Repairing urban water governance through informality: comparing governance capacities for reparation in Indian cities Open Access

Cities in the Global South are increasingly adopting the water-sensitive city (WSC) approach to address the escalating challenges of providing reliable, safe, and equitable water services (Mguni et al., 2022). These challenges are exacerbated by climate change, deteriorating infrastructure, and rapid urbanisation, which significantly strain efforts to protect ecological resources and serve marginalised communities (Bichai & Flamini, 2017). These issues are particularly pronounced in secondary cities, where infrastructure development often lags behind population growth (Marais & Cloete, 2017). In response, existing water management models, rooted in the ‘modern infrastructure ideal,’ tend to prioritise filling these infrastructural gaps (Bichai & Flamini, 2017). However, these technocratic and standardised solutions often remain disconnected from local ecological needs, overlook systemic issues, and fail to address deeply rooted social inequalities that influence access to water resources (Kaika, 2004).

In contrast, water sensitivity envisions a future where water resilience becomes a catalyst for societal transformation, advocating for decentralised, integrated approaches that not only meet technical needs but also require and promote social change (Bichai & Flamini, 2017). These approaches engage with the socio-political and historical injustices of the colonial past, demanding more democratic and inclusive governance (Mguni et al., 2022). However, transforming towards water sensitivity, especially in resource-constrained and socially complex settings like Indian cities, requires governance approaches that address infrastructural, cultural, and institutional shifts. This should emphasise a pragmatic approach to adapting to resource limitations and social complexities rather than introducing entirely new structures and values that could become cumbersome and potentially cause more harm (Giordano & Shah, 2014).

Reparative governance, as we define it in this context, is a form of transformative governance crucial for addressing the socio-political inequities and historical injustices entrenched in colonial legacies that persist not only in imported infrastructures but also in institutions, perpetuating social and ecological problems that conventional approaches often overlook. By intertwining transformation with restorative justice, reparative governance actively works to rectify longstanding injustices, ensuring that the benefits of transformation are equitably distributed and sustainable across generations (Broto et al., 2021). Without such an approach, efforts to implement water-sensitive management risk falling into the trap of superficial changes – often termed greenwashing – where the root socio-political issues remain unaddressed, or even exacerbated, by reinforcing the status quo with new, exclusionary value systems (Kaika, 2004). By focusing on incremental, context-sensitive change, reparative governance aims to address the historical and socio-political inequities embedded in water governance, thereby repairing the socio-political fabric and ensuring that the transformation is both just and enduring across generations (Wahby, 2021).

Informality serves as the empirical context within which water governance operates in Indian cities, mainly where formal structures are inadequate or disconnected from local realities (Roy, 2009; McFarlane, 2012). Recognising how informality functions is essential for understanding how shifts towards reparative governance can be facilitated, enabling transformation in resource-constrained and socially complex settings. In settings characterised by diverse social structures, historical legacies, and cultural norms, we examine water governance in Bhuj and Bhopal to explore how informality functions as an organising logic within deliberately deregulated environments and supports reparative practices. These deregulated contexts demonstrate the strategic withdrawal of regulatory power, shaping how resources are allocated, and authority is exercised, potentially enabling the participation of non-state actors, such as local communities and informal networks (Roy, 2009).

A crucial question in advancing reparative governance is how informality can reconfigure power dynamics to enable historically marginalised groups to gain a voice in decision-making, and how this approach can promote equitable resource distribution through continuous negotiation and bargaining with entrenched governance structures. Unlike traditional governance, which often relies on rigid, technocratic methods, informality fosters co-production through ‘hybrid’ systems that blend formal and informal practices, making governance more ‘fluid’ and responsive to local needs (Ahlers et al., 2014; Wahby, 2021). However, informality is not always equitable or just – it can provide adaptive solutions where formal systems fall short, but it also risks entrenching patronage, reinforcing pre-existing hierarchies, or creating new exclusions (Funder & Marani, 2015). While we acknowledge these potential pitfalls, our focus is on examining how informality's qualities can be leveraged in secondary Indian cities like Bhuj and Bhopal to balance adaptability and equity while critically engaging with the risks it poses in shaping governance outcomes. Although the previous studies have highlighted the transformative potential of informality, less attention has been given to understanding how actors’ agency within informal governance arrangements mobilises resources, facilitates participation in decision-making, and drives knowledge production and dissemination to achieve reparation. To address this gap, we assess these dynamics through the lens of governance capacity, extending the work of Hölscher et al., (2019) to study how informal practices are enacted – examining how and by whom informality is driven, the conditions it creates for organisation, innovation, and flexibility, and whether these conditions enable reparative outcomes by addressing socio-political inequities and historical injustices. This agency-focused perspective also allows for exploring the conscious and subconscious motivations behind informal actions, enabling an assessment of whether the intentionality driving these practices aligns with the objectives of reparation. In addition to examining the underlying motivations and intentions governing actions, an agency-focused approach illuminates how individuals and groups strategically negotiate formal structures to achieve reparative outcomes within the contextual constraints of their environments (Cleaver, 2002). By investigating how informality contributes to the development of consolidative and jugaadu capacities, this study offers a comparative analysis of informal governance's potential to drive reparative governance and achieve water sensitivity in cities like Bhuj and Bhopal.

Comparing Bhuj and Bhopal – two cities facing distinct geographical and climatic challenges – allows us to assess how informal governance can address persistent water governance challenges to achieve water sensitivity. Bhuj, grappling with water scarcity and salination, and Bhopal, struggling with unequal access to clean water and risks of contamination, reflect governance structures common in other secondary cities. Despite their differences, our study explores whether hybrid formal–informal governance models can address these challenges, contributing to a broader understanding of the potential for informality in facilitating reparation towards water sensitivity.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: we first outline the capacities framework and how informality supports reparation, followed by our methodology. We then apply the framework to illustrate the reparative capacities in Bhopal and Bhuj, concluding with a discussion on how informality has enhanced water sensitivity in these contexts.

This section presents our reparative governance capacities framework, aiming to investigate how informality contributes to reparative efforts towards water sensitivity. We first define reparative governance in relation to water sensitivity in Southern cities. The framework helps to describe how capacities are supported by informality to facilitate reparative actions, which entails consolidation and jugaad (noun form for jugaadu) to enable reparation for achieving water sensitivity.

Reparation, as a transformative approach, seeks to fundamentally reshape urban water governance systems by addressing the complex, uncertain, and contested dynamics of urban transformations while being mindful of historical injustices that should not be perpetuated (Broto et al., 2021). This approach is particularly relevant in contexts like India, where historical legacies of inequality rooted in colonial exploitation, caste discrimination, and religious divides continue to shape contemporary social and environmental challenges. In practice, reparative water governance aspires to address systemic injustices by acknowledging and including historically marginalised needs and practices by prioritising local and culturally contextual solutions. For instance, it would focus on restoring ecological integrity, creating more equitable access to water resources, and prioritising just and equitable goals in water management. Rather than merely restoring systems to their original state, reparation focuses on fostering a sensibility towards long-term healing and amendment (Bhan, 2019; Broto et al., 2021).

Reparation is especially pertinent in urban water management, particularly in the pursuit of water sensitivity, which requires managing water in an ecologically sustainable and socially equitable manner as described by Bichai & Flamini (2017). Achieving such shifts in approaches often necessitates transformative processes that can be resource-intensive, weaken accountability, and may exacerbate social divides if not carefully managed (Giordano & Shah, 2014). For instance, initiatives aimed at greening urban areas, such as lakes, might inadvertently lead to gentrification, disproportionately affecting local indigenous populations (Kim & Jung, 2019). Moreover, the transplantation of urban green space concepts from developed countries to tropical regions in the Global South can prove unsustainable and exacerbate social divisions due to varied enforcement policies regarding access. This underscores the need to integrate sustainability with justice goals, ensuring that efforts do not result in exclusive and unequal outcomes.

Reparation emphasises healing, reconciliation, and mending of relationships, centring restorative justice as a normative foundation while pursuing sustainability goals (Broto et al., 2021). In the context of water sensitivity, it ensures that reparative water governance efforts actively work to include marginalised voices and bring forth the subaltern frames of water challenges, thereby healing the divisions caused by past injustices while drawing on cultural knowledge and local practices to ensure relevance without perpetuating harm. Care, as a critical societal practice, facilitates this process by prioritising empathetic engagement and the sustained inclusion of these voices in decision-making processes, embodying a commitment to reconfiguring the relationships that underpin water governance (Conradi, 2015). Especially in secondary cities in India, where financial constraints, social stratification, and colonial legacies create unique challenges, reparation is crucial in addressing the social inequities that hinder water sensitivity goals.

Addressing water challenges in the Global South, particularly in India, requires a governance approach that is both adaptable and attuned to local contexts. With its inherent flexibility, informality offers a promising mechanism for advancing reparative efforts in socio-environmentally complex and resource-constrained settings. Reparation requires a governance model capable of navigating through cultural complexities and addressing historical injustices – objectives that formal governance, often constrained by rigid and lengthy bureaucratic frameworks, may struggle to achieve effectively. As Cleaver (2002) notes, formal governance structures tend to rely on technocratic solutions that overlook the socially embedded nature of local practices. Similarly, McFarlane (2012) argues that rigid distinctions between formal and informal governance can worsen inequalities, as formal systems are often inadequate for meeting the evolving and context-specific needs of resource-constrained urban environments.

However, while informality offers adaptability, it also carries risks, such as the potential to perpetuate inequalities or be co-opted by powerful actors if not carefully managed (Funder & Marani, 2015). The effectiveness of informality frequently depends on its integration with formal structures, which provide the necessary legitimacy and accountability. Scholars illustrate a hybrid governance arrangement, wherein informal networks operate as ‘tentacles’ that support and complement formal processes (Ahlers et al., 2014; Wahby, 2021). This hybrid governance model proves particularly effective in contexts where formal governance alone is insufficient to address local complexities. Roy (2009) conceptualises this strategic blending of formal and informal governance as ‘calculated informality,’ occurring in deregulated environments, where regulations are selectively and temporarily withdrawn. Given these dynamics, exploring how informality can genuinely support reparative efforts in India's resource-constrained secondary cities is crucial, as it could highlight governance capacities for water-sensitive management, address historical injustices, and promote long-term healing.

We identify two key governance capacities – consolidative and jugaadu – as essential for enabling reparative governance, particularly in the context of informality. This framework, drawing inspiration from the transformative urban climate governance model developed by Hölscher et al., (2019), promises to address the specific challenges of reparative urban water governance. The governance capacity framework offers a critical lens to understand agency – how informality is enacted, the conditions it fosters, and the extent to which these conditions facilitate reparative outcomes. By analysing governance through this capacity-focused perspective, we gain insight into the mechanisms that underpin informal practices, including the ability to organise, innovate, and remain flexible.

This approach highlights how actors strategically navigate within formal constraints to achieve reparative outcomes, aligning their practices with broader goals of social justice and environmental sustainability. The governance practices aimed at reparation seek to amend or heal urban water systems by proposing new conditions for collaborative, democratic, and locally led solutions in resource-constrained environments. Moreover, the governance capacity framework allows us to explore the actors’ agency, revealing both conscious and subconscious motivations behind their actions (Cleaver, 2002).

By focusing on consolidative and jugaadu capacities, our framework connects actors’ activities with emerging governance arrangements, offering insights into how informality can be harnessed to achieve reparative outcomes and enhance water sensitivity in resource-constrained contexts.

Consolidative capacity manifests in the ability of actors to strengthen or develop conditions for the self-organisation. This is especially notable when victims of past injustices organise with decision-makers working on long-term future goals within complex cultural and social contexts, aiming towards healing through informal governance structures and processes. Consolidation hinges on merging separate entities into a cohesive whole while preserving their unique identities and balancing individual and collective roles. Building on Hölscher et al.’s (2019) concept of orchestrating capacity, Bhan (2019) further nuance consolidation, emphasising self-organisation in Southern contexts within available means and highlighting a capacity that transcends mere coordination, focusing on healing rather than just task completion. Incorporating the attribute of healing into reparation encourages sustained follow-up, holistic thinking, the inclusion of marginalised voices, and the ability to understand viewpoints that have been dismissed earlier. This entails materialising restorative justice through informality.

Enhancing consolidative capacity necessitates veering directionality – aligning individualistic actions with overarching goals within institutional constraints (Dahlmann & Stubbs, 2023). Veering directionality fosters a collective sense of care and responsibility, enhancing information sharing, intrinsic motivation, and a shared sense of duty, thus cultivating a commitment that surpasses mere incentivisation and fosters emotional and intellectual collaboration (Conradi, 2015). However, in contexts marked by distrust towards authority, efforts may be perceived as individual tasks rather than part of a purposefully driven collective mission without trust rebuilding. To mend trust and foster consolidative capacity, transparent communication, role and intent clarification, the establishment of accessible (not necessarily formal) platforms, and showcasing of the rationale behind governmental efforts are crucial (Leahy & Anderson, 2008). Establishing a middle ground through pragmatic mediation creates essential frameworks, elucidating trade-offs, reinterpreting local norms, and addressing translation challenges among diverse actors. This strategy, leveraging strategically positioned brokers between communities and authorities with systemic awareness and inter-scalar connectivity, becomes vital for facilitating agreements in contexts where policies are disconnected or socially contentious (Funder & Marani, 2015).

Building upon transformative and unlocking capacities as articulated by Hölscher et al., (2019), jugaadu capacity is further nuanced through the incorporation of frugality and local logic, epitomised by the term jugaad, loosely translating to ‘innovative fix within constraints’ in Hindi language. This capacity is characterised by the ability to improvise through frugal, contextually viable methodologies, ideologies, and organisational structures aiming at improvisations while dismantling colonial legacies to foster inclusivity and alternative approaches essential for addressing water challenges. While the cost-effectiveness may raise questions about the novelty of the innovation, its essence lies in prioritising timely adaptation and repurposing existing knowledge and worldviews as a conduit for reparation. Furthermore, jugaadu capacity encourages a flexible and adaptive approach to governance, integrating local knowledge and practices to address historical injustices, fostering long-term healing and sustainability in water management practices.

Jugaadu capacity is further evident in efforts to pluralise knowledge by challenging entrenched disciplinary, geographic, institutional, and epistemological hegemonies. It promotes engagement with diverse knowledge forms, including marginalised ones, and scrutinises their synergies and trade-offs to establish channels for transdisciplinary exchanges (Yates et al., 2017). Frugality characterises this capacity as it is manifested through efforts to create a safe space for deliberation, prioritisation, and identification of opportunities. This fosters persistent optimism and courage to face uncertainties and fear of failure while reducing reliance on external justification and using constraints as resources for reparation (Funder & Marani, 2015). Moreover, jugaadu capacity embeds improvisations within the socio-political fabric by leveraging organic arrangements and trial-and-error methodologies aimed at continuous adaptation, resulting in a sense of ownership towards the processes rather than just focusing on the outputs themselves. This involves a cultural practice of collaborative decision-making, which helps to break the rigidity of unsustainable practices while critically assessing and resisting top-down approaches and creating space for more contextual approaches (Cleaver, 2002; Funder & Marani, 2015) (Table 1).

In this section, we begin by outlining the water challenges in Bhuj and Bhopal, followed by a discussion of their water governance arrangement. We then outline how data were collected, and comparative analysis was conducted.

The selection of Bhuj and Bhopal as case studies allows for an in-depth examination of the role of informality in diverse physiographic settings – arid and tropical hinterlands – while highlighting the common governance challenges faced by secondary cities in India, thereby offering insights into broader patterns of informal governance.

Bhuj, a semi-arid secondary city on India's border with Pakistan, has experienced rapid population growth, nearly doubling to 188,236 by 2011, straining existing infrastructure (van der Meulen et al., 2023). Traditionally, Bhuj managed its water needs through local practices due to its unique hydrogeology. However, population growth necessitated the expansion of piped networks connected to the Narmada Canal, exacerbating issues of over-extraction and aquifer salinity ingress (van der Meulen et al., 2023). Despite facing frequent natural disasters and limited national support, residents have demonstrated resilience by independently organising resources, including efforts to revive aquifers (Bajpai & Kothari, 2020). However, contradictory approaches by the government aiming to increase water supply from external sources underscore the complexities of governance.

In contrast, Bhopal, a significantly larger city than Bhuj and the capital of Madhya Pradesh state, is home to over 2.4 million people and boasts 18 significant water reservoirs (CAG India, 2021). While the Upper Lake provides about 25% of the city's water supply, rapid urban expansion has led to water scarcity (Everard et al., 2020). Authorities have addressed rising water demand by sourcing water from distant locations, yet the city grapples with flooding risks and grave water quality issues exacerbated by contamination from the Union Carbide pesticide plant leak (Everard et al., 2020; CAG India, 2021). Despite these challenges, there is a perceived water sufficiency in Bhopal, reflecting a lack of academic focus and public awareness of its water challenges, thereby impacting urban water policy and governance (Everard et al., 2020).

The water governance landscape in both cities mirrors the complexity of their physiographical challenges. In Bhuj, the Bhuj Nagar Palika (Municipal Council) primarily oversees water supply operations but lacks autonomy, adhering to directives from the state capital, Gandhinagar, thus perpetuating a centralised governance model (Bajpai & Kothari, 2020). Even the elected councillors prioritise party agendas over representing local people's issues, showcasing top-down decision-making (Bajpai & Kothari, 2020). Similarly, in Bhopal, despite transitioning water supply management to the Bhopal Nagar Nigam (Municipal Corporation), influence from the state's Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) complicates governance efforts, highlighting centralisation issues and limited delegation of significant responsibilities (CAG India, 2021).

Amid escalating water challenges and rigid top-down governance structures, hybrid informal water governance has emerged, fostering innovative approaches to address these issues. In Bhuj, despite formal governance, civil society organisations (CSOs) like Homes in the City (HIC) have strengthened local governance and community engagement alongside government initiatives (Bajpai & Kothari, 2020). Citizen-led efforts, operating outside formal frameworks yet widely accepted, have driven rainwater harvesting (RWH), groundwater recharge, and lake rejuvenation with tacit municipal support. Similarly, in Bhopal, NGOs have made sporadic efforts to improve water access and address contamination issues. While water supply-focused NGOs collaborate with local governments, those addressing water quality issues are marginalised and overlooked in formal policy documents like the Bhopal Master Plan and Smart City proposal, leading to a lack of recognition for the importance of water quality. Consequently, informal efforts have emerged to fill this gap and address these critical issues, highlighting growing conflicts among governance actors.

The intended governance model to empower municipalities through decentralisation has frequently fallen short in practice, revealing systemic issues in water resource governance in secondary cities. Despite efforts like establishing Ward Samiti (Ward Committee) to enhance citizen engagement, results have been limited, highlighting the need for greater financial autonomy and institutional support (Bajpai & Kothari, 2020). As a result, informality has increasingly filled the gaps left by formal governance, making Bhuj and Bhopal compelling case studies for exploring the dynamics of informality within the governance frameworks of secondary cities.

Our research employed a qualitative, comparative case study methodology, incorporating desk research, ethnographic interviews, and observation to investigate how informality informs the governance capacities for repairing water sensitivity. The desk research included analysis of policy documents across various levels (e.g., Master Plan, Smart City proposal, National Water Policy 2012, Bhopal-Blue Green Master Plan). This literature on formal policy documents provided an understanding of the prescribed governance in the cities.

Field research in 2021 and 2022 utilised multi-sited ethnographic methods, combining 64 semi-structured interviews (32 in Bhopal and 32 in Bhuj) (detailed in Table 2) characterised by detailed descriptions and 10 observational notes. We enriched this robust dataset through cross-interview triangulation, observational insights, and photographic narratives. Interviews spanned a broad spectrum of stakeholders, encompassing state and non-state actors in various capacities within the city's water management ecosystem. This included national and state government officials, municipal officers of varying seniorities, NGO representatives, private sector actors such as real estate agents and urban planning consultants, and academicians, providing a comprehensive view across scales of engagement and decision-making processes.

The interview settings were strategically aligned with the participants’ work environments or comfort zones, ranging from conventional office spaces to more unique locations pertinent to their duties, including underwater tanks or other city locales. This approach, including adjustments for pandemic-related constraints with some online interviews, was designed to foster an atmosphere conducive to open, reflective dialogue, enabling participants to speak candidly about their roles and the realities of water management governance.

Our ethnographic methodology was underpinned by the intent to facilitate in-depth, open-ended discussions, allowing for a thorough exploration of cultural practices, beliefs, and experiences from the participants’ perspectives. This was augmented by visual methods, notably photographic documentation, to capture and analyse forms of informality in governance practices. Such visual and textual ethnographic data provided a unique lens to examine the undercurrents of informality, including tacit practices, unarticulated meanings, and subconscious motivations within the governance framework.

The interviews began with participants describing their roles and challenges, typically framing water issues in a politically correct, objective manner. Subsequent questions probed deeper, exploring how they addressed these issues and re-defined their mandates and capabilities to overcome challenges. The progression of interviews from initial descriptions of roles and challenges towards more intimate explorations of governance practices and the embodiment of informality was deliberate. This methodological trajectory built trust and peeled back layers of political correctness to reveal the nuanced operations of informality in governance. Through this comparative ethnographic lens, our analysis of Bhuj and Bhopal went beyond cataloguing divergent practices; it critically examined each city's governance strategies, contrasting them against one another.

Employing ATLAS.ti software for coding and analysis, we dissected the activities to decipher informal governance arrangements and their role in shaping consolidative and jugaadu capacities in each city. By abductive coding, we iteratively refined themes and concepts, directly informing the development of a conceptual framework grounded in the empirical realities of the case studies.

This study explores the diverse manifestations of consolidative and jugaadu governance capacities in Bhuj and Bhopal, demonstrating how informal practices interact with formal governance structures to address complex water management issues. In both cities, consolidative capacity played a crucial role by enabling community stakeholders to participate and devise ways to mediate trust issues between authorities and citizens within existing financial and cultural means, while influencing water governance processes despite scalability and recognition challenges. On the other hand, jugaadu capacity emphasised improvising approaches that leveraged local knowledge and actors’ system awareness to navigate bureaucratic hurdles and institutionalise water-sensitive practices. The contrasting approaches in Bhuj and Bhopal's efforts to repair water governance and foster water sensitivity are underscored by the development of conditions that enable both consolidative and jugaadu capacities.

In the comparative study of Bhuj and Bhopal, consolidative capacity was demonstrated through efforts encouraging self-organisation, especially those directly impacted by water issues. These efforts involved extending formal authority to citizen-organised platforms facilitating collaborative decision-making with well-known CSOs and community figures. The awareness generated motivated stakeholders to address less-prioritised water issues and participate in discussions within institutional and fiscal constraints. These efforts helped diversify their understanding of the challenges. Efforts were driven by intrinsic motivation, personal networks, past experiences, and a sense of ownership in their respective places. Personal association with the problem led citizens and government actors to extend their roles to and undertake the roles of mediators to achieve long-term water goals. However, limitations arose due to increased time for governance processes in secondary cities where city government actors still depend on state authorities to validate the on-ground strategies.

In the absence of formal platforms for exercising holistic local governance in Bhuj, consolidative capacity was manifested through efforts by the Urban Setu organisation (NGO) to lead the development of Ward Samiti (Ward Committees) to address water challenges democratically. These ward committees facilitated holistic discussions on local issues involving government authorities, political leaders, and community figures. These efforts have attempted to localise power to the ground, enabling marginalised actors to contribute more actively to governance processes. However, maintaining consistent participation has proven difficult. Similarly, Bhopal's efforts to form Mohalla Samiti (Neighbourhood Committee) in marginalised areas have struggled with authority and effectiveness. Unlike Bhuj's cause-driven initiatives, Bhopal's NGOs often focus on project-based activities.¹

The role of informality in acknowledging and organising under-prioritised issues is evident in both cities. In Bhuj, CSOs have prioritised long-term initiatives like aquifer restoration, diverging from the government's³ short-term focus on installing standalone water tanks as a solution⁴ to scarcity. This collective effort has fostered solidarity networks,⁵ particularly among women's groups, who integrate water management with broader empowerment goals. For instance, the Kutch Mahila Vikas Sanghathan (KMVS) in Bhuj has made environmental sustainability central to their mission, arguing that addressing water issues is essential for improving women's daily lives.⁶ A representative from KMVS elucidated the rationale behind integrating these two focal areas⁷:

In Bhopal, activists have emphasised the urgency of addressing water contamination issues, striving to elevate these concerns onto the formal policy agenda. This push has been stymied by a lack of shared vision and transformational leadership within the government and a notable reluctance to confront the legacy of water contamination from the Union Carbide plant spillage.⁸ Consequently, government initiatives have been sporadic and insufficient, failing to comprehensively address the root causes of water problems.⁹

In the absence of formal mediation agencies, both Bhuj and Bhopal have relied on informal mediators who use personal connections and expertise to navigate through bureaucratic obstacles and bridge divides between stakeholders. In Bhuj, respected community leaders broker solutions, fostering collaboration and aligning stakeholders with common goals. In Bhopal, senior officials act as generalists, further characterised as ‘senior person’¹⁰, ‘people person’¹¹, or ‘trouble-shooter’¹², bridging the gap between community needs and governmental capabilities. Especially when state agency interventions often limit the autonomy of municipalities in secondary cities, necessitating senior officers’ authority to implement decisions without constant state approval.¹³ Despite these efforts, the informal governance arrangements in both cities have not fully manifested consolidative capacity, hampered by deep-seated distrust towards authorities and the marginalisation of vulnerable communities’ voices.

This analysis investigates how informality supports the manifestation of jugaadu capacity in water governance, enabling reparation within the contexts of Bhuj and Bhopal. Jugaadu capacity involves pluralising knowledge by including marginalised knowledge frames and mobilising them to devise improvised solutions. Informality disrupted the conventional rigidity of what constitutes knowledge in water management by embracing a broader spectrum of knowledge forms, blending scientific hydrogeological water data with ancient water history. By employing scientists and non-expert residents, CSOs in Bhuj facilitated devising platforms to co-create credible and socially relevant knowledge. Additionally, the role of educational institutions in Bhuj in promoting water-sensitive practices within curricula, supplemented by community-focused activities, underscores the jugaadu capacity to make scientific knowledge accessible and culturally resonant, enabling reparation. In contrast, Bhopal, despite its identity as the ‘City of Lakes’, remained bound by a technocratic approach led by the Central Irrigation Department, prioritising connections to distant water sources over local self-reliance on its lakes. While its water heritage was acknowledged rhetorically, governance frameworks failed to integrate wisdom on local water use, limiting adaptation and disconnecting Bhopal from the plural knowledge processes. Overall, jugaadu capacity in both cities reflected the ability to acknowledge local knowledge that empowered communities to become more autonomous in their water management – thriving in Bhuj through co-production of knowledge but constrained in Bhopal by technocratic dominance.

Informality has aided in pluralising water management knowledge by challenging traditional notions and embracing a broader array of knowledge forms. In Bhuj, integrating scientific research with traditional practices has led to initiatives to revitalise heritage water bodies, guided by modern hydrogeological insights and historic water narratives.¹⁴ CSOs have strengthened collaboration with local and international academia, creating a collective repository of ancestral wisdom and contemporary scientific data. This blending of knowledge has reinforced local citizens’ ties to water heritage and enabled practical, ground-level activities, such as the ‘Bhujal Jankar’ (Groundwater Knowers) initiative, which trained citizens to collect water data and document groundwater salinity issues. However, these efforts have seen diminishing engagement over time as volunteers shift towards paid opportunities.¹⁵ Conversely, Bhopal's approach illustrates a limited manifestation of jugaadu capacity, primarily relying on technological knowledge as outlined in the Master Plan (2005, Draft 2031), the Climate Action Plan, and the Blue Green Master Plan. Through the superficial designation of Bhopal as a ‘City of Lakes’, without a deeper engagement with its integrated lake network ecosystem and its connection to Islamic urban planning and architecture, these plans highlight a missed opportunity to leverage local culture for broader environmental goals, demonstrating constrained jugaadu capacity.

The mobilisation of flexible funding sources has been instrumental in Bhuj, encompassing fellowships¹⁶ that empower citizens to steward conservation efforts and funds with non-rigid conditions, allowing their use beyond technological upgrades. This adaptability has facilitated more citizen-led water governance models that respond effectively to local needs and priorities.¹⁷ These fellowships have empowered local communities to overcome traditional governance barriers, facilitating innovative water management solutions that are sustainable and inclusive. In Bhopal, the involvement of an international NGO through formal partnerships with local NGOs, and informal associations with the locals, demonstrates how community participation in fundraising activities can increase the sense of ownership towards implementation and uptake. An NGO representative explains¹⁸

However, sustaining these efforts over time has proven difficult, as declining volunteer participation reveals broader issues of motivation, engagement, and continuity.

Nevertheless, the path towards fully realising jugaadu capacity is fraught with obstacles in both cities, where bureaucratic complexities and the perceived financial burdens of transformation are formidable barriers. The administrative maze, characterised by extensive paperwork and the daunting task of persuading stakeholders, poses a significant challenge in implementing innovations.²³ While Bhuj has showcased the potential of jugaadu capacity through the collective efforts of a consortium of CSOs, these groups must remain open to incorporating new actors. This openness is essential in preventing the emergence of new exclusivities and ensuring a continually evolving, reparative approach to water management.

This study examines how consolidative and jugaadu capacities contribute to reparative governance within secondary Indian cities such as Bhuj and Bhopal, focusing on water sensitivity objectives. Unlike primary cities with established water infrastructure and governance frameworks, secondary cities often face fragmented water management, pressing water demands, and limited institutional capacities, making standardised technocratic approaches less effective. In our analysis, we explore how informality plays a role in advancing reparative governance by leveraging these governance capacities. The findings illustrated whether and how hybrid formal–informal governance structures utilise consolidative and jugaadu capacities to support reparation efforts. However, many initiatives have not fully achieved their intended outcomes, prompting further examination of the hybrid governance mechanisms.

Our research highlights that informality shapes reparation efforts in Bhuj and Bhopal by attempting to incorporate marginalised issues, fostering a care-oriented approach to water management. This suggests that care, as a transformative societal practice, plays a crucial role in reparation by promoting mutual interdependence and attentiveness to marginalised voices. As a result, this approach begins to challenge conventional governance hierarchies, integrating local knowledge and relational dynamics into governance processes, leading to more contextually relevant solutions, as articulated by Conradi (2015). The shift towards more care-oriented governance challenges entrenched bureaucratic norms, allowing culturally embedded values to inform governance practices. Consequently, reparative efforts are characterised by improvisation, with informal mechanisms gradually contesting existing power structures to ensure diverse voices influence and shape more inclusive, contextually water-sensitive governance outcomes in these cities.

We expand on the following insights derived from the study:

Drawing on critiques of marginalisation embedded in urban climate responses (Broto et al., 2021), our study highlights how informality integrates varied knowledge types to address complex water challenges. Informal governance platforms, often led by NGOs, merge hydrogeological science with historical and experiential knowledge, broadening the understanding of water governance across communities. These platforms critique the formal system's reliance on technocratic data and instead employ knowledge brokers to combine scientific insights with historical narratives, addressing both historical injustices and future water challenges.

In Bhuj, knowledge brokers connect personal stories with hydrological data, enhancing community understanding of how local landmarks relate to water issues. Similarly, in Bhopal, non-governmental actors linked water quality insights with urban planning policies and human rights. However, despite broadening understanding, efforts faced challenges in gaining formal recognition, essential for sustaining their influence and integrating them into governance frameworks.

The literature indicates that knowledge and practices typically remain peripheral unless embedded within formal structures (Ahlers et al., 2014). In Bhuj, for instance, despite increased awareness, the multifaceted meanings of water practices are yet to be acknowledged in official policies, limiting their scalability and legitimacy. Embedding these practices within formal governance would challenge prevailing biases against non-traditional methods and ensure that diverse, integrative approaches to water governance are recognised.

The study revealed that informality has brought decision-making closer to communities through platforms such as Mohalla and Ward Samiti (neighbourhood and ward committees). In contexts where formal mediation mandates are weak or poorly enforced, councillors, NGOs (such as KMVS in Bhuj), policymakers, and community leaders played crucial roles in facilitating dialogue and decision-making, fostering greater grassroots democracy. Drawing on Ahlers et al. (2014), informality can disaggregate power structures and foster co-production by extending existing roles rather than creating new ones. By involving atypical actors such as women in Bhuj and senior citizens in Bhopal, decision-making processes have been decentralised, bringing governance closer to those affected by water challenges.

This inclusive approach aligns with the goals of water sensitivity (Bichai & Flamini, 2017; Mguni et al., 2022), integrating sanitation, housing, and gender empowerment into water governance. Unlike traditional integrated approaches, which often advocate for new governance entities like River Basin Organizations (RBOs), this method adapts existing governance structures to facilitate coordination while respecting bureaucratic divides. This adaptation is more feasible for Indian contexts, where creating new governance bodies may not be viable (Giordano & Shah, 2014). The study illustrates how decision-making can be localised by repairing and adapting governance structures to enable holistic water governance.

Informality has proven adaptable, offering a mechanism to synchronise improvisations. While these often begin as informal practices, their long-term sustainability depends on synchronisation – embedding ad-hoc solutions into structured, repeatable processes within formal governance frameworks. Cleaver (2002) argues the need to carefully synchronise improvisations within social and cultural systems, allowing them to evolve into sustainable, scalable practices integrated into everyday routines.

In the Indian context, where socio-technical landscapes are deeply hierarchical, synchronising improvisation is a costly and culturally sensitive process. Informality thus serves as an incubator for trial, experimentation, and refinement. Informal spaces offer a lower-cost platform to test ideas, gather evidence, and repurpose resources, bypassing formal procedures.

Synchronising these improvisations legitimises them and routinises the effort, embedding them in everyday life (Cleaver, 2002). This process ensures improvisations transition from isolated successes to routine governance practices, shaping culturally relevant and sustainable solutions. For example, in Bhuj, efforts to synchronise water-sensitive behaviours illustrate this process. In collaboration with research and advocacy organisations, schools developed specialised after-school curricula that bypassed lengthy reforms, demonstrating how informal initiatives can be synchronised into governance frameworks. Similarly, elected representatives informally create participatory spaces by leveraging their political networks, mediating between the state and citizens, and strategically engaging with governance structures to facilitate inclusion – though these spaces remain shaped by entrenched power dynamics (Cornwall & Coelho, 2007). In conclusion, this study underscores the potential of informality in leveraging consolidative and jugaadu capacities for reparative governance. However, for these practices to achieve long-term impacts, it is essential to synchronise improvisations, ensuring their sustainability and embedding them into everyday governance structures.

Informality, characterised by networks of care, prioritises community-driven, cooperative approaches over hierarchical systems. This study illustrates how these networks, driven by intrinsic motivation, manifest in activities like water walks, after-hours teaching of water-sensitive behaviour, and mediating conflicts through personal connections. These stewards mend trust and streamline decision-making within municipalities, bypassing bureaucratic processes and fostering solidarity, as Conradi (2015) discussed. Even formal municipal officers, often constrained by limited autonomy, mobilise these networks out of care for project well-being, overcoming governance challenges by leveraging personal relationships and applying local knowledge for context-specific solutions.

While informal governance provides flexibility and agility, it also presents risks. Over-reliance on informal mechanisms can marginalise key challenges and weaken long-term engagement. For instance, inconsistent participation in Ward Samiti (Ward Committee) and declining volunteer involvement exposes the vulnerabilities of informality. Additionally, state-led agendas can overshadow community-driven efforts, limiting their impact. In this context, repair offers a guiding framework to navigate these challenges. As Wahby (2021) suggests, repair fosters more inclusive and equitable outcomes by sustaining participation, engaging diverse actors, and countering political pressures. It highlights the utility of informality in embedding the city's water identity into more meaningful water-sensitive governance.

Informality functions as a hybrid governance approach, providing the flexibility to develop and iterate reparative strategies. When the rigidity of formal systems hinders adaptation, the flexibility of informality acts as the necessary grease to address the resistance to change embedded in formal governance structures. It also contextualises governance mechanisms to better align with local needs and conditions. However, for this reparative potential to be fully realised, formality must step into synchronising and sustaining these changes.

Without regulatory support, the reparative gains of informality can easily be undermined by political instability. As Kösters et al. (2020) note, new governance approaches risk being eroded by political shifts if they are not backed by robust regulatory frameworks. This was evident in Bhopal, where informality practices faced challenges due to the lack of institutional reinforcement, and similar risks could threaten Bhuj if efforts to recognise these practices are not strengthened.

While informality fills critical gaps in governance by introducing much-needed flexibility, it also runs the risk of perpetuating existing power hierarchies unless it is integrated into broader governance structures. To ensure informality contributes to lasting systemic change, it must be synchronised in a way that challenges rather than reinforces power imbalances. Our research further prompts a critical inquiry: how can future governance frameworks effectively recognise and synchronise informal practices while safeguarding their inclusivity and resilience in the face of political shifts?

This article and the research were conducted within the W4C research programme, which is a collaborative partnership between India and the Netherlands. We would like to express our sincere appreciation for the invaluable contributions and critical reflections provided by all those who participated in this research. Additionally, we extend our gratitude to the member institutions of the W4C programme for their support and collaboration throughout the study.

The research leading to these findings has been supported by funding from the Dutch Research Council (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek – NWO) under Grant W 07.7019.103 and the Indian Government Department of Science & Technology (DST) under Grant DST-1429-WRC.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.