Summary How does the state ‘perform’ people's participation and public consultation exercises in a context where it is increasingly forced to rely on private capital to build infrastructure? How do these new forms of participation and consultation articulate with existing institutions of people's representation? Are the new mandates for citizen participation and public consultation that are written into the reform agenda driving a further wedge into the already fractured citizenship that characterizes the Indian urban polity? These are the questions posed by this paper. While ‘participatory development’ itself has come under critique since the late 1990s for its demonstrated effects of disenfranchising marginalised groups, manufacturing consensus for plans already made, and/or closing off alternative pathways for transformation, this paper argues that contemporary practices of public consultation and citizen participation have moved out of the ambit of such critiques. No longer do they contain more than tokenistic gestures toward broad inclusion or people's empowerment. Instead, the imperatives of ‘fast‐tracking’ India's cities into a post‐Third World regime of ‘global cities’, have given new shape and meaning to contemporary practices of participation and consultation. The paper explores notions of participation as located in 'second generation’ or institutional reforms, particularly as articulated by prominent state‐sponsored public‐private partnerships such as the Bangalore Agenda Task Force (BATF) and the Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund (TNUDF). These ‘model’ partnerships provided key programmatic elements that became the basis of national reform programs, notably the Jawarharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). The paper also discusses the emerging character of collective action in Indian cities in terms of its implications for the unfolding of governance reform measures such as the JNNURM's Community Participation Law.

This article narrates how a fisherfolk community comprising original inhabitants of Mumbai has been spatially squeezed and choked by surrounding urban developments, compelling them to turn away from their customary livelihoods and ways of living. The community resists this through a political project of indigenous reclaiming. The project is material in nature—focused on reclaiming alienated lands—but also imaginative—reasserting a newly imagined, albeit contested, identity as a fishing community founded on repurposing its fishing commons and reconfiguring the dominant notion of property as private. Using the lens of boundaries allows us to understand the closures and opportunities presented by these complex urban transformations. Overall, the fishers’ reclamation is directed at redefining, contesting, blurring and ‘commoning’ the established ordering boundary of private property that erases their customary claims—their remembered boundary spans not just the village settlement but also the land–sea commons—and is seen as unjust.

for their stimulating research, conversations and collaboration that nourished this work. We are grateful to Paul Farber and Meg Arenberg at the Penn Program in Environmental Humanities and to the School of Habitat Studies Secretariat at TISS for their administrative support in hosting events and workshops in Philadelphia and Mumbai, respectively. Finally, the authors would like to thank Liza Weinstein, Malini Ranganathan and the anonymous reviewers of IJURR for substantive and helpful feedback and suggestions throughout the review process.

We argue that state agencies in Mumbai involved in urban environmental governance, specifically river governance, have made real estate and property urbanism more durable amidst the crisis of rising waters through the performance of ambivalent governance. This 'ambivalencing' entails government agencies enacting differential practices selectively across and within two interfaces which characterize the governance of flood threat: environmental protection and real estate development (protection vs. development) on the one hand; and informality (elite informalities vs. survival informalities) on the other. We show how ambivalencing as a modality of political power distributes socio-material and discursive harm by being strong in real estate development and slum displacement and weak in protecting the environment and the city's poor. Ambivalent governance regimes draw on new political logics, where we see the language of protection serve the motive of growth on the one hand, while replaying older inequities by serving as an instrument of dispossession on the other. State-led informalities--facilitated through formal plans and laws alongside informal agreements to suspend laws or tolerate violations--are central to this governance regime. We conclude with a reflection on the need to grasp the modalities of ambivalent governance and assemble a counter-politics to reclaim environmental protection by anchoring it to notions of justice for the vulnerable, both human and non-human.

No abstract