India’s water management and its development are influenced by visions of four major personalities—Dr B. R. Ambedkar, M. K. Gandhi, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and A. P. J. Abdul Kalam. The ideas and contestations around water for Ambedkar and Gandhi were the material heart of movements in the first half of twentieth century. One finds water as an indicator of social inequality and led the Mahad Movement to challenge the ban Caste Hindus imposed on Dalits for accessing water from public tanks. While the other symbolises it as a marker of unity and led Salt March to fight against British colonialism. Water, for Ambedkar, was a survival question and he believed it could only be achieved through an emancipatory movement against internal evil. Gandhi, on the other hand, symbolises water to unite people against external forces. In contrast to these two personalities, Nehru and Kalam align themselves to modern and technocentric ideas of water management. Nehru believes in taming and damming the river and symbolises the dam as a temple of modern India. Kalam ideated the water secure India through forming a National Water Grid by interlinking rivers and community-based tanks. The project aimed to transfer surplus floodwater to drought prone or water deficit regions. Both of these personalities advocated the ideas of modern-technocentric water management in post-Independence India. The approach also forms the continuation of the colonial technological framework which has been the dominant framework of water policies and programmes.

Despite the application of modern and colonial technocentric approaches to water management, the water crisis and scarcity have not been resolved. Climate change and extreme ecological events have exaggerated the crises. Scholars have increasingly argued that the modern techno-centric model of water management itself has become the reason for the augmenting water crisis. This is because the modern and techno-centric approaches are reductionist in nature. The modern model provides relief in one crisis and creates problems in other aspects. For example, handpump installation on one hand increased water accessibility. On the other hand, the over-extraction negatively impacted the groundwater table and the universal implication of handpump scheme has exposed masses to arsenic, fluoride, and nitrate contaminated groundwater. This shows, modern and colonial technology lacks holistic and systemic thinking. 

As an alternative and a decolonial measure, Gandhian and Vedic ecologists advocated the traditional water management practices instead of following modern approaches to water. Anil Agarwal, Sunita Narain, Madhav Gadgil, and Ramachandra Guha are some of them who extensively argued the traditional idea as an alternative in India. They highlighted the wisdom and value traditionalism carries, and the inherent ecological friendly and sustainable technology are some of the reasons for considering it as an alternative. But the question is whether such glorification of tradition without addressing its inherent conservative framework is justified for a decolonial future? Extracting a few strands from my PhD theses that I have conducted in two villages of Gaya and Buxar districts of Bihar, I have discussed this question. Although the study applied a mixed method approach, the qualitative empirical data I collected from Patluka village of Gaya district has been used to argue that tradition without addressing structural issues is not  decoloniality, nor does it contribute to India’s development. The article proposed critical traditionalism as an alternative perspective. 

The ahar-pyne is a  traditional water harvesting and irrigation practice prevalent in semi-arid regions of South Bihar. The structure is built to harness runoff water over a gentle slope or hilly areas through three-sided earthen embankment reservoir. The fourth side is open to catch the runoff water running down from the top. The reservoir tank is called ahar, while an outlet emerges from the base of the tank, called pyne, flowing through a channel to irrigate the crop-field. Together the whole system of storing water in a tank is made without digging the ground,  but instead distributing it to the low-lying crop field through gravitational irrigation channels. 

A photograph depicting pyne

The historical evidence shows its inception in the Mauryan period. Since then, it has been practiced during the kingdoms of ancient Bihar, sustained in the medieval period and to some extent survived during the British Raj. Although its decline started during the British period as a consequence of large-scale development of canal irrigation, its degradation accelerated during the first and second decades post-Independence. The intensive modern water management during the Nehruvian period and later the technologically driven Green Revolution undermined the traditional water harvesting systems and irrigation practices. As a result, ahar-pyne irrigation areas declined from 0.94 million hectares (mha) in the 1930s to 0.55 mha in 1976. 

Now in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, it has witnessed renewed attention through citizens' initiatives. People from Patluka, a village in Gaya district of Bihar, restored a few and constructed two new ahar-pyne—Ghorniya and Ghorduba. The government restoration programmes such as ‘Mukhya Mantri Ahar-Pyne Yojana’ launched in 2006 and ‘Jal Jeevan Hariyali Mission’ initiated in 2019 have supported the initiative and rejuvenated the systems across the state.  

The revival of the traditional irrigation system has supported agriculture, reduced migration, improved groundwater table and stabilized the prevalence of waterborne diseases. However, the revival of traditional water management systems has also brought to light the persistence of caste-based inequalities embedded within these institutions. My Ph.D study conducted to understand the relationship between water resource management and waterborne diseases in Patluka village of Gaya district has, apart from public health implications, also revealed entrenched caste hierarchies in ahar-pyne systems. It was observed in all the phases of ahar-pyne — decision making, construction, maintenance and distribution of water. 

The first step, where villagers collectively make a decision, is usually taken by the privileged caste groups. Usually Dalit and socio-economically underprivileged Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from both Hindu and Muslim religious communities are either not invited at all or selectively summoned to passively partake in a decision. The second step, where leaders (usually from Caste Hindus) give a call for the construction of ahar or pyne, is called as goam. It is a communal effort that obligates every household in the village to contribute their labour for the construction of the ahar-pyne. Despite a mandatory provision, men from Caste Hindu communities (Rajput and Brahmin in Patluka village) and partly dominant caste (Yadav in case of Patluka) skipped their labour contribution, while Caste Hindu women never joined the effort. People from underprivileged caste groups like Dalit and non-dominant OBCs (Hindu & Muslim) were forced to provide labour from each household. In case there was no man available, women contributed their labour. Some of the ancient caste-based practices were also utilised, for instance drummers from Chamar caste were compelled to visit villages with drums to announce the village resolution and ask people to join the goam. Similarly in the process of maintaining ahar-pyne, like desilting and amendment of the structure, Dalits and underprivileged OBCs from the village are the one who have the responsibility to complete the job. Traditionally, Beldar caste is the one that was socially assigned to perform desilting and maintenance of ahar-pyne.  

A photograph of ahar structure

Despite contribution of labour from Dalits and underprivileged OBCs, the fourth phase highlights the unfair treatment of these groups. The poor farmers from the mentioned communities, have shared their experiences of facing injustice in water distribution. Most of the Dalit are landless. Despite this, they invested their labour and in return received no benefit. Even those who have land receive water once the big farmers belonging to Caste Hindus and dominant caste groups are done with their irrigation. 

The other crucial point is that they never get an equal share of water. A respondent says “Those who use water for one bigha of land often do so without any regulation. Meanwhile, those with smaller or more distant plots of land often do not receive any water.” The social hierarchy and power dynamics play a crucial role in sharing of water. The Caste Hindus and dominant caste group share a disproportionate benefit of water. However, during construction and maintenance, the same beneficiaries have either no contribution or less in labour intensive work. The same respondent further explained the reason and said “There is no committee in place to regulate water distribution, so those with power and privilege tend to exploit the system and access more water.” To explain the power dynamic the other respondent used a proverb saying “jiski lathi uski bhains” (whoever has the stick owns the buffalo). Those who are socio-economically privileged and have power, it is evident that those groups control the ahar-pyne. This is despite the concern raised by many farmers to have equal share of water rights. The community has not yet given serious thought to this concern. 

In contrast to the demand of social justice, modern innovations have been made in the ahar-pyne like incorporation of sluices, culvert and waste weirs to control the water flow. Such a modern innovation in traditional irrigation shows that a sociotechnical system, which was in fact a  natural feature of ahar-pyne, has been reduced to a technical system. The social aspects of ahar-pyne adhered to caste hierarchy and power structure. People are reluctant to change the orthodox and exploitative practices. This suggests traditionalism, in its true old form, is an oppressive system. That is where the voices of marginalised farmers, particularly from Dalit and non-dominant OBCs are in-fact signifying a critical thought about the traditional system. Critical traditionalism refers to the nuanced engagement of critical theory with tradition. It shows the continuation of historical tradition is crucial but not without changes in orthodox institutions inherent in it.        

Critical Theory emerged in Germany and later evolved in the United States of America as an emancipatory school of thought in the 1930s when the authoritative regime of Nazi Germany and oppressive capitalist social structure prevailed in Europe. The theory recognises the power structure, oppression and exploitation of the marginalised. It raises consciousness “to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them” as Horkheimer says. It evolved to a more nuanced meaning in the 1960s and 80s with contribution from second generation thinkers like Habermas. The contemporary scholarship has included post-colonial thought, queer and gender aspects, critical race theory and other branches of theories. Caste in India, while having not gained space in earlier critical theory debate, has now been made a core aspect of critical theory by subaltern scholars and discourses. In a similar line, Gopal Guru argued that the Dalit discourse transcends the West oriented “derivative” modernity in India and nationalistic “desi” framework. He proposes a locally grounded “beyond” perspective that offers critical engagement with power structures.

Gail Omvedt, in the context of traditional water management in Maharashtra, raised a concern that though the phad system is portrayed as ecologically sustainable and fair water access to all, it overlooks OBCs and Dalits. They were denied access to water rights in the traditional system. In contrast to these villages, in Pune the Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management, and Sukhomajri village in Haryana have provided water rights to everyone in the village. The provision is available to everyone including those who have no land. The landless villagers are allowed to sell their share of water and take part in the overall development of the village. Similarly, poor farmers from Patluka village demanded equal rights in traditional water management and this would not be possible without dealing with the orthodox thoughts in tradition.            

In conclusion, caste has been used as a means to construct, maintain and operationalize traditional water management, while sharing of water equally among the community has not yet been actualised. Underprivileged castes are frequently denied an equitable share of water while being morally obligated, through communitarian norms, to contribute labour in goam—the collective practice of constructing and maintaining the ahar-pyne infrastructure. Through field interviews and informal discussion conducted during my PhD thesis, it was revealed that the traditional system which is often celebrated as a model of community-based resource management functions on oppressive practices. Without addressing the structural issues, traditionalism – which is being argued in academic and public discourses as an alternative to modernism – does not stand up as a just and fair alternative. The analysis of the ahar-pyne system grounded in people's lived experiences warrants a re-conceptualisation of tradition. We need an intersection of critical theory with tradition, which recognises both its ecological significance and its embedded oppressive institution and leads to a more evolved concept that is critical traditionalism.  

References:

Guru, G. (2011). The Idea of India: 'Derivative, Desi and Beyond.' Economic and Political Weekly, 46 (37).

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory: Selected Essays. Continuum.

Jeelani, A. H. (2023). Waterborne diseases and water resource management in eco-hydro sensitive districts in Bihar. [PhD Theses, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India]. Sodhganga Archive http://hdl.handle.net/10603/576221.

Kerr, J. (2012). Sharing the benefits of watershed management in Sukhomajri, India. In Bishop, A. and Pagiola, S. (Ed.), Selling Forest Environmental Services (pp. 63-75). Routledge.

Kulkarni, S. (2005). 6 Looking Back, Thinking Forward: The Khudawadi Experience with Access to Irrigation for Women. Flowing upstream: empowering women through water management initiatives in India, 179. 

Omvedt, G. (1997, June 24). Why Dalits dislike environmentalists. The Hindu. https://wgbis.ces.iisc.ac.in/envis/doc97html/envenv627.html

Pant, N., & Verma, R. K. (2010). Tanks in Eastern India: A Study in Exploration. International Water Management Institute, IWMI Tata Water Policy Research Program, Hyderabad, Centre for Development Studies.

Singh, P. K., Dey, P., Jain, S. K., & Mujumdar, P. P. (2020). Hydrology and water resources management in ancient India. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 24(10), 4691-4707.