Search

Since 2000 in New Delhi, urban decentralization has mainly come in the form of the highly visible Bhagidari or partnership scheme, inviting city residents to participate in a "process of dialogue and the discovery of jointsolutions."1 This paper critically examines this program between 2000 and 2012, through the experiences of primarily middle-class neighbourhood organizations called Resident Welfare Associations, or RWAs that were included in the scheme. The paper argues that rather than constitutional decentralization, Bhagidari as an initiative must be read in terms of a larger shift to entrepreneurial governance. Bhagidari's success has been in delegating management to RWAs, at little cost to city government, while seemingly opening up a "participatory" space for middle-class urban residents in civic affairs. However, for RWAs the article argues that Bhagidari's impact has come to represent an attempt at harnessing and managing the new middle-class aspiration to engage with urban government for administrative and political ends. In this context, Bhagidari has also been seen as an important means of cultivating middle-class consent and a constituency through courting RWAs for an ambitious chief executive. Over time, this has become a common strategy for building political and civic visibility for a range of actors, one reason why the number of RWAs has proliferated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article looks at the growth and expansion of Delhi during the eventful period 1936–59. It examines how the sovereign state came to acquire vast new legal powers to regulate the city, the economy and the polity through the course of managing World War II, the Transfer of Power and finally Partition. In the case of urban planning, the process of increasing state control over land, urban development and the built environment started specifically in 1937 with the establishment of the Delhi Improvement Trust and culminated with the formation of the Delhi Development Authority in 1957. At the same time the article also shows that despite this, Delhi's actual growth in this period often sidestepped state plans with the city's urban expansion being moulded by the impact of global events; emerging through the everyday actions of a vastly increased urban citizenry, especially following Partition, and also by the unexpected playing-out of increasing and exaggerated institutionalised state power itself, as described in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]