Bundelkhand in Crisis

OPED Thursday, October 1, 2009 Print Close

Don’t blame the rain god for drought

Development priorities in Bundelkhand are not based on the larger understanding of climatic cycles. More could have been done to prevent drought instead of blaming poor rainfall, writes Sachin Kumar JainThe situation in Bundelkhand is turning perilous. The indicators simply stare you in the face. Between 1999 and 2008, the average number of rainy days per year has reduced from 52 to 23 in this agro-climatic zone of Madhya Pradesh. No wonder then that in the current year this beleaguered land faces a 53 per cent deficit in average rainfall. So, is Bundelkhand totally rain-fed and dependent year after year on the quantum of water its parched grounds receive? The answer also stares one in the face. The previous year was comparatively better after five years of drought. Yet that counts for very little even a year on. A great pity, but more than that a neglect of this precious resource showing an abysmal lack of focus in developmental policies. Some pertinent questions arise here. Would the agriculture bunds be able to stop the run-off water? How would the ground water level rise then and the soil receive the much needed moisture? In such situation, even if the expected 950 mm of rain were received, would it really meet the needs of this land? While all these questions form aspects of development agenda, one thing is eminently clear. That the drought in Bundelkhand is not due to a failure of rains alone. As per the statistics of the Union Irrigation and Power Ministry, 1985, every year about 1,31,021 sqmt of rainwater is available in this region. Of this a mere 14,355 sqmt is used while 1,16,666 sqmt of water simply runs off. This amounts to only a negligible 10.95 per cent of water being utilised. The situation today remains the same more or less. Unfortunately, development priorities here are not based on the larger understanding of climatic cycles and the lay of the land but choose to instead address each crisis in a piecemeal way, going from year to year, drought to drought. Traditionally, the region, in spite of its rain woes, has managed to keep hunger at bay and that itself speaks volumes about its potential to fight drought; both these conditions normally are considered synonymous, one leading to the other. Following rain-fed principles, farmers here took to growing food crops which survived in drought conditions and used less water. Sadly the Government is impervious to this potential and has failed to explore such options. More specifically, it has failed to promote growing of pulses, which requires one-third water as compared to paddy crops. The effect of this neglect is widespread, with deficient rains marking Tikamgarh (56 per cent less) Chhatarpur (54 per cent), Panna (61 per cent), Sagar (52 per cent) and Damoh (61 per cent). Literally the entire belt. As expected, the land is getting ravaged, losing its fertility and needs urgent attention by the Government to restore it. Instead of addressing this core need, the Government compounds the felony by granting mining lease and allowing cement factories to be set up on the now fallow land. These not only occupy large areas of land which can be restored to become fertile but pollute environment through deadly gases. Cement factories emit methane and damage huge areas of land around the factory, causing health hazards also. Clearly the onus for creating such a situation lies squarely with the Government. But more important is the question, does Bundelkhand need this? Wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser to nourish its soil, water, forests, things which were once its strength giving sustenance to its people? Sadly the Government seems hell-bent on imposing a different of development. Blaming the rain gods solely for the ravaged land now seems like a hollow exercise when much more could have been done to prevent the damage. The list of follies is long. Fifteen big dams were constructed in the region, of which only 30 per cent capacity is being utilised, the rest are dysfunctional because of heavy silting. NREGA could have played a very important role in addressing drought conditions. Instead the State bureaucracy stuck to routine jobs displaying a lack of drought mitigation perspective. For instance, only four per cent of the old ponds can still be used. Under NREGA other ponds could have been revived and de-silted. But these opportunities were either missed or thrown away. Through this process, local communities’ stake and role played in water management over the centuries have also been undermined. It is no mean achievement that under their care, some of the big baawadies and taalabs like Sindoor Sagar Talab in Tikamgarh have survived for 1,000 years. It is not only in Bundelkhand that this lack of focus or political will is seen. What is disturbing is that water management policies adopted by various State Governments have led to either rivers drying up, like the Narmada and the Sone, or flooding, like the Kosi. Sea water is finding its way back into dried rivers, causing river waters like that of the Narmada to turn saline. Reversing all this requires a great deal of wisdom, clarity and a sense of purpose followed by action on the ground. Perhaps the starting point would be to view the current drought situation in Bundelkhand not as a vagary of nature but caused by wilful destruction of nature’s process by human beings. Can we expect our policy-makers to pay heed and meet this challenge?

http://www.dailypioneer.com/206031/Don