85 Explanations in Resource Inequality: Exploring Scheduled Caste Position in Water Access...

7/28/2019 85 Explanations in Resource Inequality: Exploring Scheduled Caste Position in Water Access Structure

1/23

http://irm.sagepub.com

Rural ManagementInternational Journal of

DOI: 10.1177/097300520500200105

2006; 2; 85International Journal of Rural ManagementRakesh Tiwary

Caste Position in Water Access StructureExplanations in Resource Inequality: Exploring Scheduled

http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/1/85The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:International Journal of Rural ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.aspPermissions:

http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/2/1/85Citations

by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.asphttp://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.asphttp://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/2/1/85http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/2/1/85http://www.sagepub.in/about/permissions.asphttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/23

Scheduled Caste Position in Water Access Structure 85

EXPLANATIONSIN RESOURCE INEQUALITY:

EXPLORING SCHEDULED CASTE POSITION

IN WATER ACCESS STRUCTURE

Rakesh Tiwary

Caste represents a unique form of inequality. Scholars successfully explained

ritual inequality involved in caste, however, views on resource inequality

were few and limited in their approach. While resource inequality was ofpartial interest to sociologists, economists views were inadequate to explain

its persistence and rigidity in the Indian social context. One reason may be

the prolonged emphasis on landownership and control structures. Inadequate

efforts have been made by different streams to identify and explain inequalities

in access to other critical resources. The article aims to find inadequacies in

traditional explanations and argue for alternative explanations of resource

inequities. In this effort, the author proposes to systematically explore water

resource access structure, to particularly highlight the cumulative inequal-ity that scheduled caste groups face in rural India. The article is based on

secondary data on select indicators regarding water access for agriculture

and domestic use of water. The arguments can be carried forward by identi-

fying other direct and indirect indicators as well as gathering evidence from

primary studies over interfaces of caste groups as social categories and

water as a natural resource, with an aim to study inequalities in access and

their implications.

INTRODUCTION

Social inequality is a pan human phenomenon, but it differs in the degrees ofrigidity and legitimacy. One of the salient features of inequality is revealed inthe caste based rural agrarian society of India which accords differential privilegesand deprivation to social groups. Caste has been the basic institution aroundwhich the agrarian social framework has been erected. It differs significantly

from both tribal and industrial societies. Tribal societies are on the whole undif-ferentiated and inequalities in industrial societies do not have the same rigidity

International Journal of Rural Management, 2(1), 2006

Sage Publications l New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London

DOI: 10.1177/097300520500200105

http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/


3/23

86 RAKESH TIWARY

or persistence as visible in caste based agrarian societies (Bteille 1974). Thus,caste as a system of inequality is more a situation of hierarchy rather than an in-stitution of stratification. The uniqueness of the caste system lies not only in itsconvergence of status, economic and political elements, creating a strong ideo-logical basis for the recognition of social inequality as natural order, but also inits persistence.

Domains of inequality

To elaborate upon hierarchy, we discuss two major domains of caste around

which inequality has been weaved: values and material or economic resources.The domain of values deals with the application of morals/values (often reli-gious)/ standards in placing particular castes as high or low. It creates a hierarchicalsystem of the pan Indian varna order with regional jati variants under it. Variousexplanations have been offered for this domain of inequality(a) origin of divine,creation of varna theory mentioned in ancient Indological texts like Rig Veda;(b) Bougle and later Dumont argued for the theory of binary opposition betweenpure and impure, where the sacred needs to be separated from profane occu-pations; (c) Marriott stressed the interactional theory of caste ranking based onritualized interactions (giving and receiving food and services). These theoriesbased on ritual aspects of caste emphasize attributes of purity and pollution.They broadly identify two categories at extremes and accord privileges and dis-abilities, respectively. Dalits or untouchables or scheduled castes are put at thebottombearing disabilities like low status, contact pollution, untouchability,etc. Though the emphasis is on the religious domain, they draw up a picture

where material and political factors are encompassed by moral values. However,this is far from the truth.Explaining the religious domain has been relatively easy. However, capturing

the resource dimension of caste has been more atomistic, may be because of themultidisciplinary nature (social, economic and political) of the enquiry itself.It has been argued that sociologists and anthropologists of South Asia have beenpreoccupied with the subject of ritual hierarchy in Hindu social system. Thoughthey propose ritual and economic linkages between caste hierarchy, they have

not gone beyond characterization. For F.G. Bailey Caste is a system of rankswhich is related to differential control of resources (1957: 26667). Each personin the caste system performs economic, political and ritual roles and except forcertain anomalies, there is a high degree of coincidence between ritual rank andeconomic rank. The anomalies are mainly apparent at the uppermost and lower-most ranks of the ritual system. In the case of the caste groups between thesetwo extremes the ritual rank tends to follow their economic rank in the villagecommunity(ibid.). Beidelman argued that the Jajaman-kamin relationship, far

from being a cultural rule of mutual interdependence, represents an unequaland exploitative system. He asserted that the superiority of Jajamans is derivedby RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/http://irm.sagepub.com/


4/23


from control over land and numerical superiority (1959). M.N. Srinivas stipu-

lated ownership of land as one of criteria to identify the dominant caste at theregional level. Kathleen Gough puts up a strong argument to move beyond the

religious domain to explain the caste hierarchy (1959). Explaining the caste sys-

tem in central Kerala, she comments that whether in the past or the present,ritual ranking of castes cannot be understood without reference to the economic

and political systems in which they were/are embedded. In the erstwhile king-

doms of central Kerala, lower castes were bound to economically and politicallysuperior castes in relationships of servitude. So there was enough awareness

about role of material resources in shaping inequality in Indias rural agrarian

social structure.

STUDYING RESOURCE INEQUALITY: PURPOSE

We can afford to make a slight detour to discuss the rationale of understandingeconomic or resource inequalitythere can be two reasons for studying eco-

nomic inequality. First, there are ethical and philosophical reasons to disapprove

of inequality. Universalists will argue that all human beings should be treatedequally when it comes to access to lifetime economic resources, since economic

disparity is the ultimate disparity which enables certain individuals/social groups

to make certain choices while denying the same very choices to others (to empha-size Amartya Sens proposition). Economic inequality explains major compon-

ents of disparity among groups, if not all. However, this philosophical approach

holds the threat of geting dissolved into endless semantic debates.Even if we ignore the intrinsic aspect of inequality, we need to worry about it

because of the dysfunctions (to borrow Mertons term) it inflicts upon social

group(s) and society as a whole. First, inequality in resources and income some-how reduces the possibility of overall growth. There is an inbuilt tendency of

inefficiency in inequality, as it does not permit people at the lower end of the re-

source access to fully exploit their capabilities. Second, inequality has a tendencyof replicating itself as have-nots are excluded from some high income generat-

ing exercises. Third, inequality does not have the inherent tendency to rectify

itself in the long run. Thus, in history dependent situations, inequality will per-petuate itself unless government policy (redistribution, positive discrimination,

etc.,) intervenes on a sustained basis. For exactly these reasons, the situations in

India, wherein historic economic inequality still draws reinforcements fromritual, status and power inequality, aggregate productivity theory (rise in aggregate

productivity will automatically take care of inequality) should not be overempha-

sized. There is a need for sustained efforts in the direction of productivityequity trade off, basically to reconcile the claims of advocates of efficiency on

the grounds of economic growth and those of needs on grounds of distributionalequity. by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


5/23

88 RAKESH TIWARY

ATTEMPTSTO EXPLAIN ECONOMIC INEQUALITY

Thinkers and scholars from various streams attempted to explain the economic

bases of the caste system. Marx emphasized the differential ownership of property

as the fundamental basis of inequality in human society (Bteille 1972: 4). Marx

focused more on the distributive aspect of the institution of caste as he traced the

primacy of caste based inequality in the unequal distribution of and access to

land resources. The resource access structure of the society is considered to be

the foundation for all the institutions. In the Marxian framework, the economic

structure of the society is the real basis upon which the legal, political, social and

religious superstructure is erected. Major proportion of the population in ruralIndia is dependent on land for its livelihood and where land is scarce, the Marxian

logic of inequality argues that landowners are privileged not only because land

is a valued commodity but also because it can be used as an instrument for con-

trolling the landless. Two scholars, D.N. Dhanagre and A.R. Desai, explained

rural inequality in India in the Marxian tradition and linked regional variations

in the agrarian structure with land control structures (Sharma 1995: 103).

Early government reports that were available in the post-Independence period

provided raw material to sociologists to attempt explanations of inequality.1 Sulekh

Chandra Gupta (1978) writes... The first and foremost basis of differentiation

among the peasants is ownership of land. Last few years various reports have

thrown huge amount of data in pattern of land ownership.2 All these surveys

reveal a high degree of differentiation among households in respect of landowner-

ship in India (quoted in Desai 1978: 239).

Andr Bteille, the most renowned sociologist in India to study inequality,

also emphasized landownership as the basis of inequality. According to himthere are large disparities of wealth and property in Indian society, and these are

of great importance in the agrarian system where landownership and landless

are the two poles between which inequalities are structured (1974). Daniel

Thorner3 tried to explain economic inequality in terms of the capacities of land-

owning groups to hire labour.

A limited number of other economic studies have attempted a theoretical

construct of the Indian caste system in the mainstream neoclassical theoretical

framework, like Akerlof (1976), Romer (1984) and Scoville (1991). All of themassume that under the prevailing form of caste system occupations (or economic

activities) are hereditary, compulsory and endogenous. These distinguishing

features of the caste system cause immobility of labour across caste. In this situation,

since the marginal product of a worker depends on the assigned job, the result

is an income distribution skewed along the caste line (Thorat and Deshpande

2001). Critics argue that beyond this recognition, their approaches do not enter

into a deeper analysis of the institutions governing resource access and thusby RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


6/23


they ignore the analysis of the caste system in terms of equity. Economists inter-mittently recognized the need to analyse the problem of resource inequalitywhich is a salient feature of the caste system. They tried to explain the phenom-

enon in terms of intergroup differences in assets. However, much remains to

be explained about the rigidity of the caste system, economic logic of its per-

sistence and the vicious trap.

May be they left this job for the sociologists. But they remained largely pre-

occupied with the issues of ritual hierarchy, status and power relations, modern-

ization, village studies, continuity and change, etc. Itseems that the sociologists

overemphasized the ritual aspects and largely ignored the economic logic while

the economists underestimated the unique, history dependent social contextof India.

The limited view on land

The discussion so far gives an impression that the analyses of resource inequalities

in the caste system, first, have not been adequate and comprehensive and, second,

most of them have relied upon describing the relations centering around onenatural resource, that is, land. Even while describing land relations the studies

have centred on the ownership and control of land. Though the most commonly

used way of stratifying the agrarian population is that followed in the surveys of

forming classes around size of landholdings, the method usually ends up being

a dry statistical exercise and thus fails in quenching our thirst for internal details

of social categories and terms of interaction among social groups. Different data

sources reveal that landownership (area) and land operated (area) under small

size category, shows no significant change over the decades. The shares of theareas owned by various segments of holdings in rural India (national average)

show that the share of the bottom 40 per cent was 1.15 per cent in 197172

(NSS Report 197172) and 0.87 per cent in 199192 (ibid. 199192). The data

for the bottom 50 per cent stands at 3.86 and 3.33 per cent, respectively. The

share of area operated in the bottom 40 per cent category of landholdings has

been 6 per cent (197172) and 4 per cent (199192). If we consider data for the

bottom 50 per cent, then the data for the two time periods is about 11 per centand 9 per cent respectively. It is unlikely that such landownership data will explain

the persistence of social inequality.

Landownership, as the dominant mode of explanation for rural inequality

was carried too far, so much so, that other modes of resource access/inaccess

were ignored. Large amount of data that is available now needs to be looked

into to identify, analyse and explain other economic or material resource inequal-

ities. They can help in enhancing our knowledge in understanding persistent

rural inequality and undertaking policy initiatives.by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


7/23

90 RAKESH TIWARY

One major lacunae of the landownership based explanations is that the policy

recommendations stop at putting onus on widespread landlessness and need

for redistribution. After the initial enthusiasm that was shown in few quarters

of the country, the land redistribution hullabaloo has subsided in the last few

decades. It has lost political mileage in the post-reform period. Another side

effect was that under the larger issues of landlessness and land redistribution,

the needs of very small land owners got largely ignored.

There is need to extend the arguments of explaining the inequalities in rural

India from ownership of land to land use. There is a significant amount of rural

population at the bottom which owns land. We need to know and analyse what

these social categories do with the land they own, as it has wide implications forincome, livelihood and most importantly, capacities to break the poverty trap of

the bulk that constitute the bottom. Exactly here lies the importance of analysing

inequality in terms of access to another critical resource, that is, water.

Water: Critical yet neglected resource of analysing inequality

No discussion of economic inequality in contemporary rural India can ignorethe issue of access to timely, assured and adequate water. Water is a critical re-

source for adoption of modern agriculturewhich in turn determines the pat-

tern of disparities in rural India. Access to water decides (a) Who will grow

multiple crops? (b) Who will be compelled for current or seasonal fallowing?

(c) Who will grow cash crops or who will grow less water demanding, coarse,

subsistence crops? (d) Who will grow market oriented crops? (e) Who will lease

in land and who will lease out?4

Availability of water is critical in climatic conditions such as in India, whererainfall is concentrated in a few months of the summer season, that too with

uncertainties like late arrival, early withdrawal, spells of drought, etc. In such

situations, the availability of water may have the effect of a catalyst (or its absence

the effect of a retardant), in harnessing the benefits of the landowned. The major

constraint which handicaps the small farmer in adopting modern agriculture is

the lack of water, for, the optimum utilization of new inputs depends on the

availability of adequate irrigation. Thus, even though SCs own little amount ofland, it becomes ineffective in the absence of timely and adequate amount of

water.

In this article, the author makes an attempt to estimate and capture caste

based inequity in access to water. As discussed earlier, most of the resource

access studies till now have calculated distribution of land among social groups.

Access to water has largely been ignored. Different variables or indicators have

been selected depending upon their critical nature as well as availability of data.

Besides discussing water access in terms of irrigation, the argument has alsoby RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


8/23


been extended to inequality in access to water for domestic use which has a dir-

ect bearing upon health and sanitation status. Various indicators will be examined

with a view to understanding caste as economic inequality. These indices ofinequality converge and reinforce one another creating a situation of cumulative

or overriding inequality. This proposition can further be extended by identifying

and explaining other large numbers of relevant direct or indirect indicators.

Till very recently, the Indian Census Reports (Population and Agricultural

Census) and National Sample Survey Reports gave information regarding three

social groups, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and All. The group

All included SCs, STs and General. Data per se did not reveal the inequality

fully, since the data on disadvantaged groups used to pull down the All value.To study inequality, we need to create a category of Non SCs-STs (Non SCs-

STs=All-[SCs+STs]). Basically, studies of inequality in rural agrarian frame-

works will be interested in differences in SCs and non SCs-STs structure.

Water access structure: Interface with land

Agriculture is the prime resource of livelihood and income in rural India. Anystudy that intends to reveal the pattern of access of an agrarian society and its

different groups to water resources, cannot miss looking into the land distribution

system. We will have a broad overview of the landownership pattern but with a

different aim: to get an idea of criticality of dependence on better land utilization

and access to water and to understand the pattern of irrigation demands in two

different social groups, etc. Scheduled caste population constitutes about

17.91 per cent (1992), its share in land is 10.34 per cent (1992); the non SCs-STs

form 72.08 per cent of the total rural population, but their share in land is77.94 per cent (Table 1). In states like Punjab and Haryana (with high percentage

of land under irrigation), the figure reaches beyond 94 per cent.

Table 1

Percentage Share of Scheduled Castes and Non SCs-STs

in Total Rural Population and Land (1992)

Category Population [%] Land[%]Scheduled Castes 17.91 10.34

Non SCs-STs 72.08 77.94

In states like West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan, the SCs share

in rural land is higher than the national average(10.34 per cent). On the other

hand, in states like Bihar, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka and Kerala,

SCs relative share in rural land is considerably low (Table 2). Similarly, if we

see the incidence of landlessness among SC households, the national average isby RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


9/23

92 RAKESH TIWARY

little more than 13 per cent (Table 3). The incidence of landlessness among SCshas increased. This can be explained by the growth of population as well as landalienation (with underlying causes). The growth of the incidence of landlessnessamong Non SCs-STs is lower than that for SCs-STs. States like Bihar, Gujarat,Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh have much higher incidence of landlessnessthan the national average, while in states like Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, UttarPradesh and Rajasthan, the incidence of landlessness is lower than the nationalaverage. In states like Gujarat, Bihar, Karnataka, Rajasthan and West Bengal, theincidence of landlessness among SC households has declined from the 1981figures.

Table 2

Percentage Share of SCs in Total Rural Percentage Share of Non SC-ST Tribes in

Population and Land: Major States (1992) Total Rural Population and Land (1992)

States Population Land States Population Land

Low Concentration Low ConcentrationAssam 07.21 07.38 Madhya Pradesh 56.28 63.28

Gujarat 07.03 05.30 Orissa 58.77 53.78

Jammu & Kashmir 16.49Maharashtra 11.51 08.45

Medium Medium

Concentration ConcentrationAndhra Pradesh 18.04 08.62 Andhra Pradesh 73.97 81.48

Bihar 15.25 05.01 Assam 78.78 76.89

Haryana 21.80 05.93 Bihar 76.54 77.61Karnataka 18.24 09.82 Gujarat 72.00 84.50

Kerala 11.01 02.94 Haryana 78.20 94.07Madhya Pradesh 14.87 12.94 Himachal Pradesh 69.14 83.17Orissa 16.78 10.10 Karnataka 76.58 82.33

Rajasthan 18.03 12.14 Maharashtra 75.21 80.18

Tamil Nadu 23.02 12.98 Punjab 67.85 94.94Uttar Pradesh 23.18 11.81 Rajasthan 66.54 78.50

Tamil Nadu 75.60 85.87

Uttar Pradesh 76.58 86.83

West Bengal 65.12 67.48High Concentration High Concentration

Himachal Pradesh 26.30 14.76 Jammu & Kashmir 82.50Punjab 32.15 05.06 Kerala 87.54 96.12

West Bengal 27.56 23.84

All India 17.91 10.34 All India 72.08 77.94

Source: NSS Report Nos 330 and 339.

The distribution of holdings and area owned between two groups in ruralIndia reveals that majorityof the SC landholdings fall into the marginal categoryby RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


10/23


(less than 1 ha) (Table 4). This category constitutes 72.92 per cent of the SClandownership. Of the total area owned by SCs, about 30 per cent falls underthis category. Only about 2 per cent SC households fall under the large category.Among the non SCs-STs, 43 per cent of these with total area owned fall in the

large category. For SCs, this category only accounts for 27 per cent. The landdistribution pattern among SCs reveals that there is a significant amount ofownership of land in rural India, though there is vast inequality as compared tothe non SCs-STs. The SCs dependence on land, however small in holding andarea, is absolute. Second, there is a different nature of challenge of water accessamong SCs as they largely fall into marginal, sub-marginal and medium categor-ies and superimposed widespread poverty. Assured, timely and adequate amountof irrigation is critical for them to fully utilize the land resource and raise income.

Let us now discuss the state of inequality in access to irrigation in the two socialgroups.

Table 3

Incidence of Landlessness among Households, 19821992: Major States

Scheduled Caste Non SCs-STsStates 1982 1991 1982 1991

Low Concentration Low Concentration

Assam 05.02 05.52 Madhya Pradesh 13.59 12.57

Gujarat 23.86 18.09 Orissa 06.80 16.41Jammu & Kashmir 00.67 04.00

Maharashtra 26.39 24.31

Medium Concentration Medium Concentration

Andhra Pradesh 13.58 12.49 Andhra Pradesh 11.00 13.08Bihar 35.58 19.73 Assam 07.34 15.40

Haryana 10.07 08.95 Bihar 02.46 06.05Karnataka 14.52 10.69 Gujarat 13.13 17.52

Kerala 16.56 14.53 Haryana 04.95 01.81

Madhya Pradesh 18.11 20.53 Himachal Pradesh 08.73 11.65

Orissa 07.22 11.19 Karnataka 12.72 10.45

Rajasthan 12.91 07.76 Maharashtra 19.45 06.16

Tamil Nadu 14.50 19.21 Punjab 06.61 05.07

Uttar Pradesh 07.18 06.15 Rajasthan 06.59 06.20

Tamil Nadu 20.82 17.61

Uttar Pradesh 04.01 04.41


High Concentration High Concentration

Himachal Pradesh 06.06 07.09 Jammu & Kashmir 07.31 02.36Punjab 06.01 06.70 Kerala 12.04 07.67


All India 12.62 13.34 All India 10.18




11/23

94 RAKESH TIWARY

Table 4

Distribution of Ownership Holdings and Area Owned among

Scheduled Castes and Non Scheduled Castes and Tribes

Social Marginal Small Medium Large

Groups Year Landless (Up to 1 Ha) (01.012.00 Ha) (02.014.00 Ha) (Above 04.00 Ha)

Hs Ar. Hs Ar. Hs Ar. Hs Ar.

SCs 1982 12.62 72.40 26.69 08.40 22.71 04.52 24.17 02.06 26.83

1992 13.34 72.92 30.16 07.85 22.18 03.85 20.42 02.04 27.24

NonSCs-

STs 1982 10.18 52.20 10.88 16.09 15.62 12.05 22.59 09.48 50.911992 10.54 57.63 14.91 14.51 17.50 10.66 24.66 06.66 42.93


Note: HsHoldings, Ar.Area.

Dalits poor access to irrigation water

The Agriculture Census 1991 gives huge amount of information on the statusof irrigation availability in rural India. It divides land holdings and area according

to the availability of irrigation across size categories and size classes of social

groups SCs, STs and All, into: (a) wholly irrigated area; (b) wholly unirrigated

area; (c) land receiving partial irrigation and (d ) land receiving any kind of irri-

gation. To compare social inequality we create the category of non SCs-STs.

Here, we discuss the category wholly irrigated land which reveals widespread

inequality in access to water for agricultural purposes. If we compare wholly

irrigated land area with respect to total land area between the two social groups,we find that non SC-ST percentage is higher in all size classes (Figure 1). The

national average (for all size classes) is about 20 per cent for non SC-ST and

about 6 per cent for SCs. The stark inequality appears in size classes of 0.0200.5,

00.51.0, 01.002.0, 02.003.0 and 03.004.0 ha categories. In the 00.200.5 ha

category the difference is very large, that is, 34 per cent for non SCs-STs and

about 5 per cent for SCs. We need to recall that large number of SC households

(72 per cent of the holdings and about 26 per cent area) fall in the category oflandownership of size below 1 ha. If, on an average, only about 5 to 7 per cent of

land falls in the wholly irrigated land under below 1 ha category, where majority

of SC landowners are concentrated, it shows their vast dependence on rainfall

but also reveals disabilities with regard to modern agriculture. In modern agricul-

ture, assured, adequate and timely irrigation is the most critical input on which

other inputs of the package depend. It also gives an idea of what kind of crops

the vast number of SC households would think about raising.



12/23


Figure 1

Wholly Irrigated Land to Total Land Area (1991)

Similar analysis can be carried out across size categories between two socialgroups. Here also, the national average (across all size categories) is higher fornon SCs-STs (about 20 per cent) as compared to SCs (16 per cent). Major in-equality lies in the semi-medium, medium and large categories. Among largelandholders (4 ha and above) the gap widens to 10 per cent (non SCs-STs) and

3 per cent (SCs). This gives an impression that large landownership does notautomatically assure access to irrigation. It can be related to access to irrigationassets, land quality, location of land etc. If we choose to analyse another category,that is, percentage of land totally unirrigated between the two social groups, itfurther reveals a high level of inequality. About 50 per cent of land under all sizecategories of SCs falls under the totally unirrigated category. At the nationalaverage level, this figure is about 36 per cent for non SCs-STs. Larger inequalityis found in size categories of 00.0200.5 ha, 00.501.0 ha and 03.004.0 ha. Similaranalysis for different size categories between the two groups gives similar results(Figure 2). The national average for SCs is about 49 per cent while for nonSCs-STs, it is about 40 per cent.

There is a very stark difference in medium, semi-medium and large farmersof the two social groups. If any social group has about 50 per cent of its land areain the wholly unirrigated category, it will seriously affect its land use options.If land under cultivable wasteland is excluded, the percentage under whollyunirrigated area out of the net sown area will increase further. This suggests



13/23

96 RAKESH TIWARY

that there is a high dependence on rainfed farming. This dependence compelsSC households to grow less water demanding crops even in the kharif season.There are also high chances of rabi fallowing or raising low water demandingcrops. In this manner, vast number of SC households with land fail to generatehigh incomes from the land they own. This has serious implications for improve-ment in livelihoods and breaking the poverty trap.

Access to irrigation wells

Access to a self-owned well is a major indicator of assured availability of irrigation.The farmer can make a choice of the crops to be raised and it can enhance landuse options as well as income levels. Minor Irrigation Report (1994) providesstatewise data for wells owned by different social groups. The data on wellsentails dug wells, shallow tubewells and deep tubewells. Different states havedifferent relative importance of the well types discussed, based on their agro-climatic conditions. If we consider data about the number of holdings ownedby the different social groups in these states, as provided by the AgricultureCensus 1991, we get a picture of the relative access of percentage of holdingsamong SCs and non SCs-STs to wells of their own. (The calculated data is pre-sented here in different tables). The national average for percentage of holdingswith access to dug wells is almost same for SCs and non SCs-STs3 and 5 percent, respectively (Figure 3). We need to remember that about 52 per cent of

holdings of non SCs-STs falls under the marginal category while the figure forSCs is 72 per cent. Inequality emerges in sub-humid, arid and semi-arid states.

Figure 2

Wholly Irrigated Land to Total Land Area (1991)



14/23


There is not much difference in the relative access to dug wells in Bihar, WestBengal, Uttar Pradesh and Orissa. However, inequality can easily be identifiedin states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The inequalitypeaks in Himachal Pradesh.

Figure 3

Holdings with Access to Own Dug Wells (1994)

Further, if we analyse the pattern of distribution of shallow wells, an almostsimilar picture emerges (Figure 4). The degree of access of holdings of SCs and

Figure 4Holding with Access to Own Shallow Tubewells (1994)



15/23

98 RAKESH TIWARY

non SCs-STs to own deep tubewells shows an even higher disparity among themajor states of India (Table 5). The deep tubewells access structure is surely areflection of the needs of middle and large landholders as well as investmentcapacities of cultivators of these two social groups.

Table 5Holding with Access to Own Deep Tubewells

No. of holdings Own Deep Tubewell per 1,000(per 1,000) Own Deep Tubewell Holdings (%)

Non SCs- Non SCs- Non SCs-States STs SCs STs SCs STs SCs

Andhra Pradesh 7,468 1,183 1,908 266 25.54901 22.48521Assam 2,076 121 0 0 0 0Bihar 10,316 1,625 99 34 00.959674 02.092308Haryana 1,484 46 3,953 66 266.3747 143.4783Himachal Pradesh 612 187 15 0 02.45098 0Kerala 4,830 522 20 4 00.414079 00.766284Madhya Pradesh 5,268 1,056 4,367 395 82.89674 37.40530Orissa 2,358 541 12 0 00.508906 0

Punjab 1,063 54 1,217 25 114.4873 46.29630Rajasthan 3,573 750 6,305 545 176.4624 72.66667Uttar Pradesh 16,731 3,289 296 18 01.769171 00.547279West Bengal 4,452 1,461 1 0 00.022462 0

India 78,830 13,422 18,412 1,358 23.35659 10.11772

If we calculate the distribution of all kinds of wells, the inequality situationclearly comes to the fore. About 11 per cent of the holdings have access to ownwells among non SCs-STs, while the figure for the SC group is about 6 per centat the national level (Figure 5).

Figure 5Holdings with Access to Own Wells (All Types) (1994)



16/23


For all states, the relative access shows an unequal picture, though with varyingintensity. Relatively wet states like Bihar, Orissa, Assam, Kerala and West Bengalindicate less inequality. States like Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, MadhyaPradesh and Rajasthan, show higher levels of inequality. This data shows thatinequality in access to assured irrigation is higher in water scarce states. In thesestates poor access to irrigation seriously affects the land use and crop choices ofSC landowners and there is a higher dependence on rented irrigation (if theycan afford it).

Current fallowing among SCs

One method of identifying access of SCs to irrigation water can be analyzingpatterns of land utilization across social groups. Majority of landowners amongthe Dalits fall into the category of marginal farmers and thus, there is a very highdependence over the land possessed. One can assume that only under severecompulsions would dalit households practice fallowing. There are two categoriesof fallowing based on the length of the period for which the land remains unused:(a) Current fallowland unused for less than a year and (b) Long-term fallow

Land unused for one to five years. Figure 6 shows that in almost all major states,the percentage of land under current fallow of total cultivated area is higher forSCs than for non SCs-STs. The difference is higher not only in semi-arid stateslike Gujarat but also in wet humid regions like West Bengal. The reasons forkeeping land under long term fallow may be one or more of the following: de-graded land, unremunerative nature of farming, very poor soil fertility, constrainssuch as salinity, alkalinity, water logging, etc. However, the major reasons forkeeping land under current fallow can belong spell of poor rainfall and inade-

quate supply of irrigation. The inadequate supply of irrigation can be due to

Figure 6Current Fallowing (CF) among SCs & Non SCs-STs (1991)



17/23

100 RAKESH TIWARY

poverty (lack of ownership of own source or lack of capacity to buy water, theparcel may not connected to water source, etc.). More detailed analysis can becarried out if we can reveal patterns of seasonal fallowing, particularly in theRabi season.

Intensity of cropping

Comparing the intensity of cropping between SCs and non SCs-STs can be an-other method of analysing the pattern of irrigation access. In monsoonal countrieslike India, double or multiple cropping will primarily depend upon access toirrigation (own or rented). The Agriculture Census Data (1991) reveals thatthere is considerable difference in the cropping intensity between the two groups,particularly in small, medium and large categories of farmers (Figure 7). Thecropping intensity among marginal farmers is almost the same for the twocategories. To go to the next level of analysis, we also need to look at the typesof crops grown by the two groups, that is, which group grows water demandingcrops or less water demanding crops. It can tell us whether SCs raise coarsegrain crops in the Rabi or summer season (if any) and languish in the trap of

subsistence agriculture.

Figure 7Intensity of Cropping among SCs & Non SCs-STs (1991)

On the basis of the basic proposition of the article, various other indicators canbe identified and analysed to assess differential access of water to SC and NonSCs-STs groups in rural India. These indicators could bearea on which cash

crops are grown, differential allocation of land for crops like sugarcane to SCsand non SCs-STs in a given state, etc. by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


18/23


Access to water for domestic use

The phenomenon of resource inequality can also be examined in case of access

to water for domestic purposes. Although domestic water use doesnt have adirect economic role, it is critical for heath and well being. In rural India, accessto water for such uses also shows differential patterns across different social groupswhere poverty, physical separation of hamlets, poor access to government welfareprogramme, discrimination in access to public water bodies and structures playa critical role. At many places socio-cultural rules play much greater roles thanthe natural availability of water.

Access to water is one of the most basic and essential services but still out ofreach of many in India. Households access to water from taps, hand pumps,tubewells and wells continue to depend on natural resources like lakes, tanks,etc. Many continue to walk kilometres, wait for municipal tankers, and eventhose who have access to water within their homes, receive inadequate, infre-quent and poor quality water.

It is commonly accepted that 40 litres per capita per day (lpcd)roughlyequivalent to three buckets of wateris the very minimum that is required to

maintain basic minimum requirements for consumption and hygiene. However,households typically require much more water and it is generally accepted that150 lpcd would also cover other household requirements such as flushing, etc.Currently, the Government of India guidelines aim to provide at least a minimumof 40 lpcd to all rural households and from 70150 lpcd to urban householdsand that water should be available when needed. However, most households donot receive water 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Instead, water supply for afew hours is very common across rural India.

Inadequate quantity, lack of timeliness and poor quality affect the poor more.The economically better off have the option of storing water if the water isinfrequent or untimely; if it is inadequate it can be managed/bought, if it is ofpoor quality it can be filtered and so on. The poor, however, cannot afford suchadditional costs. Generally, the poor and socially underprivileged, that is, theSCs tend to have lower access to quality water supply.

Rural drinking water: Exclusiveness of source

Rural households access water from multiple water sources. These includesources such as taps, hand pumps, tubewells and natural resources such as lakes,tanks, etc. Unlike urban areas, where coverage of piped water is widespread,about one-fourth of all rural households have access to piped or tapped watersupply. Hand pumps are the most prevalent source of water in the rural areas.

Caste identities strongly affect daily interactions in India, as they have signifi-cant impact on how the socially marginalized access basic services. Access to

these services tends to be lower for the poor and the underprivileged sectionssuch as Dalits. by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


19/23

102 RAKESH TIWARY

NSSO 58th Round provides data on the relative access to water for differentsocial groups. It reveals that 75 per cent of SC households in rural areas dependon community sources, while this figure is about 54 per cent for non SCs-STs(Table 6). Such households rarely have the facility of exclusive use and have todepend upon community sources, that too multiple in nature. If there is depend-ence on common sources, not only is there a greater likelihood of poor servicewith respect to the adequacy and quality of water received, they are also subjectedto greater vulnerabilities towards discrimination (such as, separate queues, extrawaiting time, others filling the buckets, etc.) and different forms of practice ofuntouchability.

Table 6

Access to Water: Percentage Distribution of Rural Households

Caste Common use of

Exclusive Use Community Use Household Buildings Total

Dalits (SCs) 18 75 7 100

OBCs 27 64 10 100

Others (Forward Class) 36 54 10 100Missing 26 57 17 100

All 25 66 9 100

Source: NSSO, 58th Round, 2002.

Distance to water source

Distance from the water source is one of the most important characteristics of

access to water as well as quality of water supply. Water needs to be available asand when required and those who have to travel few 100 m are likely to get lessof it; which in turn influences consumption patterns and hygiene practices.Various arms of the government consider that at least 40 lpcd of water shouldbe available at less than 1.6 km of every household. This roughly translates intomaximum 30 minutes of walking time, carrying three buckets one way (Bajpai2005). Of course, most households have to travel much less. But even householdsthat have access to water sources within a distance of 500 m have to spend timecollecting it, which many can ill afford. Collecting water (a household activityusually conducted by women in India) requires them to walk to the source,wait in the queue, collect the water and then carry it back. If the household hasfive members, this would require them to transport 200 l or 200 kg of waterevery day. This affects their other household activities. Moreover, the poorestwomen are also likely to be working as wage labourers. (Among Dalits, womensparticipation is higher than other categories [see Table 7].) The type of drinking

water source is treated within the premise if the source used is located withinthe house or its premises.by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


20/23


Only 13 per cent of SC households have sources of drinking water within

their dwelling units. For non SCs-STs, this figure is double than that for SCs.

This shows stark inequalities in access to drinking water. About 61 per cent of

SC households need to travel up to 200 m to collect drinking water. Around

9 per cent of rural SC households need to travel up to 200500 m, while only

1 per cent of non SC-ST households have to face this hardship to collect drinking

water. Generally, the poorer and the less privileged sections like Dalits are less

likely to have sole access and hence are more likely to travel greater distances for

their basic drinking water needs. When public services are unable to cover the

whole population, the economically and socially better off have a larger probabil-

ity of managing through their economic capacities and networks. They are morelikely to circumvent the lack of public services, but not underprivileged groups

like SCs.

Table 7

Percentage Distribution of Rural Households by Social Groupsand Distance from Source of Drinking Water

Distance in Metres

Greater

Within Outside Dwelling Less than than

Social Group Dwelling but (within premises) 200 200500 5001000 1000 Total

STs 06.1 14.5 56.5 19.1 03.2 00.5 100SCs 13.9 15.1 60.4 08.7 01.5 00.3 100

OBC 18.5 20.6 50.4 07.6 01.6 00.8 100

Others

(ForwardCastes) 25.3 22.5 41.7 01.6 01.7 00.8 100

All 18.0 19.2 50.9 09.0 01.8 00.7 100

Source: NSSO 58th Round.

Data shows that SC groups face deprivation over water access for domestic

consumption also. The direct or indirect indicators of water access for different

social groups that have been discussed so far are based on secondary data sources

collected from different government reports. There are large number of primarystudies on regional levels which explore differential water access structures.

Information can also be gathered from these sources to explain water access

structure, inequalities involved and their implications.5

CONCLUSION

The foregoing discussion shows that SC groups are still experiencing a situationwhere there is cumulative inequality in access to water resources in rural India.by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 17, 2009http://irm.sagepub.comDownloaded from


21/23

104 RAKESH TIWARY

There remain vast gaps in water access structures (for agriculture as well domes-tic use of water) among social groups, particularly at the two ends of the socialhierarchy.

The major aim is to highlight limitations of traditional methods based onlandownership and control structures to explain resource inequalities in thecaste based society of rural India. We need to identify new approaches of analysiswhich can reveal multiple layers and forms of inequality embedded in rural life.Studying water access structure of rural society can provide us an alternativeframework to discuss inequality. In certain areas, it can reinforce land resourceinequality while in other contexts, it can be the most important basis of inequality.

This approach can be carried forward by identifying more indicators which dir-ectly or indirectly reveal inequality in water access structures. Besides, GeneralCensus, Agriculture Census, Irrigation Reports, Employment Reports, NSSOReports, Primary Surveys and Regional Qualitative Studies can be used to sup-port the argument. The water access structure analysis can be very useful forpolicy recommendations regarding land use diversification, improving land useefficiency at the lower ends of rural society, better targeting of water relatedwelfare programmes, identifying cultural barriers to development, increased

participation in access to common property resources, etc. These measures canimprove livelihood choices and well being, particularly of underprivileged groupslike SCs, which in turn can enable them in overcoming the trap of persistentinequality.

Rakesh Tiwary is at the International Water Management Institute, Anand, Gujarat,India.

Notes

1. Inequality of cultivators can be seen in terms of differences in landownership ofvarious sizes and categories across different regions. Agriculture Labour Enquiry

Report on Rural Occupation and Manpower Structure. 1954: 2433.

2. He was referring to (a) NSS Reports 1954, 1955, (b) Agriculture Labour Inquiry Vol.

1954, (c) First Report of Landholdings, Rural Sector, Vol. 1954.

3. Daniel Thorner, in his seminal writing The Agrarian Prospect in India (1977),

identified three categories: Malik, Majdur and Kisan, according to their ability to

hire labour.

4. Although Andr Bteille emphasized landownership as the primary basis of rural

inequality, inherent contradiction appears in his own writings (which reveals limita-

tions of the criterion). In various parts of the country, landless tenants may actually

be in an economically superior position than small owner cultivators. While describing

tenancy practices of Tanjore district, he gives examples from eastern parts of Tanjore

where a Vellala Kuttahaidar (kuttahai is a form of tenancy where the tenant pays aparticular amount earlier fixed upon as rent), who leases in about few acres of irrigated



22/23


land, may be economically far superior to a marginal landowner who performs agricul-

tural labour for his livelihood (1974: 14851).

5. One example is David Mosses study of the tank system in Tamil Nadu. David Mosse,

who studied a village in the drought-prone Ramnad district of southern Tamil Naduin the early 1980s, gives a vivid account of the institution of Kudimaramat (tank re-

pairs by villagers). Kudimaramat is a well established village institution in pre-colonialsouth India. It may not have been egalitarian, as it reflected severe inequities and dis-

abilities that Dalits had for centuries been subjected to. Mosse describes how the Dalits

are confronting inequity with respect to the upper caste Mudaliars on a number ofcounts like membership of the Water Users Association Executive, water distribution

benefits and labour obligations. Confrontations have appeared about their role as

mere labour service providers. The Dalits are demanding a greater water share wagesand equal participation in the water institution. In these instances, they speak not

only as landless labourers or marginal farmers at the tail-end of the irrigation distri-

butary, but also as members of the Dalit community (Mosse 2003).

Referrences

Atal, Y. 1979. Changing Frontiers of Caste. New Delhi: National Publishing House.

Bailey, F.G. 1957. Caste and Economic Frontier. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Bajpai, P., L. Bhandari and A. Sinha. 2005. Social Economic Profile of India. New Delhi:

Social Science Press.

Baren, J.E. (ed.). 1996. Social Differentiation and Social Inequality. Colorado: West View

Press.

Bteille, A. 1972.Inequality and Social Change. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

. 1974. Studies in Agrarian Social Structure. London: Oxford University Press.

. 1980. The Idea of Natural Inequality. London: London School of Economics.

. 1983.Equality and InequalityTheory and Practice. New Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

. 1995. Reproduction of Inequality, in K.L. Sharma (ed.), Social Inequality in

Rural India. New Delhi: Rawat Publications.Biedelman, T.O. 1956.A Comparative Analysis of the Yajmani System. New York: J.J. Augustin.

Dumont, L. 1972.Homo Hierarchicus. London: Paladin.

Gough, E.K. 1959. Criteria of Caste Ranking in South IndiaMan in India, 39 (2): 11526.Government of India. 1994. Minor Irrigation Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Water

Resources.

Guha, R. and J. Parry. 1999. Institutions and Inequalities. New Delhi: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gupta, S.C. 1978. Some Aspects of Indian Agriculture, in A.R. Desai (ed.),Rural Sociology

of India, p. 239. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.Marriott, M. (ed.). 1955. Village India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mosse, D. 2003. The Rule of Water: Statecraft, Ecology and Collective Action in South India.

New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). 197172.Report on Some Aspects of Land-

holding, NSS Report No. 215, 26th Round. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics andProgramme Implementation.



23/23

106 RAKESH TIWARY

National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). 2001.Report on Landholdings, NSS Report

No. 330, 37th Round. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme

Implementation.

. 2001. Report on Some Aspects of Household Ownership Landholdings, 199192 (1),NSS Report No. 399, 48th Round. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme

Implementation.. 2002.Report on the Housing Condition in India, 58th Round. New Delhi: Ministry

of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

Parvathamma. 1989. Schedule Castes at the Crossroads. New Delhi: Asish Publication.Registrar General and Census Commissioner. 2001. Census of India. India. http://www.

censusindia.net.

Shah, G. 2001.Dalit Identity and Natural Politics. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Sharma, K.L. (ed.). 1995. Social Inequality in Rural India. New Delhi: Rawat Publications.

Srinivas, M.N. 1960. Indias Villages. New York: Asia Publishing House.

. 1962. Caste in Modern India and Other Essays. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.

Thorat, S.K. and R.S. Deshpande. 2001. Caste System and Economic Inequality:

Economic Theory and Evidence, in G. Shah, (ed.),Dalit Identity and Natural Politics,

pp. 4473. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Thorner, D. 1997. The Agrarian Prospect in India. New Delhi: South Asia Books.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ravibunga4489
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

85 Explanations in Resource Inequality: Exploring Scheduled Caste Position in Water Access...

Documents