If one looks at the history of the USA, the contribution of immigrants to the growth of that country has been well documented by several researchers.

Turning one’s thoughts to India and the cities which started becoming prosperous, like Mumbai and Delhi, it is clear that they too prospered out of a huge influx of immigrants. In the same breath, Kolkata and Chennai, which too, were large and prosperous cities when the country became independent (having natural advantages like a port and for Calcutta the added advantage of being India’s capital till the early 1900s) lost out in the next 50 years (1950-2000) as India moved ahead, post-independence.Why did this happen?



Traditional heritage



The biggest barriers in both these cities was the fact that the language and “traditional heritage” made both these cities stifling for immigrant labour. Please note that here I am talking about the educated immigrant labour which has other city options to choose from.

The fact that these two cities had very strong historical and cultural roots made the people living in these cities resistant to change. These people also tried to make immigrant labour “conform” to their way of living — speak the local language, eat local food and live life the way a local does.

In cases where the labour does not have a choice, it will go ahead and just conform.

But in cases where it has a choice, it will move away from these cities to lands which are more welcoming and less stifling.

In fact, the biggest advantage USA had over the rest of the world at the beginning of the 1900s, was the fact that it did not have strong historical or cultural roots.

Therefore, people from anywhere in the world could come and prosper and make the land their own.



Natural attraction



The attraction of talent to a city is the same as the attraction of talent to a company.

You will move to a particular city to join a company, because you are attracted by its brand and you feel that it will offer you an opportunity to grow and prosper.

However, you will continue to stay in the city with that company and also recommend it to others, if you like the ‘culture’ that prevails in the city or company.

From this point of view, traditional cities always tend to stick to the ‘old way of doing things’ and therefore, are left behind in the race for prosperity; because as we all know you will never grow if you don’t change.

Extending the city analogy further, if one looks at Bangalore or Hyderabad or Pune or Chandigarh or Gurgaon or Noida, these are cities that are not forcing people who come into them into a way of life that is dictated by society but allows them to lead their own lives with minor adjustments.

In fact, one of the most important reasons for the astronomical growth of Bangalore is the fact that it is very easy to live here from a language and tradition point of view.

The city does not force you to ‘conform.’

Chennai is changing and it is a fact that it is trying to rid itself of its past and trying to embrace the future. The key however, is that no matter how many IT parks the city builds and how many roads or flyovers it builds, at the end of the day the success of the city will depend upon how many ‘talented’ immigrants it can attract and retain in the city (similar to a company).



Brand value



The brand value of the city needs to be high and outsiders who live in the city need to recommend it to others.

Once this happens then the tipping point is reached, which happened with Bangalore around the late 90s where word of mouth ensured that the government did not have to go out of its way to sell the city to outsiders.

The stronger the local language and culture, the slower will be the process of advancement.

This is not to suggest that one should completely abandon one’s beliefs and way of life, but to reiterate, the city needs to be tolerant of differing ‘ways of lives.’ In fact, there is actually no real danger of losing its identity but growing by ‘inclusion,’ which is the key.

Today, if one looks at Mumbai or Delhi or Bangalore - all three of them have their own identities, for instance the Ganapati festival and the vadaa paav in Mumbai.

These cities have grown by ‘inclusion’ in which there is mutual give and take between the immigrants and the locals who inhabit the city.

In conclusion, at the end of the day the city has to make a choice on what it values more.

If the people living in a city want to become rich and prosperous, they would necessarily need to make some of their traditions less threatening and also make sure that the local language does not become overpowering; otherwise they will find it difficult to grow at a rate faster than what India as a whole is growing at.

If there is any doubt on this, one has only to look at some of the mainland European countries which are facing a growth struggle because of their stifling way of life which is most unwelcoming to an outsider.

The writer is the CEO of TVA Infotech. E-mail: gautam@tvainfotech.com