Bhakra Nangal and theGreen Revolution

T

Coincidentally, there was another such study at about the same time – by R Rangachari under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Research (published by Oxford University Press). While the findings of the Manthan’s study are unfavourable, Rangachari’s research comes to favourable conclusions about almost all issues of the project. It is interesting that both the studies arose from a common starting point. In the context of the prolonged and fierce controversy about big dams, which intensified after the publication of the Report of the World Commission on Dams in November 2000, both Rangachari and Dharmadhikary independently decided to choose Bhakra Nangal, a project that had acquired iconic status, for an ex post facto study to see whether it did indeed conform to the popular perceptions. Both claim to have made an effort to distance themselves from the biases that might arise from their past affiliations and to have attempted an objective study. It is necessary to consider the two studies together in a comparative manner.

Dharmadhikary points out that BN antedated the green revolution (GR), while Rangachari explicitly refrains from commenting on the GR. Nevertheless, the provision of irrigation water was part of the GR strategy, and the nexus between big irrigation projects and GR cannot be denied. GR did bring about dramatic short-term gains, but many adverse consequences emerged in the longer term. Today, the former lustre of GR stands somewhat dimmed. My point is that a part of the criticisms of GR must apply to large irrigation projects as well. Assuming that Dharmadhikary understates the role of BN in the GR and that it was in fact a more significant contributor to the agricultural transformation of Punjab and Haryana than he thinks, the question is: was that a good thing, to be commended without qualification?

The argument that a dam cannot be blamed for the consequences of bad agriculture is not wholly valid; the provision of abundant water from a reservoir does facilitate bad agricultural practices (water-intensive crops, wasteful use of water, etc) and leads to certain consequences (waterlogging, salinity). If one must give credit to big projects for increased agricultural productivity, then they must also share a part of the blame for bad agriculture. (Incidentally, the emergence of paddy as a dominant commercial crop in Punjab and Haryana was an outcome of the increased availability of water from BN or from tubewells or both. This in turn leads to an ever-growing and unsustainable demand for more irrigation water.)

Meanwhile, there seems to be no disagreement on the point that there has been heavy mining of groundwater in Punjab, and that as the availability of groundwater declines sharply, agriculture in Punjab faces a crisis. Prima facie, this seems to indicate that the exploitation of groundwater (in excess of natural recharge and recharge from canals) played quite an important role in agriculture in Punjab. If so, it seems to follow that water from BN must have played a smaller role than generally believed, even if it was not as small a role as Dharmadhikary argues.

RAMASWAMY R IYER

New Delhi

Letters

(Continued from p 2)

Electricity Reform

T

he special issue on ‘Global Experience with Electricity Reform’ (December 10, 2005) has punctured the myth that problems in the power sector are merely waiting to be solved by the (supposedly) simple expedient of creating competitive markets for electricity. Those who claim that domestic consumers in particular stand to gain from “open access” need to take note of this special issue. I would like to add the following comments: (1) It may be oversimplified and teleological to conceptualise a “standard model” for power sector reform (represented by the current UK model) and then consider the steps taken in different countries in terms of the degree of movement towards it. The creation of some markets, which may help to optimise capacity utilisation, and with some scope for competition, especially between generators, does not have to be an allor-nothing process. That apart, there was a case for breaking the State Electricity Board (SEB) mould (and for privatising distribution utilities where possible) in the interests of more accountable and transparent management. Open access in distribution and retail competition though were certainly not among the conscious objectives with which nine SEBs from Orissa to Delhi were unbundled before the Electricity Act, 2003 was enacted.

(2) It is not correct to say (‘Of Rocks and Hard Places’, Dubash and Singh, p 5249) that in Delhi “each bidder was guaranteed at least one company”. Six bidders were shortlisted, of which four were still in the field when the final bids were invited; the stipulation that no bidder would be allotted more than two of the three Discoms did not imply a guarantee. Further, there was no commitment to privatise all or any of the Discoms, and the government retained the absolute right to reject any bid. There was no question of such a guarantee even after the bids were opened and it was found that there were only two bidders.

JAGDISH SAGAR

Notes to Contributors

Here are some guidelines for authors who wish to make submissions to the journal.

Special Articles EPW welcomes original research papers in any of the social sciences.

* Articles must be no more than 8,000 words, including notes, references and tables. Longer articles will not be processed.

* Contributions should be sent in a hard copy format accompanied by a floppy/CD version. A soft copy can also be sent by email. Hard and soft copy versions of articles are essential for processing.

* Special articles should be accompanied by an abstract of a maximum of 150-200 words.

* Papers should not have been simultaneouslysubmittedforpublication to another journal or newspaper. If the paperhasappearedearlierin adifferent version, we would appreciate a copy of this along with the submitted paper.

* Graphs and charts prepared in MS Office (Word/Excel) or equivalent software are preferable to material prepared in jpeg or other formats.

* Every effort is taken to complete early processing of the papers we receive. Since we receive more than 35 articles everyweekandadequatetimehas tobe providedforinternalreadingandexternal refereeing. It can take up to four months for a final decision on whether the paper is accepted for publication.

* Articles accepted for publication can

take up to six to eight months from the date of acceptance to appear in the EPW.Every effort will, however, be made toensure early publication. Papers with immediate relevance for policy would be considered for early publication. Please note that this is a matter of editorial judgment.

Commentaries E P W invites short contributions to the ‘Commentary’ section on topical social, economicandpoliticaldevelopments.These should ideally be between 1,000 and 2,500 words and exclusive to the EPW. Short contributions may be sent by email.

Book Reviews E P W sends out books for review. It does not normally accept unsolicited reviews. However, all reviews that are received are read with interest and where a book has not beensentoutforreview,theunsolicitedreview is on occasion considered for publication.

Letters Readers of EPW are encouraged to send commentsandsuggestions(300-400words) on published articles to the Letters column. All letters should have the writer’s full name and postal address.

Discussion EPW encourages researchers to comment on Special Articles. Submissions should be 1,000 to 2,000 words.

General Guidelines

* Writers are requested to provide full details for correspondence: postal address, day-time phone numbers and email address. (The email address of writers in the Special Article, Commentary and Discussion sections will be published at the end of the article.)

* Authors are requested to prepare their soft copy versions in text formats. PDF versions are not accepted by the EPW. Authors are encouraged to use UK Englishspellings(WritersusingMSWord or similar software could change the appropriate settings in the Language menu of the application).

* Contributors are requested to send articles that are complete in all respects, including references, as this facilitates quicker processing.

* When there are major developments in thefieldofstudyafterthefirstsubmission, authors can send a revised version. E P W requests writers not to send revised versions based on stylistic changes/additions, deletions of references, minor changes, etc, as this poses challenges in processing.

* All submissions will be acknowledged immediately on receipt with a reference number. Quoting the reference number in inquiries will help.

* E P W posts all published articles on its websiteandmayreproducethem onCDs.

Address for communication: Economic and Political Weekly, Hitkari House, 284 Shahid Bhagatsingh Road, Mumbai 400 001, India. Email: edit@epw.org.in, epw.mumbai@gmail.com

Economic and Political Weekly January 7, 2006