Since Independence, Muslim politics in India has mainly been framed through the idiom of identity. While political engagements calling for democratization and increased participation in public life have occasionally occurred, scholarly interest in the ongoing shifts in Muslim political demands is recent and new. Simultaneously, the emerging literature on the politics of patronage and post-patronage networks in democracies of the Global South present anthropologists with new tools for studying the changing contours of the political mobilization of the urban poor. Using ethnographic narratives collected during fieldwork in Park Circus—one of Kolkata’s many Muslim-dominated neighbourhoods—which remains stigmatized and socially and spatially set apart, this article highlights the emerging modes of political engagement among poor and lower middle-class Muslims. I carefully document their efforts to negotiate a perceived ‘better’ life within a fast-changing neoliberal urban landscape that is prejudiced against them. For many ordinary Muslims, this has involved a movement away from the traditional elite-led politics of identity towards more plebeian forms of assertion and activism aimed at eking out a respectable living by working through extant structures of the local administration and networks of power in the neighbourhood.
AhmedH. (2009). Muslims as a political community. Seminar, 602, 54–59.
2.
AlamA. (2009). Contextualizing Muslim identity: Ansaris, Deobandis and Barelwis. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(24), 86–92.
3.
AttwoodD. W. (1979). Why some of the poor get richer: Economic change and mobility in rural Western India. Current Anthropology, 20(3), 495–516.
4.
BaileyF. G. (1969). Stratagems and spoils: A social anthropology of politics. Colorado: Westview Press.
5.
BerenschotW.(2011). Political fixers and the rise of Hindu nationalism in Gujarat, India: Lubricating a patronage democracy. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies,34(3), 382–401.
6.
BoseN. K. (1965). Calcutta: A premature metropolis. Scientific American, 213(3), 90–102.
7.
BrassP. (1965). Factional politics in an Indian state: The Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
8.
BrassP. (1994). The politics of India since Independence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
ChatterjeeA. (2015). Narratives of exclusion: Space, insecurity and identity in a Muslim neighbourhood. Economic & Political Weekly, 50(52), 92–99.
10.
ChatterjeeA. (2017). Margins of citizenship: Muslim experiences in urban India. London and New York: Routledge.
11.
ChatterjiJ. (2007). The spoils of partition: Bengal and India, 1947–1967. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
12.
CiottiM. (2012). Resurrecting seva (social service): Dalit and lower-caste women party activists as producers and consumers of political culture and practice in urban North India.The Journal of Asian Studies, 71(1), 149-170.
13.
CorbridgeS.WilliamsG.SrivastavaM.VéronR. (2005). Seeing the state: Governance and governmentality in India. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DasguptaA. (2009). On the margins: Muslims in West Bengal. Economic & Political Weekly, 44(16), 91–96.
15.
FullerC. J.BeneiV. (2001). For an anthropology of the modern Indian state. In FullerC. JBeneiV. (Eds.), The everyday state and society in modern India (pp. 1–30). London: C. Hurst & Co.
16.
GalonnierJ. (2015). The enclave, the citadel and the ghetto: The threefold segregation of upper class Muslims in India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(1),92–111.
17.
GooptuN. (2007). Economic liberalisation, work and democracy: Industrial decline and urban politics in Kolkata. Economic & Political Weekly, 42(21), 1922–1933.
18.
GudavarthyA. (2012). Introduction: Why interrogate political society? In GudavarthyA. (Ed.), Re-framing democracy and agency in India: Interrogating political society (pp. 1–10). London: Anthem Press.
19.
HansenT. B. (2000). Predicaments of secularism: Muslim identities and politics in Mumbai. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 6(2), 255–272.
20.
HansenT.B.VerkaaikO. (2009). Urban charisma: On everyday mythologies in the city. Critique of Anthropology, 29(5), 5–26.
21.
HaragopalC.ReddyR. G. (1985). The Pyraveekar: ‘The fixer’ in rural India. Asian Survey, 25(11), 1148–1162.
22.
HarrissJ. (2005). Political participation, representation and the urban poor: Findings from a research in Delhi. Economic & Political Weekly, 40(11), 1041–1054.
23.
HasanM. (1997). Legacy of a divided nation: India’s Muslims since Independence. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
24.
JaffrelotC.GayerL. (2012). Introduction. In JaffrelotC.GayerL. (Eds.), Muslims in India’s cities: Trajectories of marginalization (pp. 1–22). New Delhi: HarperCollins.
25.
JairathV. (Ed.). (2011). Frontiers of embedded Muslim communities in India. New Delhi: Routledge.
26.
JodhkaS. S. (2010). Engaging with caste: Academic discourses, identity politics and state policy. Working Paper Series, 2(2). New Delhi: IIDS and UNICEF.
27.
KirmaniN. (2013). Questioning the Muslim woman: Identity and insecurity in an urban Muslim neighbourhood. New Delhi, India: Routledge.
28.
KrishnaA. (2013). Active social capital: Tracing the roots of development and democracy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
29.
ManorJ. (2000). Small-time political fixers in India’s states: ‘Towel over Armpit’. Asian Survey, 40(5), 816–835.
30.
ManorJ. (2013). Post-clientelist initiatives. In StokkeK.TornquistO. (Eds.), Democratization in the Global South (pp. 243–253). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
McPhersonK. (1974). The Muslim microcosm: Calcutta 1918–1935. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
32.
MinesM. (2014). The political economy of patronage, preeminence and the state in Chennai. In PiliavskyA. (Ed.), Patronage as politics in South Asia (pp. 39–66). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
33.
MitchellT. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critiques. The American Political Science Review, 85(1), 77–96.
34.
OrtnerS. (1995). Resistance and the problem of ethnographic refusal. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 37(1), 173–193.
35.
PandeyG. (1999). Can a Muslim be an Indian?Comparative Studies in Society and History,41(4), 608–629.
36.
PeachC. (2005). The ghetto and the ethnic enclave. In VaradyD. P. (Ed.), Desegregating the city (pp. 31–48). Albany: The State University of New York Press.
37.
PiliavskyA. (2014a). India’s demotic democracy and its ‘depravities’ in the ethnographic longue duree. In PiliavskyA. (Ed.), Patronage as politics in South Asia (pp. 154–175). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press
38.
PiliavskyA. (2014b). Introduction. In PiliavskyA. (Ed.), Patronage as politics in South Asia (pp. 1–38). New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
39.
RuudA. E. (2001). Talking dirty about politics: A view from a Bengali village. In FullerC. J.BeneiV. (Eds.), The everyday state and society in modern India (pp. 116–136). New Delhi: Social Science Press.
40.
StokkeK.TornquistO. (2013). Democratization in the Global South: The importance of transformative politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
TarloE. (2001). Paper truths: The Emergency and slum clearance through forgotten files. In FullerC. J.BeneiV. (Eds.), The everyday state and society in modern India (pp. 68–90) New Delhi: Social Science Press.
42.
WacquantL. (2007). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
