Every few months or seasons, someone raises the undying issue of Bangalore's decaying nightlife and the exigent need to resuscitate it. This time it has been the Tourism Vision Group which, in its report to the Karnataka government last week, called for the dire need for the state capital to shed its embarrassing "boring" tag, and push the current 11pm deadline that brings life to a standstill by another two hours. The group that made the suggestion is high-profile, not one that can be dissed. The ostensible reason for the panel to suggest so is tourism, and the feigned reason for many blocs to clamour for an extension too is understandable. Everyone has his or her own reason. But the hurdles in this turning into a reality are too many — there are far too many stakeholders. Yet, it is the biggest of them all, the citizen, whose interests will not find a voice in this Babel.
True, every city has a nightlife deadline, and not too many around the world remain open through the night. What misses many an undiscerning eye here is that such deadlines evolve with time, and clocks are pushed back accordingly. Bangalore too has evolved, more so in the last 20 years. It is hardly the refuge of the retired folks any more; it is the preferred destination of the young and aspiring. This is a city where half the population starts the day in the evening. Times have changed; the only point being that some realise as much, and there are others who simply don't get it even if it is drilled into their skulls.
The ruse that nay-sayers throw up in arguments over nightlife deadlines is that the contention is one of law and order. Put in other words, this unequivocally means that they by acts of omission accept their inability to maintain decorum in the city. Washing one's hands off one's responsibility is an unabashedly indolent way out; it is also callous. The reasoning that nightlife accentuates law and order problems needs to be turned on its head. Take the case of Mumbai, for instance, and to keep the discussion simple think of it minus a "conventional" nightlife. It is not that people are out till late because it is safe. In fact, the city remains safe because people are up and about at unearthly hours. Only when life goes on, are people safe on the streets. Mumbai evolved, quite vibrantly; but Bangalore's growth was stunted by its medieval demagogues.
Now that the embers of the nightlife debate have been rekindled, it needs to rage on. The canvas has to be enlarged, and one has to understand why so. Nightlife is not just about keeping pubs open from dusk to dawn so that people can drink themselves silly; it is also about cinema halls, theatres and eateries, among others, being allowed to function. It is about a regime not telling its people that they should hit the sack because it asserts so.
The decision to clamp down a Cinderella's Hour was a political one, the resolve to rescind too has to be political. So let's do what politicos are adept at — lob it back into their court.
