Pre-Colloquium - Day 1: September 22. Curtain Raiser

The delegates and hosts warmed up to the 3-day event with film screenings and field trips for three days prior to the colloquium. So things began early, as if people could not wait for it, on September 22, 2008. A retrospective.

Proceedings at the Pan-Asian Colloquium on Water got underway smoothly, with a quiet opening on the eve of the five-day event. An exceptionally well-made documentary film, Hunting Down Water, was screened at the Media Resource Centre in the Central Library of IIT Madras. This was followed up with discussion by way of audience interaction with Dr. V Suresh (Nanba) and Shri Vibhu Nayar, IAS (Trimoor). The hour-and-a-half long evening session was moderated by Dr. Milind Brahme of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Madras.

Directed by Sanjay Barnela and Vasant Saberwal in 2003, the film discusses how India, thanks to myopic water policies, is facing an unprecedented water crisis that is very much of its own making. The unrestricted exploitation of groundwater to meet the needs of cash crops has created a landscape of thirst. While thousands of women undertake a daily errand miles away from home to fetch water from a leaking pipeline, hundreds others in cities enjoy expensive rain dances in water parks, a testament to the exorbitant wastage linked with a consumptive lifestyle.

The diversion of rural water to meet urban needs has left people in these places with no viable option; they must either migrate or continue bearing the brunt of this gigantic water crisis. While rich farmers in the country continue to empty the reserves of ground water that have accumulated over thousands of years, the poorer ones are left with no option but to watch their drying fields with stoned eyes.
 
 The documentary looks into the politics of water distribution at great depth. It presents a stark picture of the water resources in rural India – a problem that has taken on national proportions.

Nanba (Dr. V Suresh) presented a brief introduction to the Colloquium and supplied the background about how the story of water in other Asian countries is not very different from India. Trimoor (Mr. Vibhu Nayar) explained why there needs to be engagement with the Public Sector, and why privatisation as a solution is doomed to fail.

More than 90% of water utilities worldwide are owned and operated by the government, in the global north as well as the south. While some of these utilities face tremendous challenges, the fact that many of them perform well demonstrates that lethargy and inefficiency are neither intrinsic to nor inevitable within the government sector.

As Trimoor put it so well – Privatisation as a solution is like selling one’s house, when the problem is leaking sinks and peeling paint. The need is to repair the sink and to repaint, not to burn or sell the house.

During the interaction with the audience, many questions were raised, the first one being – why not privatise if it increases efficiency? Trimoor shot back saying: why not increase efficiency in the government sector, when we know that it is cheaper to do so? Two studies have been conducted on the efficiency of the public and the private sector, in 1986 and 2000, the latter among Pacific Rim island countries. Both studies provide conclusive proof that the private sector, or public-private partnership (PPP), are neither of them any more efficient than the public sector.

The next questioner asked why, if some people are ready to pay a higher price for better quality and service, they should not be allowed to. The answer Nanba gave demonstrated how such a state of affairs would be the precise opposite of equality when it came to a commons such as water. It would, in effect, imply that services essential for life would be provided only if a person could pay for it, rather than as part of the right to life and water – an inversion of democracy. The answer ended emphatically by asking, when talking about ‘better’ quality of water or access to water, what was meant by ‘better’. Would one give people who couldn’t pay for high-quality water, water mixed with mud? Or make poor women walk miles to fill a clay pot for a few litres of water?