In India, two cities that congregate millions of inhabitants are displaying parallel attitudes when implementing local and global approaches towards their development. The Indian City of Bangalore in 2014 is a metropolis inhabited by 9 million people while Delhi hosts around 21 million dwellers. As Deyan Sudjic has stated in his text Managed Chaos, the contemporary India has a rural majority, even as the world as a whole has shifted in the other direction:
“[China and India have] a profound interest in maintaining its rural hinterland. Both countries are vast, and their populations account for a third of humanity. They have both, in their own ways, started to emerge from underdevelopment and have been forced to question with more or less enthusiasm some of the fundamentals of the political creeds on which their societies are based. (…) China does not want to see its cities overwhelmed, and forbids free internal movement. India’s constitution guarantees it, even if the Gandhian ideology on which Indian independence was founded displayed a profound antipathy towards the idea of the city. Instead India was to be rooted in the self-sufficiency of village life. It was an antipathy that easily merged with the English horror at the industrial city. The attitudes that India’s Oxbridge-educated elite picked up about cities, at first hand in some cases from Ruskin and Morris, could be represented as alien creations that left incomers reduced to squalors”
Nowadays, it is visible that some segments of the private housing market in India function with the ACT GLOBAL behavior, in the sense that those cities ingest global well-being. Bangalore and Delhi consume the contemporaneousness created in other landscapes and this could be exemplified by the following advertisements of landholding projects: “New York Living In Bangalore: The High Life Awaits For You”, “Experience Greek-Style Living In Delhi”, “What Do You Call An Island With A New Lifestyle At An Attractive Price … Irresistible?”, And “Luxury For The Best Of Bangalore, Admired By The Rest Of Bangalore”.
Acknowledging the promotional nature of these images, the real estate marketing industry exposed here symbolizes that one sector of the Indian Metropolitanism is looking for the following method: in order to dwell the metropolitan contemporaneousness it is necessary to ‘ingest the global well-being’ generated in other landscapes and cultures: in the examples exposed, New York or the Mediterranean, where the owner could live a ‘new lifestyle’.
This Indian situation suggests that regardless of the size of population, contemporary emerging economies and settlements reflect the drive to ingest lifestyles and agendas premeditated in settlements with different scales and contexts.