Thomas van Hal A village of disparities
A village of
disparities
Thomas van Hal
31 July 2014
Bachelor Thesis
Human Geography
3
“A village of disparities”
-
A study to disparity in access to water in Gengadevan Kuppam, India
Bachelor Thesis Human Geography
University of Amsterdam – Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences Supervisor: J. Stephen
Second Reader: M. Bavinck
Thomas van Hal 6155383
Esther de Boer-van Rijkstraat 152 1065GS - Amsterdam
4
Abstract
This thesis presents a study to the disparity of access to water in Gengadevan Kuppam, a village with strong disparity in access to water between the northern and southern side of the village. This study aims to reveal the main causes for this disparity. The results of a four week empirical study on the details of the differences in access are analysed by the access framework of Ribot and Peluso (2003). This concludes in the assumption that the strong contrast in the caste-based background of the villagers might be the underlying cause for the disparity in access to water in the village.
5 Picture 1: Joel, Lisa, me, and Iris, together with the mother of our house and her two children
Acknowledgements
This thesis project in India has been a great opportunity for me to finish my three year bachelor study Human Geography with a research abroad. This opportunity would not have been possible without the help of a lot of people. For this, I would like to thank those people who supported, helped and guided me this through this process.
First of all I have to thank Johny Stephen for guiding from the first to the final moment. Besides his assistance in all the steps taken in my research, he has been great in navigating me through the Indian culture. Without him, I probably would have stumbled across many Indian norms, values, and habits. Secondly, I cannot forget to mention Maarten Bavinck in here. Decades of experience of not only guiding bachelor students through their final thesis project, but also of India make him indispensable for all of those students who participate in this project. I want to thank Leo de Klerk for his lectures during the preparation stage.
6 Then I would like to express my greatest gratitude to my translator: Kevin Mathews. This young sociology student of Chennai has been the most important person during my four week fieldwork. Although just 17 years old he was never afraid of showing initiative and he was always there for motivating me and discussing ideas. His assertive personality impressed me from the first to the final day.
I have to thank all the villagers of Gengadevan Kuppam who were welcoming me into the village, sharing information with me and offering me litres of chai tea, tons of watermelons and many, many coconuts.
Also I would like to thank the mother of my house of staying in Kadapakkam. This widowed woman, together with her son and daughter, has been a warm welcome all of the four weeks. Finally, I would really like to thank Iris, Joel and Lisa for the four weeks we spent in our little village Kadapakkam. The Indian culture did not always came easy to us and I think that I can speak for the four of us when I say that together we succeeded quite well in managing some of these struggles.
7
Table of contents
Abstract ... 4
Acknowledgements ... 5
1. Introduction ... 10
2. The Indian context ... 13
2.1 India ... 13
2.2 Tamil Nadu ... 14
2.3 Kancheepuram district ... 16
2.4 Gengadevan Kuppam ... 16
3
Theoretical framework ... 19
3.1 A theory of access ... 20
3.2 Got water? Social divisions and access to public goods in rural India ... 23
3.3 Explanations in resource inequality... 25
3.4 Link ... 26
4
Research Design and Methodology ... 27
4.1 Research questions ... 28
4.2 Research method ... 30
5
Disparity in Gengadevan Kuppam ... 32
5.1 Access ... 33
5.2 Social composition ... 37
6
Conclusion ... 42
6.1 Empirical conclusion ... 42
6.2 Theoretical conclusion ... 44
8
7
Discussion ... 47
Sources ... 49
Appendix ... 51
9
List of abbreviations
RS = Rupees
ECR = East Coast Road
GDK = Gengadevan Kuppam
TN = Tamil Nadu
SCs = Scheduled Castes STs = Scheduled Tribes
Currency
The Indian currency is the Rupee. In April 2014, the exchange rate was approximately: 85 RS = €1,00
Lakh
A lakh is a unit in the Indian numbering system. One Lakh is equal to 100.000
List of figures
Table 1: division of public water sources Table 2: walking distances to water sources Table 3: time spent on collecting water Table 4: money spent on domestic water Table 5: water consumption
Table 6: satisfaction of water quality and quantity
List of pictures
Picture 1: Joel, Lisa, me and Iris, together with the mother of our house and her two children Picture 2: A broken well in northern Gengadevan Kuppam
Picture 3: Sandy road of northern Gengadevan Kuppam
Picture 4: South and North Gengadevan Kuppam. In between: plantations Picture 5: Sandy dunes of Gengadevan Kuppam
Picture 6: Kevin Mathews speaking with villagers of Gengadevan Kuppam
Picture 7: A private electric bore-well in full operation in southern Gengadevan Kuppam
Picture 8: A mother with three daughters collecting water at a public tap in northern Gengadevan Kuppam
10 Picture 2: A broken well in northern Gengadevan Kuppam
1. Introduction
Millennium Development Goals, Goal 7, Target 10: “Ensure environmental sustainability; Halve, by
2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.”
United Nations (2000)
“Access to drinking water (…) is a fundamental need and a human right vital for the dignity and health of all people.”
World Health Organization (2008)
“There are worldwide more than 750 million people without proper access to safe drinking water (…) 99 million of them living in India “
11 The United Nations, World Health Organization and Unicef emphasize the importance and urgent need for access to safe drinking water. Worldwide the water use has been growing twice the rate of the population growth in the last decades. If this trend continuous, 1,8 billion people will be living in areas with water scarcity by 2025 (FAO, 2013).
Water scarcity can in many ways effect people’s life and livelihood. It can badly influence farmers, by not having sufficient access to irrigation water. This could lead to bad harvest, especially in dry areas. Industry could be affected by water shortage or little access to water, which could lead to a decrease in production. Households or individuals can also be affected by water scarcity. This could lead to poor health conditions and diseases. In developing countries, 80% of the diseases are water related (UN News Centre, 2009).
There are three important dimensions of water scarcity. These are: scarcity in availability, scarcity in access, and scarcity due to the lack of infrastructure. From these, the latter two can be complementary and exist without the first dimension. A region might have plenty of water resources, but without access possibilities some groups might still suffer a certain extent of water scarcity (FAO, 2013). This study focusses on scarcity due to a lack of access. This is the case in on part of Gengadevan Kuppam, a little village located in the water rich dunes of coastal Tamil Nadu. This village is divided two sides. One side of the village is located in the North, the other part in the South. It is not only this geographical division which characterizes the village. The northern part of GDK is clearly more affected by access related scarcity than the southern part. This is an interesting situation and raises the question what the possible causes are for this disparity in access to water within one community that does not seem to suffer scarcity in the availability of water. The objective of this study is to reveal the possible underlying causes for the disparity in access to water between North and South Gengadevan Kuppam. With the use of the access framework presented by Ribot and Peluso this study aims to analyse the disparity in access to water.
In this thesis I will first outline the context in which the fieldwork of this study took place. Hereby I will move from the national scale – India – to the most local scale – the village Gengadevan Kuppam. Then I will explain my theoretical framework which put this study in an academic context. The access framework of Ribot and Peluso will be explained. Furthermore I present two case studies which link disparity I access to water to caste. Hereafter the structure of the four week fieldwork and the research question will be presented. Followed in the next chapter by the findings of this fieldwork.
12 I conclude by linking the empirical findings with the theoretical framework in order to give answer to my research question. In the last chapter I will comment on the gaps in my study and try to give recommendations for further studies.
13 Picture 3: Sandy road of northern Gengadevan Kuppam
2. The Indian context
In this chapter I will outline the context of my research area, from the largest scale – which is India – the most local scale – Gengadevan Kuppam. I will share socio-demographic information about the country, Tamil Nadu and the region of GDK. The more detailed information about GDK will be shared in chapter 5.
2.1 India
India is the world’s seventh largest country and after China the most populous country, at the time of writing a population of 1.256.720.521 (Indiastat, 2014). Moreover India is the biggest democracy in the world. The country is bordered by Pakistan, Nepal, China, Bhutan, Burma and Bangladesh. Furthermore lies Sri Lanka close to South-Western coastline of the country. India is a federal constitutional republic that has 29 states and 7 union territories.
14 Ramachandra Guha speaks in ‘India after Ghandi’ (2007, pp.8-9) about social conflicts in India, how these are aroused, expressed and sought to be resolved. According to Guha, social conflicts in India run along many axes. He outlines the four major ones: caste, language, religion and class. Because my study focusses on a local social conflict: disparity in access to water, I examine these axes as a good framework to base the outlining of my research area on.
The first axe is Caste. Caste plays an important role in India’s society. The social stratification of the country is to a certain extent determined on the divisions of higher and lower castes. The scheduled castes are often known as the lowest in ranking. India has a scheduled caste an tribe population of more than 200.000.000 people. This number has been increased by more than 20% in the last ten years. These days the scheduled caste and tribe population is about 16% of the total Indian population.
The second axe Guha mentioned is language. According to Guha, there are 24 official languages in India. However, in a survey which was conducted between 2009 and 2013 by Bhasha Research and Publication Centre, more than 780 languages were counted (Lalmalsawma, 2013). However India has this big amount of languages, the official language is Hindi which is spoken by more than 400 million Indians. Besides, English is widely spoken and written throughout the country in almost all the states.
The next axe is religion. The most common religion in India is Hindu, about 80% of the country’s inhabitants are Hindus. The Muslim community is also strongly represented, about 13%. After Hindus and Muslims, the Christians represent slightly more than 2% of the population (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2014).
The fourth and final axe is class. India is a country that knows a high level of social disparity. Opposite to the wealthy Indian entrepreneurs who conquer the world of business and engineering is the 26% of the India population who lives below the poverty line (Guha pp.8-9, 2007).
All of these axes can operate singly or complementary. Obviously, caste and class are closely related. Low castes are often equal to the lower classes. An underlying fifth axe brought up by Guha is
gender. The role of gender knows stark contrasts. However India had a female prime minister for
fifteen years, women in India often face an inferior position in society.
2.2 Tamil Nadu
The state in which I did my research, Tamil Nadu, is the most Southern state of India. Where in India itself Hindi is the most spoken language, in TN this is Tamil. TN has more than 70 million inhabitants which makes this state the sixth populated one. In 1961 had TN 33,7 million in habitants which means that in 50 years the population of TN has more than doubled (see figure 1).
15 Figure 1: Population of Tamil Nadu 1961-2011 (Census of India, 2011)
Due to the increase of the population of TN, the density of the population the state has grown from 480 habitants (per sq.km.) in 2001 to 555 habitants (per sq.km.) in 2011 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations – Tamil Nadu, 2011).
The proportion of the rural and urban population is almost equally divided. About 52% of the population is labelled as ‘rural’. A little less, 48% of the inhabitants, are urban people. The proportion of the whole Indian country is less equally divided: 69% rural and 31% urban (Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations – Tamil Nadu, 2011). Although the proportion of urban people is still slightly less than the proportion of rural people, the ‘urban’ group has been gaining ground the last decades (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Proportion of rural/urban population of Tamil Nadu 1971-2011 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations – Tamil Nadu, 2011)
16 Tamil Nadu has a scheduled caste and tribe population of more than 14 million people. The biggest part of this population lives in the rural areas of the state. Like the scheduled caste and tribe population increased in India, so it did in TN. In the last ten years the population increased by more than 21%.
As already mentioned, however Hindi is the most common language in India, there are plenty of other official languages in the country spoken by millions of people. From these Tamil is the native language in Tamil Nadu.
A majority of 55 million inhabitants of TN are Hindus. This makes this religion the by far the most common. After Hindu are Christianity and Islam important religions in this state. Both adhered by 3,5 million people (Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations – Tamil Nadu, 2011). The literacy rate in Tamil Nadu has increased from 73% in 2001 to 80% in 2011. By this literacy rate a certain gender inequality is shown. Where among the males in TN 85% is literate, the literacy rate for females is 73%.
2.3 Kancheepuram district
Tamil Nadu is divided into 31 districts. My village, Gengadevan Kuppam, is located in the Kancheepuram district, a district in the North of Tamil Nadu. Kancheepuram has a growing population of almost 4 million people, most of them living in the urban areas. In the last ten years the population of Kancheepuram has increased by almost 40%. In the period between 1991 and 2001, the population growth was 20%. This large population growth is especially notable in the urban areas, these have increased by 65% since 2001 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate of Census Operations – Tamil Nadu, 2011). The growth of the population has also its effects on the density of the district which is increased from 668 (per sq.km.) in 2001 to 892 (per sq.km.) in 2011. Kancheepuram has a scheduled caste and tribe community of about 1 million people, this is almost 25% of the total Kancheepuram population. 60% of the SCs and STs in this district live in the rural areas. Also this scheduled caste and tribe population has been growing in the last decade: by 31%. As well as the growth of the total Kancheepuram population, the growth of SCs and STs is again specially notable in the urban areas. In the ten years between 2001-2011, the growth was more than 75% in these regions.
2.4 Gengadevan Kuppam
Where the state TN is divided in several districts, the Kancheepuram district is furthermore divided in 648 townpanchayats. These are administrative clusters of villages or towns. Gengadevan Kuppam is located in the coastal area of Tamil Nadu, in the Edaikazhinadu townpanchayat which has an area of 34 km². In the sandy dunes area, at the western side of the East Coast Road lies this village. According to official information I gathered from the townpanchayat office in Kadapakkam, a village
17 in Edaikazhinadu where I stayed during my research, Gengadevan Kuppam has an area of 2.090m². The total population of this little contains 1135 citizens. There is one school in GDK with 185 students, which was established in 1933 (Schoolsworld, n.d.). Slightly less than half of the population is male: 564 over 571 females. The village contains a significant population of SCs and STs. The total scheduled caste community in GDK is 648. Besides, there are 45 members of a scheduled tribe (Edaikazhinadu office, 2014). The total SCs and STs community includes 61% of the total population. This is considerably higher than the earlier mentioned Indian proportion of 16%, the 21% of Tamil Nadu, and also higher than the 25% of the Kancheepuram district. Gengadevan Kuppam is a rural village and as already mentioned, 61% of the SCs and STs of Kancheepuram live in the rural areas of this district. This is a possible explanation of the high proportion of Scheduled Castes and Tribes in Gengadevan Kuppam.
The scheduled tribe in Gengadevan Kuppam is the Irula. This is an Indian tribe who lives in the northern side of Tamil Nadu. The whole Irulas community has about 80.000 people. The members of this tribe were originally hunter-gatherers, often earned money by catching snakes for the snake industry (ITWWS, n.d.). The Irulas have a patrilineal society. Marriage partners are selected from within the Irula community, but from outside the clan. The majority of this tribe are Hindus, about 95% (Prayway, 1997). All of the Irulas I came across during my research were Tamil speakers.
Gengadevan Kuppam is divided in two parts, from now on called as the northern and southern part of GDK, based on their geographical location. The both sides are divided by some sand-dunes and plantations. They are connected by a small, sandy road. Northern GDK is characterized by just sandy roads and huts with thatched roofs. During my research I did not observe any concrete house or road in this part of the village. All of the concrete roads and buildings I found in GDK were located in the southern part. Also the street lights which consisted 85 tube lights, 48 CFL’s, and 134 LED’s (Edaikazhinadu office, 2014), and the only water tank of the village were found in this part of the village.
18 Picture 4: South and North Gengadevan Kuppam. In between: plantations (Google Maps)
19 Picture 5: Sandy dunes of Gengadevan Kuppam
3 Theoretical framework
In this chapter I will outline my theoretical framework. Three studies related to inequity in access to natural resources will be discussed in order to put this thesis in an academic context. First I will focus on the theory of access, constructed by Ribot and Peluso (2003) who define access as: the ability to
benefit from things – including material objects, persons, institutions, and symbols. Their concept of
access aims to analyse who actually benefits from 'things’ – in their study: natural resources – and through what bundle of powers these groups or individuals are able to benefit. In their study they move from the traditional property explanations in which access is akin to a bundle of rights. Ribot and Peluso form a framework through which disparities in access to natural resources can be analysed. Since my study focusses on disparities in access to water as a natural resource in Gengadevan Kuppam, I found this framework very useful in my final analysis.
Once the concept of access analysis is outlined through the study of Ribot and Peluso, I will pay attention to two case studies that link social caste-based background with disparities in access to water in India. Balasubramaniam, Chatterjee and Mustard (2012) used data from the 2001 Census of
20 India to amplify how different social divisions in India are related with disparity in access to tap water in the rural sides of the country. Rakesh Tiwary (2006) found inadequacies in traditional explanations for resource inequality. According to him, traditional resource access studies were emphasizing particularly on the distribution of land among different social groups or divisions and have been ignoring access to water. Tiwary tried to estimate and capture caste based inequity in access to water.
I will finalize my theoretical framework with linking the concept of access according to Ribot and Peruso with the two case studies which form a link between disparity in access and social background.
3.1 A theory of access
Ribot and Peluso (2003) argue that access differs from property. They put emphasis on the word
ability in their definition of access. Ability is related to a bundle of powers, a term the authors
borrowed from Ghani (1995, cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003). In traditional explanations of property, the emphasis is on a bundle of rights. Ribot and Peluso actually move in their concept of access from this bundle of rights to a bundle of powers. This bundle of powers is presented as a heuristic set of mechanisms and social relationships that affect people’s ability to benefit from things. Property is located as one set of relationships in this bundle of powers. A situation in which one might have rights to benefit from land, but is unable to because of a lack of access to knowledge or technology would be an instance of having property, without having access to natural resources.
Power then, is defined in two senses. First: “... the capacity of some actors to affect the practices and
ideas of others” (Weber, 1978:53 & Lukes 1986:3 cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003). Second: “We see power as emergent from, though not always attached to, people” (Ribot and Peluso, 2003). All of the
access mechanisms which will be described later in this chapter are akin to this definition of power.
Access mechanisms can be influenced by different political-economic circumstances. These circumstances in which social action – access – is embedded can be divided in access control, access
maintenance, and the gain of access. Access control refers to the ability to mediate others’ access.
Maintenance of access is related to the way in which resource access can be kept open. Finally, the gain of access is the process through which access is established. Putting the access analysis in this political-economic framework contributes to identify which individuals or groups are able to benefit from a particular natural resource and who are not. Because of the fact that these political-economic circumstances are always changing - one’s position or power within a relationship can vary over time and between different relations – access mechanisms are dynamic.
21 According to the authors, access analysis is mainly the process of studying the means, processes, and relations – mechanisms - through which access is gained, maintained and controlled. The analysis follows then a three-step-model:
1. Identifying the resource one wants to benefit from
2. Identify the mechanisms by which one gains, controls and maintains access 3. Analyse the power relations underlying the mechanisms identified in step 2.
The authors distinguish rights-based access mechanisms and structural and relational access
mechanisms.
Rights-based access
As mentioned before, access could be established through rights. These rights could be assigned by law, custom or convention and these are closely related to property (Macpherson, 1978 cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003). Access provided by law-based property refers to certain titles, permits and licences as well as titles or acts of property. Access based on custom or convention is established by a certain extent of social acceptance. The three forms of rights as described here are all mechanisms through which access can be gained, maintained and controlled.
Access gained illegally is in a sense also rights-based. It can be considered as rights-denied-based access. Ribot and Peluso explain this as follows: “… it is a form of direct access against those based
on the sanctions of custom, convention, or law.” Access is to that extent gained by illegal means,
which is akin to criminality. However, criminality is a matter of perspective. What one calls theft or violence can be considered as morally accepted by another.
Structural and relational mechanisms of access
Based on Blaikie’s qualifications of access – Blaikie states that capital and social identity determine the priority in resource access (Blaikie, 1985 cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003) – Ribot and Peluso discuss how access to technology, capital, markets, labour and labour control, knowledge, authority, social identities and social relations can influence the gain, maintenance and control of access to natural resources. These qualifications are mechanisms through which access can be obtained. These access mechanisms will be described now furthermore.
Access to technology
Most often technology is needed to benefit from natural resources. A simple example: an axe for the chopping of wood. Technologies can also increase the ability to reach a certain natural resource. A good example that fits well with my research is given by Dubash (2002, cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003). He gives the example of the reachability of groundwater of a great distance below surface
22 that can be improved with the use of technologies like borewells, electricity and handpumps. Technology is to that extent a qualification which shapes who can gain, maintain and control access.
Access to capital
Capital in the context of access to resources is often seen as financial means or facilities and has close ties with access to technology and right based-access as described before. One who has access to – financial – capital is likely to have access to equipment which facilitates the access to a certain resource. The rights to have access to a particular resource, for example: property rights, have a certain economic value. These rights can be bought. Here is the link between access to capital and right-based access. Capital may also create a certain form of high social status. This could result in privileged access to other forms of access like knowledge or authority. These two access mechanisms will be outlined later in this chapter.
Access to markets
Access to markets refers to the ability to commercially benefit from a resource. Ribot and Peluso (2003) define access to markets as follows: “… the ability of individuals or groups to gain, control or
maintain entry into exchange relations.” Access to markets can very over different scales and over
time and is closely related to access to capital. Besides, it is dependent on the demand and supply of a particular resource.
Access to labour and labour opportunities
When labour is required in the profit of a resource, the ones who have the control over the access to this labour are the ones who benefit from this resource. The access to labour opportunities – say jobs – can also increase the access to resources and to that extent can gain profit of this resource. Once one has for example no access to knowledge or capital, he or she can still have access to a resource through a working relationship with the one who controls the access to labour. To maintain this access, the labourer should invest in the social relationship that has occurred between him or her and the controller over the access to labour (Berry, 1993 cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003).
Access to knowledge
For the access to some resources a certain extent of knowledge is required. The ones who have access to this knowledge can profit from this resource. Knowledge can also contribute in the access to labour opportunities and capital. Besides, it could be interrelated with access to technology. An example: a farmer should have access to the knowledge of how using a machine for the harvesting of crops.
23
Access to authority
Close ties with authorities can help individuals or groups to gain access to resources. Authorities are most often nodes of several forms of access and access mechanisms. The ones who have access to these authorities can gain access to resources through these authorities.
Access through social identity
Access to resources is almost always embedded in social interaction. This social interaction is influenced by the social identity, membership, and background of the actors involved in the process of access. Social identity, membership, and background should be seen in the broadest sense and can be determined by several factors like age, gender, religion, caste, and so on (Moore, 1986; Bullard, 1990; Shipton and Goheen, 1992; Berry, 1989, 1993; Foster, 1993; Young, 1993; Pulido, 1994; Agarwal, 1994; Li, 2000; Peluso and Vandergeest, 2001 cited in Ribot and Peluso, 2003). Certain identities can, or rather cannot, let individuals or groups gain access to capital, authorities or markets. Social identity is to that extent closely interrelated with other qualifications of access.
Access via the negotiation of other social relations
As mentioned before, social relations are crucial in almost all access mechanisms. Ribot and Peluso mention friendship, trust, reciprocity, patronage, dependence and obligation as examples of social – or power – relations which are underlying in the process of obtaining access. In all the access mechanisms presented, certain power relations are determining in the control, gain and maintenance of access.
Ribot and Peluso differentiate access from property. According to them property is based on rights and is just one of the access mechanisms by which groups or individuals can gain, control and maintain access to resources. They state that access to resources is closely tied with a bundle of powers. The bundle of powers includes eight categories or qualifications of access mechanisms. By developing this concept of access the authors created a framework through which certain disparities in resource access can be analysed. However, the mechanisms mentioned are heuristic. They can cooperate complementary or dissimilar. One does not direct exclude or include another.
3.2 Got water? Social divisions and access to public goods in rural India
The caste system in India together with religion plays an important role in the social stratification of the country. As already mentioned in the context chapter, Guha makes notion of the important role of religion and caste in social conflicts. Balasubramaniam, Chatterjee and Mustard (2012) attempt to identify how this social division based on caste and religion is related with access to tap water in the
24 rural districts of India. They used data from the 2001 Census of India to examine the effect for heterogeneity in these divisions within communities on the access to tap water.
According to Balasubramaniam et al. caste based division is embedded in a structure of stratification and exclusion. This structure creates a competition and to that extent a certain limit in the access to public goods. The authors refer to Easterly and Levine (1997) and Alesina et al. (1999) who state that communities are in need for a coordination mechanism which enables this community to gain access to public goods. Caste based divisions may disorganize this mechanism and to that extent decrease the level of access to public goods. The relation between religion based divisions and access to a particular public good is affected by the threat of conflicts (Besley and Person, 2009, 2010, cited in Balasubramaniam, Chatterjee and Mustard 2012). Rural districts with a high fragmentation of religion might have a higher risk of internal conflicts. Balasubramaniam et al. argue that the provision of public goods by the government could be an instrument to lower this risk.
As already mentioned, the authors collected their data from the 2001 Census of India. Although their research is done in 2012, the most actual available data they could use was from 2001. The units of analysis in this study are households from 436 rural districts. The access to tap water is divided in three measures: total tap water access, within-residence tap water access and outside-residence tap water access. The analysis of caste based heterogeneity is restricted to only the majority Hindu religion. According to the Census of India, there are 180 caste groups within the Hindu society. Where Brahmins belong to the highest caste, the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes belong to the lowest. To measure the extent of caste-based heterogeneity, Balasubramaniam et. al use three broad categories of caste: Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Others. This latter category includes all the other ‘non SC or ST castes’. Data shows that the rural districts of India are characterized by a high level of heterogeneity of caste and a high level of homogeneity of religion (85% of the Indian population is Hindu).
The analysis of Balasubramaniam, Chatterjee and Mustard of the relation between social heterogeneity and access to tap water results in the following conclusion: communities characterized by a high level of caste-based heterogeneity are likely to have lower access to tap water than homogeneous communities. However, a community characterized by a high level of religion based heterogeneity is likely to have higher access to tap water.
The correlations found by Balasubramaniam et al. are in line with their expectations based on the studies mentioned earlier. They clarify their findings on the heterogeneity of caste as follows:
25
“Historical divisions created by the caste system in India may generate rivalry associated with the usage and sharing of public goods, and thereby reduce the coordination required to get the state to provide more public goods.” A worth mentioning correlation here is that an increase in the share of
scheduled tribes is related with a decrease in the access to tap water. The clarification of heterogeneity of religion is cited as:
“… communities that are fragmented across religions are likely to have more access to tap water than corresponding homogeneous communities. This may be because the risk of internal conflicts due to religious divisions (… ) causes the state to send more public goods to areas fragmented by religion”.
3.3 Explanations in resource inequality
Rakesh Tiwary (2006) states that in most of the resource access studies, the emphasise has been predominantly on landownership and control structures. This is a too limited view according to Tiwary and has as result that other factors that might influence access mechanisms have long been ignored. He argues for alternative explanations based on social inequality by the Indian caste system. Tiwary distinguished two categories of castes: Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Non Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. Just like Balasubramaniam et. al., he distinguishes the lowest SCs and STs from the other caste categories. The data in his study is based on secondary information from several government reports.
Although Tiwary emphasizes the access to economical use of water in Indian rural districts, that is irrigation, access to domestic use of water is also included. Water used for agricultural or other economic purposes is not included in my thesis. I focus just on the access to water used for domestic purposes. Thence I will only outline the results of Tiwary´s study on the access to water for domestic use. One might say that focussing just on this part of Tiwary’s study might degrade in a certain extent his results. Although, I argue that including only one part of his study will not change the outcome of his case study and will contribute positively to my thesis.
According to the author, disparity in access to water is much more created by socio-cultural rules embedded in the caste system than by the availability of water. This means that although water resources might be available, still different social groups may not have access to these sources. Commonly, scheduled castes and tribes tend to have lower access to water resources than non-scheduled castes or tribes. Data on the relation between access to water and caste-based division of different social groups from the NSSO 58th Round (2002, cited in Tiwary, 2006) proves this statement of Tiwary. It reveals that in Indian rural area’s 75% of the scheduled castes and tribes are
26 dependent on common water sources. For the non-scheduled castes and tribes this is 54%. The fact that the scheduled castes and tribes have to a greater extent share the available water sources has its impact on the accessibility of water. These groups of people lack a form of exclusiveness in the access to water sources which can lead to exclusion or discrimination.
Next to the extent of sharing a certain water resource, the walking distance to these sources is also determining in the level of access different social groups have to clean domestic water. For the SC and ST households counts: 13% have water sources within their dwelling. A figure that is doubled for the non-scheduled groups. Looking at the walking distance, there is also a significant difference between scheduled and non-scheduled caste or tribes. 61% of the scheduled households have to travel up to 200 meters to collect water for domestic use. Even 9% have to travel up to 500 meters. This is in contrast with the non-scheduled households of which only 1% have to walk certain distances.
Tiwary proves that social inequality is closely related to inequality in access to water. By using secondary information, he states that the casted-based inequality which is embedded in the Indian society is an important factor in this inequality in access to water.
3.4 Link
Ribot and Peluso (2003) give a framework on how access to resources is governed by a bundle of powers. They state that access can be governed through various mechanisms. Balasubramaniam, Chatterjee and Mustard (2012), and Tiwary (2007) outline in their case studies the relation between caste and unequal access to water. Both case studies conclude that caste is shown to be a possible underlying restriction in access to water. Linking both the framework and the two case studies might conclude that caste could be a restrictive factor in the various access mechanisms. Ribot and Peluso state already that social identity – which is caste – play a crucial role in the level of access one might have to natural resources. The two case studies prove this statement.
27
Picture 6: Kevin Mathews speaking with villagers of Gengadevan Kuppam
4 Research Design and Methodology
In this chapter I will outline my research question and subquestions. Besides I will describe the process of how I came to these questions. Furthermore I will pay attention to the methodology that I used for my research on access to water in Gengadevan Kuppam. I will explain what choices I made and clarify why I had to make these decisions. Some difficulties and barriers let me decide to take another path than I planned to. In the thesis-preparing-weeks before the trip to India, I was told that decisions I made for my research and expectations I had about my research at that time could end up totally different while being in the field. This prediction proved to be true while constructing my research question. Besides the fact that I had to move from my initial ‘dry’ research area Vedaranyam (M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, 2012) in the Nagapattinam district to southern Cheyyur, I also had to rephrase my research question. My former idea to compare the access to water and the underlying issues of a ‘water scarce’ village with a ‘water rich’ village seemed to be too hard.
28
4.1 Research questions
The first week of my research was mainly on scouting the area for suitable villages to compare in the Cheyyur area. The villages I visited were: Panaiyur, Mudaliyarkuppam, Paramankeni, Vedal, and Gengadevan Kuppam. In this first week I tried to find out which village I could label was ‘water scarce’ and which I could label as ‘water rich’. After this week I would compare the two chosen villages on their accessibility to water.
When entering the villages the first thing I did was trying to speak with the head of the village. In the short time I had for my fieldwork, just four weeks, I did not want to spend more than one week on mapping the several villages. To minimize the time spend on mapping the villages and to get a clear view on the situation of access to water and to what extent the village could be labelled as ‘water scarce’ and which as ‘water rich’. I expected an open interview with the head of the village to be the best way. With the heads of all the villages I had interviews of about one hour. However these interviews gave me plenty of information about the water situation in the village, it did not made me able to define a village ‘water scarce’ or not. I discovered that to label a village ‘water scarce’ or not required more in-depth, probably geological, information than I could gather in only one week. The information I did gather gave me more insights about the level of access to water than about the level of scarcity. My first idea on comparing two villages, one that suffered from water scarcity and one that did not, had to be thrown away: from now on I would focus on disparity in access to water.
It turned out that all of the villages had plenty of water resources in the ground, almost all of them of good quality. Moreover, all the villages were characterized by a disparity regarding access to water. This disparity was reflected in the way that all of the villages were separated in roughly one part in which water was easily accessible and one part in which the access to water was a major problem. The fact that the several villages did not differ in the level of water scarcity - as far as I could estimate at that time - in combination with the disparity in access to water within these villages made me decide to focus my research on just one village. Gengadevan Kuppam was out of the 5 villages I visited the one with the strongest contrast in access to water. The village was strongly characterized by two distinguishable sides. One part located in the South and about one kilometre North the other part of the village. It was the northern part, as the head of the village told me, that suffered from problems regarding access to water. The details of this differentiation regarding access to water was at that point not yet totally clear to me. However, it did was clear to me that there was a definite distinction between both sides.
The clear disparity in combination with the willingness to help of the head of the village, mister C. Ramachandhiran, made me decide to conduct my research in Gengadevan Kuppam. However other villages had also shown a willingness to help, I often tasted an interest in money in exchange for
29 information. In Panaiyur and Paramankeni the heads of the villages literally stated that they were willing to help and share information with me, but only in share for money. In the other villages this was not asked that directly. However, poverty issues and the need for money in those villages was in my interviews with the village headmen more than I liked the continuously upcoming matter of discussion.
After this first week of trial and error I wanted to reveal the underlying causes for the disparity in access to water in Gengadevan Kuppam. I phrased my research question as follows:
What are the possible underlying causes for the disparity in access to domestic water between the northern and southern side of Gengadevan Kuppam?
In order to find answer for my research question, I formulated three subquestions. First I wanted to map the provision of water in the village. Since water sources could play an important role in the access to water, I wanted to know what and how many sources there were in the village, and how the water sources were divided over both sides of the village. This brought me to the following first subquestion:
1. What are the differences in the provision of domestic water between both sides of Gengadevan Kuppam?
Next I wanted to go deeper into the details of the alleged disparity in access to water, looking at several aspects of access. With this question I wanted to map the detailed differences in access. Although stated by the head of the village and to a certain extent observed by myself, I wanted to collect data on the exact differences in access to water.
2. What are the differences regarding access to water between both sides of Gengadevan Kuppam?
I expected social background to play a role in the level of access to water in Gengadevan Kuppam. Therefore I wanted to map the social composition of both sides of the village so I could compare the differences on this point. This led to the final sub question:
3. What are the differences in the social background of the inhabitants of both sides of Gengadevan Kuppam?
30
4.2 Research method
In my research, I used a mixed method of collecting qualitative and quantitative data. Most of the data was collected out of 28 surveys. Furthermore I used observations and in depth interviews with stakeholders and spoke with people I came across on the street. The establishing of the final questionnaire happened mainly in the second week. I used this week to determine which questions were suitable to ask and which one were superfluous. This week of trial and error made me skip and add some questions to my final questionnaire, in consultation with my translator. The final questionnaire can be find in the appendix.
Questionnaires
Since 75% of the population of Gengadevan Kuppam lives in the southern part and about 25% in the northern part, I divided the number of households equally: 21 surveys were done in southern GDK, 7 in the North. The sampling of these households happened randomly, but mainly based on who were willing to share information and who were at home. I did not have all the freedom of choosing any household I wanted and had to be happy with those who were home at the moment of arriving and those who were willing to contribute. I asked my questions to the members of the household who were present at the moment of arrive. I did not confine myself to focus on one member of the household. The questions were related to the situation of the household and not to the individual members. So, when more than one member were present, they were free to discuss the questions and give me a genuine answer.
The surveys were divided into two parts. The first part was the so called household survey in which I asked a set of 14 questions related to the social status and composition of the household. These were questions related to income, education, occupation and the number of household members. The second part of my survey was related to the access and usage of domestic water in this particular household. These were about 40 questions. The total survey took about 30-60 minutes.
Observations
After finishing about 10 interviews in my third week, I found out that most of the collection of water happened in the early hours in the morning. From 06.00 am many women were gathering to collect water. This made me decide to plan an observation in the morning of 30th of April to see how the gathering around the several handpumps took place. I wanted to see to what extent people were working together in both sides of GDK in collecting water, if these people were mainly women or men, old or young, and I was wondering if I could see some other remarkable things(?). During this observation I had the opportunity to have informal conversations with the villagers. These
31 conversations took place in another setting than the questionnaires. This led to more information and another perspective from the villagers about access to water and the collection of water.
In depth interviews with stakeholders
In the first week of my research, I hoped that I could plan some interviews with stakeholders. At the end of the four weeks I managed only to have an in depth interview with the head of the village. Although this interview gave me some good information about Gengadevan Kuppam, I hoped for more.
The manager of a close-by water company cancelled our appointment last-minute. Even though he mentioned the day before that he would safe time to speak with me, he stated that he was too busy and I had to leave. The panchayat leader was not willing to speak with me. I went several times to his office to make an appointment, but this was not possible. Although I was not able to speak with him directly, his colleagues gave me interesting and important official information about Gengadevan Kuppam. One last hope was an appointment with a writer of a book on 40 topics of the whole Cheyyur area. This seemed to me as a very valuable source of information. However, once I arrived at my appointment, I found out that the man I wanted to speak with moved to Chennai. I never managed to get in contact with him.
32 Picture7: A private electric bore-well in full operation in southern Gengadevan Kuppam
5 Disparity in Gengadevan Kuppam
The two parts of Gengadevan Kuppam have both their own story on the accessibility of water and both their own social composition. In this chapter I will describe the findings of my four week research in the village. First I will outline the level of disparity in access. Here I will focus on the differences in distance to water sources, time and money spend on the collecting and use of water, and finally the qualification of quantity and quality of water by the households of both sides of GDK. Then, I will focus on the differences in social background of the villagers of north and south GDK.
33
5.1 Access
Most of the questions asked in my survey were on the different aspects of access. The outcome of this part of my survey resulted in five main categories on which GDK showed disparity in access to water: distance, costs in time, financial costs, consumption and finally the level of satisfaction. The disparities in these five categories will be discussed now furthermore and clarified by tables.
Distance
The whole village of GDK has got 42 public taps and 37 public handpumps in total. Out of these 42 public taps, 7 are located in the northern part. The other 35 are spread out over the southern part of the village. Concerning the public handpumps: 5 are located north GDK, 32 in the South (see table 1). This division of water sources among the two parts is quite equal to the number of households in both parts. In the southern part of the village are about 200 households, the northern part has 33 households. So: 15% of the water sources are located in the part of the village where 16,5% of the households are. A conclusion might be that the maximum walking distance to the main water source should be more or less equal. However, major differences are the case.
Public taps Public handpumps Total
North 7(5)* 5(3)* 12
South 35 32 67
Total 42 37 79
Table 1: division of public water sources
*Just 5/7 of the public taps and 3/5 public handpumps are in good condition and will be used by the villagers
In the surveys I asked the villagers about the walking distance to all their water sources. The average
maximum walking distance to a water source is 12,75 meter in the southern part and 375,71 meter
in the northern part. The maximum walking distance in the southern part is 50 meter, while in the northern part 1000 meter (see table 2). The main reason for this difference is the fact that out of the 21 interviewed households in the southern part of GDK, 15 had their own water source. These private water sources are all located on their own property. Own property is concerned as a walking distance of 0 meter. Out of the 7 interviewed households in the northern part, just 1 had its own water source. Another reason that explains the dissimilarity is the fact that not all of the 12 water sources in the northern part are used. Out of the 5 handpumps, just 3 give water of a reasonable quality. The quality of the water that flows out of the other 2 handpumps is too bad to consume. Even when this water is boiled or filtered, people will never consider to use this water for any kind of purpose. Furthermore, just 5 of the 7 public taps are working. This means that not 12, but 8 water sources are suitable for collecting water. This has also its influence on the greater walking distance. The maximum walking distance has its influence on the time spend on collecting the water.
34 Average walking distance
(distance in meters)
Max. average walking distance
(distance in meters)
North 375,71 1000
South 12,75 50 Table 2: walking distances to water sources
Costs in time
The average time spent in the southern part of GDK is 41,7 minutes a day. This is more than 3 times more in the northern part of the village: 137,1 minutes. Again, the fact that in the southern part many households have their own water source had its influence. This means that collecting water will take 0 minutes a day. Out of the 15 households that have their own source, 14 of these are borewells with an electric motor which are connected with pipes and taps through the house. Whenever the members of these households are in need of water, they just take it out of the tap. No effort, in time, has to be put in filling pots or vessels. In the case that households have to collect water from a public source as a handpump or public tap, the handpumps takes the most time and effort. In the southern part of the village, the households have a better opportunity to move to a public tap instead of a handpump. In the southern part these public sources are, as already mentioned, located closer to the houses. Moreover, the water from the taps in GDK comes from one 60000l. tank. This water flows through pipes to the public taps. The taps in the southern part are first on the line on these pipes, further on are the taps located in the northern part. This means that the flow of water that comes out of these taps is bigger in the southern part than in the northern part. The pressure on these taps is higher, so less time is needed to fill any pot or vessel. Besides, people in this part of GDK can collect more water from the public taps.
Time spent (minutes per day)
North 137,1
South 41,7 Table 3: time spent on collecting
Financial costs
All the people of GDK pay a monthly amount of household tax. This amount includes the tax for water usage. It covers the public costs for the maintenance of the water tank, pipes, taps and handpumps. The households tax is the main financial cost
for water and to that extent an aspect of access. The average monthly household tax that is paid in the southern part of GDK is RS 456,25. In the northern part of GDK: RS 122,86. The difference might
35 be a result of the fact that all the houses in the northern part of GDK are small huts, with no private land. In the southern part of GDK are about 40% of the houses concrete houses, all of these have private land. The average total income per household is in the southern part of GDK RS 15710 per month. This is RS 3185 per month in the northern part of GDK. This means that the household tax that has to be paid in the southern part is 2,9% of the monthly income per household. In the northern part is this 3,9% (see table 4).
Another notable aspect of financial costs is the fact that 3 out of 7 household in northern GDK mentioned that they often skip a working day to spend time on collecting water. Water does not always comes out of the tap, a handpump might be broken or will not have a sufficient amount of water. Members of a certain household then have to move to alternatives as collecting water from adjacent plantations. These substitutional ways of collecting water are time-consuming. This means that these households miss a day of income. One working day of the inhabitants of northern GDK is averagely equal to 400-600 RS. This loss of income should be seen as a financial cost of water.
HH tax
(RS per month)
HH income
(RS per month) HH tax as % of income
North 122,86 3185 3,90%
South 456,25 15710 2,90% Table 4: money spent on domestic water
Water consumption
The disparity in access results in a difference in the amount of water that is consumed. In southern GDK an average of 906,67 litres per household per day is used. In the northern part of GDK is this 190 litres per day (see table 5). Since the number of household members is almost equal in both parts of GDK, cannot be said that this inequality in the quantity of water that is used is due to the size of the households. In southern GDK the number of household members is 4,4. In northern GDK is this 4,57. A slight difference. The disparity in water usage is also reflected in the different purposes of water in GDK. In southern GDK, 61,9% of the household use domestic water not only for the basic usages such as cleaning, washing, toilet use, cooking and drinking, but also for watering their trees and plants and for the animals. A total of 50,55% of all the water in southern GDK is used for certain additional purposes. In northern GDK, 28,57% of the households have additional purposes for water. The percentage of water that is used for certain non-domestic purposes is 12,78%. In water scarce times, particularly during summer, less water is available per household. The main reason is less pressure on the water sources and a lower flow of water. In these periods the households will, whether possible, save water. In the southern part of GDK the first purpose where water will be saved is the water for trees, plants and animals. Since many of the households in northern GDK use
36 water just inside the house, they have not the opportunity to save water for non-human purposes. They use water mainly for the primary living conditions. When less water is available, these households will first catch any opportunity to collect water for their basic needs. They will switch from their primary, close-by sources to adjacent villages or neighbours to ask for water. When this is not possible, water will first be saved on washing clothes. The movement to alternative water sources in water scarce times, as seen in northern GDK, is not seen in southern GDK. The households will not put effort in collecting water elsewhere then their primary sources.
Besides the bigger amount of water that is used per household in southern GDK, these households will more often store water. 76,19% of the households have the opportunity to save their surplus of water. An average of 358,75 litres per household is stored in this part of GDK. In the northern part however, just 2 out of 7 interviewed households mentioned they store water, averagely 65 litres. This stored water in both parts of GDK is particularly used for the primary usages (see table 5).
Total consumption (litres per day)
Non domestic consumption (% of consumption)
Water stored (in litres per day)
North 190 50,55 65
South 906,67 12,78 358,75 Table 5: water consumption
Satisfaction
The disparity in access to water in both parts of GDK is reflected in the grades the households gave for the quality and quantity of water. The grades for the quantity of water are divided in summer and winter (monsoon). In southern GDK the average grade the households gave for the quality of water is 8,2 on a scale of 1 (very bad) to 10 (very good). Northern GDK gave an 6,3. When it comes to the quantity of water, the households in southern GDK gave a 5 during summer, tough an 8,8 for the winter months. In northern GDK the households gave a 3,4 for the dry summer months and an 8,6 for the monsoon (see table 6).
Grades on quantity Grades on quality
Summer Winter
North 3,4 8,6 6,3
South 5 8,8 8,2
Table 6: Satisfaction of water quality and quantity in Gengadevan Kuppam
Conclusion on access to water
The two parts of Gengadevan Kuppam can be clearly distinguished regarding access to water. Several different aspects of access to water show strong contrasts between the two parts of GDK.
37 The fact that many households in southern GDK have their own private source means that the members of these households do not have to cross a distance to collect water. This leads to less time spend on collecting water. Moreover, many of these private water sources are electric borewells. These borewells pump up water faster than handpumps or public taps. This, again, reduces the time and effort that has to be spend on collecting water.
The financial aspect of access contrasts also between southern and northern GDK. The household tax that has to be paid in GDK is a part of payment for water. The average amount of household tax that has to be paid is lower in northern GDK than in southern GDK. Though, the percentage of the total income per household that is spent on household tax is higher in northern GDK than in southern GDK. Moreover, household members in northern GDK mentioned that in water scarce days they will offer one working day, so that they can spend time on collecting water from several sources.
The contrasts in access to water are reflected in the amount of water that is used in both parts of GDK. The average of 906,67 litres per household per day that is used in southern GDK is clearly higher than the average 190 litres in northern GDK. Finally, the level of satisfaction of the quality and quantity of water shows also disparities. Northern GDK gives clearly lower grades on the available water during the summer and on the quality of water than the southern GDK. The grades on the available quantity of water un the winter is almost equal.
5.2 Social composition
In my research I included the earlier mentioned household survey in which I focussed on different social and economic features of the members of the households. Besides these surveys, I collected information of the social background of the villagers out of official information collected at the town panchayat office. Finally my interview with the head of the village gave me the opportunity to collect information about the caste background of the villagers. According to my translator, asking villagers directly to their caste background would be too sensitive. Even though my translator was a native Tamil speaker, he was seen as a foreigner according to the villagers. He expected them not to share certain information with us. All this information gave me a clear view on the social composition of Gengadevan Kuppam.
Caste
One of the clearest differences between north and south Gengadevan Kuppam is the fact that the northern side exists only out of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes where the population of southern GDK exists mainly out of members of higher, backward castes. The total SC population has
38 648 people. Together with 45 members of the Irulas Tribe they form the Scheduled Caste and Tribe population. The whole Irulas population lives in the northern side of GDK. The rest of the population of this part of the village exists out of a Scheduled Caste community. In southern GDK, the population is mainly from upper backward castes, together with a small part of the SC population. The caste-based separation of the village has been there for generations. In the past this was cause for several incidents. Members of the SCs and ST from the North were not allowed to purchase land in the southern part of the village. Neither they were allowed to enter this part of GDK without permission. The SC and ST population had strict rules and regulations. The peak of this discrimination was at his highest about 40 years ago. Currently the situation has calmed down. Recently there has not been any incident and the northern SC and ST population does not suffer any strict rule or regulation anymore.
Education
After kindergarten, in India children are expected to go to primary school at the age of 6. At the age of 10 they have finished this primary school. Primary school is equal to first till fifth grade. After primary school comes the ‘middle’ school for the 11 to 14 years olds. In these 3 years, children go through sixth, seventh and eighth grade. Middle school is followed up by secondary school which is finished at the age of 16. By that time children have passed ninth and tenth grade. Eleventh and twelfth grade can be passed at higher secondary school at the age of 17. Children will get their Secondary School Leaving Certificate after finishing secondary school. An Higher School Certificate will be handed after finishing higher secondary school.
In southern GDK 22,73% of the inhabitants have an educational level that is HSC or higher. A substantial part of them went on studying after HSC and passed their bachelor or master degree. This is about 10% of southern GDK. Most of the inhabitants in there dropped school after SSLC. There are also people who are not educated at all. A 13,65% of the people of southern GDK did not go to primary school at all. In the northern side of GDK these figures are different, beginning with the fact that none of the inhabitants passed their SSLC. The highest passed grade I came along was the ninth grade of secondary school, passed by a 20 year old woman. One third of the inhabitants of south GDK is not educated at all. The rest started their SSLC career, but dropped out before any certificate was handed out.
The general reason for early drop out was in whole GDK a little interest in education. Many of the households mentioned that they preferred their children to play a role in the household or to start working at an early age instead of starting a school career.
