How surprised should we be by the low turnout in the Bombay elections? Should we regard it as a betrayal of the nation state – the line taken by most TV channels – or should we treat it as something that was only to be expected?

   At one level, there is not a lot to be surprised by. Urban turn-outs are usually lower than rural turnouts. Such cities as Bombay rarely poll much more than 50% of the electorate. At the last election, for instance, the turnout in Bombay was something like 47%.

   This time around, the election coincided with a long weekend (Friday was Maharashtra Day) which usually guarantees lower turnouts. Moreover, it was exceptionally hot and statistics suggest that turnouts are lower during heat waves.

   If you take all this into account, then it is not so surprising that the turnout at this election was a few percentage points below the figure for the last election. The long weekend and the heat are more than enough to explain the difference.

   So why then have we reacted with such shock and outrage?

   Largely because we were led to believe that Bombay would register a record turnout this time. We were told that campaigns by movie stars asking people to vote would influence the Bombay turnout massively. (Why should this be so? These were national figures taking part in national campaigns. Why should Bombay be affected more than any other city?)

   Further, we were assured that the events of 26/11 had changed the Bombay mindset. We were informed that the residents of Cuffe Parade had suddenly been transformed into political activists. It was said that the future of India lay in the hands of bankers taking sabbaticals from the collapsing financial services industry. This was a new Bombay, we were told, which now understood the importance of political participation.

   If you think back on these claims and assurances, you will realize that not one of these statements was backed by any empirical evidence. Most of us believed them only because they were reported in the media again and again. We were told by relatively prominent Bombay socialites (but significantly, not by any politicians) that the mood of the city had changed. And we took them at their word.

   What the low turnout figures tell us is not that Bombay has failed India. In fact, the city has reacted in exactly the same way that responds to every election.

   What they really tell us is this: we listened to the wrong people. We wasted our time believing socialites, admen, midgets on the fringes of journalism, small-time actors and busybodies who made grandiose political statements each time they got onto TV or wrote guest columns in newspapers.

   As journalists, we are partly to blame. We took people who belonged on Page 3 and put their views on Page 1. We featured people who belonged on Night Out on News Night. They were smart, they were articulate and so they were media friendly and convenient for us to feature.

   But now the truth is before us. Not only do these people not represent Bombay, they don’t even know the city.

   One of the most distressing aftermaths of 26/11 was the parade of bimbos, bores and society bombshells on news channels. They acted as though they knew everything including how India should be run. And we made the mistake of listening to them.

   It is a mistake that we in the media should be wary of repeating again.