the insanely hot weather, the lack of time for oneself and one's family, and the other things that many people in Bombay get used to.
However, there is such an underlying feeling of warmth in people, they are always willing to help each other. There is genuine concern for one another, and people are friendly and polite more often than not. There are many difficulties, but people have to accept them and move on. At times, there are catastrophes, like the train blasts last year, or the the floods the year before that. Those lost are remembered, but the city has no time for self pity. The people have to move on, lest they fall behind.
On the more commercial side, Bombay is the financial and entertainment capital of India. There are several trendy places popping up now, and the youth is intelligent, savvy and dynamic. The southern parts of the city are gorgeous, with a lot of art and culture. The northern and central parts are disorganized due to lack of planning, and the tremendous growth of the city. The newly planned areas of Bombay, 'New Bombay' are extremely well organized and developing rapidly.
I don't live in Bombay any more, because I love to travel and would like to explore the world, but it pains me when people don't realise the subtle beauty of Bombay. The daily life of the common man consists of struggles, and sometimes circumstances which are very adverse. However, the populace as a collective, maintains its affectionate attitude, and this is a thing of beauty, which needs to be realised by those who live/have lived there. I do not resent people leaving, I myself am one of them, but please give this beautiful old city the appreciation that it deserves.

Edit: Oh, by the way, I think it is necessary to mention that I haven't actually watched the film. So, on second thoughts, my post might be wandering and pointless. However, I'm trying to get this film, and then maybe I'll have a better reference.

reply

[deleted]

I don't know what to think really. It is completely true that some terrible things happen in Bombay. But I also believe that in any place with such a great density of population and such extreme poverty, similar incidents, if not worse, will always occur.
Maybe it is bias borne out of nostalgia, I really don't know, but I firmly believe that it isn't a place that people should run away from. I know a bunch of people who have travelled extensively around the world and still are in love with the place. Personally, I can definitely say that I don't hate the place, I just would not like to 'settle' before having seen enough alternatives to be confident in my decision.
And also, this 'hellhole' thing. To be honest, it sounds harsh and not a little patronizing. Like I said before, the poverty and terrible living conditions are not a result of people choosing to live like that, it is forced upon them.
To anyone interested, I would recommend the book 'Maximum City' by Suketu Mehta. Once again, I have not personally read it, but I have heard and seen great reviews, and to the best of my knowledge, it paints a fairly accurate and relatively unbiased picture of Bombay(which maybe actually be contrary to my posts, but nevertheless...) When I think about it, I really should read the book myself.
So basically, I made 2 completely pointless posts. Whatever the case, I intend to watch the movie soon.

Edit: I'd like to clarify that I do not, and never would condone the criminal and indecent activities that occur there, they disgust me. It is just my belief that given the conditions, such incidents would occur whatever the place and the community that inhabits it.

reply

I'd say the reality is, as you believed, somewhere inbetween. I stayed there for a short time a few years ago and it still looks pretty much the same. The government placed a ban on many of the 'bars' where (for a price) you could hook up with girls, but the lower-class Grant Road area remains. I think the road which is seen in the last shot of the movie is where my hotel was. Although you can't see it in the film, it's lined with hundreds of roadside tents where poor families live - and this isn't even the most famous slum. There are also still plenty of 'Chillums' around, but these tend to crop up mainly in big cities and tourist areas.

On the other hand, Mumbai is always at the forefront of economic progression in India, and India's economy has been growing faster than most places in the last ten years. There are always new malls cropping up, so there has to be some demand for them that wasn't there before. How that translates into jobs and figures (whether the wealth is being more equally distributed and so on), I don't know.

reply

have London, New York,Paris, Rome, Chicago etc et al improved since 1988?
To imply if Mumbai has ' improved' is suggesting that it wasn't a worthy or 'desirable city' as you have not clarified in what *way* it has improved.

Sure, it has squaler, poverty and inadequaet housing, and a population of around 15 million people, but you are more likley to be a victim of violent crime in **ANY** British city than you are in Mumbai. You are more likley to encounter drunks and drug addicts in **ANY** British city than in Mumbai...and you are far more likley to encounter threats in **ANY** British city than you are in Mumbai..

improved? does Mcdoanlds, Pizza Hut and shops selling ray bans in every mumbai neighbourhood mean it's 'improved'??

or does the fact that mumbai has stayed to the spirit of the city & retained it's identity instead of being a "mini me" of the corporate west mean it has improved?


Mumbai is a progressive, developing city that has the challenges of any modern developing city, and taking them in it's stride. Westerners are incredibly naieve in assuming that only western cities are "civilised"....povert and squaler dosn't mean that the moral and civic fibre of the city's people is reflective of their living conditions.

reply

It was just an honest question. So much anger.

____________________________________________________

"I'm running this monkey farm now, Frankenstein!!!"

reply

anger? really? did you read the post?

reply

I have to agree with roulin that it did seem there was a bit of lashing out in the tone of your post. Of course, tone is really hard to read into the written word, so...

I must admit I also disagree with your post in that I think the question had little to do with asking about the "moral and civic fiber of the city's people." I think it was simply a question of asking whether the actual living conditions have improved. Since I'm pretty sure virtually no one in any big city anywhere in the world wants to live in the slums of those cities.

reply

but the people who are forced to live in the slums are a component of the city...and integral part of the city and it's values.

has Beverly Hills improved? Ok, it has nicer houses and clean streets but thats okay if the people who live there are drug addicts and adulterers who couldn't care less about their fellow man?

Poverty should NOT have a place in this or any other century in any city in any country in any continent.

I'd rather live in a city of slum dwellers who deomnstrate humility and fellowship to fellow citizens than the decrepit morals and values of the west where people often damage their own living communities out of wilfull vandalism.

reply

Ok, see, I said no one wants to live there. Again, nothing to do with morals and values. You then said they were forced to live there. So obviously they didn't choose it. You keep thinking this has something to do with morals and values.

No one seems to be arguing that poverty and slums are a bad thing. As a matter of fact, the op's "improved" probably meant, have the impoverished been helped/the economy increased, or something of that nature.

I'm in complete agreement that money doesn't mean better morals. But I'd certainly rather have the money to buy pretty much what I wanted, than to live dirt poor not knowing if I'd even be able to eat today.

And once again I'd like to point out that I am not talking about morals and values, since you seem to keep going back to that.

reply

Cities in India (and in other developing countries) have some areas that are quite clean and posh and other areas that are similar to what is shown in the movie. I am sure you could go to Bombay today and find some area exactly like what's shown in the movie. But not all of Bombay is like that (and certainly it wasn't all that way even in 1988)

reply

This is really a stupid question!!

Salaam bombay takes place in a ghetto. A red light district area called "kamathipura" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamathipura

The other movie, "slumdog millionaire" takes place inside a muslim ghetto.

This is like me asking whether america is like "boyz n the hood".

There are many ghettos in mumbai where normal people do not venture cause it is not safe. In the last 10 years, many of these places have been bought out by wealthy construction businesses who have cleared the area and built huge building over it. I believe this part of history is shown in "slumdog millionaire".

reply