Collaborating beyond Conflicts: Lessons from an Activist Researcher
In this episode, Sujatha and Deepak talk with K.J. Joy, an activist-researcher who has been working on people’s rights to natural resources at grassroots and policy levels for over four decades. Water is an essential resource with competing claims to its use. Conflicts while being inevitable can also lead to resolution of complex problems. Joy’s experiences as an activist, researcher, social scientist and social leader helps our understanding of conflict, it’s resolution, and management of multi-stakeholder interests.
Dawn on the Sea of Cortez: Chris Sabot / Unsplash
Subscribe & Listen: Spotify | Apple Podcasts
About K.J. Joy
Pic: K.J. Joy
Joy is a Senior Fellow with Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM), Pune, India and also one of its founding members.
He is an activist-researcher working on people’s rights to natural resources at grassroots and policy levels. His interests include democratization of natural resource governance, water conflicts, water ethics, environmental justice, social movements and people’s alternatives. He was a full-time activist with a rural toilers’ movement in South Maharashtra. He is also part of networks like Forum for Policy Dialogue on Water Conflicts in India, India Rivers’ Forum and Vikalp Sangam (Alternative Confluences).
He was a Fulbright Fellow with the University of California at Berkeley. He was the recipient of TN Khoshoo Memorial Award for 2016. He is a visiting faculty at the Shiv Nadar University in its Masters programme in Water Science and Policy and Rural Management.
He has also published extensively on water-environment-development issues.
Resources
Society for Promoting Participating Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM)
Alternative Futures: India Unshackled, by Ashish Kothari and KJ Joy
Water Conflicts in India, A Million Revolts in the Making, by KJ Joy along with B. Gujja, Suhas Paranjape, Vinod Goud, Shruti Vispute
Transcript
Deepak
So KJ joy, [is] one of the people who I really look up to in the sector. He calls himself an activist researcher, who I know has been working in the areas of people's rights to natural resources at the grassroot level, and also at a policy level for over four decades now. His interests through his work and his writing include democratization of natural resource governance, water conflicts, environmental justice, water ethics, social movements, and people's alternatives. He's part of several networks, including the forum for policy dialogue on water conflicts in India, India rivers forum, and Vikalp Sangam and of course, he is a co-founder of SOPPECOM. And the main issue that we want to talk about is that through his experience and his writing, and his observing of the social sector in India, he has seen a lot of conflicts, you know, and water especially, is a resource that leads to competing claims. And while we see conflict as something that is a bad thing, but many times it often leads to resolution of complex problems. And what are the lessons that lie in joy’s experiences as an activist, as a researcher, as a social scientist, and as a leader, that informs our understandings or understanding of conflict, and its resolution? And how can this conversation help us understand and enrich our practice of equity, democracy, collaboration and empathy? And with me, of course, is Sujatha Rao, always partner in crime? So although there is no new crime happening, but partner in crime nevertheless.
Sujatha 03:13
maybe we will talk about crimes
Sujatha 03:27
I want to I want to kick start from Deepak’s introduction, Joy. Because it's been such an interesting journey over the last, you know, four decades. But you, you know, this term or these two terms that you have sort of brought together activist researcher. What does this mean it and what does this mean to you? What are the sorts of boundaries you're pushing at? When we say activism, what are the boundaries you're pushing at when you say, research? And, you know, what possibilities are they presenting to you and sort of what sort of challenges right so help us help us understand why, why activist researcher?
KJ Joy 04:17
The whole question of activist researcher, in fact, probably is a name that I have given to myself. Because whenever you go for a program, associate, introduce yourself. So I used to find it very difficult to describe who I am. The typical academics can say I'm a researcher, I work in such and such an institution, I do this work in this. And it typically NGO people or activists can say that, okay, I'm part of a social movement as an activist, or part of an NGO doing this, this and that. But I still find it difficult to describe myself in a binary form of either this because I do straddle many spheres. And primarily, I thought I do both in terms of activism, activist in terms of practice, involved in practice and things and also I do some research so then I thought it's a convenient term to use called activist-researcher. It is also an excuse sometimes because you can get away with a lot of things. Because if I call a hardcore academic, then no, I need to be very rigorous. And you know, people can ask you very troubling questions. But when I say activist-researcher, then probably people said okay, he's only an activist-researcher. Apart from all this, it also describes the type of work I've been doing after I passed out of Tata Institute of Social Sciences long time back in the early 80s. So, this term has two meanings to me. One is that my life was in a way divided between these two spheres. One is, after I passed out of my studies, then I got into full time political activist work, I spent about 8 to 10 years in rural Maharashtra, especially southern Maharashtra, a district called Sangli, which is a drought prone region. And I was part of this mass movement called Mukti Sangharsh movement, which was trying to mobilize first support to the you know, that time this whole textile workers strike was happening in Mumbai. Some of us got radicalized through that when we were students in Mumbai, and a lot of workers had come back to the rural areas and one of the major areas where the textile workers come from is the drought prone regions of Maharashtra and as the strike prolonged a lot of workers came back and there was a very systematic effort to build a Worker Peasant Alliance and support the working class movement in Mumbai, the strike. So, that was the type of the, then while doing that, because most of these workers came back and got absorbed in this employment guarantee scheme work sites, because as we all know, Maharashtra the first state which brought this act saying that you know, people who need work need to be provided work as a drought proofing mechanism, and this NREGA and things are actually take off from that. So most of the workers, though, they had land, agriculture land, because of the drought conditions, they could not eke out a living. And these people got absorbed in the EGS sites and Mukti Sangharsh movement made an effort to mobilize people on their you know, statutory rights, in terms of getting work in time getting payments in time, these sites used to be a tremendous sites of corruption and so fighting corruption, etc, that was the first phase then we moved to saying that if EGS work has to have some bearing on drought proofing, in the long run, then the work which is taken up should not be road construction, breaking stones, etc. But they should be agriculturally productive. So soil and water conservation programs and things. And then we move to water issues, equitable access to water, various other things. And so that was a full time, you know, 8 to 10 years I spent as an activist there. And I would say that was one of my most learning periods. Today whatever I talk about water, agriculture and other things or biomass, etc. My founding has been there, working with people. And there also, this movement, Mukti Sangharsh movement is also as a political organization, because Mukti Sangharsh movement’s a mass organization across different political parties or groups. You can be part of this provided you broadly agree with the demands and things; but there's a political organism which I've been part of called Shramik Mukti Dal, which has been working in active in Maharashtra is not a political party, but a very small organization. which actually talks about class caste patriarchy, environment etc. And one of the distinguishing features of Shramik Mukti Dal, apart from the conventional left political parties or organization has been that the toiling masses need to be involved in finding their own alternatives. So if you are going to talk about a transformative change or radical social transformation, that's not a one time event saying that that used to be the conventional understanding, you capture the means of production, blah, blah, and then things will change. But the toiling movements have to be involved in their day to day, whether it is health, whether it's education, agriculture, water, and things. So Mukti Sangharsh movement actually got involved in developing people's alternatives, especially around drought around equitable access to water, agriculture. So this movement always had an element of, you know, knowledge generation as part of it. Even as a full time activist, I could involve now for example, I remember, we did a five year you know, research program called waste and integration process project, which was a very high quality research we did. The issue was that in case the water comes to the drought prone region, then, how this water going to be distributed? Because in a drought prone region, as you can see, in the present political, electoral scenario, everyone promises water, because water is a vote catcher. Now, the issue is that once the water comes, then how do this water get distributed? Who gets access to water? So then we ask this question, say that if it's a natural resource, then everybody should have equal access to this water, everybody's drought need to be eradicated? And then the second question came that how much is the water we're talking about? So we need to go through hardcore research. So we planted crops, we planted trees, we tried to understand the root zone development, we used to understand what is the incremental biomass production, how much is the water being used, what are the other inputs, and so five years we did that, from there, we came to some type of broad, what we call a perspective on drought proofing in Maharashtra, which we thought that can also that is called the biomass based sustainable prosperity. In fact, there's also a book around that which is mainly written by my senior colleague, KR Date, assisted my Suhas Paranjpe and myself. And that was a time in Maharashtra, around these experiments, we could bring together a group of people who are scientists, or pro-people scientists and technologists, and activists together on one joint platform to look for what we call drought proofing strategies. So I've been part of that. So in a way, even in a social movement, we could embed some of the research and other types of things which we do and that flow into your perspective. Now, Mukti Sangharsh movement used to organize whole lot of you know, demonstrations and demands and other types of things, but the authorities especially the district collector, and things could never refute the demand of the Mukti Sangharsh movement, because it’s been always backed up with data and knowledge. So, that was a very powerful weapon in the hands of the toiling movement. So, I would say that though I spent my time primarily as an activist in the first 8, 10 years research knowledge generation etc has been a part of the movement’s work itself. In fact, there have been moments when I questioned myself my own identity in that area, I said I went there as a political activist, what am I doing planting crops, measuring roots, trying to understand the dry weight of things, looking at - we set up a - for example a meteorological station there in the 80s. I try to take the what is the minimum temperature, maximum temperature, wind velocity, rainfall, etc, etc. So, I still question saying that, how did this all lead to a, because I went for more of a no social transformative agenda, but then that was a journey which took place in that how to integrate all these things and bring so. So one of the important things is that we have been able to articulate people's alternative to state’s different programs, policies and projects, especially in terms of water infrastructure. I remember just to give you one example, in Kolhapur District, which is part of the Southern Maharashtra, the government had decided to build a medium irrigation project is called Ucchangi Dam, it is part of the larger Krishna basin. Now, people are against it, because the same area which this particular the proposed project was going to serve through irrigation, were already getting some water through traditional irrigation base, this whole area has got you know, every year they impound the water or channelize the water not making through structures. But every year they will take the water around and the water comes back into your river and things. So we said that by building this dam, it is not going to serve any purpose. So then we involved we did what you call will participate in resource mapping in the whole area. And with the help of people like KR Date, we said that instead of impounding the dam in the water in one place, which will destroy, I mean, which will submerge whole lot of areas and people have to be relocated, we suggested that the same amount of water can be stored in a decentralized manner in three places. And then the people of the area took up this alternative and fought against the government, and that forced the government to say that, ‘okay, instead one place, we can have two’ because they said that the third place was not fitting into their cost benefit analysis. And they also agreed to reduce the height of the dam by two meters, it was the first time this has happened, that the toiling people with the knowledge and alternative which we generated could force the government to bring down the height of the dam, so that nobody needs to be relocated. Now, this is a major, you know, victory of this, I would say knowledge, and people's, you know, mobilization come together. In fact, this has been one of my, the themes, which I've been working on increasingly getting convinced, if you have to really make a transformative changes, then probably knowledge and politics, knowledge and people's mobilization have to go hand in hand. So this has been my first phase for the work in which I tried to combine these two aspects of my life in terms of activism and knowledge. Then around 1990, I had to leave, this full time activism because of my own personal family issues, and I shifted to Pune, where some of us tried to set up what Deepak said, SOPPECOM called society for promoting participatory ecosystem management. Now SOPPECOM gave us an entire space for me to continue the same type of work. Now, SOPPECOM, unlike many other typical large implementing agencies, we are not we are very small group, maybe about 15 – 20 of us max, we work together. And we are not a major implementing [agency], we do implement things as especially some innovative ideas as pilot projects, or we do a lot of action research, try to learn from the whole process and try to feed the insights into this. So we did a lot of that work. So we just got an - even in implementing project, research and knowledge generation has been an integral part of the the implementing projects itself. Now, for example, we are at the moment in involved in implementing a very interesting project in Sangli district, where we are trying to restructure a huge lift irrigation scheme, or more integrated, equitable, sustainable participatory lines. In fact, the movement which I've been part of that they have been able to force the government to restructure a huge lift irrigation scheme from Krishna, which brings water to the drought prone regions. After 15 years of consistent struggle, the government agreed to reset the scheme on a pilot basis in 3 tehsils, so three blocks, which covers nearly 420 villages, so a larger thing. And so SOPPECOM is involved, they're working with the larger movement, and the irrigation department to Sangli try to ground this idea. So their also knowledge generation’s an important thing, we need to look at water water balances the data, etc, etc. So, it's not a question of, you know, just implementing the project. So, we feel knowledge can be a multiplier in terms of civil society work and things. So, that is one.
Second aspect that we also take on research projects. SOPPECOM does do a lot of cutting-edge research either as on its own steam or we collaborate with other academic institutions, both within India and outside. And I’ve been, in a way, lucky in two ways. One, when I got into this type of work, there was a lot of churning taking place in India, in Maharashtra, especially around water. We had very pioneering experiments like, you know, the Pani panchayat experiment in Pune, led by Vilasrao Salunkhe, and Kalpana tai Rau Salunkhe. We had very interesting things happening in Nasik, were led by one of the socialist leaders there, we had people like SA Dabholkar who was experimenting on different types of agriculture, horticulture try to revolutionise, who was a mathematic teacher, for example. And he set up an interesting network with a tool called the Prayog Pariwar. And people like KR Date. So there were a lot of these people who, you know, from working with them, I could learn a lot. And I would always say that I've been acknowledged that I stand today on their shoulders. So that is one thing.
Second, we also could work I could personally work with whole lot of, within India and outside, whole lot of academic institutions and researchers on various research projects. So that has been also a very interesting experience for me. So that's why primarily, Sujatha, I call myself activist researcher, probably there is no better term. So it's a convenient term, yeah, thanks.
Sujatha 19:57
But I think it's convenient It's a it's an interesting word to use. Because I think, you know, we've been talking about how does one manage conflicts, right, without getting into conflict itself? So one idea that is emerging for me, as I listen to you, is that often conflicts get stuck at the ideology level. Right? So yeah, I come from this perspective, therefore, I'm right. And I come from this perspective, therefore, I'm right. What I'm hearing you say is that the ability to bring data, the ability to bring knowledge that is rooted in research, in emerging from the field, allows for this conversation, perhaps for stepping out of only ideology, to also start looking at what the ground data is telling you. Therefore, even if my ideology is suggesting, build a dam, right, and therefore, you know, let's work towards development, building a dam. The presentation of research and data at least provides a space for some conversation and maneuverability to start happening. Right, which is, it's, I think, both interesting and fascinating, because it seems to have worked, you know, for the last so many years, but also today, because knowledge itself is so contentious, so, all of the false data and information coming through. How do you combat that becomes interesting. So yeah. Yeah, thank you for that Joy. I found that I think it's more than convenient. I think it's it goes to perhaps a key lesson from how you've been looking at conflicts.
Deepak 21:50
I'm listening to Joy, meaning I was thinking that there are movements and the movements also have a political organization, then there is a research wing or platform, there is this NGOs being formed, there is a government. So there are many structures which are present or get created.
In your experience, how do these structures compete, converge? I find that fascinating, like, one is an activity level Joy, you said that, you know, we did work at a grassroot level, even sometimes, you're wondering what am I as an activist, identity as an activist you know, working on crops and measuring root levels and things like that, but also the creation of organizations. And how has the confluence or divergence of these organizations themselves that what you have observed, do they compete, do they work, is there tension for example, between the movement and the political body, for example, even though it has been supported by Mukti Sangharsh? What have you observed?
KJ Joy 23:11
It's a little complex in a way to describe that. There are tensions and things I mean, there are two different contexts. One is that what I said in the beginning was about social movement context in which this. So, one is that probably one is a much more an ideologically driven group; now, for example, I took the name Shramik Mukti Dal, which has its own understanding of the Indian society, Indian state, what does radical transformation mean, What's the ways to achieve it and things. Now, that was an important constituent of the mass movement called mukti sangharsh movement, there were other constituents also. So, there could be tensions and things for example, whether you touch caste or not, whether you take up women's issues or not. Now, some of the conventional left parties may not be so serious about let's say patriarchy or gender issues and things, and especially in the rural context, for example, when you push for that, it can create divides and things.
Now, how do you straddle between these types of what you call ideological gaps or what you call tensions and things, one of the things. And in a mass movement, where different people work together, then there should be more dialogue, try to discuss and maybe come to some type of common set of minimum programs and things. So, for example, now, when we talk about drought proofing, drought is a major area of Mukti Sangharsh’s work. Now, does class and caste has anything to do with that or not? So these are questions. We keep a two pronged approach. One is, whatever is possible within the framework of the mass movement, we do that, and then we can also separately mobilize people around your own ideological position say that look, Shramik Mukti Dal believes that you know, the caste should be eradicated or patriarchy should be eradicated. Or, for example, we did a movement called the single women’s movements in Sangli. These are basically what we call deserted women. In Marathi, we call [Paritakthar Striyaa]. In Maharashtra and I'm sure in many places, women are after marriage, you know, left by the husbands for, I mean, primarily no reason; either the issue of getting children, male children dowry, whole lot of things and violence and things. So, we try to mobilize these women. Now, why we picked on this issue? We knew it can polarize the society, because you're talking about, you know, we are talking of one of the most oppressed and exploited sections of the society in Maharashtra, across castes. But then we try to talk to the male activists in villages, saying that it's a very serious issue. And so we tried to convince them worked with them, our own local activists saying that is important because they also come from a patriarchal background. So the demonstration we had of these women, nearly 50% of women, no men who are supporting it, so that was a strength. So we need to do a lot more work to bridge this type of, our own awareness levels, sensitivities to issue, ideological issues and things. So it is a very, struggle to do it and things. So that's why so what is possible within the mass movement framework, which is much broader, we do. And for much more specific which ideological group like Shramik Mukti Dal wants to do, then we organize separate programs saying that, okay, this may not be carried on the platform of the larger movement or the network, but it can be done, you mobilize on your own.
So even taking political position, sometimes, very often what happens in many of these civil society organizations, they are very apolitical to a great extent. But when the elections come, there's a crisis. Because, for example, I can give you one example is that Pani Panchayat, in this example, which I gave in Purandara Taluka in Pune district. That time, I'm talking about the 80s, when they were vibrant, 30 to 35 Pani panchayats, working in 30 - 35 villages. So in the height of that movement, Vilasrao Salunkhe stood for the elections. And he's a close friend of mine, senior front of mine, but he lost his deposit. Because people have different arithmetic for elections and the NGO I mean, I don't expect the NGO to take a political stand, because that's not even civil society movements or a movement like Pani Panchayat, because all sorts of people are part of the movement. Even in our own work, the Sangharsh Movement, our own the one of the biggest mass leaders from the area stood for the election, he had about 2000 votes. On the streets, we could mobilize 30,000 people, 40,000 people, because the problem is that the movement has posed itself as a non-political type of thing. So, when the election comes when you take a stand, that people have their own stance, also there are different factors. So, the issue is that then in a movement context, that probably it's better to be much more politically [distanced]. And tell the people look, this is the condition under which the movement is going to work, otherwise, there will be conflicts later and things.
In the question of NGOs, which I would say is that is much this, I think, what we are all looking for is that what are the type of spaces which we have within the present system. Now, when I talk about equitable water distribution, and saying that women are getting access to water or landless getting access to water, then these are some of the things which is still possible within the existing system. And I think we have not exhausted all those possibilities. So, I think NGOs need to tap into those possibilities that will do some radical work and say that within the system, because you know, questioning the system, all that is not within the NGO framework, it’s not possible, because of various constraints, and especially present conditions and things. But I think we should explore what are the type of possibilities and spaces which is available to push this boundary or right based discourse or access to resources making the marginal voices heard for example.
Now, we create whole lot of institutions in the rural areas for different things. Now, water resources institutions, Pani Samitis are there or forest management joint Forest Management committees are there etc. There are various institutions which we craft apart from the PRAs and other things. Now, how do you say that marginal voices heard? Because there are spaces available, and how do we see that make them capable to articulate the demands within these institutions? So these are also things which we can do so that this agenda can be taken forward and things.
Deepak
it appears that there's a lot of negotiations that happen, yeah, or compromises that happen between or among these institutions amongst movements and institutions on a real time basis. Some are expedient work, you have to do because a dam is being constructed. Yeah, some are slow work, you know, work on patriarchy work is going to be, for sure, slow work. So there's a lot of compromises one has to do. In your experience, do you remember one particular conflict or resolution that, you know, that was resolved? Or handled maturely? And one where you wish things were different?
KJ Joy 30:47
Deepak, I would like to use the word… not compromise, that's a little strongly worded. It actually reminds me I mean, it's basically how do you strategize your, whole thing. You know, there's a famous saying by Lenin saying that one step forward, two steps backward. So the struggle is always like that. Because you need to change your positions, demands as per the material conditions, which is available and things. Now, for example, in the context of Sardar Sarovar Project, NBA did take a position saying no dam at all, after a point haan, I mean. Now, for example, after that, then the Supreme Court gave the verdict to say that they can go ahead with the height of the dam and other type of things. So many of us in the water sector felt was sympathetic to, you know, Narmada Bachao Andolan, we have been supporting it and thing, saying that probably that's a historical juncture where probably it has to rethink about its position, because we all knew what is going to happen and which happened, actually.
So, I think this is what I'm saying, the anti-dam struggle it doesn't stop with one struggle is a much larger thing. So there are gains and losses which will make so that's what I'm saying. So where you make a judicious decision saying that okay, if this Supreme Court has given this verdict, then how do we re strategize ourselves, that's where I say, one step forward and two step backward, because ultimately, then that can lead to victory and things.
So, coming to your question about one positive things we have been able to do, I don't think I've been able to do many positive things. Okay, that let's be clear, because water conflicts is such an area where given the present institutional architecture we have around water, it's rather difficult to intervene and say, we have a space to negotiate and other things, which is very less we can come back to that discussion later. But one of the positive things which we did was that, for example, in Kerala, there is this river called Chalakudy River, which is one very small river from there, and it meets Periyar lake and goes to Arabian Sea. Now, Chalakudy river though, its a very small river, it has been one of the heavily dammed and diverted river which is called regulated river. There are upstream hydropower projects, which has impacted the downstream flows. And especially in the lean season, flows have been impacted. And many of the downstream communities and villages have their drinking water schemes and irrigation schemes on the river itself. So, there have been a apparent conflict, this conflict didn't come to the street like Kaveri conflict or there was no violence or anything, but we could see this, this thing that people are getting dissatisfied that they're not getting access to drinking water and things. So the water conference forum along with our local resource center called Chalakudy River Protection Committee, we worked together in an action research mode, and one of the upstream hydropower projects, it's called the Peringal Koothu Hydropower project, we collected all the data inflows the rainfall outflow, the way the reservoir is operated, and we could prove that with a little different reservoir operation model, it can ensure better downstream flows and without compromising too much on the power output there is a slight reduction and things, but not too serious given Kerala’s condition. Now, this is knowledge part of it, we could prove and we had a interesting meeting, a peer review of what we did, we got scientists from IIT Mumbai to review the work. We got other people, we had a very interesting meeting in Chalakudy itself where multi stakeholders came together the irrigation department, the Agriculture Department, experts from people like you know from IIT, etc, and try to review this work we have done and they said, ‘Yeah, this seems to be a tenable proposition.’ Now, the work doesn't stop there. So water conflict forum’s work is primarily to produce this new knowledge and new ways of doing things and articulate. But the local groups, the Chalakudy Protection Committee took this alternative to all the gram panchayats within the basin, and they pass resolutions saying that this alternative operation model should be implemented. So that a signature campaign they supported it, there are about six or seven basin MLAs, they went and approach them they supported it. And finally, they took this proposal to I think Oommen Chandy was the chief minister that time, took it to the chief minister saying that this is a viable proposition otherwise downstream people are not getting their water share, and also it can improve the environmental flows. So, he looked at it and said, Yeah, this is tenable and he instructed the Kerala state electricity board to change this operation. So, this I would say that how knowledge and politics or population can come together to have some transformative changes and things. This work is still half done. It is not institutionalized. When there's a crisis and there's a push then the Kerala state electricity board, try to do it. So, the effort by the local group is to how to institutionalize this whole process. So, there are small victories probably of this type we have been able to do, but, but I think more than that, what are the Water Conflicts Forum has been able to do is to do two or three things.
One, water conflicts were never discussed in an institutionalized manner in the country. And water conflict discourse was only limited to basically interstate conflicts like Kaveri, Krishna, Godavari, Narmada, etc, etc or some of the transboundary conflicts like Indus River or conflict or between India Pakistan, Bangladesh and all. But I think because of the water forums work and extensive documentation we have done, I remember the first book which we brought out called ‘Water conflicts in India: A Million Rivers in the Making’, it was a transformative experience for me itself, because I never heard about such conflicts, right from the micro inter-community conflicts to large scale conflicts and things. So, our belief is that bringing this nuanced understanding is the first step towards even looking at you know resolving. So, that is one how do you bring this understanding on the table?
Second, systems in place. Two things, one, when we looked at the water sector, one of the major gaps which he found was that there is no socially accepted norms of water allocation, either across different uses, like domestic use, agricultural use, industrial use, etc etc. Second, though the water policy talk about privatization and things but that doesn't mean that you know, domestic water is the first priority, it doesn't mean that all the people have got access to the you know, domestic water only then water flows into the second order priority. It's not sequentially organized one. Second, we thought that even this entire thing about urban domestic water, we need to look at critically where does this water go? Today city like Pune gets about 180 to 200 liters per day per person. Do we use that water productively? No. Studies have shown, experience has shown that maybe at the most 25 to 30 liters is what you call the basic needs, or what we call the lifeline needs of the people, that the rest of the water goes into luxury uses. Either your flushing systems, private bathing tubs and swimming pools and washing vehicles, lawns etc, the bulk of the water goes there. But today we see whole lot of water is moving out of the rural and agricultural urban space basically under the rubric of domestic water. And I don't see any social movements within the city saying that we can do with less water, the whole demand is to get more water. And in Maharashtra Prayas, an organization which we work with has done a study over the last eight years, nearly 3000 million cubic meters of water has been moved out of agriculture to domestic water use in the urban areas. When we talk about 3000 million cubic meter it is means it has an irrigation potential about three lakh hectares. So it's not a simple thing. And this type of water I call water grabbing by the cities, is taking place that unabated. Now, how do you look at all these things? In the interstate context also for example, in the Kaveri conflict, we organised a meeting in [Ettri] in between Ettri and Water Conflict Forum and we try to work out some type of norms of water allocation, which we also tried to apply in the Mahanadi conflict now. So I think one of the major gaps is that we really don't have a societal understanding of how, or consensus around how water needs to be allocated and things. So we put a working group together try to see how to look at these things. And we try to come up with some understanding about that. Part of it also we’re trying to float, in 2019-20, there was an effort to draft a new national water policy. The committee was headed by Mihir Shah. I was also a member, we tried to float some of these insights into such policy things. The second area gaps, which were the institutional gap which I mentioned earlier, today, we really don't have a democratic space for conflicting parties to come together, put the data and experience together, put the demands together, negotiate and come to some type of a negotiated settlements. Though policies have been talking about river basin organizations, etc, etc. There are bureaucratic things. And I don't think that you have any genuine river basin organization anywhere. Now how do you build institution from micro watershed up to, let's say, river basins, and where different stakeholders can come together, meet each other, share their experiences, bring experts from outside, make informed choices, agree on data itself. Otherwise, in the interstate water conflict, we see different states come with the different datasets. And if you put together the total water demands, I think you need three Kaveris together to meet the water demands. That's the way it is. So I think one of the central gaps is that. So we worked on that there are two reports one on allocation, and second on the legal institutional mechanism for conflict resolution. So it's a long term thing. So we feel that role of institutions like Water Conflicts Forum, any other bodies or networks is to one, make these conflicts more nuanced, flowing to how do you change the public discourse around conflict. Otherwise you take the Kaveri conflict itself, different political parties, if you're based in either the same party based in Karnataka has a different understanding. And the same party is based inTamil Nadu, and same with the media. So how do you write about some of these issues and things and bring these things more visible, more nuanced, contribute to public discourse around? That can be one first step to change? Second, how do you put in things in place where the institutions, legal and policies, which I can either prevent, or even if the conflict takes place, There's a place to negotiate and come to some agreements otherwise it all goes towards criminal cases today. That's a problem. Yeah. So this is one case, which I would say where we could make some headway. This is I would say work in progress.
Sujatha
It’s sort of leaving me with this thought, joy that you've been? You've been in movements, you've been advocating a rights based approach for a very long time, you've also been working with multiple stakeholders, including the state and the government, across right, over over four decades in a variety of ways. Over the last four or five decades, in what way do you think the relationship between the state, the government, and rights based organizations or rights based movements have changed, right? It hasn't? Is it still the same as it was? What are the stories you yourself heard about rights based organizations and governments when you started in the 80s? You know, after independence, was there a different sort of ecosystem relationship? How is it now? Has it changed dramatically? Right, is there still an opportunity for rights based movements to exist in India today, to talk about issues like water conflicts? Or has that era gone? And we now just moved into, you know, even water becoming, water-based organizations just being service delivery? What's your what's your sense of the space that the relationship in the space that we have today? Has it changed over time?
KJ Joy
I think that a lot of changes taking place is just not only in terms of the relationship between, let's say, NGOs or civil society organizations, or talking about rights based approach, and the state - that is one change, we can clearly see, I'll come to that. Second, I think within the NGO sector itself, a lot of changes, which I think we need to take into account. Now, when we people like us passed out in the 80s, and gotten to work, we had a very different type of political atmosphere in the country. I find that even before me, a lot of people from IITs, Medical Colleges, engineering colleges got dropped out, either after the studies, they never got into mainstream career. They've worked with a lot of social movements. I mean, Maharashtra was one of the prime areas where we had very interesting movements that time. Now that is one and I think probably people like me or a few other couple more other years, have been maybe the last generation of that. But I'm not blaming anybody, because things have changed. I mean, we need to take into account probably for us that type of thing was so much easier to make choices of that type. Today probably things are very different complex, and there was a political atmosphere that if something were to take place, there was an overall interesting political ambience in which we this, but that today, probably not there with the maybe with the type of liberalisation and you know, reforms which he brought in and that's a different type of ecosystem which is created and there are different type of pressures and people find certain spaces for different types of work and things.
But within the typical NGOs also, I think I find, you know, earlier, I used to feel even NGOs do little more critical work. I'm using a broad brush here. I'm not saying categorically all the NGOs into the same. People used to say whether we should get to this project or not. Why should we get into a particular project? How does it relate to state for example? Are we becoming an implementing arm of the state or not? Do we have a related autonomy? So I remember these discussions, you know, political economy questions used to be much more discussed in the NGO circles earlier. And then we make a choice whether to get into that. But I think that culture is gone, to some extent. Even people have done very interesting pioneering work earlier. Now, for example, I can see organizations which have done very interesting work on watershed development, there spent, you know, five years 10 years in certain sites to do a lot of interesting work and things. Today, they get into anything and everything, once the State offers this, or today under corporate social responsibility, most of the money comes from there, and they have won these quick fix solutions. And water is something which I don't think is amenable to, it's a very wicked problem. And you can’t. And I said people are telling lies, when they say that within one year I can solve you know, water problems in an area or you plant the trees in two kilometers radius and all your river problems or water problems will be over, this is wrong. And I can see that many NGOs are getting into such programs. Now, for example, in Maharashtra, we had this program called Jala Yukta Shivaar. I mean, Shivaar means the field, Jal is water. So the field full of water. Now, if you look at the guidelines, they're very broad guidelines, they follow broadly the earlier watershed guidelines, so Ridge to Valley approach and various other things. Now in practice, what does this do? You bring huge earthmoving machinery, where the machinery come from the corporate social responsibility, you know, what we call huge machines. And then the people have to contribute to the petrol or other type of thing, and they do three things and they enter the riverbeds. One is deepening you huge, you know, wells type of things. They do that. Second, they do widening. I mean, there are already stabilized banks with the riparian vegetation, they take out all that. Third, is they do straightening, they also straighten the rivers. Now, in a way, rivers are supposed to be, you know, going here and then meandering and things. Now the then Chief Minister said that within three years we'll make make Maharashtra drought free 1000s of crores is spent on this. Lot of NGOs got into this, where we are arguing that you know, even for watershed work, we need to increase the time period from three years, five years to several years, major allocation. Many of them got into this. Why? My issue is that why do they get into this? It is mainly because this money available. They don't think about what is the long-term ecological impacts and social impacts of this. SOPPECOM did a study and there are many studies which people have done, hydrogeologists have done these studies. For example, I remember one of the first articles I read about this was from director Ellyarr, one of the most famous or well-known hydrogeologists Dr. Gare, and things, many of us critical about this, but still the program is going on when the political regime change because a lot of corruption on this, there is no social institution on the ground to do some type of regulation of all these things. When the same chief minister has come back again, or the same party they have already started Jala Yukta Shivaar 2 version now. And many of these people are again into the business. So what I'm saying is that even the critical mindset we had earlier, especially even if you were to partner with the state in the program, I think probably that is diluting today, i think so we are getting into anything. So there is saying this is the name of a book in a different context, which I say many of us NGOs have started thinking like state, though NGOs are supposed to play what we call a critical role. Because NGOs are civil society organizations are an important pillar of democracy is an important in terms of whatever development that critical need to be brought in. But many of the mainstream NGOs today, think like state, act like state, and so that' that critical space is getting over. So that is one thing I've seen in. I mean, I'm not saying that all the NGOs are doing it don't get me wrong, but this when you talk about in terms of relationship with state and right based groups, I would say this a radical change which is taking place. Of course, in the 70s and 80s, there was much more inimical relationship, in terms of whole lot of anti-dam movements or various other type of struggles were there in the till the mid of 80s, and things which was probably, you know, questioning the state and, you know, states’ developmental agenda. And this whole discourse around environment versus development was also very sharp that time. But after mid 80s, many of us thought that probably that question is little settled, because you have some of the environmental safeguards, which are put in place there are EIAs to be done. And there are a lot of environmental governance, which will be brought, this is space available for mobilizing people around that maybe we can correct it. So, you know, this environment versus development probably settled, that's in that environment and development need to go together. And one of the highlights of that period was, I would say, personally, that people can differ with that, though we find fault with the UPA 2, to for quite a lot of things. I would say many of these socially and environmentally, just legislations came that time. Why is that because the UPA government set up something called a National Advisory Committee, which was actually mainly dominated by the civil society groups. I mean, for example, people like, Aruna Roy, Jean Dreze they were all members of that. So they could where they could give suggestions, and many have the right to food, right to education, or right information, etc, etc, all gained together, mainly because many of the civil society organization of people's movement was struggling for this, they also worked with some of the sympathy elements within the government. In fact, they helped with the drafting of things. So I would say that was one of the best periods, I think, where civil society groups could bring in their agenda to some extent. And we all know that we are a capitalist state, and, you know, bourgeois and all that is there. But within that, what I meant is that, in fact, exploiting the spaces, which is available in within the system, and that was, I would say, in the recent past, that is the best time. But I think after 2014, things have changed, whatever we could gain before that has been also diluted in many ways. And I'm sure most of you know that many of these, you know, whether it is EIAs have been changed or being getting diluted forest Rights Act and things like has been also trying to be changed, there is a move to also bring down the allocations for let's say, NREGA type of thing. And also this whole legislation on, you know, what he called compensation for the not compensation but land acquisition act, which has brought this which is very progressive in many ways, it's also trying to, you know, to privilege a certain type of infrastructure projects and things. So we find that overall, there is a going down on that. And also, there is a much more clamping down. Let's accept that on groups, which are talking about rights as well in certain sectors. I mean, there are many examples of that, for example, the way FCRA rules are being, you know, changed, applied. A lot of people are being denied FCRA certificates. I’m not getting into the complexity of these very complex issues. But when I say these are very outward signs that there is much more clamping down on not only FCRA, even other types of, you know, if you're doing critical work, then you can be picked up and all that.
So, suddenly, there is an overall change in the ambience and change within the NGO sector, what I said. and also the relationship between the state and the…. One area where I feel there is a need of close collaboration, in the sense that unlike other rights, no, otherwise, there's an adversarial attitude between the right holder versus the state, because you're demanding the state saying that you provide so many days of work, so it is their responsibility, but water is a very different type of resource when I say right to water or human right to water, or a fundamental right to water, water is also a resource which changes with every year. So, there is a process of calculating, negotiating every year with the concerned departments, what should be their proportionate share, or water things so you just cannot take only an adversarial, of course, you need to oppose projects or other types of things. But when you go to actually negotiate for, you know, how much water etc, etc, because it fluctuates, it's variable resource, etc, etc. There are other things so we need to have much closer collaboration with the state government or the other government departments and things to work out the rights and things and to actualize because most of the infrastructure has to be put place by the state, so there’s a need for much more collaboration without compromising on our basic principles.
Sujatha
Are you hopeful Joy about these kinds of spaces, do you?
KJ Joy
I'm very hopeful.
Sujatha 54:59
I guess reclaiming, yeah.
KJ Joy 55:01
So I think we can reclaim that. I mean, I mean, for example, we mentioned this platform which I am part of called Vikalp Sangham, it’s an alternative confluence. Yeah. Is a very, it's amazing story. So what people are doing communities are doing, in terms of finding, even different sectors. So I think there are different things are changing. So we can think of is trying to bring together all these groups, critically discuss exchange ideas, experiences, and how we can push this in the policy realm and things. So, I'm very hopeful things will change, things have to change. Otherwise, I don't think there's any meaning for a lot of our existence. Yeah, yes. And we should make efforts. Yeah. whether, for example, when I was a student got into politics, I thought revolution is around the corner, which never took place. Yeah. Okay. So you need to reconfigure things. Yeah.
Deepak
No but what you said earlier about toilers’ revolution. It struck a chord when you said revolution is not an event. It’s slow work. Yeah.
And I want to change tack a little bit because…
KJ Joy
Deepak, I just want to make one comment there so what I’m saying is that the effort of the civil society the organization thing is that, how do you expand people's power?, versus the state power. Now, if the state is coming with a particular irrigation project, you can displace them can we push or develop an alternative, saying ki that can be better alternative which is less displacing? less environmentally harmful, but much more beneficial? And mobilize people around it and think so? How do you capture these spaces? So this all hegemonic discourse of the state say that development is only this and that, we need to question that. In fact, there is an interesting Marxist scholar called Gramsci I'm sure some of you might have heard, he talked about a counter hegemonies How do you raise especially in this present conditions, how do you mobilize people and try to build people on counter to state’s plans, and things, so we need to expand that.
Deepak
Joy, it’s been a long time since I heard Gramsci being spoken of in the social sector. Nowadays left wingers are not fashionable.
Joy
IN fact I want to give one more quote that I love, Marx in 1845 said ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world in many ways, the issue is to change it.’ So that is what I would say is the relationship between academics and activists, how do you come together. We need to interpret the world, we need to understand the world, only then changes are possible, but merely understanding doesn’t lead to changes. It’s a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Deepak
You’ve observed people’s movements, participatory structures, institutions. From the outside, I’ve seen that people who participate in these movements, when they go back and run their organizations, they run them in a very hierarchical, non-participatory manner. What has been your experience of bringing these democratic, participatory practices, in these joint democratic fora, inside organizations, institutions, inside stakeholder engagements, for example.
Joy
What you said is by and large true. On the outside we talk about participation, democratization, non-hierarchy etc, when it comes to our own movements, or NGOs, these do operate. My take is, sometimes certain elements of this will creep in, you can’t help it, because society outside is like that. It is reflected in your work. And I think it is also like, larger the institution, more the hierarchy. Very straightforward. Many NGOs today work in a very corporate style. That’s one side of the story. But what we try to do, to some extent, in SOPPECOM, or some other movements, one of the rules was that, after a demonstration or a particular demand, only full time activists will never go alone for a negotiation with the authorities. There will be people from the villages with you. They should know what you’re negotiating. Very often, negotiation takes place between the leadership and the authorities, and the people don’t know much of what happens. So this was one of our organizing principles. There will be a delegation, and that will be chosen by the people. But still, there is a leadership issue, there is a mass issue, people are seen as heroes. It’s also because there are different capabilities, different skills. So there’s one thing we do, in marathi it is called Abhyas work, building up skills, analytical, critical…so that they can talk, participate in meetings etc., so that you can democratize leadership itself. I remember there was one leader, I don’t want to take any names, but people used to be afraid to talk in front of him. I was very bindaas, so they would come and confide in me. So, it depends what personality you project. You have to be conscious of your image. In the NGOs I’ve seen 2 things. It’s not only democratization of processes involved, it’s also, who constitutes your organization? Do we have diversity within the institution? Dalits, minorities, women, third gender, these are what we need to ask.
Often we see NGOs are very elite looking, because they are coming from foreign education, they are city bred, coming from certain class and caste. Today you may have women there, but they come from privileged background. And this changes the conversations you can have. The passion diverse people can bring is very different. Second, is the processes you have for people to come together, discuss, debate and things. These are very important.
I want to do this research actually, as to what is the caste composition in the NGOs in the country, especially in the decision making positions.
Deepak
Yes.