Ideational realm post-nineties in India Tenets of neoliberalism Tenets of neoliberalism

80

4.3 Ideational realm post-nineties in India

81

changed political context, the next section evaluates the trajectory and implications of the discussion on farmer participation in irrigation management at the national level post 1990s.

Continued emphasis on farmer participation in irrigation management in the 1990s

Series of workshops streamlined the path for what ought to be the desired path for irrigation management and focus of discussion at the national level shifted from ‘participation’ to

‘management’ of infrastructure and several states in India took up PIM as an approach to manage water resources (Maloney & Raju, 1994; Nikku, 2006). To elaborate, two workshops that were organized by Administrative Staff College of Hyderabad are of particular interest here and need mention. The first one was organized in July 1987 with the title ‘people’s participation in Irrigation management’. The second workshop was organized in January 1992, with the title ‘farmers management in Indian irrigation systems’. Conceptual advances were made in second workshop in January 1992 when the word participation was dropped and replaced by the word management (Maloney & Raju, 1994, p. 29). During these conference’s one of the rationale for promoting PIM was to reduce pressure on government finances, improve performance of irrigated agriculture, and to ensure sustainability of irrigation systems (GoI, 1995). At the same time period, Vaidyanathan Committee report on ‘pricing of irrigation water’ in 1992 also recommended involvement of user groups in management of irrigation systems. In fact the Vaidyanathan Committee report solicited by the Planning Commission recommended involvement of farmers not only at the minor level, but also envisaged gradual increase in role of farmers at the distributaries and main systems level (GoI, 1992b, p. xi). The committee recognized and recommended for decentralization at not only the micro level but also at the intermediate level. However, it needs to be borne in mind here, that the Indian state is extremely bureaucratic which at times results in incoherent policies (Chibber, 2006, p.

7); so even though issues may be recognized to be of importance, action on the same is not taken immediately.

Subsequent to these discussions at national the level, the ministry made changes in the mandate of CADP in 1996 in light of the emerging trends on problems that the irrigation sector faced. Thus, components like farmers participation, reclamation of waterlogged areas were included in CADP to make this programme more beneficial for farmers. The idea that was being pushed at the policy level (through committee recommendations and conferences) was to look at farmers (water users) as managers and an equal stakeholder in water management. It was recognized that there were differences between farmers (water users) and irrigation agency officials/engineers, and it was paramount to bridge this gap to bring in a paradigm shift and involve farmers in irrigation

82

management (L. K. Joshi, 1997, p. 18). It is noteworthy that this line of thinking also resonates with community based natural resource management approach that gained salience in 1980s-1990s and elaborated the limits of state led top-down ideology of development. This thinking was discussed in chapter two as crafting of institutions as propounded by Ostrom (1992) who based on successful evidence of small scale resource management argued for crafting rules for institution building and resource management at the micro level. Communitarianism by instituting participation of local communities for resource management has been propounded by majority of international organizations/institutions through development cooperation funding. For instance, Ford foundation, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), World Bank, Swedish international Development Assistance (SIDA), Canadian International Development Assistance (CIDA) (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999, p. 631) have promoted this idea for resource management through their funding. Although, it is noteworthy that idea of communitarianism is premised on greater democratization and voice for the publics. Similarly, decentralization and devolution also envisage greater involvement of communities however, the idea is essentially premised on tenets of neoliberalism (McCarthy, 2005). Thus, making evident that idea of involving local community in natural resource management has had competing claims, which are driven and structured by different ideologies. Having discussed the origins of communitarian ideology briefly the following paragraphs discuss how the narrative on farmer participation in irrigation management was influenced at the national level by these competing claims for involvement of farmers in resource management.

The thrust for irrigation reforms came from international organizations like the World Bank by promoting discussion on the subject of farmer participation in irrigation management through their publications, reports, and the conferences that sponsored/organized. In 1991, the World Bank came out with irrigation sector review of India and concluded that the sector is suffering from poor planning and financial management on the one hand and inadequate water management and maintenance on the other; the two in tandem have led to mediocre performance (L. K. Joshi, 1997, p.

12). The sector review argued for restricting the role of public sector to fostering private sector investment and greater role for farmers in operation and management of farm level courses, channels and drains (micro networks), and also in actual construction (World Bank, 1991a, p. ii). The irrigation sector review argued for modelling success by ‘designing institutions’ - by reducing the size of irrigation personnel and greater reliance on consultants (for instance, foreign as well as local retired engineers); increased role for farmers and women; staff training, improving institutional performance by creating greater accountability and transparency, etc. (World Bank, 1991a, pp. 56-57, 60). Moreover, the Bank reflecting/learning from the implementation of its previous programme (NWMP) in the next generation of irrigation projects (water resources consolidation project or sector

83

reforms) incorporated a major focus on improving productivity of irrigation systems through modernization linked with farmer involvement (World Bank, 1997).

During the same period, in 1995 and 1997 two conferences were held on PIM in Delhi. The first one was held from 19-23 June 1995. This conference focused on discussing overview of PIM, its legal aspects, national issues on PIM, and most importantly preparation of states for preparing action plan on PIM. The second workshop cemented the ‘idea of PIM as a new paradigm in irrigation management’ by making it title of the conference (GoI, 1995, 1997). The World Bank was one of the sponsor’s for these two national workshops, and hence played an active role in pushing for designing institutions from the top as it had propounded this idea earlier through its irrigation sector review report. Post these two workshops, the Ministry of Water Resources played a promotional role in implementation of PIM in the country by providing incentives to state governments in form of technical advice, financial assistance, and providing training/ study tour etc. (GoI, 2002a, pp. 35-36).

Given the discussion that was happening in policy circle at the national level in the 1990s, it is not surprising that review of CADP implementation for eighth (1992-97), and ninth (1998-2002) Five Year Plan period evinced the need to restructure the programme. The CADP review cited restructuring as an essential need given numerous constraints, for instance, deficiencies in the irrigation system about the outlet affecting the water supply for farmers; low priority given by state governments to extension and training activities; non-revision of costs norms for activities. Taking note of this review, Government of India gave huge importance to PIM from ninth Five Year Plan (1998-2002) onwards, and constituted a working group on PIM which recommended that farmers involvement in management of canal irrigation works should be a priority (Raju & Gulati, 2008, p. 93). Subsequently, in February 1998, IndiaNPIM (hereafter INPIM) was established by the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India as a non-profit organization and registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. INPIM was involved in organizing several international and national events on PIM. INPIM organized two all India conventions of presidents of water user associations in 2002 and 2007, and have been involved in training and capacity building, advocacy work (INPIM, 1998). However, INPIM did not have any permanent source of funding, and this has restricted their work in recent years (Interview, Secretary, INPIM December 27, 2011).

On 5 February 2003 the twelfth national conference of water resources and irrigation ministers was held at New Delhi, in which the prime minister released the vision document for integrated water resources development and management for the country. Additionally, one of the key recommendations of the conference was that CADP ought to be restructured and the programme need to be pursued with vigour across the country (GoI, 2003, p. 13).^lxiii Interestingly, the need for

84

restructuring CADP had first been made during the eight plan report, and a decade later, it was still being pushed for as an idea that will facilitate better management of irrigation resources. Despite calls from various quarters (international organizations, experts, academics, policy makers, Planning Commission) there was hesitation from the bureaucracy to implement change. Its only when in August 2003, when PIM was identified as a ‘thrust area’ for the country and its progress was started to be monitored by the Prime Minister’s office (GoI, 2012d, pp. 1-2, 9) that the bureaucracy responded to the CADP review and the national conference recommendations. Subsequently, during the tenth plan (2002-07) period the programme was restructured to Command Area Development and Water Management Programme (CADWM) in order to make it more comprehensive and beneficial to farmers (GoI, 1996, 2009a, 2012a). The tenth plan also envisaged ‘decentralizing water distribution, collection of water charges and maintenance of local irrigation channels to local water distribution co-operatives’ (GoI, 2002c, p. 129). Command area development was thus restructured in April 2004 based on the report of the working group of the Planning Commission on CADP (GoI, 2003, p. 31). After restructuring, funding for CADP from the central government to the state governments has had a renewed thrust on PIM. It was mandated that the funding under CADP would be allocated only when:

“i) Central assistance to states has been linked to enactment of PIM legislation. Till this is done, alternative arrangements have to be in place for formation and empowerment of water users associations (WUAs); ii) WUAs have to be in position before project components are taken up so that beneficiaries are involved in the implementing of programme activities, since inception; iii) A minimum 10 per cent beneficiary contribution has been made mandatory in the construction of field channels, reclamation of waterlogged areas and renovation of minor irrigation tanks to ensure increased beneficiary participation and thereby improve the quality of works” (GoI, 2006a, p. 19).

Additionally, under CADP provision was made for one time functional grant to farmer organizations at the rate of INR 500 per hectare, the burden of which is shared by the central government and the state governments equally, and INR 50 per hectare is the contribution made by farmer organizations.

The restructuring was undertaken with the aim that the subsequent operation and maintenance responsibility, and collection of water rates would be the responsibility of farmers (GoI, 2002a, pp.

34-35). Consequently, the central government developed an indicative roadmap for initiating PIM for states that have not yet enacted the PIM Act (GoI, 2012d, pp. 9-10).^lxiv The above description is also an instance of salience of structural elements in terms of tied funding that the central government used by linking central assistance for water resource management with enactment of PIM legislation by state governments in order to shape the ideational landscape at the state level.

85

Furthermore, the Ministry of Water Resources acknowledges that as a result of various conferences/seminars organized by them (and restructuring of CADP), there has been an increased consciousness and greater incentive for state governments to actively involve farmers in management of irrigation systems (GoI, 2011a, p. 22). Overall, the impetus for reforms for state government has been external it has come from either the central government or through donor funding (Raju & Gulati, 2008, p. 93); though the state of Madhya Pradesh is an exception in this regard, as the impetus for reform was more due to internal factors, and this is discussed at length in chapter five.

Apart from the CADP, emphasis on PIM at the national level is evident from policy directives of 2000 onwards. To elaborate, the second national water policy was introduced in 2002, despite not much work done to bring the first policy of 1987 into effect (Iyer, 2003, pp. 53-55). The National Water Policy 2002 focused on greater involvement of stakeholders or beneficiaries, and private sector in management of water resources from the project planning stage. Furthermore, the policy envisaged transfer of management of water resources to user groups eventually.^lxv There is clear influence of tenets of neoliberalism in the national policy, given the greater focus on private sector for management of water resources from the planning stage. However, like the 1987 policy, the 2002 policy has not resulted in any change on the ground. The National Water Policy 2012 reiterates the concern at the national level of widening gap between the irrigation potential created and utilized (GoI, 2012c, p. 2).^lxvi Specifically on WUAs, the draft policy enunciates more statutory power to them to collect and retain a portion of water charges, manage the volumetric quantum of water allotted to them, and maintain the distribution system under its jurisdiction.^lxvii The policy re-emphasizes like the previous national policy of 2002 the importance of involving the local planning bodies like water user associations in planning of the projects (ibid., pp. 6-7). The 2012 policy also enunciates:

“Water resources projects and services should be managed with community participation. Wherever the state governments or local governing bodies so decide, the private sector can be encouraged to become a service provider in public private partnership model to meet agreed terms of service delivery, including penalties for failure” (GoI, 2012c, p. 10).

Overall, the three national water policies are indicative of a gradual shift in thinking, or at least the language that the state would like to use, as words like participation, management, greater role for gram panchayats (which essentially means decentralization) find space in the policy documents. The latest policy is also subtly encouraging the role of private sector, by adopting public-private partnership model gradually in few urban areas with respect to water distribution. Though the Ministry of Water Resources has been formulating new policies there has not been any successful

86

implementation, as was explicated in the previous section with the change in ideational belief of the state there has been lesser role control of the state compared to the Nehruvian era.

Furthermore, the bipolar structure of governance has also led to dilemmas for state to undertake developmental task without establishing appropriate relations of authority across policy agencies (Chibber, 2002, p. 953), which was also explicated in the previous section as conundrum in management of water resources. In this research I argue that the impediment to bridging the bipolar structure is actors’ ideational realm, which I discuss in depth through the empirical case of Madhya Pradesh following chapters. Moreover, it becomes evident that there are no appropriate mechanisms to take forward the policy decisions taken at the centre to various state governments.

To sum this section, a prominent idea that pushed for decentralization in rural development in the 1990s was based on the belief that decentralization will solve existing maladies of irrigation management. To wit, if communities are given clear rights to access and use of natural resources, they would be better managers of these resources than state bureaucracies, as their livelihoods are dependent on it (Mosse, 1999, p. 304). The Ministry of Water Resource’s website is rather lucid and points out that the central government has been trying to pursue state governments since 1985 to promote participatory irrigation management, for which the central government also came out with a roadmap outlining the action points and milestones that ought to be considered (GoI, 2012d, p.

10). However, it is only in the 1990s that the notion of self-governance and with that the notion of participatory management of irrigation system gained momentum in India. Thus, with shift in focus there has been also shift in the idea of what is appropriate for irrigation management, i.e. a gradual shift from the idea of management of irrigation system which was undertake through CADP, NWMP, etc. to the idea of participation at the policy level. Furthermore, By Ministry’s own admission, these conferences have facilitated changing the narrative and outlook towards farmers’ participation in irrigation management at the national level. Moreover, the idea of farmer participation in irrigation management has received extensive support through policy legislations, and the narrative that was created at the national level by donors, government functionaries, and NGOs and research organizations.