SEEDS OF CHANGE IN THE SEAMS OF CONFLICT

SEEDS OF CHANGE IN THE SEAMS OF CONFLICT

The simmering rifts between rural and urban demands are exploding with increasing frequency. The latest incident: a riot in Tonk on the outskirts of Jaipur. Thousands of farmers blocked the highway, the situation got violent, and five farmers were shot dead. The issue: water. The problem: a project bringing water from Bilaspur dam to meet Jaipur’s growing demands. The incident in Tonk is being repeated across the country: the UP government recently shut off Yamuna’s taps to South Delhi; Bangalore has seen protests about Cauvery water being carted hundreds of miles, depriving rural folk of their natural rights.

There are no simple answers, no cute quick-fixes that can resolve the situation. These situations demonstrate the need for the robust practice of democracy, in arriving at imperfect answers in near-impossible situations. The riots in Tonk may disperse, the families could get compensation, but the central issue remains: creating equitable outcomes for such intractable situations. The instinct to essay a knee-jerk solution needs to be curbed: every option has trade-offs. Two examples illustrate the point:

One solution is to retain the status quo: leave the dam water to the farmers, and tell the city dwellers that poor planning has caused the city to grow beyond its means. While this seems reasonable, it comes with collateral damage: Jaipur and cities like it generate most of the Rajasthan’s revenues of Rs 8,000 crores, coming from excise duties, commercial taxes etc. If these cities are not supported, they will collapse. Industry will leave, economic activity will migrate away from Rajasthan, and the state will have no funds to undertake critical rural development work: in healthcare, education, infrastructure.

The other extreme choice suggests that urban economics should be the driving consideration. This also seems skewed: for one, it seems blatantly unfair and inequitable. Secondly, it does not distribute growth in a manner that is sustainable, spreading wealth-creation out of the city.

Of critical importance are two questions: one, what is the right policy framework for complex public good issues like water; and two, even if such a policy framework did exist, how should decisions be made for issues that have conflicting interests – in this situation, rural and urban.

As the layers of complexity are peeled back, they unleash a deep pessimism, and a defeating belief that these are best left alone, to the democratic process that we currently have: elected representatives, who juggle competing claims in whatever manner they do. This throw-up-the-hands reaction is not surprising. But maybe there is cause to pause, maybe there are better answers, lessons that can be taken from elsewhere.

Switzerland offers one case study in dealing with water. The Swiss practice direct democracy, where citizens engage in most issues by voting in referendums. Most decisions are in the domain of the regional governments called cantons; the confederation or central government plays more of a coordinating role. Despite this fragmented governance structure, complex issues like water have found resolution through democratic processes. Water policies give a significant regulatory role to the confederation, but retain large operational responsibility to local governments through what can be called “implementational federalism”.

Swiss water policy has evolved over several decades, and covers ten uses of water, including drinking water, energy, waste waters, economic production (e.g. fishing), recreation and strategic reserve. The instruments used were a mixture of property rights (defining who owned water sources; for example, does a property owner also own the right to groundwater beneath her land), and public policies (defining how water could be used, irrespective of ownership; for example, despite ownership of the land, public policy restricts anyone from using the groundwater, so borewell digging could be illegal).

While regulations came from the central government, it was up to the cantons to implement these policies, and arrive at the necessary negotiated settlements, especially where complex jurisdictional issues saw one water body being owned by multiple regional governments.

In keeping with Swiss political processes, citizens played a large role in crafting these policies. Economic interests also played a big role, with hydro-electric companies needing a conducive regulatory climate. Almost all significant changes in Swiss water policy emerged out of specific pressures and crisis situations: either water-based natural catastrophes, or environmental degradation, or rival use-interests like farmers versus hydroelectric producers.

The Swiss record is enviable: over the past four decades, there has been substantial improvement in all categories of water bodies in the country: surface water, groundwater, springs and wetlands.

A classic Indian response to this example is, “Our conditions are different. We are a country of a billion people, with a feudal past and massive poverty problems.” While there is truth in these arguments, they are wearing thin. In the absence of an energetic, positive alternative, such casual remarks are just tired excuses of a jaded government and a disengaged citizenry.

This leaves the second issue: even if we did have a good water policy, how will competing rural-urban interests debate these in hundreds of local situations across the country.

It is time we did away with the increasingly artificial distinction between rural and urban. We are at the inflexion point for local government in our country, as also of urbanisation. If we are to truly meet the livelihood test for millions of Indians, urban centres will have to co-exist with rural hinterlands; the efficiencies of the urban area in terms of markets, access to credit etc. will have to be leveraged to improve rural livelihoods.

We already have regional planning structures like the District Planning Committees (DPC) and Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPC) that are constitutionally mandated. These can be immediately operationalised, and act as bridging mechanisms across rural and urban India, unleash joint rural-urban growth and address complex negotiations on issues like water.

Gandhi said after Independence, “The hardest is yet to come. (The country) has won political freedom, but it has yet to win economic freedom, social and moral freedom. These freedoms are harder than the political, if only because they are constructive, less exciting and not spectacular.”

The Tonk experience, however unfortunate, is a seam of conflict, in which can be sown the seeds of change. The opportunities to continue our democratic evolution, to move beyond infancy to adolescence are staring us in the face.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author is founder of Janaagraha. He can be reached at ramesh@janaagraha.org