[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No Subject
Attached you find two very interesting articles: Ashish Kothari on
Drought in The Hindu of May 14, 2000. And Shripad Dharmadhikary replying
to PV Indiresan in the Hindu of May 15, 2000.
Best wishes,
Himanshu Thakker
-----------------------------
Source: The Hindu, May 14, 2000
Where has all the water gone?
The drought in Rajasthan and Gujarat is a result of skewed priorities,
land and water mismanagement and illegal siphoning off of funds and
resources. Grand schemes of large dams and canal networks have not
delivered what was promised. Rainwater that has been retained by rivers
and ponds or seeped into aquifers has been sucked up by cash-cropping
farmers, cities and industries. ASHISH KOTHARI on a man-made disaster.
THE country is waking up too late to the horrors of drought. A
spectre that should, and could, have been banished long ago, is
again stalking the land. As images of desperate farmers and
nomads migrating in search of water and fodder, skeletal remains
of starved cattle on parched land, and queues of matka-bearing
women are splashed across newspapers and on television, the
question naturally arises: where has all the water that rained in 12
successive good monsoons, gone?
The answer has been staring us in the face, if only we who make,
or influence, policies and decisions had cared to listen. The rain
has fallen on increasingly barren lands, devoid of forests and other
vegetation, and run straight off rather than percolate slowly into
the ground and recharge wells and tanks. The rain has fallen on
water tanks and checkdams that are unable to retain it because
they have silted up due to neglect by governments and
communities. All the resources, including money, which should
have gone into preventing deforestation, siltation, and other forms
of land/water mismanagement, have gone into grandiose schemes
of big dams and canal networks, which have simply not delivered
in proportion to what has been spent on them. Whatever
rainwater has been retained by rivers and ponds or seeped into
the underground aquifers, has been quickly sucked up by big
cash-cropping farmers, cities and industries, leaving very little for
small farmers and other rural poor. The current drought is a
combination of debilitating centralisation of power, adoption of
mega-solutions to micro-problems, neglect of the critical role of
forests, and pampering to the ever-increasing demands of large
farmers, urbanites and industries.
There is nothing new in the monsoons failing. Subnormal rainfall
for years have always been a part of human existence, yet for
thousands of years, rural and urban communities learnt to adapt.
They built ingenious water harvesting and retention structures and
used water sparingly. Villages considered waterbodies as
common resources, to be collectively managed. This is not to hide
the many blemishes and horrors of traditional India, including the
fact that weaker sections of the village often simply did not enjoy
access to the main water sources. Despite these faults, however,
the system did work fairly well in most places. Centralisation of
power in the pre-colonial and colonial periods saw rapid changes
in traditional systems. The responsibility of managing small
waterbodies passed from the local community or ruler to
centralised state agencies. The concept of water as a "national
asset" was used to justify this transfer, as if the local community
could not be trusted with "national" property. Disinvested of their
customary powers and responsibilities, communities became
apathetic to the maintenance of reservoirs and water channels.
The increasing politicisation of village panchayats did not help
matters. Even in cities, ancient water storage structures which
stood citizens in good stead through countless drought years,
suffered neglect due to the centralisation of powers in
municipalities.
Coupled with this has been the rapid erosion of the earth's power
to retain rainwater. In the past, even arid lands such as in Kutch
and Saurashtra had extensive scrub vegetation which covered the
land and acted as a sponge for the meagre rain that fell. Dripping
slowly down, the underground aquifers would get recharged, in
turn recharging wells and streams. It is not a surprise that the
well-forested tracts in the drought-hit areas of Rajasthan, Gujarat,
and Maharashtra, face less water and fodder shortage than areas
where the scrub and forest have been destroyed.
Finally, it has become clear that it is not the absolute quantity of
water that is often lacking, but its skewed distribution amongst
consumers. Shamjibai Antala, who has pioneered innovative
methods of recharging wells in Saurashtra, says industries in this
region draw that 30 crore litres of water a day even during the
current drought. The social action group "Disha" has estimated
that the Gujarat Government spent over Rs. 255 crores on
drinking water in 1998-99, yet most of the arid regions of the
state are facing serious drought this year. Where, asks Disha, did
the money go? Why have the much talked of pipeline schemes for
lifting water from the Mahi and the Narmada, which do not
require constructing huge and wasteful dams, never materialised?
The answer is simple: the government has siphoned all the money
allocated for these and other decentralised projects into the
pipedream that is called Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) project.
Unmindful of the fact that if the dam, even if it does get built, will
provide water to only 10 per cent of Kutch and Saurashtra.
Also instructive is the example of dozens of villages and regions
that have withstood the current drought, standing out like oases.
This is no quirk of nature. Several hundred villages in Alwar
district of Rajasthan are bearing up to the failure of the rains,
because over the last 15 years their residents, along with the
non-government organisation Tarun Bharat Sangh, have built
several thousand small checkdams that have recharged wells and
underground aquifers, and even brought dying rivers back to life.
In Maharashtra, villages like Ralegaon-Siddhi and Manegaon
have become famous for having eradicated water scarcity. In
Saurashtra, wealthy businessfolk from Mumbai have pitched in to
fund the construction of water harvesting structures; in the same
region, the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme has helped
villages like Devgadh near Junagadh to drought-proof themselves.
In Dewas town of Madhya Pradesh, an enterprising district
collector has encouraged roof-top rainwater harvesting,
substantially reducing dependence on scarce municipal supplies.
These are also striking examples of developmental and attitudinal
changes. In the Alwar villages, in Manegaon, and many other
sites, the limits of nature are well-recognised. Farmers have taken
a pledge not to plant crops like sugarcane which devour water.
Villagers in Mendha (Lekha) village of Gadchiroli district,
Maharashtra, decided to have a community well with strict
regulations on pumping of water, as they had seen farmers in
Amravati district suffering the consequences of over-using their
private borewells. At other places, farmers have fought against
the irresponsible removal of water for industries and cities. The
more the empowerment of communities to manage their
resources, the less the chances of misuse and maldevelopment
being tolerated.
One estimate puts the total amount of money spent on drought
relief in Rajasthan, over the period 1956-57 to 1989-90, at Rs.
1799 crores. Yet the situation is hardly better. There is little doubt
that if this kind of money had been put into decentralised
alternatives, into the hands of community institutions, and into
long-term drought-proofing measures, the results would have
been vastly different. In Kutch, for instance, the Navnirman
Abhiyan, consisting of 14 NGOs, has drawn up a plan for Rs.
200 crores, to ensure adequate water for the whole district.
Without needing the Narmada waters, which would cost several
times more...if at all they reached.
It is time that people everywhere learn from the shining examples
set by NGOs and sensitive officials, and demand that:
*Governments facilitate the empowerment of communities to
harvest and manage water resources, and put its full resources
into decentralised structures;
*Cities and industries be forced to harvest their own rainwater
and recycle wastewater, rather than mine rural areas;
*All existing forest areas be protected as water catchments, and
degraded lands be afforested.
Perhaps then we will not have to wake up to another rude
reminder that it is not nature that has been unkind to us, but our
own short-sightedness and skewed priorities.
--------------------------------------------------
Source: The Hindu, May 15, 2000
Reply to a tirade
By Shripad Dharmadhikary
IWAS dismayed to see the article ``Dams & Activism'' by Mr. P.
V. Indiresan carried in your paper dated May 5, 2000.
Ostensibly, he tries to make the point that we cannot do without
dams if we are to quench the thirst of the millions. This argument,
particularly the plea that the Sardar Sarovar Project is essential, is
based on misconceptions and misinformation.
Mr. Indiresan's thesis "... where there are social activists, there
will be increasing number of social conflicts'' is astounding. With
one sweeping statement, he has tried to dismiss all social activists
as gluttonous vultures, waiting to prey on the decaying carcasses
of societal problems, even initiating social conflicts to satisfy their
base needs. He says, "When dams were built in the early years
of the twentieth Century, there were no anti-dam activists. So,
there were no conflicts about displaced people. Then, which is
the cause and which the effect? Did the displacement of tribals
create the activists or did the activists create the displacement
problem?''
To put the record straight, there was an intense struggle by the
people affected by the Mulshi dam in Maharashtra as early as the
1920s; there were spontaneous agitations launched by the people
affected by virtually every dam - the Rihand, for example - even
without any "anti-dam activist'' being present. If these protests
did not attract the attention of the media and the nation at large, it
was because they were muted by the Nehruvian euphoria of
post-Independence India and the (low) status accorded to tribals
and other rural people in the general scheme of things - something
which has begun to change a little only now.
To come back to Mr. Indiresan's statement: "Did the
displacement of tribals create the activists or did the activists
create the displacement problem?'' He would have us believe that
all social activists are immoral and decadent enough to generate
social conflicts to keep their jobs. Certainly, one does not deny
the presence of a black sheep in any profession - including civil
engineering - but that cannot become an excuse for tarring
everyone with the same brush.
Mr. Indiresan says, "It would be interesting to study the fate of
those who were displaced when the Mettur Dam, the Bhakra
Dam and the like were built...'' "Interesting''? - What a quaint
adjective to use when we are talking about the devastation of the
lives of lakhs of people. The people displaced by the Bhakra dam
are still running from pillar to post to get proper rehabilitation. So
are those displaced by the Pong dam, the Koyna, the Bargi and
the other big dams.
He says, "The relationship between social activists and social
issues is a mutually beneficial one. The two reinforce and nourish
each other... On the other hand, the relationship between critics
like social activists and doers like the engineers is quite different.
Activists proliferate when engineers increase but engineers
dwindle when activists increase.'' The definition of social activists
as "critics'' and engineers as "doers'' exposes a lack of
understanding on his part about the roles and functions of both. I
have seen hundreds of engineers who critically analyse issues -
and social activists who "do'' a large number of very important
and useful things.
I am an engineer and also social activist. Several of my colleagues
in the Narmada Bachao Andolan too are engineers. The
distinction Mr. Indiresan is making between the doers and the
critics is artificial. In any case, in society, there is need and a
role for both - those who do and those who critically analyse. Indeed,
a proper "checks and balance'' system requires that those who
critique are not from among those who do. This is the logic of an
independent judiciary, and of an independent audit system. Yes,
what is to be ensured is that those who critique are doing so
based on accurate information, rigorous analysis and a sense of
social justice. The critique of large dams is based on long years of
arduous study, both theoretical and on the ground, helped no
doubt by the fact that many "anti-dam activists'' are also
engineers. This is why the critique has found a resonance and is
becoming so effective.
Mr. Indiresan then laments that civil engineers were a respected
breed half a century ago, and are now being abused. He demeans
the profession of civil engineering by equating the whole of it with
builders of large dams. Civil engineers build roads, bridges, public
buildings, water delivery systems and small dams also. Certainly
most of the profession is not the target of abuse. However, any
profession, if it is not open to legitimate criticism and is unmindful
of the serious social and environmental consequences of its work,
will be the target of not abuse but intense and strong criticism.
Whether this criticism becomes abuse depends upon how it is
received - whether it is received with an open mind or with
obstinacy and arrogance. Sadly, a large number (though certainly
not all) of the dam builders have adopted the latter attitude.
The community of large dam builders is not only the "I only want
the world to be a better place and my country to progress'' type
of dedicated and honest engineers. It is also a community which
has people with large vested interests, which deals with contracts
worth thousands of crores of rupees and all this does have a
bearing on their motives - again, for many though certainly not all.
So if Mr. Indiresan is worried about the abuse that civil engineers
are facing, it may be better if he advises the community to be
more open, more contemporary, more self- critical and less
arrogant. The same would apply to social activists also.
Now to the point he makes right at the beginning of the article -
that the issue of displacement is merely one of dispute with the
tribals not wanting to let go of their property; and the picture
portrayed of the tribals as selfish people insisting that no one but
us will use our river, etc. This betrays such an ignorance of the
current power structure in society that it would be laughable to
think that this is even possible.
Mr. Indiresan's statement also betrays a lack of understanding of
why large dams are being opposed. It is not only due to the
devastating impact they have on the river bank populations; it is
also because of the grave environmental impacts of blocking a
flowing river: the effect on flora and fauna, collapse of rich
fisheries, destruction of estuarine ecological systems and sea
water ingress.
Now to the last parts of Mr. Indiresan's arguments. First, the
ridiculous one that the delay in the construction of the Sardar
Sarovar is responsible for drought in Gujarat. Even if the Sardar
Sarovar had been completed as per the plans, only 1.6 per cent
of the cultivable area of the Kutch, and nine per cent of that of
Saurashtra, two most drought-prone areas, would have benefited.
This too is based on several assumptions which are now found to
be not valid. By pursuing an obsolete, top-heavy, engineer-driven
water policy, and by diverting huge amounts of funds in the last
decade for the Sardar Sarovar, the Government is left with no
money for genuine solutions. That is the real tragedy of this
drought.
The last point raised by Mr. Indiresan is that "the culture of
tribals is so stultifying that they will never achieve their full human
potential so long as they remain stuck in their present homesteads.
All through history, more good than harm has come about when
people have been uprooted from their homes.'' This was what the
white man said to justify his colonies - that he was actually
rescuing us natives from a similar stultifying existence and making
us human by introducing the white man's customs and religion.
Mr. Indiresan's attitude is no different. Of course, he probably
feels that if the tribals shift to the slums of the capital cities and
root around in urban garbage bins, they will be able to realise
their full potential. By his logic, the Government should embark on
a spree, uprooting millions of people from the rural areas, hills
forests and thus do "more good''. Or maybe he believes that our
society is so egalitarian that the tribals shifted from the river banks
will be provided housing on Prithviraj Road in Delhi or in Malabar
Hill in Mumbai?
I would like to sincerely thank Mr. Indiresan for revealing
something which I had long been curious about - the secret of the
success of Ms. Medha Patkar and Ms. Arundhati Roy.
According to Mr. Indiresan, this clearly lies in their uprootment
and migration from the village. This gives me great hope for, I too
have migrated from my village, and now know that I only need
patience while I await the same kind of success.
(The writer is an activist with the Narmada Bachao Andolan.)