Mumbai/Delhi - Cheap Cities or Cheap Expectations

There has been recent UBS survey on Mumbai and Delhi being the "cheapest" cities in the world. OK OK dont fall off your seats yet.
Rashmi Bansal in her guest column in Business Standard proves that if we consider Purchasing power vs prices, this may not be true. The numbers speak the truth, however I believe that Mumbai, Delhi are still cheap cities. They are not cheap because of the purchasing power and cost of goods but cheap because of Peoples expectations.
Rashmi rightly points out "cheap" is a relative term --- but I would take a slightly different approach to "Relative". In Mumbai and Delhi its relative to the "Percieved value" and "expected benefit"....
I agree that the purchasing power is less in Mumbai but then there is something for everyone irrespective of his purchasing power. A daily wage worker can have a "Wada pav", a middle class guy" a pav bhaji/Chinese food" and the upmarket can gorge on the "Five-course meal"---- All of them equally tasty
The inference- everyone can gorge on tasty food irrespective of his purchasing power.
The daily worker can drink "cutting chai", Middle class can have his "cuppa" in a hotel and Upmarket have the "Coffee days/Baristas"
The inference - everyone gets an affordable cuppa through different channels.
The daily worker can have free water at road side stalls, Middle class "The Bisleri/Aquafina" and Upmarkets "Evian".
Again everyone of this fulfils thirst.
The daily wage guy when he falls sick (maybe due to the free water) has the municipal hospitals for treatment, the middle class the mid-sized general wards of pvt Nursing homes and the upmarket the Speacial rooms of Lilavati.
The inference- Everyone can get treated, how effectively and efficeintly is the trouble. But again the daily wage worker "percieved value and expected benefits" are satisfied by the Muncipal hospitals as are the upmarkets by the Lilavatis
The "percieved value"(taste) of the wadapav for the price one pays and the "expected benefit" of (filling the stomach) to the daily wage earner is the same as the five course meal to the upmarket. On the other hand in some of the countries I have visited the options are limited. Water needs to be purchased and downmarket food options are too limited.
A city becomes costly when peoples "Expectations" soar beyond their current "perceived and expected value". If the dail wage earner feels that the "wada pav" is not what he deserves and desires for a five course meal then the city becomes costly. If Bisleri is the only water desired by people then the water becomes costly, else its free. But this does not hapen in India.
Over the years we Indians are conditioned to live within our means, have low expectations and be Happy.
We dont expect good roads to be good hence even a single strech of non-potholed road (barring the ups and downs of gutter covers) makes us happy--- "Perceived value"
We dont expect good public transport, hence the 4th seat in the Mumbai local gives us a feeling of having achieved the "expected benefit" and "perceived value' of the ticket.
We dont expect to have good Public health systems for masses hence the perceived value of the floor in the Municipal hospital and whatever free medicines given seems high.
Hence Yes Mumbai Is cheap, Yes Delhi is cheap, depending on wether we "Expect" people to survive on the Wada Pav, cutting chai and potholed roads or Expect them to a have decent meal, clean water and public health benefits.
It shall remain cheap as long as we dont "Expect" more from the administration, we dont "Expect" parity in basic necessities for the masses and the classes.
YES WE ARE CHEAP NOT IN PRICES BUT IN EXPECTATIONS AND THATs NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF ......

"Reselient" or "Stone hearted" Mubaikars?

Over the past few days we have seen everyone (including myself in my blog "letter to terrorist"below)

appluading the "reselience" of mumbai. I found this peculiar blog entry which raises a contarary point without any sarcasm or hatred. His point makes me confused and raises many questions. Does the writer has a point... or does he??!!.....

Your Comments invited to sort this..............

"I heard it on television, yesterday, while I was at work. It had happened again. Someone had once again seen fit to disrupt life as we know it, using force.
Running to the TV set, I simultaneously began dialling family and friends. The networks were jammed. I stayed at work until around 1.00 am before having someone come and pick me up as the taxis were all occupied. As I made my way home, I saw more ambulances than I had seen in my life. There were people in pain, angry, desperate, and searching for signs of hope from unlikely sources.

I saw the police struggle to curtail angry mobs stoning taxi drivers who refused to take them where they wanted to go. I admit, I silently applauded the attackers, as I believe public servants should serve the public, not hold them to ransom. I stayed clear of the station roads, where the blasts occurred. The media had descended in full force, hungry for sound bites, pictures and video footage.

The next day, it was the same journalists who applauded the fact that Mumbai was back at work. They called it our resilience and celebrated our 'spirit of courage'. But, as I made my way to work, I saw the remains of yesterday in the form of the expressions on faces, the worry, the police and overflowing hospitals with weeping relatives outside.

I had to wonder.

Are we glorifying 'resilience' or 'stony heartedness'?

Have we, the white-collared, become robots that do not deviate from our routines to take time to feel other people's pain, offer help where necessary?

Does the loss of life in this country mean so little?

Why is the government silent?

Will they make their standard offer of a sweaty wad of blood money to bereaved families?

When will we learn that violence breeds violence?

And then, it hit me. The answer to all my questions was undeniably, simply, that we do not care to 'know' the depth and breath of this calamity. We worry less about the collective and more and more about ourselves and our possessions. The biggest tragedy is we are glorified for not feeling.

And they call us resilient..."

Does the author have the correct answer? Would we "mubaikars" have bounced back so soon had someone close to us perished in the incident? Woudl we still have resumed work had the blast knocked off a Dharavi -the worlds largest slum or taken down your own building? Is this resilience actually "indifference"?

Thought provoking indeed and I dont know the right answer.....