I would also add that some people might have lexicographic preferences as far as infrastructure is concerned, and that would rule out Kolkata at once.
What's the best city yo live in in India
-
^ I would not live in Kolkata either - it would be Delhi for me, with Bangalore a second (because intellectually there would be far less for me in Bangalore, but some facilities for the family - just some - would be better). Kolkata would be good for refreshing visits. Bombay would be a no-no for all the safety related reasons I mentioned in my last post).
I would not live in Bombay for financial reasons. I love the city but it is expensive as hell. Quality of life is pretty low due to the commute. It is similar to NYC. But if I could afford it, I wouldn’t mind living there. My first choice is delhi as it is my hometown, followed by Hyderabad. And yes, academic/govt/policy jobs in Econ are all in Delhi. Kolkata is a distant second in that aspect.
-
^ You know, historically Bombay's strong minority Parsi community (of which Zubin Mehta was a part of), even smaller Jewish community, the pan-Indian-ness of Bollywood gave it a cosmopolitan feel. I remember many years ago, one of the small motor boats rides in the evening off Nariman Point, rides on the fiat taxis (Bombay was the only city where fiat taxis were de rigueur). But the regionalism of Marathi culture (the "Shivaji" DNA) which the RSS tapped into, the corruption of Bollywood by Gulf syndicates, etc. made for a paradise lost. Of course, Marathi regionalism defining the core of Bombay today is matched by Bengali regionalism (hidden under the cloak of pseudo-intellectualism) on the other coast. Delhi is the only city in India, reviled for its shallow Punjabi culture by other parts of India, which is the one and truly cosmopolitan one. I only wish they took care of the pollution there!
-
^ You know, historically Bombay's strong minority Parsi community (of which Zubin Mehta was a part of), even smaller Jewish community, the pan-Indian-ness of Bollywood gave it a cosmopolitan feel. I remember many years ago, one of the small motor boats rides in the evening off Nariman Point, rides on the fiat taxis (Bombay was the only city where fiat taxis were de rigueur). But the regionalism of Marathi culture (the "Shivaji" DNA) which the RSS tapped into, the corruption of Bollywood by Gulf syndicates, etc. made for a paradise lost. Of course, Marathi regionalism defining the core of Bombay today is matched by Bengali regionalism (hidden under the cloak of pseudo-intellectualism) on the other coast. Delhi is the only city in India, reviled for its shallow Punjabi culture by other parts of India, which is the one and truly cosmopolitan one. I only wish they took care of the pollution there!
Try speaking Tamil in Delhi vs Tamil in Matunga, Bombay and tell me which is more cosmopolitan. Delhi is basically Punjus + UP/Bihar crowd
Bombay has Gujjus, Sindhis, Southies, Bongs, Punjus, UP/Bihar the works. Marathi speakers are a minority in Bombay vs Hindi speakers who are 90% of Delhi. Also by your criterion of violence that cannot be avoided through behavioral change Delhi scores much worse, because far more people died in the 1984 riots than they did in the 92 blasts -
Lol. Just because there are lot of marathis and gujjus in Bombay doesn’t make it more cosmopolitan than delhi. There is a big bong population. A lot of tamilians and malayali people. And yes, UP, Bihari, Jat, Kashmiri’s, Rajasthani. It is in the Hindi belt so ofcourse lot of people will speak in Hindi.
^ You know, historically Bombay's strong minority Parsi community (of which Zubin Mehta was a part of), even smaller Jewish community, the pan-Indian-ness of Bollywood gave it a cosmopolitan feel. I remember many years ago, one of the small motor boats rides in the evening off Nariman Point, rides on the fiat taxis (Bombay was the only city where fiat taxis were de rigueur). But the regionalism of Marathi culture (the "Shivaji" DNA) which the RSS tapped into, the corruption of Bollywood by Gulf syndicates, etc. made for a paradise lost. Of course, Marathi regionalism defining the core of Bombay today is matched by Bengali regionalism (hidden under the cloak of pseudo-intellectualism) on the other coast. Delhi is the only city in India, reviled for its shallow Punjabi culture by other parts of India, which is the one and truly cosmopolitan one. I only wish they took care of the pollution there!
Try speaking Tamil in Delhi vs Tamil in Matunga, Bombay and tell me which is more cosmopolitan. Delhi is basically Punjus + UP/Bihar crowd
Bombay has Gujjus, Sindhis, Southies, Bongs, Punjus, UP/Bihar the works. Marathi speakers are a minority in Bombay vs Hindi speakers who are 90% of Delhi. Also by your criterion of violence that cannot be avoided through behavioral change Delhi scores much worse, because far more people died in the 1984 riots than they did in the 92 blasts -
Lol. Just because there are lot of marathis and gujjus in Bombay doesn’t make it more cosmopolitan than delhi. There is a big bong population. A lot of tamilians and malayali people. And yes, UP, Bihari, Jat, Kashmiri’s, Rajasthani. It is in the Hindi belt so ofcourse lot of people will speak in Hindi.
^ You know, historically Bombay's strong minority Parsi community (of which Zubin Mehta was a part of), even smaller Jewish community, the pan-Indian-ness of Bollywood gave it a cosmopolitan feel. I remember many years ago, one of the small motor boats rides in the evening off Nariman Point, rides on the fiat taxis (Bombay was the only city where fiat taxis were de rigueur). But the regionalism of Marathi culture (the "Shivaji" DNA) which the RSS tapped into, the corruption of Bollywood by Gulf syndicates, etc. made for a paradise lost. Of course, Marathi regionalism defining the core of Bombay today is matched by Bengali regionalism (hidden under the cloak of pseudo-intellectualism) on the other coast. Delhi is the only city in India, reviled for its shallow Punjabi culture by other parts of India, which is the one and truly cosmopolitan one. I only wish they took care of the pollution there!
Try speaking Tamil in Delhi vs Tamil in Matunga, Bombay and tell me which is more cosmopolitan. Delhi is basically Punjus + UP/Bihar crowd
Bombay has Gujjus, Sindhis, Southies, Bongs, Punjus, UP/Bihar the works. Marathi speakers are a minority in Bombay vs Hindi speakers who are 90% of Delhi. Also by your criterion of violence that cannot be avoided through behavioral change Delhi scores much worse, because far more people died in the 1984 riots than they did in the 92 blasts
Not just Marathis and Gujjus. South Indian pop in Bombay much larger than Delhi. Ditto for Sindhi. Delhi is largely Hindi Belt driven. Bombay is way more cosmo.
-
Lol. Just because there are lot of marathis and gujjus in Bombay doesn’t make it more cosmopolitan than delhi. There is a big bong population. A lot of tamilians and malayali people. And yes, UP, Bihari, Jat, Kashmiri’s, Rajasthani. It is in the Hindi belt so ofcourse lot of people will speak in Hindi.
^ You know, historically Bombay's strong minority Parsi community (of which Zubin Mehta was a part of), even smaller Jewish community, the pan-Indian-ness of Bollywood gave it a cosmopolitan feel. I remember many years ago, one of the small motor boats rides in the evening off Nariman Point, rides on the fiat taxis (Bombay was the only city where fiat taxis were de rigueur). But the regionalism of Marathi culture (the "Shivaji" DNA) which the RSS tapped into, the corruption of Bollywood by Gulf syndicates, etc. made for a paradise lost. Of course, Marathi regionalism defining the core of Bombay today is matched by Bengali regionalism (hidden under the cloak of pseudo-intellectualism) on the other coast. Delhi is the only city in India, reviled for its shallow Punjabi culture by other parts of India, which is the one and truly cosmopolitan one. I only wish they took care of the pollution there!
Try speaking Tamil in Delhi vs Tamil in Matunga, Bombay and tell me which is more cosmopolitan. Delhi is basically Punjus + UP/Bihar crowd
Bombay has Gujjus, Sindhis, Southies, Bongs, Punjus, UP/Bihar the works. Marathi speakers are a minority in Bombay vs Hindi speakers who are 90% of Delhi. Also by your criterion of violence that cannot be avoided through behavioral change Delhi scores much worse, because far more people died in the 1984 riots than they did in the 92 blasts
Not just Marathis and Gujjus. South Indian pop in Bombay much larger than Delhi. Ditto for Sindhi. Delhi is largely Hindi Belt driven. Bombay is way more cosmo.
-
Actually, among the people I know (especially the techchie crowd) there are lots moving to Bangalore, none to Mumbai. Among the non techchie crowd, very few are moving to Mumbai and many to Delhi. Those moving to Delhi are in the corporate sector, civil services, academics, think tanks. The few moving to Mumbai are the corporate types.
You have never lived in Delhi. In the house I rented, the landlord was a Sindhi, with a big house in a posh neighborhood with four large floors, two let out. There was a Bihari family, a Telegu family, a Bengali family and a Marathi family. Needless to say, we were not from Delhi ourselves. Everyone was family, the landlords and the tenants.
There are not enough institutions in Mumbai to support the amount of diversity you see in Delhi. Where are the equivalent of Dschool, JNU, ISI, just to name the institutions in economics?
Talk is BS.
Look at where the Indians are running to. The high IQ ones.
Bangalore, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Pune.
I bet you to find me an Indian today who wants to move to Delhi. Only locals want to be there. -
And the other thing I really appreciate about Delhi is that it is the only non-regional city in Delhi. It is everyone's city. No chest thumping about the greatness of one's own culture like Bengali culture or Marathi culture or Tamil or Telegu or Kannadiga cultures, like with all other "regional metros. I say this as one not born or brought up in Delhi.
Delhi is a Jaat city.
-
Mumbai is like NYC: it's the finance center, the most cosmopolitan, the most expensive. Also like NYC, it doesn't have the best universities. (I'm ignoring the boring suburbs--agree those are bleak.)
If one has the money, I seriously doubt there is a better place to live than south Mumbai. Security is better there than everywhere else, because with $1M everywhere else you're a target, while in Fort or Cuffe Parade you're just middle class.