Government is sponsoring unsustainability at the cost of traditons which have sustained India
Since India's independence, government policies in at least four crucial areas have had damaging effects:
- common grazing lands
- water management
- agriculture, and
- animal breeding.
Atulbhai Shah of Surendranagar has done a lot of research on gauchar. "Traditionally, gauchar has been on degraded land that is not fit for agriculture. The Vadvan Mahajan Panjrapol has 1,300 acres (526 hectares) of gauchar land. Our calculations show that if agriculture is carried out on this land, the annual income will be Rs 91 lakh, and this does not include the costs of inputs. If the same land is left as gauchar, the total annual income would be more than Rs 4 crore only from milk, gobar and wool from the animals who can graze here. It makes good economic and environmental sense to have gauchar," he says.
"We would never go to the vathaan (gauchar) with our shoes on. It was sacred land, more sacred than the fields," says Ibrahimbhai Halepotra, a Muslim Maldhari. Encroaching on gauchar land was a sin. "In fact, people would leave portions in their fields for cattle to graze in. Everything to do with cattle was sacrosanct as the entire economy was built around them," says Bagabhai Patel of Kaanth village. Not any more, and the sword wounds on Patel's head explain it. "I received these when some of us went to protect the gauchar from being usurped by neighbouring farmers. They have political support and the village cannot stand up against them as that would fragment the vote base of the local politicians," he explains.
Destruction of gauchar land has been sponsored by the government. Areas under the revenue department are being diverted to other uses, such as redistribution to the landless. "Land reforms have divided common areas among farmers... Even forestry projects have usurped former grazing lands," observes Holly Brough, research associate with the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, dc, usa, who specialises in poverty, land use and environmental education (see 'The milk that ate the grass'; Down To Earth, Vol 7, No 22; April 15, 1999).
Go and meet Rambhai Ranchodbhai Maali, who cultivates what was formerly the gauchar of Kaanth village. "In 1992, my land in village Utal of Dhanera tehsil came under a dam. We were being given land in a gauchar, but my father said that if we cultivate gauchar land, the generations to come would be ruined. We bought land at another place but the government wanted the black soil from that land for something to do with the dam. We were again thrown out. With no option left, we accepted the government's offer of this land," he says.
"But I feel terrible about encroaching on land meant for animals. It does not rain properly now because there are no forests and livestock is emaciated as there is no fresh grass. This drought has been created," he rues. Breaking of socio-religious codes is rebounding as an environmental disaster, he concludes. But in no other way is breaking away from traditional environmental management rebounding as badly as in the case of agriculture and water (see box: Creating water scarcity).
"The most damaging thing has been the subsidy on tractor and diesel. Why should public money be used to blindly promote unsustainable practices that help only the rich farmers? I can understand that the choice to use a tractor or cattle rests with the farmer. But the least that the government can do is to provide a level-playing field for tractors and cattle. Let the people foot the bill for the tractors, just as they foot the bill for maintaining cattle. I am sure draught animal power will emerge as a more sustainable alternative," says Laxmi Narain Modi, managing trustee of the New Delhi-based non-governmental organisation Bharatiya Cattle Research and Development Foundation. "About 300 million tonnes of fodder can be made available for cattle if it were not simply burnt, as in Punjab, where it causes major air pollution, or diverted to industry or simply allowed to rot."
"In the name of modernisation, government is killing the goose that lays golden eggs," says Shah. "Look at the amount of petroleum and fertiliser we import and the foreign exchange we spend on this. And yet the tax payer's money is being used for subsidies that are actually killing the animals who can cut down this drain on our exchequer." Bharatbhai Kothari, a trader based in Deesa town of Gujarat, who runs the Rajpur-Deesa Panjrapole that shelters about 6,000 animals, says: "What if there is an oil crisis? Sooner or later, the world will run out of petroleum. Then everyone will need these very 'unproductive' animals. It is a matter of national security to preserve them."
"The crossbreeding fiasco is a reflection of our colonial hang-up. We seem blissfully unaware of the genetic wealth of our natural resources," says Nivsarkar. "For the past 40 years, the entire government machinery has been busy drilling in the message that foreign breeds are superior to native breeds. When they lose pride in their animals, people stop caring about maintaining the pedigree."
He is right. Several families of traditional livestock breeders interviewed by Down To Earth didn't even remember the names of the breeds, describing them as "desi" (local). "Words like 'local' and 'non-descript' should be struck out of our livestock terminology. These terms have polluted our minds for way too long," says Batobyal. But his department is mainly responsible for the crossbreeding fiasco. Batobyal acknowledges that instead of upgrading India's poor animals, it has actually polluted the best of native breeds. He says the department is trying to make amends by preserving the native breeds now.
Is it too late? The bullock cart has already become a symbol of lack of development. "One major reason for persistent poverty in India is the neglect of the livestock system," says Ramaswamy. The government has discouraged sustainable systems of economic productivity, branding them 'regressive', whereas unsustainable models have been pushed blindly through subsidies as 'progressive'.
Why is the government doing this? Simple. It is easier for politicians to garner support through quick, populist measures that yield immediate results. Who cares about the long-term effects? So, the answer to water scarcity b ecomes deeper tubewells. "I was amazed that the ruling party of Delhi lost the 1998 assembly elections for something as petty as the rise in prices of onions. Governments have been plundering rural areas in every way possible, and yet there is no reprieve for us. The government is of the urban rich, by the urban rich and for the urban rich," complains Kothari.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.