Post <blockquote><blockquote>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. <blockquote><blockquote>^ 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! </blockquote> 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 </blockquote></blockquote> 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.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.