Sunita Narain: The poverty of policy

DOWN TO EARTH

It is often said that the next war in the world will be fought over water. I do not know if this prophecy will come true. But I do know that skirmishes and even full-fledged battles over water are here to stay in India.

And I also know that these battles are not inevitable. They are deliberate and wilful creation of governments and their policies.

Let me take the latest case in Sriganganagar district in Rajasthan. Four farmers were killed in police firing while they were agitating for their share of irrigation water.

The farmers were killed as they attacked the local police station. Indian farmers are not a riotous lot: burning and looting government property is surely a sign of extreme desperation. The fact is that these farmers were settled in the desert by the government.

They were brought there to cultivate the arid land, make it prosperous with waters of the Rajasthan canal. The government gave each farmer 6.32 hectare of land and charged a nominal long-term interest-free payment.

The plan was quite simple. Rajasthan's desert was to bloom like the fertile lands of Punjab and Haryana. Farmers were encouraged to intensify their agricultural practices.

By 1983, things were looking good: over 2,44,000 hectare land was being irrigated and the desert was in bloom. The policy told farmers that the water was their's to take. The policy encouraged them to grow crops "" wheat, cotton and even rice "" that used up this irrigation water.

But there is one homily that never fails to hit home: there is never enough water. The fact is that the government was planning a stage II of the project, when the canal would extend deeper into the desert and more areas would be brought under irrigation.

The water was to be shared over an area that would double the irrigated area of phase I. Also, there were others who were demanding water from the project. As cities and industries grew thirsty in the desert region, canal water was taken to them.

Then there is the allegation that the upstream state has reneged on its commitment to release the water that was allocated to the canal. But monitoring and administrative mechanisms that would verify this claim do not exist.

The government had decreed by policy that farmers living on the sides of the feeder canal and taking water to the desert, would not use its waters: it was "reserved". But policy cannot dictate to thirsty farmers.

The canal was breached and its water taken out, so say its downstream claimants. So, on one hand, secure in the policy of plentiful water, farmers increased water use. On the other, policy continued to create more demand.

The situation was gently stroked towards a conflict. The fact is policy could have fostered a water-prudent society, if only it had been designed to accept that water will never be enough "" however plentiful, it might seem.

Let us go back to Rajasthan again. The fact is that water was being brought into the desert, which has a specific agro-economy. It is based not on crops but on animals. Water is scare, so it is used, not to irrigate crops but to grow fodder for animals to survive.

The land is used to grow grasses or trees that provide fodder in critical winter months. The system is geared to optimise productivity, not of land, but of each drop of water. It does this by transforming waterdrops into milk, wool and meat.

Similarly, if drinking water needs of rural households and even large urban townships are harnessed carefully from rain, the inhabitants will not need to appropriate from the region beyond.

Therefore, if policy had respected water frugality, it would have designed a supportive structure to enhance productivity, without succumbing to water greed.

For instance, it could have ensured that irrigation water was given first to common grazing lands, so that the desert economy prospered. Even agriculture could have been centred on this animal-milk economy. Then, it could have maintained that all rural-urban centres and industries would have to first meet their water needs from their rain endowment and only the deficit would be made good by the water from the outside canal.

We need to learn this policy prescription fast. Water tensions are on the increase across the country. When Chennai looks for its drinking water at the Veeranam lake, farmers agitate against the withdrawal for the thirsty city.

When Rajkot wants water, farmers are fired upon and killed. These are but a few flashpoints. The desperation for water is real. And the conflicts will not just simmer but burn.

This will happen until policy begins to respect the idea that frugality is not about poverty. Until it acknowledges that scarcity is not about the lack of resources but about being wise in using them. Or, if I may say so, until policy is not poor.