Need to revive river rejuvenation 

An article by ‘Waterman of India’ Rajendra Singh

In Bihar, the problem is not lack of water but excessive water. Every year, devastating floods spread havoc in the State. The ancient indigenous knowledge had developed a method which puts to use the excess water, called ‘Ahar-Pyne’, which is in fact a ‘flood water harvesting system‘. The excess water from the Ganges was driven by channels called ‘pyne’ deep inside the land, up to 30 to 40 km. to fill tanks called ‘ahar’. This ensured a long-lasting retention of water throughout the year, and a better distribution of silt

In Indian tradition, knowledge was transmitted through practical work under the direction of respected elders and gurus. Thus the people engaged in practical work were really the pupils of the indigenous knowledge system.

The poor pupils, the prosperous pupils, and the State joined hands for the conservation of water and the preservation of knowledge. The prosperous pupils provided help to the poorest who were working for water conservation, and the State provided only the land. It was a pupil-driven decentralised water management, which is another name for indigenous water management.

This functional management of water had wisdom of every drop of rain. These drops of rain were the life of the Indian pupil. This indigenous knowledge system respected the agro-ecological zone diversity, and had developed a specific science, a relevant engineering and a technology appropriate to each and every part of the country.

The lowest rainfall in India is in the arid districts of Jaisalmer and Badmer. There the people have a Tanka in every house for drinking and domestic use. They also have a pond (Talab) for common use and drinking water for animals. They also use Kuinya, for harvesting drinking water present in the form of sand moisture in the sub-surface, where the aquifer is brackish and separated from the layers above it by a layer of gypsum.

The ancient indigenous engineering was not much documented in the modern sense, because the technical aspects were transmitted through practice and words of mouth, and gradually perfected by tradition. But in some cases the legal and administration aspects were written, for example in Kautilya’s Arthasastra (Treatise of Administration written by Kautilya, advisor and minister of the first Indian emperor Chandragupta Maurya, 321-297 BC).

One chapter of the Arthasastra gives a testimony of very comprehensive and detailed administrative rules, covering the whole range of legal and economic implications of a decentralised community- driven water management, facilitated by the State. The ruler had to provide land, roads, trees and equipment to those who participated to the construction of water works. Those who did not participate were made to pay a contribution, but were not entitled to benefit directly from the structure.

The methods of ownership and maintenance of new, ancient and repaired structures were described in details. All users of irrigation facilities had to pay a tax, even when they had their own waterworks. But exemption of tax was granted for a number of years to those who build new structures. However, these administrative rules were only safeguards and practical provisions for the economic consequences of the implementation of waterworks. The real motivation came from another side.

The participation in construction of community ponds, tanks and waterworks was a matter of pride and of religious devotion. In Bihar, the problem is not lack of water but excessive water. Every year, devastating floods spread havoc in the State. The ancient indigenous knowledge had developed a method which puts to use the excess water, called ‘Ahar-Pyne’, which is in fact a ‘flood water harvesting system‘.

The excess water from the Ganges was driven by channels called ‘pyne’ deep inside the land, up to 30 to 40 km. to fill tanks called ‘ahar’. This ensured a long-lasting retention of water throughout the year, and a better distribution of silt. The local Indigenous Knowledge in India has always developed practical ways for Society to live in a sustainable manner with Nature, in full respect with the diversity of agro-ecological climatic zones, even those that seems the most difficult and inhospitable.

The loss of tradition, and its consequences
The conservation of forest, water bodies and other natural resources in an extremely healthy state over the past thousands of years even under difficult climate and geographic conditions and with a growing population and demand, was essentially due to an extremely eco-friendly cultural traditions (dharma/parampara) of ‘live within what Nature sustainability release, don’t be greedy’.

The traditional knowledge and practices of every area imbibed through an understanding of ecological balances and technologies to harness natural resources in a sustainable and eco-friendly manner, through these had never been documented. For centuries, the line of thinking that soil, water, forest, wildlife and the whole environment are the common asset of the local people bestowed by the almighty to be managed as a ‘trust’, was the commonly accepted worldview.

This age-old balance has been disturbed at an accelerating pace in the last 200 years, and every revolution and counter-revolution has indeed increased the depth of the fall: the industrial revolution, the education revolution, the agricultural ‘green’ revolution, the ‘development’ revolution, and now the ‘privatization’ and ‘information technology’ revolutions.

The European colonisers brought the idea that Nature was to be ‘exploited,’ and undermined the feeling of responsibility for Nature. The modern State (colonial or independent) dispossessed the rural communities of their rights and responsibilities, and rivers, either legally (tree felling licenses, water rights) or illegally (corruption).

The education revolution convinced the people that traditions and oral knowledge were the causes of poverty, the ‘development’ and socialist ‘welfare’ post independence State promoted the illusion that everything has to be taken care of only by an all-powerful government, and now that the reality of its incompetence has become clear, the capitalistic empires. Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and high-technologies (IT, GMO etc.) are called to the rescues, most likely to result in further and deeper degradation.

To make things even more difficult, the language itself has become corrupted. For example, the official jargon for the undisciplined water extraction technology is ‘groundwater development’. And, when educated engineers seem to rediscover the ancient tradition of responsible management of common resources, unfortunately they create abstractions and awkward technologies, like ‘artificial groundwater recharge,’ ignoring the proved local traditions like Johads.

Even when they begin to understand a traditional technology like the Tanka, they feel compelled to ‘improve’ it, like using cement instead of lime, or Rainforest or Cement Concrete (RCC) slabs instead of brick domes, thus degrading the tradition and its relevance, to the level of their limited understanding. The natural methods are not only forgotten, their vestiges are day after day more deeply dug into the ground.

To sum-up, the difficulties that we are facing can be categorised as such: Paradigm change (Exploitation and disintegration has taken the place of ‘feeling together’ and integration); State takeover of community functions (The State has dispossessed the Communities of their traditional rights and responsibilities); Syndrome of dependence (Wherever the State succeeded even partially or for a short period in implementing modern amenities like water supply, sewage or power, the communities have lost their initiative; Neglect of traditional systems (Due to implementation or expectation of modern facilities, the traditional systems have been neglected); Disintegration of community institutions (The modern education and hollow dreams of modernity have disintegrated the community Institutions); and Inability to cope with increasing human and livestock population.

The general degradation of natural and social conditions has led to the inability of communities to face the problems created by a growing demand. The rural communities have lost their food and livelihood security, their living conditions have become more difficult, resulting in forced migration to big cities in search of survival in indecent and exploitative conditions.

Re-awakening indigenous knowledge
There are various types of methods of Water Harvesting in India. The main common features of all systems are: Use of local resources and technology; Community-based operation; Community driven de-centralized water management; Sustainable conservation and use of natural resources; Revival of systems using indigenous knowledge; Interventions understanding traditional systems and use of indigenous knowledge; Mobilisation of community around land, water and forest; Participation in rejuvenating old structures and construction of new structures; and Creation of new village-level and river basin institutions.

(The writer is a well-known water conservationist from Alwar district in Rajasthan. He won several awards like Stockholm Water Prize, which is known as "the Nobel Prize for Water," in 2015. Previously, he also won the Ramon Magsaysay Award for community leadership in 2001 for his pioneering work in community-based efforts in water harvesting and water management. He runs an NGO called 'Tarun Bharat Sangh.')

By Rajendra Singh