Anda di halaman 1dari 23

Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

A Brief Rebuttal of Unraveling Bhakra

also, things they never told you about


alternatives.

(Watson, your power of observation and attention to detail are


remarkable. Of course you have missed everything that was of
importance
Sherlock Homes to Dr Watson)

Indian Water Resources Society


Delhi Center
11 May 2005
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Preface
It is an unfortunate fact that the water sector has got split into two distinct camps. On one
hand there are the Executive : the technocrats, administrators and others working for the
irrigation/ water resources, and some other related departments of the Central and the State
Governments. Executive pursue an institutional water management strategy, as directed by
the peoples representatives. Opposing them are a handful of full time career activists :
essentially operating as individuals, and pushing individual ideas.
Usually each activist has a captive NGO, basically as a legal entity e.g. as a receptacle for
funds, for dealing with FCRA (Foreign Contributions Regulation Act) etc. But the NGOs are
invariably a one-person show. If one lists the well known activist NGOs, one finds that at any
given time, each NGO is identified with one person only. Therefore, the ideas they put forward
are essentially individual fads, and not well thought out, well debated, institutional plans.
The Executive, as the word suggests, are those who act. Some one has to act. If lecturing
could solve problems, then the word problem wouldnt have entered the vocabulary in the
first place. And action means intervening in the natural course of events. Mankind has come a
long way from living in the caves, covering themselves with animal skins and eating the food
raw. Now, there is very little natural in the way we live. From building a hut to live in, to
construction of a large dam, action is all about intervening and changing the environment to
suit our needs.
In contrast to this, activism is all about opposing any intervention, and particularly
Government initiated intervention. What started as an opposition to a few specific projects,
soon developed into opposition to large dams in general; then escalated to a rejection of all
engineering interventions in river valleys, and finally a denunciation of all infrastructure -
dams, canal irrigation, piped water supply, thermal/nuclear/tidal power projects, highways,
ports, shipping canals, mining, whatever.
And where do the people stand ? The people are neither for dams, nor against dams. All they
want is basic infrastructure support, so that they can do some productive work. They want
water, and not hollow ideological debates on water is not a commodity. They want electricity,
and not lectures on demand side management of energy needs. They too want to protect the
environment, but they do not think it is sinful to want to live in reasonable comfort. They too
want to eradicate poverty, but they think the way to do it is by increasing the GDP, and not by
advocating frugality. They do not think aiming for 9% growth is greed. And they are not averse
to taking actions such as generating enough electricity - that are necessary for India to grow,
prosper, and become a powerful and developed nation.
And, it is superfluous to add, people are the ones who matter most, because India is a
democracy. However, democracy is not only about being able to make choices, but about
making informed choices.
This publication is intended for the silent majority. Their voice was always important, but it is
becoming even more so with each passing day, for there is a concerted effort to scuttle Indias
infrastructure, in the name of protecting the environment. We hope it will help people make
informed choices.
Indian Water Resources Society - Delhi Center, 11 May 2005
http://www.iwrsdelhi.org office@iwrsdelhi.org
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Unraveling Unraveling Bhakra

This is a review of the report Unraveling Bhakra authored by Shripad Dharmadhikary and
published by the Manthan Adhyayan Kendra (MAK), the NGO he founded and works for.
Unraveling Bhakra is a 300 page report. If we were to refute this report para by para,
explaining each misrepresentation, commenting on every distortion of logic, then the review
would also run into a couple of hundred pages, and would take several months to write, as the
report itself has taken. Also, for the readers who have survived reading a 300 page report, we
do not wish to burden them with another bulky document. Therefore, this review responds to
only a few select issues, as a quick initial reaction. This is not to be taken as if we agree with
what we have not refuted in this document.
The Team
From authors acknowledgements, it is seen that apart from the author himself, a seasoned
NBA activist, others associated with this report include Arundhati Roy, Himanshu Thakkar,
Ramaswamy R Iyer, Patric McCully, . . . all known opponents of engineering interventions, at
least so far as India is concerned. Therefore it should not surprise any one that the report is
doggedly critical of Bhakra. What is of interest is the ploys used to reach the conclusions they
had decided to reach.
What is being evaluated ?
The standard practice for evaluation of the performance of a project is to compare actual
output with planned output. But that is not the approach in Unraveling Bhakra. Some
times, the design of the project itself may be questioned, as in case of Sardar Sarovar, whose
height was questioned. But in Unraveling Bhakra the author does not take that line either.
e.g. he neither says that the installed power generation capacity of 1050 MW is too small or
too large; nor does he say that the actual generation is less than what it should have been. He
only passes a subjective judgment : the generation is not much. Not much compared to what ?
Ah, that is what Unraveling Bhakra is all about, finding something or other to compare
things with, so that every thing can be declared as not much.
Psychological trick
There is a well known puzzle : a line is drawn on a paper and one is required to make the line
smaller without modifying it. The solution is : draw a longer line besides the given line. What
the kids, and sometimes even the grownups, do not catch onto is : by comparison with a
longer line, the given line does not become smaller, it only looks smaller. This psychological
trick is the central theme of Unraveling Bhakra.
Every feature of the project is compared with something larger, to make it look small. The
comparisons are invariably contrived. Take for example the electricity generation (page 123).
After assessing the generation, the author writes the entire electricity from Bhakra could have
run only about 56% of the tubewells at best.
But why is he comparing power generation from Bhakra with the number of tubewells it can
run ? Requirement by any one set of users is not a standard baseline parameter to assess
power generation from a project. Ever heard of generation from Hirakud expressed as % of
steel mills that can be powered ? Or generation from Srisailam expressed as % of trains in
Southern railway it can run ? It is also not the case as if Bhakra was planned specifically to
supply tubewells demand. Then why single out tubewells ?
The answer, obviously, is : the search for a longer line. Having placed the electricity
generation from Bhakra in the numerator, there was a need to find some electricity figure for
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

the denominator, so that the fraction would look just right to belittle the power generated. It
so happened that the tubewells demand in the denominator served the purpose. Had it not,
then surely the author would have tried something else, like total electricity demand in
Punjab, or in Punjab and Haryana combined, or in the entire Northern grid, or whatever, till
he found a number that served his purpose. (that is what he has done in the context of
irrigation.).
This central theme permeates throughout the report. In short, Unraveling Bhakra is simply
an exercise in finding longer lines to compare with.
Power Generation
While we are on the topic of power generation, let us finish it. The scope of study the author
sets for himself (page xii) is: Due to the overwhelming association of Bhakra with foodgrains
production, this is the aspect that we chose to focus on. Due to limitations of time and resources, we have
not been able to study two important aspects of the project, namely the claimed flood control and drinking
water benefits. We hope to fill this lacunae in the future.
Arent we missing something here ? What happened to power generation ? It is neither
included in the list of issues under examination now, nor included in the list to be examined
later. Shall we just conveniently pretend that such thing doesnt even exist ?
Actually, power generation has always been the Achilles' heel of activism against dams.
Every one requires electricity, agriculture, industry, services, and homes. The requirements of
the industry and the services, which already contribute 75% of the GDP, are particularly
important because of the increasing role these are expected to play in the national economy in
the future. The land gets divided with every generation and already 49% of the households are
having plots less than 2 Ha, which can not possibly be sub-divided any further. Together with
the huge number of landless workers, agriculture is already close to supporting as many
livelihoods as it could - which is why there is so much migration from the villages to cities -
and in the future industry and the services will be the sectors that will play a major role in
employment generation and poverty alleviation.
Presently 25% of the energy needs of the industry are being supplied by captive diesel based
plants. This is expensive energy, and energy costs being a significant component of the final
product cost, expensive energy makes our products uncompetitive in international markets.
Thus, GW irrigation, agro-processing, industry, services, and homes, all require electricity.
And therein lies the problem. While the ability of traditional technologies [1] to deliver
required quantity of water is also a matter of controversy, not even the most ardent supporter
of these alternatives will claim that these prescriptions generate any electricity.
Activists have had to exert hard to solve this problem. Initially they tried to get over it by
suggesting solar and wind energy as substitutes. But it soon became clear to all that far less
replace, these sources can not even significantly supplement the thermal and hydro power. It
will require an independent paper to explain why not, suffice to say that worldwide the share
of solar and wind energy together is just about 2% of total generation, and there is no way,
simply no way, it can be much more than that in the foreseeable future. Solar energy is not
the cheap and abundant source of energy the activists want every one to believe. Sunlight is
free, but solar photo-voltaic cells arent free, and consequently solar electricity is one of the
most expensive electricities.

1
Traditional technologies, wisdom of the centuries, local decentralized solutions, people centric solutions,
distributed water management, catch every drop of rain where it falls, sustainable development, and many other
such buzzwords all mean the same thing : no engineering interventions.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

So much so that when the NBA decided to make Domkhedi village self sufficient in electricity
generation [2], they too opted for a hydel project, a pico-hydel project generating only 300
Watts for three hours a day for a population of 500 but nevertheless a hydel project. Even
the NBA did not opt for solar or wind power for Domkhedi. So, every one agrees that the idea
of replacing thermal and hydro completely with solar and wind, has been buried for good.
Hydro-power and thermal power arent simply two different sources of electricity. There are
some fundamental differences in the way these two power plants operate. Again, a more
detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this review, but very briefly : hydro-power plants
can respond quickly to the hourly changes in the load, and therefore supply what is known as
peak load. Shortage of hydro-capacity manifests as load shedding, or power cuts. The billions
of Rs. the nation as a whole waste every year on invertors, UPS and captive diesel generators,
- money that could have been used for more productive purposes like health, education, water
and sanitation etc. - is because of inadequate peak generation, which is due to inadequate
hydro-capacity.
Consequently, hydro-electricity by itself is sufficient justification for large dams. There are any
number of dams all over the world, including in India, that are purely hydro-power projects
with no irrigation benefits. Even if for a moment, for the sake of argument, one makes the
extreme and absurd assumption that Bhakra provides no irrigation whatsoever, even then it
can be justified solely for the power it generates.
Therefore, the author had to find a way to dismiss Bhakra power generation. Even though it
was conveniently excluded from the scope of detail analysis for now or for future, it couldnt be
neglected altogether. The answer was found in comparing it with tubewells demand : it
couldnt have run more than 56% of the tubewells. His computations are on a conservative
side, tubewells do not have to run for 10 hours a day for 200 days every year, and therefore
the electricity generated by Bhakra would be sufficient to run many more tubewells than what
he has estimated. However, that number is not the point.
The point is, as explained in the foregoing, the comparison is contrived. But having gone thus
far, it is necessary to appreciate the size of Bhakra power plants in the right perspective.
Therefore, consider following:
When Bhakra power houses were commissioned in 1969, total installed capacity in the
entire country was 14,102 MW and the hydro capacity was 6,135 MW. To this, one single
project, Bhakra, added 1050 MW [3], thus adding 7.5% to the total capacity and 17% to
peak power capacity. (to do the same thing today, would require a single project having an
installed capacity of about 7,500 MW)
As this document goes to press, Maharashtra is reeling under a severe power shortage. It
has affected all the industry, agriculture and homes badly, and there is widespread
unrest, even a law and order problem. And how much is the shortage ? It is about 3500
MW. As against this, the present installed capacity of the Bhakra-Nangal system, including
the Beas-Sutlej link, is 2267 MW.
(However, we hope the planners have taken note that the activists think of Bhakra as a rather
small project and want the future hydro-projects to be bigger.)
It may also be pointed out that if Bhakra was to be planned today, the activists would have
called it ambitious, gigantic, huge, monstrous etc. (projects smaller than Bhakra are being

2
http://www.narmada.org/nba-press-releases/august-2000/secondfreedom.htm
3
Only the dam toe power houses, 5 X 90 MW in left bank and 5 X 120 MW in right bank power plants. These have
since been uprated to 1200 MW, and there is 990 MW in Beas-Sutlej link, and 77 MW in Nangal hydel channel,
total 2267 MW. But all that came later.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

called just that). But now that it has been constructed, there is a desperate attempt to show it
as small. Please makeup your mind, is 1050 MW large or small ?
Flood Control
Although the author has said he will examine the claimed flood control some time in the
future, a prima facie answer, sufficient to deduce that the flood control is not merely
claimed, is there within the report itself. But the author has completely missed the
significance of what he observed. [4]
On page xix, in second para, the author writes We learnt that the Bhakra dam was an over designed
[5] dam. Even after the Sutluj flows were augmented by the transfer of Beas water into the Bhakra reservoir,
the reservoir has not filled up in most of the years.

That is true, that Bhakra fills very rarely. But in that case, does it not follow that it provides
real flood control ? Whichever year the dam has not even filled, obviously no flood passed
downstream in the entire year.
However, it may be clarified for the information of the readers, that Bhakra was not planned
as a flood control dam. Therefore even if it didnt provide flood control, it cant be faulted on
that count.
Before Bhakra, the flood plains of Sutluj used to be 3 to 4 Km wide. After Bhakra, the real,
actual flood control offered by the dam, even though not planned, resulted in people occupying
the flood plains, reducing the width of the flood plains to a Km or so. As the people became
accustomed to freedom from floods, it became necessary to formalize the arrangement. An
additional complication was, flood damage would be entirely in Punjab. This resulted in
disputes on the operation policy, Punjab would want to keep the storage levels low so as to
achieve flood control, Harayana and Rajasthan would want to keep it high, to get more water.
Finally, somewhere in the mid 90s it was decided to lower the FRL to 1680, (earlier it was
1685 ft) keeping the storage between 1680 and 1685 for flood moderation.
Irrigation
The author has started with an assumption that every one thinks the agricultural growth in
Punjab and Haryana is only on account of Bhakra and nothing else, stretching it to the
absurdity of arguing, that the people think Punjab and Haryna are Bhakra. Then he has
labored through 300 pages of prose, tables and graphs to prove that wasnt the case. Thus, it
is an exercise in demolishing the incorrect position that he himself had setup.
The author begins his unraveling of Bhakra by visiting Panipat area ! ( Why ? The whole world
knows it is WYC command) When he finds out that actually this is the command of Western
Yamuna Canal (WYC) receiving Yamuna water from Tajewala barrage [6], he uses the typical
activist stratagem to cover up his hydrologic faux pas, saying it was a revelation of the hidden, or
not so hidden, but often swept-under-the-carpet side of the story.

Tajewala is more than 100 years old and the shares of various states in Yamuna waters, the
command of WYC and EYC - all the information is there on the internet, in CBIP irrigation
atlases, and many other public documents. Water diversion in WYC and EYC at Tajewala is

4
It was this, more than any thing else, that reminded us of Holmes celebrated comment Watson, your power of
observation and attention to detail are remarkable. Of course, you have missed every thing that was of
importance.
5
That is not a very standard technical term. By over designed what they probably mean is, it has a lot of storage
capacity compared to the flow at that place.
6
WYC does receive some water from Bhakra main line, via Narwana branch, but that is a small quantity, and part
of it is used by Delhi. Essentially WYC command is Yamuna command.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

particularly in sharp focus because of the impact it has on Yamuna flow at Delhi. This is
something that is in the daily news papers, day in and day out; one doesnt even have to read
technical journals for that. If Dhamadhikary chooses not to read any of it, that is his problem.
Who swept what under which carpet ?
Next, he observes that an equivalent of the area Bhakra irrigates, was already under irrigation
in Pakistan. From this he argues that a) Bhakra did not initiate any new irrigation, and b) any
new irrigation by Bhakra was achieved at the cost of depriving the downstream areas in
Pakistan of their existing water use.
This is a most objectionable conclusion, as it questions Indias right to use the waters that are
awarded to India under a treaty. But it pertains to a rather sensitive issue, and presently is
not the right time to comment any more on it. So we will leave it at that. Suffice to say that the
suggestion is rejected forthwith.
But we would like to pose a question to the author. India can not consumptively use the
waters of Indus, Jhelum and Chenab because the Indus Water Treaty allocates these water to
Pakistan. And according to Dharmadhikary, India also should not have used the waters of
Ravi, Beas and Sutlej because that deprived areas in Pakistan of their (then) existing
irrigation. In other words, according to him, J&K, Himachal, Haryana and Punjab are mere
interlopers in the Indus basin, and their main function is to ensure safe passage of all Indus
basin waters to Pakistan. Is that what Manthan Adhyayan Kendra stands for ?
There is one more reason why this question assumes importance. In the discussion on ILR,
some other people from his camp are taking exactly the same position in the context of Ganga
water vis--vis Bangladesh. e.g. the Ken-Betwa link, and Kalisindh-Parbati-Chambal links,
which propose to use Ganga basin waters within Ganga basin, are being opposed by them on
the same reasoning. So it is time to ask the activists to clarify their position in clear terms - do
they acknowledge Indias right to water flowing in her rivers, or do they think some one else
always has a higher priority.
Using the draw a longer line trick, irrigation from Bhakra is expressed as % of total irrigation
in Punjab and in Haryana; as % of geographical area of Punjab, of Haryana, of Punjab and
Haryana together. All kinds of denominators have been used to make the resultant fraction
look small.
Before Bhakra
The scenario before Bhakra was not at all that of idyllic, happy, country side the author wants
us to believe. We reproduce below some excerpts from the district gazetteers.
The first famine of which we have any authentic account is that of 1783 A.D. by which the
whole area was depopulated. The previous year had been dry and the harvest poor, but in 1783 it
had entirely failed. The peasants abandoned their villages and died in thousands by disease.
Some died helplessly in their villages, other fell exhausted on the way towards the South where
they thronged in search of food and water. Similar accounts are narrated of the recurring famines
during the years 1860-61, 1869-70, 1896-97, 1899-1900, 1920-1930, 1932-33, 1938-40.
When the tanks dried up which often happened long before the rains, the only source left was
water in the wells, which were constructed along the periphery of village ponds. When the rains
failed, not only did the grass dry up and the ponds became exhausted, but the water in the wells
also became brackish and undrinkable and cattle died in hundreds of thirst and starvation. In
ordinary season, people did not give water to their cattle often more than once in three days, and
if the weather was not excessively hot or dry, the cattle were often eight days without water. It
was common practice to keep rain water stored in small house hold tanks or community tanks
under lock and key for being used most sparingly.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Above description was of Hissar district. Similar accounts are available for other districts.
Interesting, isnt it ? They never told you that. This, dear reader, is the story of times when
the wisdom of the centuries, which we are told is now dying, was firmly in command; the
hydraulic nightmares like the Bhakra, did not exist; the society was practicing people
centric solutions and all that; and the population was a fraction of what it is today.
Please do take note of this, for we are going to examine this in more detail in the next chapter.
Bhakra is a reservoir
Another complaint the author has against Bhakra is, some of the area served by Bhakra in
India was also already under canal irrigation. He overlooks the fact that, in the context of
irrigation, the main purpose of the reservoir is to redistribute water in time domain. India
receives most of the rainfall in about 4 months of monsoons. But the water is required
throughout the year. Therefore it has to be stored when it is there, for use when it is required.
This is called redistribution in time and this is the main function of the reservoir.
Distribution of water in space is achieved by the canal network. When a project comprising a
reservoir, a downstream pickup weir, and the canal network are all investigated and taken up
for construction together, the entire project may be identified by one name, usually the name
of the reservoir. However, for the planners they are three distinct entities. It is not at all
necessary that a canal takes off from the reservoir, and in fact rarely does. No canal takes of
from Bhakra.
Canals usually take off from a barrage, located downstream of the reservoir. The barrage and
the canal redistribute the water in space while the reservoir redistributes it in time.
Sometimes it may happen that a non-storage scheme is constructed first, without any
reservoir. In such cases there usually is a water shortage during the lean season. Then, in
accordance with its own priority, a reservoir is constructed. Such a reservoir would add some
new irrigation and also firm up the irrigation in existing areas. This is what happened in case
of Bhakra and we do not see what is wrong with that.
(Presently, a well developed canal and irrigation network, more than 100 years old, is existing in
the WYC and EYC command, but without the backing of a reservoir. This causes acute water
scarcity in lean season. Therefore there are plans to construct three reservoirs, Renuka, Kishau
and Lakhwar-Vyasi, in the Yamuna catchment upstream. When these are constructed, there will
be very little addition to irrigated area. Mostly, they will only firm up the irrigation in the already
existing WYC and EYC command. We are pointing this out now itself, to save the Manthan
Adhyayan Kendra the trouble of mounting another investigative mission some five years from
now, to unravel Renuka or Kishau.)
Water logging etc.
Since this is quick review, we have not verified the statistics of water logging. Let us for a
moment suppose that the statistics of water logging as quoted by the author are correct. So ?
What has that got to do with evaluation of Bhakra ?
Irrigated agriculture has two main parts, irrigation, and agriculture. The former pertains to
bringing the water to the field, and is in the domain of water engineering. The latter is about
use of that water in the field, and is in the domain of agronomy, or agricultural practices. So,
even if there is some water logging as the author suggests, then what it means is, drainage
system is inadequate and the farmers need to be educated in correct use of water and on farm
practices. To hold that against the reservoir, is akin to holding the typewriter manufacturer
responsible for bad prose. (and then suggesting that the mankind would have been better off
without typewriters !)
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Food Imports
Likewise, much has been made of the fact that the food imports continued well into 70s, after
Bhakra was constructed. All that it means is, Bhakra got ready a little earlier than other
inputs. There is no disagreement that higher farm output had three main components, HYV
seeds, inorganic fertilizers and assured irrigation. In Bhakra command, water arrived first and
the other two came a little latter. Also, and this is a little known fact, under the IWT, till 1970
India was required to continue supply of a certain quantity of water to Pakistan even from
Sutlej, to give them time to make other arrangements for the area earlier served by Sutlej.
Like this one can go no and on. It is quite instructive to see how, no matter what the starting
point, the author always manages to reach the desired conclusions.
Displacement
In 50s, the awareness towards the problems of PAP and the approach towards R&R was quite
different from what it is today. It is incorrect to measure decisions taken 50 years ago, on a
yardstick that didnt even exist then, and came in to existence only a few years ago.
Various Environmental Impacts
All the discussion on this topic is general, applicable to any reservoir, and is not unique to
Bhakra. This is a perennial debate that has been going on between the planners and the
activist for quite some time, and seems to be destined to go on forever. So much so, it is time
to acknowledge that debate as the only sustainable thing that has emerged from the debate on
sustainability. There was no need of bringing out these issues in a report that was specific to a
particular dam. We believe the author should have kept the issues specific to Bhakra separate
from general issues. If he hasnt, doesnt mean we do the same.
Finally the TINA
Dams and canals are not like a new fashion design, which the engineers designed in their
studios and then suddenly paraded in front of the audience one fine evening. Like living
beings, dams too have evolved over a long period of time, more than 100 years, and they
evolved thus because there was a need.
As of today There Is No Alternative (TINA) to engineering interventions. To understand that
remark, it is first necessary to explain the difference between a plan and an idea.
First there is always only an idea, some thing like the river here seems to have plenty of
water; the area downstream is agricultural area and could benefit with irrigation; and the
topography at this place seems suitable to build a dam. But one does not send for the
construction machinery and start building the dam at this stage. Every single aspect of the
idea has to be quantified to converted in to a plan. This includes : Hydrology (quantity of
water available, maximum possible flood, evaporation, sedimentation); Inter-state aspects
(commitments for downstream areas); Geology (foundation of the dam/ barrage); Designs (of all
structures, the dam, barrage, canal etc.); Construction materials (quality, quantity required,
where available, cost); Irrigation (canal alignment, command area); Agriculture (intensity of
irrigation, proposed crop pattern, computation of crop water requirement, working tables
matching 10 daily water availability with water demand); Environment (Environmental Impact
Analysis); R&R plans (for the displaced people); Cost (capital cost, O&M cost); Benefits
(agricultural produce in the pre and post crop scenario, power generation, flood control etc.);
Economic viability, (BC ratio, internal rate of return).
These studies are so detailed that they are usually carried out in three steps; Pre-Feasibility
Report (PFR); Feasibility Report (FR); and Detailed Project Report (DPR). Each successive stage
goes in to more and more details of each aspect. This, quantification, is the single most
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

important difference between an idea and a plan : a plan is has to be quantitative, where
as an idea is only a textual description.
Every one appreciates that a decision to build a dam, or provide canal irrigation, has major
implications for millions of people. But what is often not appreciated is that the decision to
not build that dam, or to not provide canal irrigation, also has different but equally major
implications. Therefore there is no such thing as choosing between whether to provide canal
irrigation, or not to provide it. This sets up a choice between a plan versus the default
condition, where as the choice should be between two or more plans.
But as of today there is no Plan B, there is only an idea B. The so called alternatives, local
distributed solutions, people centric solutions, catch very drop where it falls, wisdom of the
centuries, traditional technologies, . . . etc. are just ideas. Words, words, and words. No
numbers. None of them is a plan.
In the context of ILR, there has been a clamour for the PFRs and FRs; the argument being,
without reading the PFR or FR it is not possible to evaluate the proposed link. Fair enough.
Has any one seen a PFR, far less an FR or DPR, for an alternative paradigm in any area ?
Such a thing is yet to take birth. Planners have nothing against the alternative paradigm.
But unless someone converts that idea into a plan, it can not be evaluated; and unless
evaluated, it can not be imposed on people. To do so, would amount to imposing a blind date
on the concerned people.
The activists want every one to believe that the alternative paradigm has zero cost, and all
the benefits you want. This is just utopia. Nothing is free and nothing has unlimited benefits.
The plan for alternative paradigm will have to include almost all the studies listed above for
a dam and canal, except may be geology and construction materials. The hydrology in this
case will be far more complicated, because it will require investigation of ground water
hydraulics also - height of each check dam; volume of depression contained by each dam;
amount of water that will be collected in each rainfall event and out of this the amount of
recharge taking in to account infiltration capacity of the soil; overflow quantity; thus total
recharge during the monsoon; underground movement of all this water where it will flow and
at what rate; availability how much water will be available at the place of interest at what
time of the year; and all other studies finally ending with incremental agricultural produce, BC
ratio etc. Only then it will be possible to compare it with the engineering alternative.
If and when such a plan is prepared, it can be examined. Till then, T.I.N.A.
The onus of converting the alternative paradigm ideas into plans rests on the activists,
because it is their brainchild; it is they who have an undying faith in it; and therefore it is for
them to prove that it can work, and work better than canal etc. So, if the activists are serious
about alternatives being considered, then they should prepare at least a PFR for the
alternatives for an area where conventional engineering intervention is being considered. It is
food for thought : whether the time and efforts spent in unraveling Bhakra could have been
better used in preparing such a PFR.
This reminds one of what Gail Omvedt says : that the smaller alternative to Sardar Sarovar,
proposed by Joy and Paranjape, was not only ignored by the engineers, but was also ignored
by the NBA. This leads to the conclusion that even the NBA was not serious about the
alternatives, and the intention was only to keep the controversy simmering.
There is enough evidence to conclude that canal or tubewell irrigation is far superior than the
so called traditional technologies. There are certain things about the traditional
technologies that the activists never tell you. So we will. Read on.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

The truth about Wisdom of the Centuries


The Wisdom of the Centuries Doctrine
Any person who has been following the current debate on management of our water resources
would have come across repeated references to "traditional technologies" or wisdom of the
centuries as the new (actually old and renewed) paradigm for management of our water
resources. A creation of the activists, the doctrine of "traditional technologies" says:
the water management and agricultural practices as followed by our ancestors were the
best possible practices;
all the recent advances in water management and agriculture, like storage reservoirs, canal
irrigation, lift irrigation, piped water supply in cities, high yielding verities of seeds,
inorganic fertilizers, et al were an unfortunate development;
it is these developments listed above that are responsible for all our water and
agriculture related problems; and
all that we need to do is discard whatever we are doing now and revert back to what our
ancestors used to do 200 or more years ago, and all our water related problems will be
solved.
And what exactly did our ancestors do? Basically they collected ooops, that should be
harvested - rainwater, by diverting the runoff to small household containers; and also created
small artificial ponds by constructing small bunds across the path of small streams, by
blocking exits from natural depressions in the topography. Each region evolved different
designs of containers, ponds, wells, and rainwater collection mechanisms. Some of the
differences could be attributed to differences in climates, water requirements, agricultural
practices and lifestyles, while some differences were without any specific reason. Just as there
is no particular reason why the people in, say, Bengal spoke a different language, cooked
different dishes, or sang a different genre of music than, say, the people in Kerala, similarly it
would be silly to read too much of reasoning into differences in designs of johars and kundis
and keres etc. of different regions. Practices evolve differently for no particular reason and this
is as much true of water collecting practices as any thing else.
Water stored in the household containers was used for domestic uses, drinking, washing etc.
Water collected in ponds was for domestic use and also for agriculture. But lifting of water
directly from the ponds was not easy because the modern high-lift pumping technology did
not exist. Therefore, most of the water collected in the ponds percolated to the ground water
aquifers and was extracted through dug wells.
Why did our ancestors construct only small bunds across small streams ? Activists want every
one to believe that they were very wise, and knew what a terrible thing large dams are. (even
before a single large dam came in to existence any where on the earth) The plain simple fact is,
because the technology of the day wasnt adequate to build larger dams across larger rivers,
and no other reason. The amount of water that could be thus harvested was, obviously, very
small, but the utilization was also very little because the population per SqKm of the
catchment area was very small; the agriculture was also very primitive type; the demand was
very little; and even when the demand was more as it was during drought years - it was not
possible to extract more ground water because of constraints of pumping technology. All this
indirectly imposed a limit on withdrawals and with recharge being more than withdrawals, the
ground water table remained in a steady state condition, at a reasonably good level.
Activists fondly eulogize all these limitations as "wisdom of the centuries" and pose it as an
alternative to modern engineering interventions. In this document, the term engineering
interventions has been used to include dams, barrages, canals, tunnels, hydel power
projects, piped water supply, centralized sewage disposal systems, etc.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

While the activists argue passionately for managing all our water needs through rainwater
harvesting [7] alone, and condemn canal irrigation or piped water supply to homes, they do so
in areas where canal irrigation anyway does not exist, nor is expected to reach in foreseeable
future. No activist group has ever tried to convince the farmers in the command area of an
existing or under-construction irrigation project about giving up the canal irrigation and
adopting "traditional technologies". In fact, in some command areas the people have banned
the entry of activists. On the other hand there are examples (Ralegan Siddhi) where the
farmers practicing "traditional technologies" accepted canal irrigation when it became
available. Likewise, far less try to convince the ordinary city dwellers about the ills of piped
water supply, we havent heard of any activist disconnecting the water supply to his/ her own
home or office and managing only with the rainwater harvested from the rooftop. Thus, it
follows that the case for "traditional technologies" is neither as strong, nor as simple, as it is
made to appear. But the existence of an apparently better option acts as a red herring that
thwarts any meaningful discussion on water management. Therefore, in this chapter we will
analyze the "traditional technologies" conundrum in a little more detail.
The True History of Wisdom of the Centuries
There are some coffee table publications [8] that document the water management practices
from the past. From an archeological perspective, it is interesting to read what our forefathers
did to get water. But these books are invariably silent on how did our ancestors fare with their
"traditional technologies". Were they able to grow sufficient food for the population of their
times ? Were they able to build a buffer stock to see them through the drought years ? What
was India like during those times a place of plenty or a place of scarcity ? How was it to be a
farmer, was it a hand-to-mouth existence, or was farming a paying occupation ?
Since the activists wouldnt tell you that, here are a few simple facts which probably you
knew, but had forgotten, to help you place this "traditional technologies" doctrine in an
rational perspective. Let us start by having a look at how the "traditional technologies" fared in
their own times, when the population was a fraction what it is today.
Food Production in Ancient India
Historically, India has always been a land of droughts, food shortages and famines. Some of
the worst famines of the world have been experienced in India. As many as 27 food scarcities
and famines were recorded during the 110 years between 1770 and 1880 and more than 20
million lives were lost in India in some 20 famines that struck since 1850. Table 1 lists some
of the major famines in India. These famines were caused by inadequate food production.
After Dr. Amartya Sens work on analysis of famines, activists often quote Dr. Sen as having
said that shortage of food was not the cause of famines. This is not correct. Dr. Sen did not
say this of the older famines, which were cause by inadequate production.

7
Rainwater harvesting, traditional technologies and wisdom of the centuries; activist use all these three terms as if
they were synonymous. Which in away they are, because they all mean the opposition to engineering
interventions.
8
Coffee table publication: a sleekly produced publication that is high only in visual content and aesthetics; a book
which you look at rather than read; which you can open and start looking at from any page and close abruptly
at any page. The kind of book you would want as you wait for your turn in the reception room of your dentist.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Table 1 Great Famines of India [9] Population


(millions)
Year Famine
[10]
AD 650 Famine throughout India < 100
879 Universal famine. < 100
941, Great famines in India, entire provinces were depopulated, < 100
cannibalism !
1022
1148- Eleven years of famine in India. < 100
1159
1162 Universal famine < 100
1344- Great famine in India, when the Mogul emperor was unable to < 100
1345 obtain the necessaries for his household. The famine
continued for years.
1396- The Durga Devi famine in India, lasting twelve years. 100
1407
1661 Famine in India, when not a drop of rain fell for two years. 135
1769- Great famine in Bengal, when a third of the population 173
1770 (10,000,000 persons) perished
1783 The Chalisa famine in India, which extended from the eastern 179
edge of the Banaras province to Lahore and Jammu
1790- The Doji Bara. People died in such large numbers that they 182
could not be buried. Said to be one of the severest famines
1792
ever known, it extended over the whole of Bombay,
Hyderabad and northern districts of Madras. (at that time
Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras were provinces, not just cities)
1838 Intense famine in NW Provinces of India; 800,000 perished. 213
1861 Famine in North-West India. 236
1866 Famine in Bengal and Orissa; one million perished. 242
1869 Intense famine in Rajputana; one million and a half perished. 246
The government initiated the policy of saving life
1874 Famine in Bihar. Adequate relief from the Government. 252
1876-78 Famine in Bombay, Madras and Mysore; five millions perish. 256
1897 Famine in India. Government policy of saving lives was 281
effective.
1899- Famine in India. One million people perished. 285
1901

9
Book for famines: The demography of famines : An Indian historical perspective. By Arup Maharatna. Delhi :
Oxford University Press, 1996.
10
Population for 1750, 1800, 1850, 1900 and 1950 taken from the wbesite indiapolicyinstitute.org. Population for
other years interpolated/ extrapolated
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

The famines prior to start of British rule are of particular interests because some activists
place the responsibility for famines on the British Government, who is said to have
encouraged cultivation of cotton and jute and other such cash crops for export purposes, at
the cost of neglecting food grain cultivation. The British rulers are also blamed for initiating
canal irrigation! Therefore it may be noted that there were famines even prior to British rule.
Arup Maharatna observes In the 140 years since Warren Hastings initiated British rule in
India, there have been nineteen famines and five severe scarcities. For the period preceding
British rule the records have not been so well preserved, but there is ample evidence to show
that famine was just as frequent in its incidence and infinitely more deadly in its effects under
the native rulers of India. In the great Bengal famine of 1769-1770, which occurred shortly after
the foundation of British rule, but while the native officials were still in power, a third of the
population, or ten millions out of thirty millions, perished. From this it may be guessed what
occurred in the centuries under Mogul rule, when for years there was no rain, when famine
lasted for three, four or twelve years, and entire cities were left without an inhabitant.
Above quote is NOT to be taken as a statement praising or criticizing any particular set
of rulers. To see it thus would be a perversion of logic. It is quoted only to illustrate that
famines occurred because the water management, irrigation and agricultural practices
of the times constrained by the technology as it existed then - were not adequate even
for a small population of those times, and had nothing to do with who ruled India.
Also, to say that the famines were caused by the British encouraging cultivation of cotton and
jute instead of food grains, amounts to saying that the Indians as a whole had no idea of the
food requirement and food availability, and were so stupid that they merrily abandoned food
crops and switched over to jute/cotton at the drop of a (British) hat, only to die of famine a few
years later.
Reliable data on famine deaths is available only from the
famine of 1769 onwards. Table 2 shows the number of Table 2 Food Security (?)
famine deaths in some of the major famines since 1769. At in Ancient India
a time when the transportation technology for large scale [Britannica]
movement of food grains was not well developed, each Year Famine Deaths
(millions)
famine was a local phenomenon. Thus, when 3 to 10
million people died in the famine of 1769 in Bengal, the 1769-70 3 to 10
population of the affected area at that time was only 30 1837-38 0.8
million. Starvation death for 3 to 10 million people is a 1866-67 1.5
serious matter at any time, but the enormity of the tragedy 1876-77 5
rally sinks in only when one understands that one tenth to 1896-97 5
one third of the population perished in the famine! 1899-1900 3

This, dear reader, was the scenario at a time when:


The forest cover was at its best ever;
The ground water table was at its best ever, there being no tube wells, no submersible
pumps, and mostly no electricity;
There were no engineers, no contractors, neither any big-builders lobby nor any dams;
neither any chemical fertilizers lobby nor any chemical fertilizers, no HYV seeds, . . .
Whether wisely or otherwisely, only the traditional technology was in use. The wisdom of
the centuries, that we are told is now dying, was in its prime;
and last but not least, the population to be fed was a fraction of what it is today.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

And yet, and yet there were perpetual food


Table 3 Land Productivity shortages, famines, and people dying by
Province Year = Kg./Ha. millions for want of food and water. This is the
Madras 1878 820 vital information that is never revealed in the
1902 795 activists writing, speeches and stylish
Bombay 1878 518 publications that project traditional
1902 587
technologies as the cure for all ills.
Agra and Oudh 1878 895
1902 900 Land Productivity in the heydays of
Bengal 1878 894 "traditional technologies"
1902 1055
Central Provinces 1878 420 Thus we see that the era of "traditional
1902 590 technologies" was an era of perpetual food
Assam 1878 - shortages, scarcities, famines so severe that
1902 948 there was cannibalism, and starvation deaths
for millions. It couldnt have been anything
else. Table 3 indicates the productivity per Ha. in late 1800s and early 1900s in various
regions. The average productivity was 766 Kg/Ha. As compared to this, today even a badly
managed irrigated land produces about 3000 Kg/Ha and, if better managed, the yields can be
much higher.
There is no question of blaming our ancestors for not being able to grow more than 766
Kg/Ha. To do so would be as silly as blaming them for not being able to take an X-ray, or not
being able to send e-mails. At any given time, the society is constrained by the technology of
the day. Water availability is a crucial factor that determines the agro output, and the quantity
of water that could be made available through "traditional technologies", particularly during
lean season, was simply not enough for producing any thing more than that.
The activists point out that the higher yields today are due to use of High Yielding Variety
(HYV) seeds. True. That too is a factor. But even if HYV seeds were available in 1800s it would
have served no purpose, because HYV crops are very sensitive to water stress, i.e. if they do
not get water when required, then the entire crop may be lost. Therefore it makes sense to use
HYV seeds only if assured irrigation is available. And assured irrigation needs dams. (or tube
wells and electricity).
Advent of Engineering Interventions
Late 1800s saw constitution of a few Famine Commissions who recommended development
of irrigation to contain adverse impacts of famines. The first Irrigation Commission was
constituted in 1901 and after that a number of works, earlier suggested by the famine
commissions, were actually taken up. Almost all recommendations of the 1st Irrigation
Commission were implemented and gradually the situation improved. However, the target of
producing adequate food was still more than half a century ahead.
The decades immediately following independence, when the "traditional technologies" were in
decline but still were in practice to a much larger extent than what they are today, continued
to be years of severe food shortages. Some of the relics of that era are not known to the
younger generations and therefore deserve a mention.
In the fifties, there was in force a guest control order which restricted the number of
guests that could be invited for a lunch/ dinner for a wedding or other such occasions. The
limit was 50, including the hosts. Authorities could make a surprise check and impose
penalties if more than 50 persons were found partaking in the wedding feast. This measure
was necessary because even the small quantity of food that gets wasted during feasts, was
precious.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Most people bought their food as fortnightly rations from the government ration shops.
When a family shifted home to a new location, even within the same city, acquiring a new
ration card was far more important than getting the children admitted to new school. Since
life without a ration card was unthinkable and every one had a ration card, it came to be
accepted as a proof of identity and address for a number of purposes that had nothing to
do with food, e.g. obtaining a driving license or a telephone connection, registration of a
vehicle etc. This practice continues in most places even today.
Not only the food grains, but there was shortage of sugar also (and edible oils). As the
monthly quota of sugar available through the ration shop was not enough even for the
family, pigmy tea-cups, less than one half the size of a normal tea cup, became popular;
because a typical middle class family buying sugar only from the ration shop, didnt have
enough sugar to offer the guests a whole cup of tea ! Many people started using sugar
substitutes even though they neither had diabetes nor were watching weight.
These years saw a booming black market of food items, particularly sugar and edible oils.
And, shortages and black market affect the poor the most.
For those borne and brought up in the era of self-sufficiency in food production, it is not easy
to appreciate the utter shame and vulnerability of having to depend on food imports. The box
Food Imports conveys, to some extent, what it meant to have to depend on others for food.

The Humiliation of Food Imports (www.dssharma.org/agriculture/50years.htm)


Agriculture Minister C Subramaniam sat huddled with his senior staff. There was tension in
the air. Depending upon imported food grains coming from 12,000 miles away, and
particularly when it came in driblets following US President Lyndon Johnsons directive to
"teach India a lesson," was already humiliating enough. What worried Subramaniam was
that the food stocks had reached such a precarious low that it was only sufficient to last for
another two weeks and still worse, there was nothing in transit. Recalls Subramaniam, "As a
last resort, I told my officials and experts to identify the nearest food carrying ships on the
ocean throughout the world. I said we would identify the nearest ships carrying wheat to
other countries and appeal to the US President to divert it to India if other countries could
wait for another six to eight weeks."

And dear reader, please remember, all this when the population to be fed was about one-
third of what it is today.
The Green Revolution
The Government of independent India took up a concerted program to make India self
sufficient in food production. The three main pillars of this program were:
Use of high yielding variety of seeds;
Expansion of irrigation; reservoir backed assured irrigation wherever possible; and
Use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.
The program paid rich dividends and even though the population increased by about three
times - from 300 million to 1,000 millions - since independence, the increase in food
production was more than four times - from 50 MT in 1950 to 208 MT in 2000. Food self-
sufficiency was achieved in late 70s. In due course a sizeable food buffer stock was built up
and since then, far less a famine there hasnt been even a scarcity situation, even during
consecutive drought years. Recently, India has begun to export food grains !
This is what the Rockefeller Foundation has to say about the Green Revolution: "The speed
with which Indias farmers and scientists suddenly gave their country an approach to
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

an abundant food supply, has never been duplicated on an equal scale anywhere in
the world, including the scientifically sophisticated United States."
Producing enough food for the country is not merely a matter of feeding the population. As
Jon Bennet notes: "No one in USA starves when drought hits the mid West plains, for the
country has mountains of stored grains. And why does Japan still wants to produce its own rice
at great cost when it can buy any amount of rice any time. The moral is try and have your own
food buffer. Finally, in the absence of buffer stocks, the nation is prone to be pressured
economically as well as politically-the autonomy of the country may itself be in the
danger of being impaired. (emphasis added)
So much for the virtual water trade.

At the mention of Indias self sufficiency in food production, the activists are quick to say so what ?
millions of people can not afford two meals even today. This argument brings in poverty to deflect the
attention from the topic of food production and water management options for food production. If a large
population still goes to bed hungry, that is sad, but that is because of poverty, because they lack the
purchasing power. That too needs to be addressed, but that is a different debate.
In any case there has to be enough food in the first place in order to distribute it. Modern irrigation has
achieved adequate food production and now there is enough food in the market. If a section of the
population can not afford to buy that food, then they need to be provided with gainful employment
opportunities so as to improve their purchasing power. But availability comes first. The poor can have
purchasing power only if there is sufficient availability. If there are shortages, then the prices rise and
then it is the poor who are affected first, and most.

Traditional Technologies Now


Having examined the performance of "traditional technologies" in their own times, we now
examine the performance of "traditional technologies" in present times. The two instances/
examples of the use of "traditional technologies" in modern times that are touted as success
stories are: the work done by Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS) in Alwar district in Rajasthan; and
the work done by Shri Anna Hazare in Ralegan Siddhi (RS) in Maharashtra. IWRS team
studied both the works.
The main work area of TBS is in Alwar district of Rajasthan. TBS constructed a number of
check dams in this area to intercept and hold the runoff in small ponds, called Johads.
Construction and maintenance of the Johad is a community effort, the villagers put in
physical effort and some donor agencies provide some finances. The village community
imposes certain restrictions on the use of water from the Johads. The two most important
restrictions being:
Water will not be withdrawn directly from the Johad. It will be allowed to percolate and will
be withdrawn only from wells.
No farmer will sow rice, sugarcane or other crops that require, relatively, a larger quantity
of water.
There are some other rules also but, from the consideration of quantity of water made
available and utilized, these two are the ones that matter most.
As a result of construction of these check dams and increased percolation, the ground water
availability improved. The villagers now had water not only for drinking and other domestic
use but also for some agriculture. When NGOs takeup such work in rural areas, they do not
restrict themselves to only construction of check dams, but also take up some other social
reforms. The effects of all these together can, and often does, bring about a significant
improvement in the lives of the concerned people.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

IWRS team visited the village Bhikampura Kishori, one of the work areas of TBS. Our
intention was to evaluate quantitatively the impacts of rainwater harvesting work. Since no
one prepares a PFR/ FR/ DPR for the traditional technologies, so no one has a clue about
how much water was made available by it. So we had to do with following three questions as
the main queries:

Village Bhikampura Kishori, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Photo IWRS-DC 2004)


Rainwater harvesting has enabled this once barren village to grow one crop in year and has
improved the annual household income to Rs. 15,000/-
Imagine how wide the smile would be if modern irrigation enabled them to grow two crops, one
may be a cash crop, and thus tripled their incomes ?
Who gave the activists a right to restrict the dreams of these children ?

a) How many crops are taken in a year from the water provided by the Johads.
b) What crops are taken
c) How much is the produce per unit area.
The most startling finding of our team was: there is considerable difference between what the
local TBS office says and what the villagers say on these important issues. According to the
TBS office, two crops are taken in a year and both are irrigated crops. According to the
villagers only one crop is taken and that too is mostly dependent on rain. The productivity is
about 1500 Kg. per Ha. This is consistent with what was expected of the traditional
technology paradigm.
As for Ralegan Siddhi, the story is even more interesting. In this village, Shri Anna Hazare, a
former Army man, took up rainwater harvesting, soil conservation etc. In addition he also
enforced a strict discipline; putting a stop to gambling and illicit brewing; motivated many a
young men to join the Army thus increasing the income of the village; opened a school and
promoted education etc.
However, unlike other votaries of "traditional technologies", Shri Hazare is not an ideologue.
Ralegan Siddh people had taken up rainwater harvesting only with the intention improving
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

water availability, and not with the intention of making any ideological statement. When water
from a canal, fed by the Kukkudi dam, became available to them, they had no ideological
hang-ups in accepting a lift irrigation scheme using canal water. Today, 50% of the water
requirements in Ralegan Siddhi are supplied by the Kukkudi dam.
When told of this, people find it difficult to believe it. Ralegan Siddhi, a showpiece of
"traditional technologies" committing the treachery of using canal water from a large dam ? The
funny thing is, if you visit Ralegan Sidhdhi, they will tell you all about the lift irrigation
scheme. It is the self-appointed custodians of sustainable development, who feel
uncomfortable with Ralegan siddhi accepting water from a dam.
Success Stories
The success stories of "traditional technologies" in present times are based on following
sleights.
1. Activists take up work in areas that are practicing pure rain fed agriculture with no water
management of any kind. This is logical. No farmer is going to agree to give up existing
canal or ground water irrigation and opt for "traditional technologies" experiment. The
resultant improvement only proves that the activists prescription is better than no water
management. Of course ! Some management is always better than no management. Who
denied that ?
But that does not prove that the activist prescription is better than modern irrigation. To
verify whether that is so, it will be necessary to select two identical agro-climatic areas in
adjoining watersheds, provide canal/ tube well irrigation in one area and "traditional
technologies" in other and compare the two.
2. For engineering interventions, the entire project planning, particularly the benefits, must
be first spelled out before taking up the project. The post-project performance is examined
against these stated benefits.
In contrast to this, for "traditional technologies" there is no prior statement of what will be
achieved. Whatever be the outcome, it is declared as a success ! Before starting their work
in Alwar, TBS did not declare how much water will become available (this is not known
even now); how much area will be irrigated; what will be the productivity etc. Whatever
happened, was declared a success. Concepts of success and failure are linked to
targets. When targets are not pre-defined, success is guaranteed.
3. As explained at length above, in "success stories" of "traditional technologies", an overall
improvement picture is presented to the viewer and in this, benefits that have nothing to
do with the water management strategy get credited to it.
Electricity, GDP, Livelihoods, . . .
The analysis above was restricted to food production. The debate traditional technologies
versus engineering interventions has much wider ramifications than just food production. Now
that enough food is being produced, the question now is, how to provide livelihood
opportunities for our projected 1600 million population so that no one suffers from hunger for
want of purchasing power.
Already, over 49% of the households are holding land less than 2 Ha. And the land holdings
get smaller with every generation. Then there is a large number of landless workers. These
marginal farmers and landless workers can not earn a meaningful income from agriculture, as
is evident from the Bhikampura Kishori photograph above, although the kids are smiling,
their cloths are tattered. Agriculture provides livelihoods to 65% of the population, but it
accounts for only 25% of the GDP. Migration of people from rural areas to cities, urbanization
as it is called, is a major problem the social scientists have to deal with. People migrate from
rural areas to cities in search of employment, livelihoods.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

75% of the GDP comes from the industry and services sector, and it is these sectors that have
the potential to grow, provide livelihood opportunities, and alleviate poverty. But industry and
services require a good infrastructure base, electricity, roads etc. There can be no freedom
from power cuts without hydro-power. Already 25% of industrial energy needs are supplied by
captive diesel plants, which is expensive, which makes our industrys products uncompetitive
in international markets. So there simply is no escape from increasing the hydro-power
generation. The activists prescription of entire India living on coarse grain crops on half
hectare plots with unsure watering, is nothing but a prescription for sustainable poverty.
Conclusions - The Truth About Traditional Technologies
1. The so called "traditional technologies" in their prime couldnt produce enough food for the
population of less than 100 millions in AD 650, about 100 millions in AD 1400, 170
millions in 1700s, 210 millions in 1800s, or 350 millions in 1900s and there is no
question of "traditional technologies" alone producing sufficient food for a population of
1000 millions now, or expected 1600 millions in AD 2050.
2. If more than 200 years ago our forefathers did not build dams or canals, it is not because
they were in some way wiser, but simply because the technology to do so did not exist.
3. The advent of canal irrigation and dams in 1800s onwards was not the decline but in fact
the beginning of a new era that, together with HYV seeds and inorganic fertilizers,
eventually made India self sufficient in food production.
4. In areas where modern irrigation has not reached or can not reach, the "traditional
technologies" are the only option. Thus "traditional technologies" are a supplement, and
not an alternative, to engineering interventions.
5. With land holdings getting smaller, more and more people will have to rely on industry and
services sector for their livelihoods. Already these sectors contribute 75% of GDP. But
these sectors require efficient infrastructure like electricity, roads etc. There is no escape
from increasing the share of hydro-power to 40% and that requires modern engineering
interventions.
At this, people often ask : the Government has a program to revive traditional water bodies. Is
IWRS opposed to Governments policies ?. Therefore this needs to be explained.
Why we need dams ?
On an average, India receives about 4000 bcm of water every year, mostly through rainfall and
some snowfall. However, the distribution of this water in time (and space too) is very uneven.
More than 80% of the annual rainfall, and therefore annual river flow, takes place during the
four months of monsoon. Since water is required throughout the year, it has to be stored
when it is available, to be used when it is required. There are two ways to store large
quantities of water, in the aquifers - as ground water; and in surface reservoirs - created by
dams.
It is estimated that annually it is possible to utilize about 432 bcm (billion cubic meters) from
GW sources and 690 bcm from surface water sources. This adds up to 1122 bcm and just
about equals the estimated requirement by 2025. But this 690 bcm use is possible only with a
surface storage capacity of about 384 bcm. Contrary to popular perceptions, rain water
harvesting has very little impact on the total quantity of recharge. The largest estimate of the
potential of artificial recharge is by Prof. Kanchan Chopra of the Institute of Economic Growth,
and that is 140 bcm. Estimates by qualified hydrologists are much smaller, around 30 bcm.
Even if the largest estimate is taken as correct, the GW use can increase at the most to 572
bcm, and about half the total quantity of water used will still have to come from surface
sources, stored in reservoirs created by large dams.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Thus, surface storage and aquifer storages are not competitors. There is no way to provide
1122 bcm of water entirely from aquifer storage, just as there is no way to provide it entirely
from surface sources, and there is no question of rainwater harvesting being an alternative
to dams. Even though dams are not competing with aquifer storage, four advantages of
surface storage need to be mentioned.
1: Controllability a specified quantity of water can be released from a surface reservoir to
reach a downstream area in a known time. In contrast to this, there is no such thing as GW
being released to an area. Once in the aquifer, there is no way to control where the water will
flow and when. 2: Water available in the surface storages at the end of monsoon is visible and
known, and lends itself to planned use. Quantity of water available in the aquifer on a
sustainable basis is unknown, and that is one reason why there is over exploitation of GW. 3:
Water from surface storages flows under gravity while GW requires electricity for pumping.
(and 40% of the electricity must come from hydro). And 4: Some control can be exercised on
the use of surface water. But no control can be exercised on use of GW. Nothing prevents a
farmer from growing paddy or sugarcane in a drought prone area by sinking deeper and
deeper tubewells.
Apart from these two main uses, namely : redistribution of water in time, and generation of
hydro-power, dams also play a major role in controlling floods. Of course the other side says
that the dams have never controlled any floods. The problem is, while it took exactly 7 words
to say that, it will take another full length paper, with tables and graphs, to prove that dams
are indeed the best way of controlling floods. Suffice to say that dams like Bhakra and
Hirakud, which were not even meant for flood control, have provided excellent flood control.
It is only the activists who see the options in mutually exclusive terms, either do only this, or
do only that. Planners know that every option has its own plus and minus aspects.
Governments plan for revival of traditional water bodies are not to the exclusion of dam
construction. There are plans for revival of traditional water bodies, and there are also plans
to increase the storage to 384 bcm. Both coexist, and there is no conflict.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

Postscript
The serious ones amongst the public find this debate between the activists and the planners
rather amusing, confusing and also worrisome. A question that has often been asked to us is,
why cant you two sit together and discuss it and sort out your differences ?. Good question,
and an appropriate one with which to close this brief review.
To debate whether dams are a good option or a bad option is akin to debating whether surgery
is a good option or a bad option. Sure there are some risks in any surgery, it costs a lot of
money, and there also are some unpleasant side effects. It would be rare to find a person who
does not feel apprehensive of submitting himself to surgery. But the patients discuss their
apprehensions with their doctor, analyze and compare non-surgical options, and in most
cases realize that surgery is the better option. Thus, every year, millions of people all over the
world voluntarily undergo major surgery.
Whether a particular dam is the preferred option for a given area, or whether some other
option is better, is something that can be discussed. However, today the opposition to dams
has very little to do with issues specific to a dam. That was how it started, issues based
opposition to a few select dams. But, over the years, all that has changed. Today the reality
is, the activists are opposed to all infrastructure projects, irrespective of whether they are
dams, non-dam canal irrigation, ILR, non-ILR, hydro/ thermal/ tidal/ nuclear or any other
power projects, or what ever. Consider following:
Kalpsaar project proposes to build a dyke in the gulf of Khambat, isolating a portion of the
gulf, and convert it into a large sweet water lake. The project will provide water, and also
generate electricity using tidal variations in water level. The rail/road on top of the dyke
will also reduce the distance between Mumbai and Saurashtra by 225 Km. The most
important feature of Kalpsaar is: the dam and the lake are both out in the ocean, and not
on the land, so there is no submergence of any land area and consequent displacement
etc. Yet, Kalpsaar is also being opposed.
Sethusamudram is not a river valley project. It is a shipping canal, like the Panama or
Suez. Presently the ships going from Indias east coast to west coast, or even from Chennai
to Tuticorin, have to go around Sri Lanka, because the depth of water in the stretch of the
ocean between India and Sri Lanka is not enough for navigation. Sethusamudram canal
will allow the ships to pass through this stretch, reducing the shipping distance, time, and
fuel costs. Also, it will enable navigation between Indias east coast and west coast entirely
through Indias territorial waters, something that has immense strategic significance for
India. But the activists are opposed to Sethusamudram also.
The Golden Quadrilateral is a highway project and has nothing to do with water.
Importance of good roads in the national economy hardly needs to be reiterated. But India
is perhaps the only country in the world where even the road construction is being
opposed as destructive of environment. Some of the arguments given against the roads
project are amazing, to say the least. Following is a sample.
Highways are a means of centralized control, of fascism and dictatorship, and are
detrimental to human freedom and democracy ! (Goodness ! Did you know that
potholed dirt-tracks are the key to human freedom and democracy ?)
Since ancient times, people could undertake pilgrimage on foot, without any
highways. So where is the need for highways now ? (If Alexander the Great did not
require any highways, why do you need highways now. Any answers ? )
Thus it will be seen that the activists are opposed to all infrastructure, of which Bhakra is just
one instance. The opposition has nothing to do with merits or demerits of the various projects.
It is based on certain ideological fads.
Indian Water Resources Society Delhi Center May 2005

India is aiming for 8.5% growth, more if possible, and hopes to join the ranks of developed
nations, as per economic criteria. But there are some who are not prepared to pay the price
that must be paid to achieve this. They would rather put up with energy shortage and its
consequences for the economy, than accept the environmental and other costs of constructing
new power projects. They would rather put up with 750 Kg/Ha produce and subsistence
farming, than have canal irrigation and use HYV seeds or chemical fertilizers. They would
rather put up with farm produce rotting in situ, than accept highways to provide better market
access for agro-output.
Then there are some who think wanting 8.5% growth, wanting freedom from power-cuts,
wanting to eat good quality rice, wanting piped water supply in homes, etc. are all signs of
moral degeneration. While they stand for poverty reduction, what they actually mean is
increasing the incomes to just above the poverty line, and no more, for any thing more is
greed, materialism, rampant consumerism, . . . . They still live in the era where prosperity
was a dirty word and they think there is some kind of dignity and virtue in frugality.
Finally, there are some who have a strange worldview, where the Nation-State is always
arrogant, ruthless, . . . ; industry is always exploitative; urban is synonymous with corrupt
and greedy while rural is synonymous with innocent and sustainable. They are, therefore,
determined to oppose this ruthless and arrogant Nation-State. Since large scale
infrastructure can only be created by the State, and not by the people, therefore opposition to
infrastructure is a step in their pursuit of disabling the apparatus of the State.
Last but not least, there are some who do not believe in any thing, and who only use an anti-
development and anti-government stance merely as a career option. Because there is a
constituency that rewards such a stance.
Coupled with this there is also a phobia for technology; and a propensity to smell a lobby
behind every decision. Essentially, the activist world is an ideological ghetto - closed, inward
looking and suspicious of any thing that does not belong to their world.
The India of activists dreams is a landscape of verdant countryside where there are no dams,
no industries, no piped water supply, no canal irrigation; where all people live in villages,
doing nothing more than raising non-water guzzling crops on half Ha. plots using a little bit
of water from dug wells.
The water sector today has become a battle ground for various ideological battles such as anti-
globalization, anti-establishment, anti-industrialization, anti-MNCs, anti-corporate sector,
anti-International Funding Agencies, anti-consumerism etc. All these are ideological issues
that have nothing to do with water or environment directly. But it helps to morph them in to a
water issue, because water is on the center-stage.
This is why it is not possible to discuss and sort out the differences. How does one explain the
benefits of a project like Bhakra to those who hold since ancient times, people could undertake
pilgrimage on foot, without any highways. So where is the need for highways now ?
Every one has a stake in infrastructure projects. The current electricity crisis in Maharashtra
has been caused by a shortage of just 3500 MW (about 50% more than the installed capacity
in Bhakra-Nangal system). Now the people have realized that new generation capacity can not
be added in months, it takes several years. The lesson from this is : opposition to
infrastructure is not to be taken lightly.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai