This article contributes to further our understanding of factors shaping collective action in urban India. Based primarily on fieldwork conducted in slums and middle-class neighbourhoods in Bangalore, the article strengthens the case against a dualistic reading of collective action by identifying some important convergences between actions of middle-class and slum-based associations. It argues that new urban governance initiatives have been worked by slum-based associations to make claims in ways that are reminiscent of the ‘insurgent citizenship’ observed among middle-class associations. The article also highlights how slum-based mobilizations are driven not merely by patron–client political networks or the politics of stealth, but also inspired from larger identity-based movements. Middle-class associations, on the other hand, reveal increasingly deeper engagement with formal politics, a realm that the ‘new politics’ had not earlier engaged with.
BenjaminSolomon. (2000). Governance, economic settings and poverty in Bangalore. Environment and Urbanization, 12(1), 35–56.
5.
BenjaminS.BhuvaneswariR. (2001), Democracy, inclusive governance and poverty in Bangalore. Working paper no. 26, Programme on Urban Governance, Partnership and Poverty, University of Birmingham.
ChatterjeePartha. (2004). Are Indian cities becoming bourgeois at last?, In Partha Chatterjee, Politics of the governed: Reflections on popular politics in most of the world (pp. 131–148). Delhi: Permanent Black.
8.
CoelhoKarenVenkatT. (2009). The politics of civil society: Neighbourhood associationalism in Chennai. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(26 and 27), 358–367.
CookeBKothariU. (eds.) (2001). Participation: The new tyranny?London: Zed Books.
11.
de WitJ. (1996). Poverty, policy, and politics in Madras slums: Dynamics of survival, gender, and leadership. London: SAGE Publications.
12.
de WitJ. (2002). Urban poverty alleviation in Bengaluru institutional and community level dilemmas. Economic & Political Weekly, 37(38), 3935–3942.
13.
de WitJ.BernerE. (2009). Progressive patronage? Municipalities, NGOs, CBOs and the limits to slum dwellers’ empowerment. Development and Change, 40(5), 927–947.
14.
FernandesL.HellerP. (2006). Hegemonic aspirations new middle class politics and India’s democracy in comparative perspective. Critical Asian Studies, 38(4), 495–522.
15.
GhoshA. (2005). Public–private or a private public? Promised partnership of the Bangalore Agenda Task Force. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(47), 4914–4922.
16.
GooptuNandini. (2001). The politics of the urban poor in early twentieth-century India. Vol. 8. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HarrissJohn. (2005). Political participation, representation and the urban poor. Economic & Political Weekly, 40(11), 1041–1054.
18.
HarrissJohn. (2007, June30). Antinomies of empowerment: Observations on civil society, politics and urban governance in India. Economic & Political Weekly, 42(26), 2716–2724.
19.
Indian Institute of Science. (2013). Environmental impact of developmental activities in the Bellandur Lake catchment. Energy and Wetlands Research Group of the Centre for Ecological Sciences, IISc.
20.
KamathL. (2006). Achieving global competitiveness and local poverty reduction? Examining the public–private partnering model of governance in Bangalore, India. Unpublished dissertation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
21.
KamathL. (2012). New policy paradigms and actual practices in slum housing–The case of housing projects in Bengaluru. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVII(47 and 48), 76–86.
22.
KamathL.VijayabaskarM. (2009). ‘Limits and possibilities of middle class associations as urban collective actors. Economic and Political Weekly, XLIV(26 and 27), 368–376.
23.
KamathL.VijayabaskarM. (2013). Urban reforms and the middle classes: Fragmented collective action and the incomplete project of stakeholder participation. In CoelhoKarenKamathLalithaVijayabaskarM. (eds), Participolis: Consent and contention in neoliberal India (pp. 149–171). India: Routledge.
24.
LazzaratoM. (2009). Neoliberalism in action: Inequality, insecurity and the reconstitution of the social. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 109–133.
25.
NairJanaki. (1996). Memories of underdevelopment—Language and its identities in contemporary Karnataka. Economic and Political Weekly, 31(41–42), 2809–2816.
26.
NairJanaki. (2005). The promise of the metropolis: Bangalore’s twentieth century. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
27.
NairJanaki. (2012). Is there an Indian urbanism? In RademacherAnneSivaramakrishnanK. (eds), Ecologies of urbanism in India: Metropolitan civility and sustainability (pp. 43–70). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
28.
RanganathanM. (2013). Financialized and insurgent: The dialectics of participation in Bangalore’s neoliberal water reforms. In CoelhoKarenKamathLalithaVijayabaskarM. (eds), Participolis: Consent and contention in neoliberal India (pp. 63–86). India: Routledge.
29.
RoyAnanya. (2009). Why India cannot plan its cities. Informality, insurgency, and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87.
30.
SwyngedouwE. (2005). Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991–2006.
UpadhyaC. (2008). Rewriting the code: Software professionals and the reconstitution of Indian middle class identity. In JaffrelotC.van der VeerP. (eds), Patterns of Middle Class Consumption in India and China (pp. 55–87). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
