WITH ORIGINS in the ecological sciences, the concept of resilience gained currency in the context of climate change. The ‘classical’ ecological notions of resilience emphasize recovery to a prior state in the aftermath of stress or shock. The broader social-ecological notion of resilience focuses on learning, innovation, adaptive capacity and transformation (Folke, 2006: 259). The literature on urban resilience (Leichenko, 2011; Romero Lankao and Qin, 2011: 145-6) discusses systems bouncing back to ‘equilibrium’ in the aftermath of shocks, such as natural disasters (drawing from the classical literature), as well as the adaptive capacities of systems to long-term stressors or shifts such as climate change. The argument that, the classical, equilibrium centric thinking about resilience may be inappropriate in the case of cities of the developing country, which face multiple stressors, including climate induced ones, which are not separable or independent of each other (Srinivasan et al, 2013). On the other hand, the longterm view confuses resilience with ideas of sustainability and adaptation. He suggests that one must not lose sight of the broader normative concerns, while discussing resilience to climate change. It can be illustrated this taking the case of water stress in Bengaluru city and the feasibility of waste water reuse (WWRU) as an option to make the city resilient to climate change.