What modern planners missed: Enduring legacy of traditional irrigation

By Bharat Dogra 

Keeping in view the wider issue of most rainfall being concentrated in a short rainy season and uneven distribution of rain, as well as more specific issues of various regions, a range of traditional water conservation and irrigation works have evolved over the centuries. These aimed at saving water for the dry season, diverting water towards farms, or achieving other related objectives. In many areas, as long as these traditional water works were maintained, villagers remained self-reliant in meeting their water needs even in very low rainfall situations.

In some low rainfall parts of Rajasthan, there has been provision for collecting as much rainwater as possible in specially constructed wells called 'kundis'. The catchments of these kundis were specially prepared and protected to conserve the maximum water. Elsewhere in the same regions, even the seepage from tanks was skilfully obtained by simple structures called 'kuis'. In the state of Meghalaya, easily available local bamboos were used to carry water to fields located at a considerable distance from the water source, minimising wastage of water. In several places, a well-integrated system of tanks linked to each other existed. However, these time-honoured methods of conservation have been neglected in more recent times in several places, while a lot of attention has been given to extracting as much water as possible through hand pumps and tube wells. This led to a deeply worrying fall in the water table in several places.

Sir Arthur Cotton, the founder of modern irrigation programmes during British rule, acknowledged the strength of traditional irrigation works. He wrote in 1874, "There are multitudes of old native works in various parts of India... These are noble works, and show both boldness and engineering talent. They have stood for hundreds of years."

However, Sir Cotton also acknowledged the widespread contempt that existed among Indians for the new rulers at that time, because of their inability even to maintain existing systems properly, let alone extend or strengthen them further. He wrote, "When I first arrived in India, the contempt with which the natives justly spoke of us on account of this neglect of material improvement was very striking. They used to say we were a kind of civilised savages, wonderfully expert about fighting, but so inferior to their great men, that we would not even keep in repair the works they had constructed, much less imitate them in extending the systems."

Numerous other scholars have drawn attention to the earlier strength and recent decay of these irrigation systems.

In a paper titled "Traditional Irrigation System of a Tribal Area: Case Study of the Ex-State of Sonepur", P.K. Chhotroy presents evidence to show that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were significant irrigation works, comprising katas or tanks, bandhas or percolation tanks, diversion embankments, and wells. In the early twentieth century, more than 3,000 tanks were counted in this small region astride the lower Tel river. However, in later years the traditional irrigation system suffered a significant decline. Prolonged strife and unrest, British revenue policies, and the collapse of tribal leadership roles were among the important factors held responsible for this.

A report on the tanks of the Bundelkhand region, and more specifically on the extensive and admirably well-built tank system of Hamirpur district (U.P.) by Sudhir Jain, says that the British were also impressed by this traditional system, especially the Bijanagar tank of Mahoba. Although they made some efforts to collect information about this tank system, it did not receive proper care during the years of British rule. On the other hand, some large new irrigation schemes designed by them in the area proved destructive. In the post-independence period this neglect continued, and many tanks have been silting up rapidly. Some tank sites are even being used as dumping grounds.

The famous five tanks of Mahoba, interconnected to each other, continued to provide a living testimony of the ingenuity of their designers even in their state of neglect. However, efforts to build a new and much bigger tank proved counter-productive, indicating that the old masters had a better appreciation of site selection, design, and other factors that could bring more benefits at less cost.

In his paper "Water Management in Areas Irrigated by Tanks", S.T. Somashekhara has described how local participation and decision-making — concerning, for example, the distribution of water and the timing of irrigation — played a crucial role in the efficiency of traditional tank irrigation in Karnataka.6

In his paper on the Phad system of irrigation in Maharashtra, R.K. Patil shows that while small-scale irrigation systems in the Tapi tributaries in Khandesh may have been built by medieval rulers or local leaders, management of the water by the beneficiaries themselves was an essential component of irrigation. So too was the local maintenance of irrigation channels.

Anantapur district of Andhra Pradesh had a reliable supply of tank irrigation based on 2,500 tanks in 934 villages. But in more recent years, a research paper points out (quoted in the Deccan Herald), "The series of droughts on the one hand and the government policy of giving preference to anything large appear to have led to the breakdown of the tank system through sustained neglect."

In a recent report on Kalahandi district (Orissa) (Economic and Political Weekly, November 2, 1988), Hutasan Purohit, R.S. Rao, and P.K. Tripathi write, "As late as 1959, the composition of irrigation in the district showed that about 77 per cent of the area irrigated was by tanks. By 1976–77, the area irrigated by tanks had declined to 28 per cent, while canals contributed as much as 53 per cent. The shift in the structure of irrigation is due not to a net addition by canals but to the decline in the area irrigated by tanks. Tanks irrigated about 40,000 hectares in 1960–61, whereas by 1976–77 this area had declined to 7,481 hectares. The total area under irrigation also declined from 52,000 ha to about 26,312 ha." Similarly, the area under wells declined from 3,642 ha to 1,681 ha during the same period.

The authors of this report conclude: "Thus two processes — one, the modern irrigation system replacing traditional forms instead of supplementing them, and two, the derelict condition of the traditional forms of irrigation — have combined to knock out whatever internal insurance measures society had developed over centuries of struggle with nature."

Among the various scholars who have carefully studied traditional irrigation systems, one of the most valuable contributions has been made by Nirmal Sengupta. His widely discussed paper "Irrigation: Traditional vs. Modern" is a fine example of careful and clear-headed study of several types of traditional irrigation, related also to present-day debates and development tasks.

Describing anicuts he writes: "In fact, anicuts are the names popularly reserved for the controlling of major rivers, though the same technique is used for diverting small rivers and even field channels. Anicuts differ from inundation canals in that the latter do not have any controlling work in the bed of the rivers. The anicuts consist of weirs but no storage facility in the river beds, a feature common to many modern multi-purpose projects."

This device is of particular use in foothills. In foothill regions, where the land is relatively flat but still retains sufficient slope for water to flow, a weir erected on the bed of a river or channel does not merely obstruct the flow but also helps its level to rise gradually. The level may be raised sufficiently to divert water to distributaries or irrigable fields, which are often above the normal water levels in the channels. The technique thus ingeniously uses gravity flow for the lifting of water, saving much effort. The weirs are temporary and are removed after their purpose is met, thus allowing normal flow to resume.

More or less similar methods are followed in different parts of the country under different names. "The abundance of such diversion techniques was found on the eastern coast of the peninsula, in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, followed by south Gangetic Bihar, where the Chotanagpur plateau gradually descends to the level of the Ganga. The channels are known as kalvai in the south and as pynes in Bihar. On the west coast they are known as bandharas. Along the Himalayas the technique is used, with channel construction as a more complex operation, from Himachal Pradesh through Nepal to the Cachar hills."

Describing another related traditional irrigation work, Sengupta continues: "But why should one be on the look-out for a natural stream? In such sloping country, the run-off water itself, before it meets a drainage stream, can be appropriated. The topographical conditions permit the throwing up of an embankment along the slope of the country to retain run-off water after precipitation. These are the so-called 'tanks', though the name is misleading. Essentially these are three-sided reservoirs with one side — the high side — open for run-off water to enter. Unlike regular tanks, these are not dug out but consist of elevated embankments over the surface, and thus facilitate gravity flow instead of requiring lifting for irrigation."

These irrigation works may appear crude, but careful study reveals that these 'eris' "often formed such interconnected chains that every bit of run-off water flowing through vast landscapes was appropriated for irrigation, and every bit of surplus water from one level reached another requiring water for irrigation."

The eris are generally small, each irrigating 20 to 50 ha, although very large eris are also known to exist. Tamil Nadu alone has 38,000 eris; Andhra Pradesh and Bihar are other leading states in eri irrigation. The total number of eris in the country may be about two lakh (200,000).

The lessons of Nirmal Sengupta's study, and of similar work by other scholars, are clear: in trying to provide irrigation to water-starved crops, modern irrigation planners cannot afford to neglect the accumulated wisdom of centuries reflected in traditional irrigation and water conservation works. It is by learning from them, building further on them, and extending their work that planners can best hope to succeed — not by negating or ignoring them.

To return to Sir Arthur Cotton: several years after he succeeded in implementing a plan based on indigenous technology for the renovation of the Grand Anicut on the river Cauvery, he wrote: "...it was from them (the native Indians) we learnt how to secure a foundation in loose sand of unmeasured depth. In fact, what we learnt from them made the difference between financial success and failure, for the Madras river irrigation works executed by our engineers have been from the first the greatest financial successes of any engineering works in the world, solely because we learnt from them... With this lesson about foundations we built bridges, weirs, aqueducts, and every kind of hydraulic work... we are thus deeply indebted to the native engineers."

Do we need to say more on the need to learn from traditional irrigation?

---

The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India's Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Man over Machine, When the Two Streams Met, and A Day in 2071