Biopolitics and Urban Governmentality in Mumbai

  • Manish K. Jha
  • P. K. Shajahan
  • Mouleshri Vyas


Everyday spaces for urban poor, informal workers and less privileged minority communities in the city of Mumbai portray that right to the city is differentially constituted for different people and communities. The chapter employs Foucault’s notions of governmentality and biopolitics to elucidate the complex manner in which the government and affluent sections of the society ensure that the urban poor continue to provide services for them amidst persistent insecurity, informality and anxiety. The chapter draws from three different, yet interlinked, cases mentioned above to establish and demonstrate the exercise of biopower in governing the city of Mumbai and its people. It explains the use of biopolitical strategies, such as statistical enquiries, censuses and programmes for enhancement or curtailment of benefits and services through which social lives get regulated, disciplined and marginalized.


Urban Space Urban Poor Muslim Community Informal Work Solid Waste Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agamben, G. (1998). Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life. California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (2002). Means without end. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baxstrom. (2000). ‘Governmentality, bio-power and the emergence of the Malayan-Tamil subjects on the plantations of colonial Malaya’. Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 14(2), 49–78, Accessed 6 Sept 2011 10:17Google Scholar
  4. Bhan, G. (2009). ‘This is no longer the city I once knew’. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burra, S. (2005). Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India. Environment and Urbanization, 17(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
  6. Das, P. K. (2003). Slums improvement and development schemes & policies. Accessed 28 Jun 2013.
  7. DNA (2010). P. Chidambaram blames migrants for crimes in Delhi, triggers reaction, December 13. Accessed 4 Sept 2012.
  8. Fassin, D. (2001). The biopolitics of otherness. Anthropology Today, 17(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1977). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  10. Foucault, M. (1984). Of other spaces: Utopias and heterotopias. Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité, Vol. 5, 46–49.Google Scholar
  11. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). New York: Vintage. Originally published 1976.Google Scholar
  12. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 102–103). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, N. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere. In C. Calhon (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Government of India. (1999). Solid waste management in Class 1 cities. Report of the committee constituted by the Hon. Supreme Court of India. Available at
  15. Harriss, J. (2007). Antinomies of empowerment: Observations of civil society, politics and urban governance in India. Economic and Political Weekly, June 30, 2716–2724.Google Scholar
  16. Hindustan Times (2012). Uddhav Thackeray, Shiv Sena leader, wants permit system for migrant Biharis in Mumbai, Mumbai, 4 Sept 2012. Accessed 4 Sept 2012.
  17. India Today. (2012). Migrants to blame for rapes: Sheila Dikshit, 12 Apr 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Jha, M. K. (2011). Place of poor in urban space. Policies and Practice. No 39. Kolkata: Calcutta Research Group.Google Scholar
  19. Jha, M. K. (2013). The idea of identity card(s) and experiences of subaltern Mumbai. In Atig Ghosh (Ed.), Branding the migrant. Kolkata: Frontpage Publications.Google Scholar
  20. Jha, M. K., & Shajahan, P. K. (2010). Social topography of delineated others: Muslims in contemporary India. In A. Waheed (Ed.), Minority education in India (pp. 3–19). New Delhi: SERIALS Publications.Google Scholar
  21. Kohn, M. (2001). The power of place: The house of people as counterpublic. Polity, 33(4), 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar, A. (2005). Mumbai’s expendable poor. Economic and Political Weekly, 5 Feb, 506–510.Google Scholar
  23. Lazzarato, M. (2002). From biopower to biopolitics. Pli: The Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 13, 99–113.Google Scholar
  24. Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on cities. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  25. Lemke, T. (2000). Foucault, governmentality and critique. Paper presented at the rethinking Marxism conference, University of Amherst (MA), 21–24 Sept 2000. Retrieved from J Stor.Google Scholar
  26. Neuwirth, R. (2005). Shadow cities: A billion squatters, a new urban world. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Neyazi, T. A. (2007). State, citizenship and religious community: The case of Indian Muslim women. Asian Journal of Political Science, 15(3), 303–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, J. (2002). Global and world cities: A view from off the map. International of Urban and Regional Research, 26(3), 439–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose, N. (2006). Governing “advanced” liberal democracies. In A. Sharma & A. Gupta (Eds.), The anthropology of the state (pp. 144–162). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Roy, A. (2004). Transnational trespassing: The geopolitics of urban informality. In A. Roy & N. Al-Sayyad (Eds.), Urban informality: Transnational perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America and South Asia. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human conditions have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Sen, S. (2011). Trash collection up, but zero garbage still a dream. Times of India, Mumbai. 5 Nov 2011.Google Scholar
  33. Shajahan, P. K. (2009). Demons proselytizers and liquid fear: Communal expressions in contemporary India. In S. Sharma & M. K. Jha (Eds.), Opposition to silence (pp. 169–184). New Delhi: Alter Note Press.Google Scholar
  34. Sharma, R. N., Vyas, M., Jha, M., & Shaban, A. (2008). Impact assessment of resettlement implementation under Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP). Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  35. The Hindu (2012). ‘Following protests from the Bihar government after an alleged Azad Maidan rioter was picked up from that State, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray has threatened to brand every migrant from Bihar an “infiltrator”’, 31 Aug 2012. Accessed 5 Sept 2012.
  36. Vyas, M. (2009). Unionization as a strategy in community organization in the context of privatization: The case of conservancy workers in Mumbai. Community Development Journal, 44(3), 320–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manish K. Jha
    • 1
  • P. K. Shajahan
    • 2
  • Mouleshri Vyas
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Community Organisation and Development PracticeTata Institute of Social SciencesMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.South Asia Centre for Studies in Conflicts, Peace and Human SecurityTata Institute of Social SciencesMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations