Shubhi Sonal
Indian Institute for Human Settlements
Bengaluru, India
shubhi.sonal@iihs.ac.in
Roshini Muralidhara
MOD Foundation
Bengaluru, India
roshini.m122@gmail.com
Introduction
Rapid urbanization, internal migration, and the growth of gated communities in Bengaluru are transforming traditional cultural landscapes. This paper investigates how domestic migrant communities in Bengaluru’s gated communities sustain their Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) within spatially and aesthetically restricted environments, as represented by MIG/HIG Gated communities. It posits that through adaptive placemaking, these communities ensure cultural continuity. This practice represents a vital model of urban cultural sustainability, situated at the intersection of three key concepts: cultural sustainability, migrant ICH as a form of resilience, and placemaking as an enabling mechanism.
Urban cultural sustainability focuses on preserving a city’s “living culture” to ensure meaningful development that fosters social cohesion (UNESCO, 2009). For migrant communities, this notion of sustainability is intrinsically linked to their Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), encompassing practices, expressions and knowledge systems transmitted across generations. (UNESCO, 2003). While the migration-ICH relationship remains underexplored (Levitt, 2005; Giglitto et al., 2022), this heritage is actively reconstructed rather than merely preserved, serving as a crucial resource for identity and cultural resilience in new urban settings (Appadurai, 1996). Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), as defined by UNESCO (2003, p.4), comprises the “practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and know-how” that communities pass down through generations. While debates exist on whether mobility is detrimental or beneficial to ICH (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 2004), scholars note that cultural manifestations are often actively reconstructed in new contexts (Appadurai, 1996). For migrant communities, this heritage is of profound importance, underpinning identity, social cohesion, and well-being (Levitt, 2005; Giglitto et al., 2022).
Research confirms placemaking’s role in sustaining migrant traditions through performative integration and tactical appropriation. Global examples include Thaipusam processions in Malaysia (Belle, 2017), Durga Puja pandals in Delhi (Nakatani, 2015), the Tirupathi celebrations in Serampore (Bhattacharyya, 2018), and Diwali in Auckland (Booth, 2015). These practices, defined by negotiation and adaptation, enable cultural reconstruction and continuity across diverse urban contexts.
Historically, community festivals with their associated rituals, art forms, and festivalscapes, which are key examples of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH), unfolded in inclusive public areas like streets, temples, and open grounds. However, the rise of gated communities in cities like Bengaluru has given way to privatized festivalscapes, where the ownership and control of these spaces are vested in private entities such as Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs). These new environments are characterized by their sanitized aesthetics, selective participation, and stringent spatial regulations, often confining public cultural practices and festivals to clubhouses, landscaped lawns, or other designated zones within the community. This transformation is not merely a physical relocation of festivals but a profound change in their social and urban dimensions. Existing research on gated communities has largely overlooked their crucial role as sites of cultural production, with studies on ICH typically focusing on public spaces or slums, leaving adaptations in aesthetically regulated, privatized spaces unexplored.
Methods
This study examines two selected gated communities in Bengaluru. Community A is a 20-year-old, privately managed gated community in West Bengaluru’s Yeshwanthpur area, comprising 1,600 households. It has evolved into a cosmopolitan microcosm, representing diverse migrant communities from across India. This study focused on the migrant cultural traditions observed there during Navratri, specifically the Bengali Durga Puja and the Gujarati Garba, and their interplay with native South Indian traditions like Dasara and Golu.
Community B, located in North Bengaluru’s Kammanahalli, was originally established in 2000 as a cooperative society for members of the Indian armed forces. While still managed by the original association, its demographic composition has shifted; today, residents from non-armed forces backgrounds outnumber the original occupants in a 60:40 ratio. The research here centered on multiple migrant festivals, including Onam (celebrated by the Malayali community), Navaratri, and other North Indian festivals such as Karva Chauth and Lohri.
A mixed-methods approach was employed across selected cases, incorporating spatial ethnography to document festival sites, adaptations, and placemaking tactics systematically. Semi-structured interviews (4 in Community A and 3 in Community B) with key stakeholders enriched this understanding. Participatory mapping was also used to collaboratively map festival spaces and placemaking strategies, as well as the constraints and opportunities presented by the sanitized environment of gated communities.
Data Analysis
Through deliberate actions, residents in Community A move beyond mere space usage to active placemaking. Three major regional traditions—Bengali Durga Puja, the South Indian tradition of Lalita Sahasranama and Golu, and Gujarati-style Garba—all celebrated simultaneously in a partitioned, yet shared environment demonstrates that cultural sustainability in modern cities is not about having unlimited, purpose-built space, but about the community’s agency to adapt, negotiate. Faced with spatial and regulatory constraints, residents employ ingenious strategies to ensure their diverse rituals not only survive but flourish. The clubhouse becomes a venue for festive gatherings or performances, streets transform into processional routes or spaces for communal interaction, and even the swimming pool area hosts symbolic rituals or informal social events.
Figure 1: Festival map of Community A, Source- Authors
Figure 2: Concurrent Navratri, Durga Puja celebrations in clubhouse -Party Hall area, Source- Authors
Community B represents a pragmatic model of cultural negotiation, where migrant groups have established a form of consensual and performative multiculturalism rather than one rooted in deep tradition. Primary data shows that the gated community focuses on safety, social interaction, and secular expressions of belonging. Here, culture functions as a social and recreational activity rather than a religious or ritualistic expression and is primarily curated for the engagement of children and women, constrained by the infrastructural, financial, and regulatory frameworks of the apartment.
The minimal and restricted celebrations in Community B of a few migrant festivals still demonstrates the community’s willingness to adapt, negotiate, and reinterpret the use of available spaces. Shared public spaces such as the open ground with stage, community hall, basketball court, and katte (traditional stone seating areas) serve as sites of adaptive placemaking. The open ground transforms into a performance space during Navaratri and Onam for dancing, singing and playing games like tug-of-war and setting up temporary stalls. The community hall is used for serving authentic and traditional Kerala food (sadhya) during Onam. The outdoor seating areas are used by women for Karva Chauth celebration to observe the moon. On one occasion, the basketball court was used for traditional Lohri celebrations by the Punjabi community.
Figure 3: Map of Community B indicating the shared public spaces utilized for festival celebrations, Source- Authors
Figure 4: Outdoor Katte seating that doubles up as a space for Karva Chauth, Source- Authors
Placemaking strategies
Community A employs an organic and adaptive placemaking strategy to preserve Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH). This is evidenced by the temporal sharing and adaptive reuse of spaces (e.g., roads, swimming pools) to accommodate growing and diverse traditions, fostering an inclusive cultural fusion. In contrast, Community B’s approach is structured and contained. While it also adapts to multi-functional spaces, it does so within predefined zones. This framework selectively integrates cultural expressions, mediating participation and shaping a new, hybrid social identity focused on shared activities rather than deep ritual preservation.
Discussions and Conclusions
The findings highlight three core mechanisms underpinning the sustainability of migrant ICH within gated communities. First, we find that cultural resilience is dynamically practiced through the creative adaptation of rituals to confined spaces, where tradition is deliberately blended with new influences. Second, the study demonstrated that this process entails tactical appropriation of regulated environments, whereby impersonal settings are actively transformed into meaningful cultural places. Finally, the study establishes that while placemaking offers a supportive framework, its efficacy depends entirely on pre-existing community intent and social cohesion; it is a tool enabled by collective agency, not a substitute for it.
These findings provide critical insights for enabling urban cultural sustainability and inform inclusive approaches to urban planning. In light of migration being a defining feature of modern cities, the planning and management of residential gated communities must evolve to support the ICH of migrant populations. Acknowledging that not every future ritual need can be anticipated, the objective must shift from the mere provision of multi-purpose spaces to providing an enabling environment that encourages community agency. Physical design can be enhanced by embedding infrastructure such as utility access and flexible features into common areas to facilitate spontaneous adaptation. More critically, the governance of gated communities can institutionalize straightforward processes that empower resident-led initiatives. By adopting this framework, planners and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) can transition from being passive space providers to active facilitators of placemaking. This ultimately empowers communities to creatively and continuously reinvent their heritage, ensuring that gated communities become vibrant, sustainable sites of urban cultural continuity.
References
- Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Belle, Carl Vadivella. 2017. Thaipusam in Malaysia: A Hindu Festival in the Tamil Diaspora. Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
- Bhattacharyya, Souradip. 2018. “Recruiting the ‘Tirupathi’ in Serampore: The Policy of Telugu Migrants to Construct an Ethnic and Cultural Identity for Themselves in the Face of Bengali Domination.” Language, Literature, and Interdisciplinary Studies 1 (4). https://ellids.com/research/volumesissues/archive-1-4/1-4-bhattacharyya/.
- Booth, Alison. 2015. “Whose Diwali Is It? Diaspora, Identity, and Festivalization.” Tourism, Culture & Communication 15 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3727/109830415X14230549930253.
- Giglitto, Danilo, Luigina Ciolfi, and Wolfgang Bosswick. 2021. “Building a Bridge: Opportunities and Challenges for Intangible Cultural Heritage at the Intersection of Institutions, Civic Society, and Migrant Communities.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 28 (1): 74–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2021.1922934.
- Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 2004. “Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production.” Museum International 56 (1–2): 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-0775.2004.00458.x.
- Levitt, Peggy. 2005. “Building Bridges: What Migration Scholarship and Cultural Sociology Have to Say to Each Other.” Poetics 33 (1): 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2004.12.001.
- Nakatani, Takashi. 2015. “Durga Puja and Neighbourhood in a Displaced Persons’ Colony in New Delhi.” In Cities in South Asia, edited by Jonathan Shapiro Anjaria and Colin McFarlane, 185–201. London: Routledge.
- UNESCO. 2003. “Text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.” Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention.
- UNESCO. 2009. UNESCO World Report: Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000185202
