Details of Module and its Structure

Module Detail
Subject Name Sociology
Paper Name Development, Globalisation and Society
Module Name/Title Water (Resistance and Justice Movements)
Pre-requisites Privatisation in water sector in the globalisation regime cropped up issues
like water shortage, price hikes and over exploitation of water resources
etc. Consequently, people who were affected in different parts of World, in
order to improvise their water conditions collectively held resistance and
justice movements. Some movements were successful, others are still going
on.
Objectives a)To understand the privatisation in water sector; b) world-wide outrage
due to the ill- effects of privatisation in the form of resistance and justice
movements; and c) the scenario in India
Keywords water privatisation, justice, resistance movements

Structure of Module / Syllabus of a module (Define Topic / Sub-topic of module)

Resistance and Justice Movements: Water

Role Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof Sujata Patel Department of Sociology,
University of Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof Sherry Sabbarwal Department of Sociology, Panjab
University, Chandigarh
Content Writer/Author (CW) Veenat Department of Sociology,
Post Graduate Government College
for Girls, Sector-11, Chandigarh
Content Reviewer (CR) Prof Sherry Sabbarwal Department of Sociology
Panjab University Chandigarh
Language Editor (LE) Prof Sherry Sabbarwal Department of Sociology
Panjab University Chandigarh

1
 Course: Development, Globalisation and Society
Unit: Resistance and Justice Movements
Module: Water

Introduction
Water sustains all forms of life. Nature has bestowed the planet Earth with abundant water
resources but in the recent times world is facing severe water crises, not just because of
overpopulation and rising water usage but also because of over exploitation and management of
water by a handful of people (private multinational companies). Globalisation, while increasing
interdependencies and global connectedness through economic, political, social and cultural
exchange, also brought the processes of privatisation in the name of speedy and efficient
development. In the initial years, sectors like industry, banks, insurance and retail were opened
for privatisation and gradually water sector was also privatised; in no time, water that was
perceived as scared human possession turned into a commodity for profit making by
transnational and multinational companies. This led to a situation whereby the ground water and
surface water resources that were owned by the community and then State went into the private
hands and they used them for their own good, sidelining the communal interests.

Private companies are given contracts for putting up bottled water and soft drink industries,
building hydropower plants, initiating irrigation projects and taking the responsibility of
domestic and industrial water supply. This intervention of private companies is backed and
safeguarded by International funding agencies like World Bank and Asian Development Bank.
So, in different parts of the world, when implications of privatisation of water were felt in the
form of water shortage, poor water quality, high prises, displacements due to projects and
pollution of clean resources etc., people collectively started the process of reclaiming the
community’s right over water resources through resistance and justice movements.

This module is divided into three sections: (1) privatisation of water and its shortfalls; (2)
prominent resistance and justice movements held; (3) the scenario in India.

2
Privatisation of Water and its Shortfalls
Privatisation or private sector participation (PSP) was the model evolved globally for the fast
economic growth. The underlying assumption for offering all government run institutions like
industry, education, banking, insurance and retail etc. to the private companies was the
perception that the private owners can handle all affairs more efficiently. Thus, in the later years
of globalisation regime, water was opened up for privatisation. Globally, it happened much
earlier and In India, it was one of the last sectors to be to be opened up for privatisation after the
policy of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation was introduced in the country in 1991.
Water privatisation means transformation of water from a right in the form of vital element to
life, into a commodity to be sold. Privatisation in the water sector involves aspects; namely,
hydropower projects, irrigation, industrial and domestic water supply and packaged drinking
water. Privatisation was pushed in water sector as solution to the much hyped handicaps of
public sector like corruption, inefficiency, lacking in technology and managing skills.
Privatisation came as a solution, offering promises like huge investments for sewage, cheaper
tariffs, better services, latest technology and increased efficiency. However, the reality turned out
to be quite different than projected. The places where water was privatised faced chronic water
shortages, decline of ground water tables, irrigation projects and water reservoirs led to the
displacement of locals and in many areas people’s only source of income like fishing and sand
mining from river beds etc. got affected. So capturing these issues, many studies were to done
and the following shortfalls of privatisation came into notice:

1. Getting finances didn’t happen: One of the most important reasons for favouring
privatisation has been the claim that it will bring in finances needed to build water
services infrastructure in the developing countries. A study conducted for the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) of water systems in 18 major Asian cities concluded that
investments have not flowed as expected and PSP has not proved to be the solution for
the shortage of development funding in the water supply sector (Arthur, 2003).
2. Shooting of water tariffs, instead of cost reduction: Another target set for the
privatisation of water was offering of the cheaper tariffs to the users as it was assumed
that the competition and free-market forces will lead to decline in water tariffs. However,

3
 there have been numerous instances of rise in water tariffs at the places where water
privatisation has happened. For instance, in Manila city in Philippines, roughly 500%
hike in approximately six years’ time span has been reported (Swyngedouw, 2006); in
Latin American countries also there has been 200% hike in very a short time span. In
Cochabamba, Bolivia, it has been noted that the company disconnected the supply of
people who could not pay the hiked tariffs. A report by Manthan Adhayan Kendra on
water privatisation notes that in Guinea, privatisation resulted in increase of tariffs by
750%,and 10,000 disconnections from which about one third of the total were because of
non-payment. In U.K., Thatcher Government’s initiative in commoditisation of water has
led to the high tariffs and disconnections, having serious impact on people’s access to
clean water and health. Since 1989, water rates rose every year by 50% for the first four
years and 46% for the first nine years. The profits of all water companies rose by 147%
from1990 - 1997 in UK. 18,636 houses were disconnected by [Link] was public
outcry that cutting off people’s water led to endangering public health. A 1994 study
showed that rates of occurrence of dysentery rising in most of the urban areas (Dwivedi
Rehmat and Dharmadhikary, 2007)

3. Less accessibility of water to the poor: It was expected that the new technology
implemented by the privatisation, will increase water accessibility to the low-income and
poor regions in urban areas but the instances came that the poor has been excluded from
accessing water. In Chatsworth and Dolphin Coast, South Africa prepaid meters were
installed that curtailed poor people’s water supply unless they paid for the water. A study
by PSIRU (Public Service International Research Unit) reported that “in La Paz, Bolivia,
where the contract provided for 100% connections, including in the major shanty town of
El Alto, the company (Suez) argued that ‘connection’ does not mean a piped connection
but may just mean access to a standpipe or tanker” (Hall, 2002).
4. Failed in extension of water connections: Another attractive feature of privatisation of
water sector was adding to the existing number of water connections but it was realised
that the service extensions have been often way behind targets. One such example has
been of Indonesia. In1997, PAM Jaya, public water utility of Jakarta, Indonesia
had428,764 water connections. It served around 43% of Jakarta’s population. When the

4
 utility was privatised the contracts required that in the first five years the companies will
increase connections to757,129 and serve 70% of the population. However, by 2001, the
two companies collectively could make out to only 620,000 connections, which was
much low than proposed (Dwivedi, Rehmat and Dharmadhikary, 2007).

5. No fixation of social responsibility: Other than the above discussed shortfalls the most
striking outcome of the privatisation of water was that the private companies didn’t take
accountability of providing water services. It has been reported in situation of crises, the
top officials of the companies were found absconding. One such incident was reported in
Indonesia, during the time when Suharto regime was overthrown in Indonesia, riots were
triggered in capital Jakarta. It has been reported that among the very first to run away to
the safe haven of Singapore were the top officials of the privatised water utility of
Jakarta, leaving the millions in the city without water (Dwivedi, Rehmat and
Dharmadhikary, 2007). Hence, water the necessity for survival and the most important
human right was deprived to the millions of people and the companies involved did not
take the social responsibility.

Thus, sharply rising tariffs, disconnections and failure to extend services to the poor, proved to
be the shortcomings of the privatisation of water. This led to depriving people of the fundamental
human right to water. This created a situation where Governments seemed to be reluctant of their
responsibilities by pushing it on to the private operators for whom profits were the prime
concerns. So such conditions evolved due to privatisation, triggered off massive unrest, huge
protests, and strong global campaigns.

Resistance and Justice Movements

In response to the growth of private sector involvement in water supply management globally,
anti-privatisation campaigns for human right to water have emerged in recent years. Latin
America has initiated much of the resistance for corporatisation of water as it was the area,
where the first experiments of the water privatisation in developing world happened. It is the
place with water abundance, so should have been the highest per capita allocation of water in the
world but it is the lowest (Barlow, 2008). So, the brunt of the shortfalls of the water privatisation

5
projects was borne by the masses in different countries of Latin America. Thus, the most intense
resistance for corporatisation and privatisation of water came from this region. Following are the
resistance and justice movements held in different countries of Latin America:
1. La Coordinadora de Defensadel Aguya y de la vida (Coalition in Defence of water and
life: Privatising Cochabamba’s water system, Bolivia, Latin America): Bolivia got
freedom from military dictatorship in 1982, but could not establish economic stability
and was going through severe inflation. Considering the same the Government resorted to
the World Bank for assistance and for the many years, initiatives were taken to fulfil
necessary conditions to get loans; railways, telephone systems, national airlines and
hydrocarbon industry were privatised. Soon after in 1999, on the pretext of corruption
prevailing in the public sector and its inefficiency to run public water system, World
Bank pushed for the water privatisation in the country. Thus, an initiative named, “Major
Cities Water and Sewerage Rehabilitation Project” was passed. Water system was
privatised in the cities of Chochabamba and La Paz. In Chochabamba, the contract was
given to the U.S. engineering company, Bechtel. Contrary to expectations, the prices of
the water were tripled in very less time. It is a country where minimum wage of the
people is less than $60 a month, but the water bills rose to $20 a month (Barlow, 2008).
Many people entered in a situation where they could not afford to pay the water bills.
And, a first coalition against water privatisation was formed. They organised a successful
referendum demanding the Government, to cancel its contract with the Bechtel. On denial
by the Government, thousands came on the streets and the non-violent movement was
oppressed by Army, resulting in violence and killing of innocents. This made Bolivian
Government cancel the deal with the Bechtel in April 2010.
2. FEJUVE Movement against Suez: In La Paz and El Alto (surrounding hilly region to
La Paz) water was privatised and given to the Suez, a French multinational; thirty year
water supply contract was signed. From the very beginning of this project, the indigenous
people suffered; water was not delivered to all residents (rich and poor both); huge rise
in water prices; Suez did not invest in the infrastructure for repair and wastewater
treatment rather disposed off all garbage and raw sewage to the UNESCO’s World
Heritage Site, Lake Titicaca. Also, the company constructed a huge plant near the Mount
Illimani, where the molten snow from the mountain was treated and piped to elites in the

6
 area, affecting so many families. People were left with no electricity and running water.
Because of no water, the school and the health centre in the vicinity also could not
operate. Thus, FEJUVE, a network of activists and members of the local community
council led a series of strikes against water privatisation. The movement resulted in the
falling off then Presidents Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada and Carlos Mesa and becoming of
first indigenous President, Evo Morales in 2007. The new President scrapped off the deal
with Suez and there was celebration of return of water. In the words of Morales:
“water cannot be turned to private business. It must remain a basic service, with
participation of the State, so that water service can be provided almost for free”. (cf:
[Link]
3. Water battles in Argentina: In Argentina too neoliberal policies led to privatisation of
many publically owned industries. In 1995 a French company, Vivendi was given the
contract for water and sewer services in the Tucuman province. Prior to that the locals
collectively managed water through local cooperatives and also invested in water
infrastructure. Soon after privatisation the whole control of water management went to
this company and it its subsidiary Aqua del Acoquija; the water bill got almost double
and the water supply decreased. Consequently, residents of different cities of the province
got together and formed an association called as ADEUCOT (Association for the
Defence of Users and Consumers in Tucuman). Continuous protests and boycott of
payment of water bills made the Government terminate the contract with the company.
In other areas like Buenos Aires too, the thirty year old contract with Suez subsidiary was
scrapped off, that was taking care of its water system because it failed to treat the city’s
waste water and dumped it into the river Rio De La (called as sweet sea) and polluted it
to an extent that it became one of the few rivers in the world whose pollution is visible
from Space. Also, it was reported that water tariffs were raised and in seven districts the
water supplied had nitrate levels so high that were dangerous for human consumption.
Once the company’s contract was cancelled in Buenos Aires, the resistance movements
geared up in other parts like Santa Fe Province and the city of Cordoba. The people’s
Commission for the Recovery of Water in Cordoba is a highly organised network of trade
unions, neighbourhood centres, social organisations and politicians working with the
clear goal of public water for all. They were successful in getting the government break

7
 its contract with Suez. Their water policy is being constructed on the following ideal:
“What we want is a public company managed by workers, consumers and provincial
government, and monitored by university experts to guarantee water quality and prevent
corruption” (cf. : [Link]
4. The Coalition of Mexican Organisations for the Right of Water (COMDA): Like
Latin American countries, in Mexico too in 1992, a new law called Law of National
Waters was passed under which water management contracts were signed with the
subsidiaries of French and U.S. multinationals in different cities. Consequently, the
people started suffering from various issues pertaining to water services. Fighting these
situations, a civil society movement called The Coalition of Mexican Organisations for
the Right of Water has recently come together to fight for the right to clean water and
resist the trend to corporate control in Mexico. In April 2005, Mexican centre for Social
Analysis, Information and Training (CASIFOP) brought together more than 400 activists,
indigenous people, small farmers and students to launch a coordinated grassroots
resistance to water privatisation. COMDA is an association comprising of
environmentalists, human rights activists, indigenous and cultural groups devoted not
only to activism but also to community based education on water, its place in Mexico
history, and the need for legislation to protect the public’s right to access water.
However, this movement could not achieve much success as the Government elected in
2006, is pro-private water privatisation.

Other than these Latin American countries, other places like Bagota, Colombia, Paraguay
witnessed outrage due to water privatisation and therefore lower house rejected a Senate
proposal to privatise water in July 2005. At Nicaragua, in Central America also a fierce struggle
has been waged by civil society groups and in January 2007 court ruled the privatisation of
country’s waste water infrastructure. Thus, from so many local struggles for the basic right of
water in Latin America, Asia –Pacific countries, Africa, United States and Canada, a highly
organised water justice movement has been formulated and is working to shape the world’s
water politics. The movement is focused on forcing global institutions like World Bank and
United Nations to admit the failure of their model and has helped formulate water policies. The
movement has initiated an open debate over the control of water and challenged the

8
corporatisation of water. These movements are working to bring about accountability,
transparency and public oversight to the water crises.

Scenario in India

In the light of development and economic prosperity there has been a huge investment and
promotions of projects involving water usage, like irrigation, dams and privatisation of drinking
water etc. in different parts of the country; resulting in strengthening of the private ownership of
water resources and subsequently weakening the traditional community based systems. The
surface water sources are given to the private players for constructing of large number of
multipurpose projects. International funding agencies support and give loans in the name of such
projects. The National Water Policy developed in 1986, listing the projects for water resource
development, did not take into account the community and the traditional systems devised for
water harvesting (Iyer, 2003), resulting in the transference of rights over surface water from
many (community) to one (corporate). Further, the ground water is legally linked to land rights.
The owner of land is entitled to fetch as much water he/she wishes to. There are no ceilings fixed
on the quantity of water to be drawn. And, with the coming of tube well technology, there has
been a significant increase in the use of ground water in irrigation schemes; the area where
ground water irrigation is done has increased from 6.5 million hectares in 1951 to 40 million
hectares in 1990s and this is also because of introduction of subsidies given for power to the
users by Government (Iyer, 2003). Another reason for over exploitation of ground water is by
making it a commodity at the hands of packaged water and soft drink industry. The studies
(Mahapatra, 1999; Murthy, 2000) reveal that in present times, in the States of Punjab, Gujarat
(both Saurashtra and Kutch regions), Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, the water table has
severely gone down. This severe depletion of groundwater with insufficient recharge has
resulted in high content of salts like arsenic and fluorosis which has serious health implications
on the consumers and many states in India have been identified with large quantities of these
salts. Thus, contamination, pollution and over pumping of ground water have created situations
like unavailability of clean drinking water. This has been a boost for the packaged water industry
and on the contrary, the poor and the marginalised are facing hardships to meet their water
requirements.

9
Resistance and Justice Movements in India

People, in different parts of the country are struggling to stop the overexploitation and
contamination of ground water and attempting to stop the construction of large multipurpose
projects. Following are some of the prominent movements that held:

Case of Sheonath River Industrial Water Supply Project

This project was one of the earliest privatisation projects in the water sector in India, in
Chhattisgarh, initiated in 2001. It aimed at supplying water to an Industrial estate, Borai, near
Durg City. A private company, Radius Water Limited was given the contract to construct the
reservoir on Sheonath River and supply water to the industrial estate. As per the contract, the
Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC) was bound to pay four million
litres per day (MLD), even if the off take of water is low. After the dam was built, the villagers
who fished in the river, used river banks for bathing and used waters of the river for growing
vegetables were deprived off the same. This affected their everyday life and a few, who were
engaged in the work of sand mining from the riverbed, became jobless. Nearly sixteen villages
were affected downstream as the company stored water there. So an outrage took place and a
local resentment became a movement joined by locals, NGOs, students, researchers and
environmentalists. The protest gained highlights across the country, though the project is still
going on and company continues to supply water (one MLD and paid for four MLD). However,
due to so much outrage, a new anicut (dam) has been constructed downstream for the use of local
people. This movement though couldn’t do much to stop the project but alarmed the Nation
about the dangers of privatisation.

Struggles against Ground Water Exploitation

Vandana Shiva (2006) in her article, ‘Resisting Water Privatisation, Building Water Democracy,
notes that the women in the small place in Kerala called Plachimada, led a movement against
Coca-Cola. As the Coca-Cola plant in their locality was responsible for dropping their water
table to 500 feet below the earth surface and polluting their surroundings by dumping the waste
in open near the factory, which would spread to the surface water sources and their fields. In
10
April, 2002 around 2000 protesters (women, tribals and dalits) got at the gates of the Coca- Cola
factory and demanded its closure. In subsequent year the intoxication of water had increased to
an extent that the medical professionals declared it unfit for drinking. The movement got support
from the Global water activists and finally the Panchayat filed a PIL in high court and the court
summoned Coca Cola to stop spoiling Plachimada’s water. On 17th February 2004, Kerala Chief
Minister, considering the aggravated movement and water crises in the area ordered the closure
of the plant. Shiva (2006) states that after Plachimada’s case, activists from other places like
Jaipur, Mehdiganj (near Varanasi) held collective protests against the plants of Coca Cola and
Pepsi in these areas. Similar events took place at Khamman district of Andhra Pradesh and
Arthur village in Tamil Nadu, where Coca Cola’s brand Kinley water is drawing ground water in
great quantities (Shiva, 2006).

As the push for privatisation is increasing, so is the resistance. Private hydropower projects like
Maheshwar (M.P), Allain Duhangan (H.P.), Karcham Wangtoo (H.P.) are all facing resistance
from affected people. Local communities have been fighting companies like Coke as their
groundwater sources have drastically depleted and soils is contaminated with toxic wastes from
the factories producing soft drinks. Strong local action led to the cancellation of privatisation in
Sangli-Miraj in Maharashtra. Further, groups like Research Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology are amongst the first to challenge privatised projects in Sonia Vihar in Delhi. Strong
campaigns and protests are happening in Bangalore also.

Conclusion
Whilst the intensity and the momentum of Globalisation has intensified the connectedness in the
world through economic, political and cultural exchange has also in the race of economic
prosperity, tremendous growth, technological expansion, better efficiency has made the most
replenishing resource of life, a commodity to be used and exploited for its own good, leaving out
the interests of community and indigenous people. Its implications were so dangerous that
created world-wide outrage and prompted justice and resistance movements. Many movements
got success in getting the water rights back to the community and public sector by scrapping the
deals with the influential corporates based in US and France. The scenario in India is also almost
the same where corporate intervention in the name of major multipurpose projects has exploited

11
the surface water; and ground water is over pumped for irrigation and bottling industry. Many
community movements have happened in various states to fight this situation and a few have
succeeded as well. As a solution, the International agencies are working to initiate water reforms
and revise the privatisation policy for water sector.

12