The situation within Mumbai shows that a strong and complex relationship exits between those in the city that are illegitimate, the “kinetic city” and those that are legitimate, the “static city”. [1] This relationship is, in a way, self-serving in how the static city legitimizes the kinetic city. Mehrotra depicts the kinetic city as brushed under the rug to make room for the static city, but the physical girth of the kinetic city has made that less of an option. Therefore the static city has no choice but to acknowledge the presence of the kinetic city. This acknowledgement of the kinetic city, is more then simply an acknowledgement of a problem but more a confession. The static city had in a way denied the existence of the kinetic city.

This new acceptance alters the relationship that exists between the static and kinetic city. The static city, the city of the working class has legitimacy. The inhabitants that make up the static city follow the norms of the established society with all the legal ramifications and standards that come with it. They have legitimacy as a people and as individuals. The static city did not have the legitimacy. But the new relationship between the two gives the static city legitimacy. As the kinetic city grew and became more complex it forced it self into a position where it had to coexists with the static city. This created the opportunity for interaction.

The dabbawalas are an example of this legitimacy and interaction. The working class of Mumbai, the static city, and the dabbawalas, the kinetic city, exists in a homeostatic relationship. The dabbawalas need the socially motivated wishes of the working class to have a home cooked meal for lunch as to provide them with jobs while the static city needs the dabbawalas to indulge there wishes. [2] This relationship forces the working class to realize the existence of the kinetic city. This admittance of existence is what gives the static city its legitimacy. The working class is now integrating the lower class into existence.

This legitimacy has effects on both the kinetic city and the static city. If the kinetic city was to be threatened then the static city too will change. If the dabbawalas cannot do there job because the trains stop working then the static city loses it home cooked lunch on a day to day basis. The static city has now become dependent on the survival of he kinetic city and the systems and infrastructure that maintains the institution of the dabbawalas and the kinetic city.

This is based on the idea that the static city legitimized the kinetic city, but it is very possible that the kinetic city delegitimizes the static city. If the static city has become dependent on the kinetic city and the practices of the kinetic city, with out directly altering the nature of the kinetic city, yet becoming dependent of the kinetic city it can be said that the kinetic city is the instigator of change.

[1] “Living in the Endless City”, Rahul Mehrotra. pg 108.

[2]” Dabbawalas, Tiffin Carriers of Mumbai: Answering a Need for Specific Catering”, Marie Percot. pg. 2