We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter describes the evolution of the urban political geographies of Bombay and Shanghai from the mid-nineteenth century up to the first third of the twentieth century. It documents the fragmented nature of sovereignty, patterns of migration and their connections with urban citizenship, the provision and meanings of public space, housing and residential space, areas of commerce and consumption, and manufacturing zones. Shanghai’s fragmented sovereignty led to disputes involving Chinese and foreign security forces, which triggered public reactions that invoked broader claims of rights for Chinese citizens residing in Shanghai under foreign domination. In Bombay, no such fragmentation of formal sovereignty existed. But a scarce supply of housing in Bombay put workers in crowded tenements (chawls) and within close proximity of their textile mills. Tight connections between work and residence facilitated labor protests but hindered the inclusion of labor in nationalist protests. How these spatial formations and practices influenced the possibilities for collective action during the twentieth century is the focus of the chapters that follow.
This chapter narrates the large-scale protests in Bombay and Shanghai beginning in 1966. In Bombay, unemployed youth flocked to join the Shiv Sena. In Shanghai, “worker revolutionary rebels” formed quickly and served as foot soldiers in the overthrow of the local party leadership. The rebellions in Bombay and Shanghai had city-specific origins and grievances. This chapter puts these movements in the context of earlier periods of contentious politics in which challengers used spatial repertories and political geographies of the city to convey socioeconomic grievances. The movements arose in part out of frustration after nearly two decades of socialist-modernist urban governance, and the failures of new city leaders to remedy basic scarcities of housing, jobs, and services. The insurrections failed to remedy each city’s scarcities and unequal access to jobs and housing. By 1968, both movements became embedded in institutional channels, with the Shiv Sena vying for municipal council seats through electoral politics and Shanghai’s worker rebels taking part in municipal Revolutionary Committees.
This chapter first provides some background on the state of urban conditions in Shanghai in the 1980s, including three prominent waves of protests stemming from national politics but also reflecting high levels of dissatisfaction with living conditions in the city. It then turns to the specifics of housing policy, demolition and relocation, and deindustrialization, including the mass layoffs of Shanghai’s textile workforce of about one-half million during the mid-1990s. The transformation of urban space that constituted the “Shanghai miracle” in the 1990s and early 2000s brought forth altered forms of contentious politics, ones anchored in a politics of compensation (and with it, property valuation). The protection of housing and residence, and resistance to state projects that would threaten to remove or relocate residential housing, or to influence property values, featured prominently in contentious claims. As was the case in Mumbai, urban citizenship was closely linked with ownership and possession of housing (in its various forms).
This chapter describes how the new governments of India and China in the early 1950s approached Shanghai and Bombay with great ambivalence. Both cities were tied closely to the capitalist, imperialist past. Central government policies deprived each city of fiscal resources and curtailed their connections with foreign capital and trade. Both cities faced extreme housing scarcities amid migration and the expansion of informal settlements. Both cities also remained central for anchoring support from and control over workers. The Chinese Communist Party in Shanghai introduced spatial practices that could be appropriated by those seeking to make claims against local authorities: processions through streets, mass struggle meetings, and face-to-face meetings between officials and the masses, in the workplace and in neighborhoods. In Bombay, the politics of linguistic identity and native place led to a brief coalition between aggrieved Marathi speakers and leftist labor leaders in the late 1950s that replaced mobilization based on class with the politics of linguistic community. By 1960, they succeeded with the formation of the new state of Maharashtra, with Bombay as its capital.
This chapter narrates the citywide protests of 1919 in Shanghai and Bombay. Despite weak formal organizations and institutions, mobilizations in Shanghai erupted quickly and spontaneously, with impressive durability. Social networks that were part of the urban political culture played a role in furthering nationalist mobilization. In Bombay, nationalist movement leaders failed to incorporate the city’s textile workforce, despite the efforts by some nationalist organizers who favored an inclusive cross-class strategy. Thus, an industrywide strike in early 1919 did not connect with nationalist protests organized in April of that year. In Shanghai, nationalist mobilizations sparked in May 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles and outrage over concessions to Japan morphed into a “triple strike” of workers, students, and merchants. The citywide, cross-class mobilization extended through the summer of 1919. In both cases, nationalist claims contained elements of urban citizenship. The spatial politics of the 1919 mobilizations in Bombay and Shanghai had an enduring effect on twentieth-century social mobilizations in the two contentious port cities.
This chapter revisits the central claims and findings from the comparison of twentieth-century contentious politics in Shanghai and Bombay. While some spatial forms endured in terms of location and meaning – civic spaces, industrial districts, low-income housing – in other respects, the transformations in urban political geography sorted different groups and brought about changes to the character of urban citizenship and to forms of contentious politics. Changes in urban political geography reconfigured the always uneven nature of urban citizenship, but also opened the door for new contentious claims based on differential urban citizenship. This chapter also highlights the ways in which recent changes in urban political geography have disconnected workplace and residence through deindustrialization, the demolition of central city housing, and the relocation of inner city residents. Such changes, while spawning occasional protests over questions of residence and work, have in the long run reduced prospects for workplace and residence to congeal into political movements of the sort found earlier in the century.
This chapter shows how nationalist politics in Shanghai and Bombay in the 1920s and 1930s followed similar patterns in which leaders organized protests, mobilized workers, introduced a set of “national days” to mark events and tragedies, and called for boycotts of foreign goods while promoting national products. Unlike episodes of contentious politics during the first two decades of the twentieth century, by the 1930s, political parties and unions directed political mobilization toward state-building. National citizenship displaced urban citizenship. An armed intervention in Shanghai by Japanese troops in early 1932 and encroachments by Japan elsewhere in China prompted nationalist protests in Shanghai. During the Sino–Japanese War in (1937–45), the city came under Japanese occupation. In Bombay, labor politics retained connections with neighborhood concerns, and successful union organizing strategies began with the neighborhood rather than the workplace. The gradual transfer of sovereignty to the Indian National Congress in the 1930s ushered in bureaucratic controls over the workforce and disengagement from questions of housing and public services.