How did expansion of Bombay differ from London?

Answer 1

London is known to be notorious about rains. You can never trust the sunshine or the clouds. What makes Mumbai as bad as London is the super infrastructure. Because we know what we get when it rains, floods and Kichad. It becomes very muddy. When its summer, London is not very hot. It is a very pleasant weather, but the sunshine pinches you; it is so bright it hurts your eyes and make you blind, not literally but because of the sun's brightness. Wearing sunglasses in summer is not for style, it's a necessity. Winter weather is a little better in both cities, though London is comparatively cooler.

And you know what they say Mumbai is a place where the whole of India comes for jobs and makes it dirty. In London the whole of Europe comes to make it dirty. People from all the European Union come here for jobs. They like Mumbai and make the city crowded and dirty. In both cities, lifeline is trains. You cant live without them. Both are large cities. Both are linear and both are financial capitals. Both have traffic problems.

London scores some points on the infrastructure and organization of the city. Its so well organized and informative. You can never get lost in this city. It's amazing that in such a big city you can travel miles without knowing any place.

Both cities have slums. In London the slums are not jhopdas on roads but big houses. and you would see the outsiders, not just desis who come here on projects but even others. When I mean outsiders, I actually want to include Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Srilankans, Polish, Hungarians, etc., who stay in big houses with 10- 12 people in 1 house. It is just an advanced version of slums.

Mumbai, though scores points because of the people. A city that never sleeps. A city where women can travel safely even in the last local. A city that comes on streets to fight any natural calamity. A city that awakes at 3 30 and sleeps at late midnight. It's the people there who make Mumbai what it is.

Both cities are so similar yet so different.

Answer 2

n sharp contrast to Western European countries like Britain, Indian cities did not mushroom in the nineteenth century colonial period. The pace of urbanisation in India was slower than Western Europe under colonial rule.

• Bombay was the Premier city of the three Presidency cities.
• Bombay as compared to London went through various phases in the making of a premier city.

i.) At first, Bombay was the major outlet for cotton textiles from Gujarat.

ii.) Later, in the nineteenth century, the city functioned as a port through which large quantities of raw materials such as cotton and opium would pass.

iii.) Gradually, it also became an important administrative centre in western India,

iv.) By the end of the nineteenth century, it became a major industrial centre.

• Bombay was a crowded city. While every Londoner in the 1840s enjoyed an average space of 155 square yards, Bombay had a mere 9.5 square yards.
• By 1872, when London had an average of 8 persons per house, the density in Bombay was as high as 20.

• The Bombay Fort area which formed the heart of the city in the early 1800s was divided between a 'native' town, where most of the Indians lived, and a European or 'white' section.
• A European suburb and an industrial zone began to develop to the north of the Fort settlement area, with a similar suburb and cantonment in the south. This racial pattern was true of all three Presidency cities.
• As compared to the European elite, the richer Parsi, Muslim and upper caste

traders and industrialists of Bombay lived in sprawling mansions.

• Caste and family groups in the mill neighbourhoods were headed by someone who was similar to a village headman. So the caste factor played its role in the Indian context.
• Town planning in London emerged from fears of social revolution, whereas planning in Bombay came about as a result of fears about the plague epidemic. From its earliest days, Bombay did not grow according to any plan.