1 Policy Framework

The law and policy framework for rural water supply includes different elements. The recognition of the existence of a fundamental right to water in the Constitution implies that all drinking water laws and policy frameworks directly fall under this general mandate. The same is true with regard to the decentralisation framework adopted in the context of constitutional amendments. Existing water laws also bear on drinking water supply in direct and indirect ways. This is, for instance, the case of groundwater legislation that specifically exempts from the permit system put in place hand-operated devices. Overall, while there are a number of constitutional or legislative principles and norms that apply,

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

the documents that really matter in practice are the non-binding policy frameworks adopted by the government.

2 The Swajaldhara Guidelines

The Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) spearheaded the adoption of the guidelines on Swajaldhara. The guidelines fi rst set out to demonstrate that while water has been perceived as a social right, this is inappropriate as water should, in fact, be seen as a socio-economic good. Additionally, they aver that the delivery of the social right has been through the government which has not sufficiently taken into account the preferences of users and has been ineffective in ensuring the carrying out of operation and maintenance activities. This calls for a demand-led approach seeing water as an economic good. The second paragraph of the background is even more revealing. It specifi cally links the transformation of a supply-driven system to a demand-driven system taking into account the preferences of users, “where users

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

get the service they want and are willing to pay for”.16 This is taken one step further by indicating that it is the imposition of full cost recovery of operations and maintenance and replacement costs on the communities which are expected to generate a sense of ownership and ensure the financial viability and sustainability of the schemes.

The Swajaldhara principles display a striking similarity with the framework introduced under the Swajal project. First, Swajaldhara provides for the adoption of a demand-led approach that includes participation of the community from the choice of the drinking water scheme up to its implementation. Second, the guidelines seek a form of decentralisation and request that drinking water assets should be owned by the relevant panchayat and that the communities should have the power to plan, implement and operate all drinking water schemes. Third, the participation and decentralisation elements are brought together in the context of the financial principles which are a compromised version of full-cost recovery. Thus, while users have to bear the entire responsibility for the operation and maintenance of drinking water schemes, their contribution to capital costs is limited. In practice, this was first set at 10% for a service level of 40 lpcd but, in a number of situations, this percentage has already been exceeded. Under Swajaldhara, at least half of the 10% contribution must be in cash. Exceptions have, for instance, been provided for scheduled tribes areas, where the cash contribution was fi rst reduced to one quarter of the community contribution.17 Subsequently, in 2006 an amendment to the guidelines provided that the contribution in the case of villages where scheduled tribe/scheduled caste (ST/SC) constituted more than half of all habitations could be in any form without any stipulation of a contribution in cash.18 Fourth, from an institutional perspective, one of the consequences of a demand-led perspective is the rethinking of the role of the government. The guidelines here specifi cally provide that the aim is to shift the government’s role from “direct service d elivery” to only supporting a limited number of activities such as planning, policy formulation, monitoring and evaluation.

An important aspect of the Swajaldhara scheme is that it was undertaken at the union level without specifi c parliamentary mandate. Since water is largely a state prerogative, the states may not have bought into the new conceptual framework. The union thus decided to proceed in two steps. First, it decided to provide full funding for the scheme, a departure from the usual ARWSP norm where the union and the states each share half of the costs. During the Tenth Plan, 20% of funds allocated to the ARWSP were directed to reform projects under the Swajaldhara Guidelines.19 Second, it proposed that the states interested in taking up Swajaldhara funding should sign up a memorandum of understanding with the union. The intent of the model memorandum of understanding circulated to states was to ensure that the reform principles would be, as far as possible, mainstreamed.20 Apart from this general commitment to reforms of the drinking water sector, the states were, for instance, also called upon to handover all existing drinking water schemes to gram panchayats for operation and maintenance.

The process of decentralisation and participation takes different forms under ongoing reforms. On the one hand, some of the proposed measures go towards ensuring that operation and maintenance of schemes is more successful. Thus, panchayats are, for instance, allowed to contract any required person where the government does not make its people available.21 In principle, this should provide ways to ensure that any bottlenecks in the government do not affect actual operation and maintenance. Villagers complain, however, that only government offi cials have access to original spare parts and that private traders always provide substandard quality. On the other hand, the same set of reforms proposes measures which are likely to lead to even more widespread inequalities in access to water within panchayats, and particularly within different districts and states. Thus, the proposal seeking to allow panchayats to fix and collect water tariff is fraught with diffi culties.22 If tariffs are fi xed at the level of each and every panchayat, the most likely consequence is that villages that suffer the most from water scarcity, for instance, because the water table is very low or water quality is low will have to bear all the costs themselves and will thus pay much more than villages that happen to be endowed with more or better water. Similarly, where costs are fixed within each panchayat without government overseeing, the likelihood is that dalits and other similar communities will be further marginalised because their say in the decision-making process will not only be low as it has been traditionally, but more so because the reforms propose a decision-making process based on the notion of users which excludes most poor people. Experience with the Swajal project shows that where communities are left to collect tariffs themselves, public taps are rapidly switched off. Whether the real reason is the one given by users that money is not being paid or whether it is a decision of a more political nature, the result is the same for people who are denied access to water. Given the nature of water, and drinking water in particular, any policy which does not attempt to redistribute the costs of getting access to water across social classes and across geographical areas is bound to fail from an equity perspective.

2.1 Swajaldhara in Practice

The analysis of the Swajaldhara Guidelines gives an interesting overview of important issues raised by the introduction of the reforms in the drinking water sector. Yet, an analysis of Swajaldhara on the ground is required because the successes and failures encountered in specific villages have important lessons for the development of legal and policy frameworks in years to come. The following analysis is informed by visits to villages in Rajsamand and Bhilwara districts of Rajasthan, Badwani district of Madhya Pradesh and Chitrakoot district of Uttar Pradesh.

The first important finding of meetings in the different districts is that the introduction of demand-led schemes is often welcomed by the richer and more powerful people in the village that understand the benefits they can derive from such schemes. In fact, such schemes may often replace richer people’s dependence on their own private sources of water which in many cases are likely to cost more in the long run than a Swajaldhara scheme where the government subsidises 90% of the cost of the infrastructure. Thus, in Galshyapa village of Chitrakoot, the people who could afford to pay the Swajaldhara contributions were keen

50 on this scheme because existing wells in their village were about 15 minutes away and the handpumps provided by the government were largely non-functional. Yet, this bright picture was undermined. Indeed, there did not seem to be any dalits among the users. As a result of this non-participation in the scheme, the dalit inhabitants of this village who have been relying on the l ocal stream (in season) and on water obtained after digging the riverbed (throughout the period when the stream dries out) would carry on getting water in the same way as previously.

The demand-led approach is seen quite differently by poor people. The situation encountered in village after village provides the following general pattern. Whenever poor/marginalised people currently have access to “a” source of water that satisfi es their most essential needs, they are satisfi ed with what they have, however bad the situation may be, especially in summer months. Even where individuals think that better access through a new scheme would be beneficial, they often indicate that since they have not been able to pay the requested 10% contribution, they are thus not part of the beneficiaries. Additionally, people often argue, especially in Rajasthan, that they believe water should be provided free by the government because it is such a basic necessity of life.

Swajaldhara projects thus raise questions of equity within villages since the professed willingness to pay that provides the conceptual justification for demand-led schemes is, in fact, a function of wealth. As a result, the poorest people who most urgently need better access to drinking water are the first to be excluded from the list of beneficiaries. In reform speak, the poor exclude themselves by not paying the 10% contribution but this is a fallacy which is debunked by the reality on the ground. If anything, the ground reality indicates that people pay either when they can clearly afford it or when they are desperate enough to allocate more resources to water, necessarily at the expense of some other basic vital need such as food or health.

The issue of equity in access to water is not a new problem in rural areas. Indeed, caste equations have, for instance, played a major role in differential access to water for centuries. While in formal legal terms, caste-related inequalities have been banned, in practice, they still affect life in many places. Swajaldhara and the demand-led reforms do not affect caste equations directly. However, the problem is that they do not take into account the fact that caste discrimination is still prevalent in direct and indirect ways. As a result, demand-led reforms have the potential to introduce wealth-based inequality in access to water which may reinforce existing inequalities. Two examples of these trends can be given. First, in the village of Bagatpura, Rajsamand district, the dominant Rajput people forced the dalit households to pay through threats even though the latter were economically too weak to afford the contribution. This went to the extent of a handpump being broken by upper caste people to force dalits living there to pay up the 10% contribution. Second, in both Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, where villages are big and made of different clusters, the Swajaldhara scheme may never reach the dalit hamlet. This may or may not be a direct consequence of caste equations but the fact that Swajaldhara schemes may lead to such results as a result of a combination of long-standing caste-related issues

December 12, 2009 vol xliv no 50

SPECIAL ARTICLE

together with the economically weaker position of dalits raises questions concerning the rationale of d emand-led reforms.

The issue of intra-village equity is deeply rooted in the philosophy of the reforms which want to leave villages to manage their own water schemes. Given the prevailing condition in many parts of the country, it is impossible to expect that the wealthy, powerful and largely high caste members of the village will use the new concept of village ownership as a way to foster less unequal social relations within the village. Indeed, local politics may, in fact, dictate the contrary. Thus, in Sirola-Pithoda, Rajsamand district, people willing to pay the initial contribution were kept out of the scheme because they did not enjoy the favour of the powerful teacher who had initiated the scheme. Similarly, in Jogela-Miyala, Rajsamand district, a family that was willing to pay and whose house was close to the main supply pipe had been denied a connection because they did not enjoy the favour of the sarpanch who was also the committee president. This is particularly problematic when drinking water is the subject matter. Thus, the government’s decision to progressively withdraw is likely to create, at least in the medium- and long-term, increased inequalities in access to water.

With regard to the selection of specific schemes, the idea behind demand-led schemes is that users choose the scheme that best suit their needs and finances. In what are by any measure very poor areas of the country such as Rajsamand and Bhilwara districts, one would thus expect the gram sabha to decide in f avour of the scheme that is the most cost-effective and delivers benefits to the greatest number of people in the village. It is thus surprising to find that many villages opt for relatively expensive piped water schemes relying on a borewell (and its attendant electricity consumption) and a water tank to deliver benefi ts to private individual connections and community standposts. Indeed, according to ministry figures, while the average contribution for an individual house connection is Rs 965 and Rs 810 for a community tap, it is only Rs 412 for a handpump.23 Despite this, the ministry recorded that there were only 3,186 benefi ciaries of handpumps and 5,451 for individual piped water connections. While there are a number of places in the country where the water table is either falling fast or has already fallen so low that handpumps may not be a technically viable solution, the relative lack of popularity of handpumps under Swajaldhara cannot be explained only by technical factors. Indeed, in many parts of the country, including a very dry state like Rajasthan, it is the millions of handpumps installed by the government over the past few decades that actually provide access to water for crores of people on a daily basis. Their relevance has never been put in doubt. While schemes are effectively chosen by the users, they often rely on advice given by outsiders, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working as support organisations, since they may not have the necessary technical expertise to evaluate all different options. It is possible that advice provided to communities emphasise the benefits of individual house connections. Whether that is the case or not, the choice of schemes is clearly influenced by village water and sanitation committee (VWSC) membership. Indeed, field observation reveals in village after v illage that, while the gram sabha is technically the body making

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

December 12, 2009 vol xliv no 50

the choice, in practice, the committee generally seems to be led by some of the more powerful and wealthier men in the village. This easily explains why so many villages would favour relatively expensive schemes because the decision is in effect taken by those “users” and not by the actual meeting of the whole village. Another surprising observation is that despite the fact that one of the “fundamental reform principles” of Swajaldhara is to promote conservation measures such as rainwater harvesting, none of the villages surveyed had either considered or implemented such structure.24

Addressing Democratic Deficit

In institutional terms, the Swajaldhara Guidelines tried to remedy the rapidly apparent democratic deficit arising from the setting up of VWSC besides the panchayati raj institutions proposed under the Swajal project. As a result, all VWSC were set up under the gram panchayat, which in deeply divided communities, is a precondition for any attempt to foster social and gender equity in the schemes taken up. Yet, the basic philosophy of the panchayati raj constitutional scheme is not fully upheld. Indeed, in Uttar Pradesh, all VWSCs are in practice comprised seven members of the gram panchayat water committee and seven members coopted from among the users. These 14 people in effect constitute the committee that oversees drinking water projects, thus allowing users a controlling say in the decisions of the committee. This is confirmed by the fact that the ownership of public water schemes rests with the VWSCs.25

Panchayati raj institutions and their democratic nature also come under attack from a different angle with the original Swajaldhara scheme. Assuming that the gram panchayat wanted to use its own funds to foster access to water, in the case of Uttar Pradesh, it was, in fact, prohibited from doing so. Indeed, panchayats and the state government were specifi cally prohibited from using any government fund as a substitute for people’s contribution.26 The intent of Swajaldhara to force individuals to pay whether they can afford or not is also clearly stated in the guideline’s specific admonition that elected members of Parliament (MPs) and members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) are prohibited from using the funds at their disposal for development work in their constituency to pay the community contribution.27

The importance attached to cost recovery under Swajaldhara implies that the costs borne by users are an important element to be taken into account in analysing the scheme from a policy perspective. Two main elements can be distinguished, the contribution to capital costs and the contribution to maintenance and operation costs. The limited contribution to capital costs was found in the ministry report quoted above not to exceed on average Rs 965 for a private connection. In the villages surveyed, the actual figures were much higher. They ranged from a low of Rs 600 in Kansiya, Bhilwara to a high of Rs 7,000 Jogela-Miyala, Rajsamand.28 These figures do not necessarily represent the actual cost paid by individuals to get a connection. People have to bear the cost of bringing pipes from the main line to their house and where the project design does not take the main line towards their house, their only option is to pay the full cost of their own connection from the main line. Another disturbing feature o bserved in a number of villages was that the cost of becoming a “user” of the scheme shoots up for people who have not joined at the outset. The increase could be anything from 60% to nearly 130%. This was usually explained by committee members as being an “interest” that newcomers should pay on the original sum. This is one of the ways in which leaving communities to arrange their own affairs leads to increasing inequalities in favour of a group of people who are most often already the wealthier and politically astute individuals in the village.

The contribution to operation and maintenance raises a different set of issues. With regard to actual amounts paid, there are again significant discrepancies. The report of the ministry fi nds an average Rs 37 paid for individual in-house connections per month.29 The village surveys indicate wide variations from Rs 36 to Rs 150. Two important findings emerge from these fi gures. First, variation seems to be explained mostly by the electricity cost associated with running the pump. The lack of transparency within villages makes it difficult to assess the causes of such differences. They may be ascribed partly to the depth of the water table but are also likely to be influenced by the actual amount of water people take. Indeed, while people generally seemed to be reluctant to share water obtained through Swajaldhara schemes with their neighbours, and thus limit consumption to their individual household needs, some people freely acknowledged using their Swajaldhara connection to water their gardens and in at least one village the individual in charge of the scheme had ensured that he could irrigate his own fields as an indirect benefi t of the scheme. Second, the costs paid by people for operation and maintenance never reflected the long-term depreciation of the scheme. In other words, the monthly cost paid by individuals seems to generally reflect the immediate electricity cost. This has immense implications where anything more than minor repairs need to be undertaken. Indeed, when asked the question directly, people are often quick to say that they would not be able to pay anything above the current fees. This is problematic because it indicates that the manner in which the schemes function does not ensure their long-term viability. The emphasis is clearly on ensuring that the schemes start to function, not on ensuring their long-term functioning. In the villages visited, which have been plagued by various types of access to water problems, this was nothing extraordinary. Queries concerning access to water, in case the scheme stopped functioning because the village could not afford repair costs, usually have people simply indicating that in such a situation they would go back to their previous sources of water. Besides the kind of pessimism that may be apparent in such res ponses, a bigger problem surfaces. Where the main sources of drinking water before Swajaldhara are handpumps or other infrastructure built by the government, “going back” to these sources seems an easy option today. In the future, when all operation and maintenance costs are imposed on villagers, such complacency will not be possible for anyone. In other words, when full cost recovery principles are implemented, villagers will be left with the choice of paying, whether they can afford or not, or not get access to water at all.

As indicated above, the introduction of the reforms is largely premised on the implementation of the constitutional mandate devolving powers to panchayats. While this is laudable in theory, practice indicates that a simple withdrawal of the government in favour of local actors is not progressive unless accountability at the local level is ensured and enforced by higher authorities. Where this is not the case, “decentralisation” is another word for increased concentration of power in the politically savvy and wealthier members of the local community. Two specifi c issues have come up in this regard in the surveys of Swajaldhara villages. First, in no village were accounts available. The usual excuse was that they had been sent to auditors. Second, in most villages people paid money but rarely got receipts. Even where receipts were obtained, they were never provided information as to the use of this money.

Subversion of Scheme

The lack of external supervision is what allows the subversion of different aspects of the scheme by enterprising people. Thus, in some areas, contractors discovered in Swajaldhara a good business opportunity. They can pay the 10% capital cost contribution on behalf of the community, and in return, get the government to pay 90% of their costs. Subsequently, they can run the scheme according to their own preferences. On paper, the community has paid and the scheme is operated at the local level. This satisfies the basic principles of the reforms. In other villages, different ways to work around the scheme’s principles were found. In Ker Kheda, Bijoliyan block, Bhilwara district, the sarpanch and chairman of the Swajaldhara scheme had paid the whole community contribution himself and had probably been paying the electricity bill as well. Two likely reasons explained this generosity. First, the whole village was dependent on his borewell – the only in the village – when other sources of water dried in the summer. The new scheme thus likely reduces his own direct costs of providing water in summer months. Second, water was identified by villagers interviewed as a major concern and everyone seemed extremely pleased with the new sources of water provided through this new scheme. This was likely going to strengthen his position politically in the village. This is not particularly surprising since similar outcomes were already reported a decade ago in the early attempts to impose cost recovery on villages.30

A last feature is the issue of disconnections. In principle, there is no link between demand-led schemes and disconnections. Yet, two disturbing features are apparent. In a situation where operation and maintenance is a monthly feature, the payment of the electricity bill is a precondition for actual access to water. Even where the amounts appear small, the users may not be able to pay. Thus, in Mukund Puriya, Bhilwara, despite making use of the pump only 30 minutes in the morning and 30 minutes in the evening, individual user’s share was about Rs 100 a month. Since most people could not pay this amount, the village ended up within about a year and a half after commissioning the scheme with an unpaid electricity bill of Rs 12,000 which led to their connection being disconnected. This raises important questions with regard to disconnection of water supply. In a context where disconnections have been confirmed as unacceptable even after full privatisation in the United Kingdom, there is little doubt that disconnection from water supply is a violation of the human right to

December 12, 2009 vol xliv no 50

3 Lessons from Ongoing Reforms

The evolution of Swajaldhara indicates that existing reform principles are likely to evolve further in years to come. This is illustrated by the hesitation that characterised the fate of Swjaldhara under the Eleventh Plan. In the first place, its discontinuation was suggested at the end of the Tenth Plan. This was meant to reformulate the reform principles in view of perceived shortcomings, while maintaining the gist of the scheme. The idea was not to abandon the reforms but to repackage them and address some of the identified problems such as difficulties in collecting the community contribution.31 Following different suggestions on ways to move the reforms forward, it was eventually decided to carry on the experiment of allocating 20% of ARWSP funds for Swajaldhara projects during the Eleventh Plan. This indicates that the time is not yet ripe for mainstreaming Swajaldhara to all ARWSP projects, but also shows a strong commitment to reforms, as i llustrated by the report of a meeting of state secretaries on rural drinking water stating that from 2008 onwards, “the Swajaldhara scheme is going to be expedited drastically”.32

In a context where reforms will likely remain a central feature of drinking water supply policy for many years, it is very important that they be closely analysed and debated. The need for the participation of elected representatives in the formulation of drinking water supply policies is necessary because they have not been consulted yet and because the reforms do not build on an existing drinking water legislation. The task at hand is thus either to bring the reforms to MPs and MLAs or to allow the legislature the space to develop a comprehensive drinking water legislation that is specifically geared towards meeting the needs of everyone in the country, with a priority on the rural poor.

The need to involve Parliament or legislative assemblies also stems from the fact that a number of water law reforms are c urrently ongoing and proposed. The fact that all these different laws can be drafted and adopted on such varied subjects as groundwater, water user associations or institutional reforms clearly indicates that elected representatives can also address drinking water. What is surprising is that drinking water has not been the first law reform introduced. This can nevertheless be explained by the fact that ongoing reforms do not emphasise as the fi rst priority the realisation of the human right to water for all but rather focus on improving management of water in different sectors.

Economic & Political Weekly

EPW

As illustrated in this article, drinking water supply reforms have evolved over the past decade. Thus, after the experience of the Swajal project that was in part distrustful of panchayati raj institutions, a shift towards acknowledging the constitutionally sanctioned role of panchayats in this field is noticeable. Yet, the fundamental premise of Swajal and Swajaldhara that emphasises individuals defined as “water users” over all other individuals in a given panchayat indicate that a lot more work needs to be done to ensure the full implementation of the constitutional framework adopted in the 73rd constitutional amendment.

As indicated above, the government implemented for several decades drinking water supply policies that reflected an understanding that it was under a duty to realise the human right to water for all rural residents of the country. In this context, ongoing reforms are a study in contrast. Principles for reforms are, to a large extent, in direct opposition to the principles that guided governmental action for the previous several decades. This is of no concern in itself since evolving conditions often require policy changes to address evolving challenges. There is, however, an additional issue that arises where a fundamental human right is concerned. While the government is at liberty to adopt different policies to realise its constitutional obligations, in the case of a fundamental right, it is the ultimate protector of human rights. This is not denied in ongoing reforms since even a draft memorandum of understanding between the union and the states for the Eleventh Plan states that there is a constitutional obligation to provide access to safe drinking water to the rural population.33 This is in keeping with the case law, which recognises that the state has the responsibility to provide unpolluted drinking water.34

One of the central points of the now “old” policy framework is that the government acted under the perception, it was its duty to provide free water to its citizens. The government has also acknowledged that unserved villages should be given priority over villages where supply is already provided as per the minimum norms in force.35 This reflects its concern to ensure the realisation of the minimum core content of the human right to water for all before providing enhanced coverage to people already provided with water. In other words, the government has attempted to progressively realise the right to water as per the stipulations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that imposes on member countries to take measures that contribute to the realisation of the rights over time.

In the context of the present reforms, one of the most sensitive points related to the ICESCR is that it specifically prohibits the introduction of measures that would curtail any gains made towards the full realisation of a human right. The new policy principles conceive water as an economic good, contemplate imposing on each individual community an increasingly important burden of their own water supply, and generally, conceive of a reduced role for the government and a concomitant increase of the role of the private sector in delivering drinking water. The implementation of these new policies will lead to outcomes that are at least in some cases unacceptable from the point of view of established measures of equity and will directly or indirectly lead to violations of the human right to water. While the demand-led paradigm benefi ts a segment of the rural population, it affects the poorest by bypassing them, it creates increased inequalities in access to water, and in without water. The implication will be that other vital needs will the long run, the imposition of o peration and maintenance costs suffer since this will likely imply a transfer of resources within to each village individually will lead to reduced access to water in already tight budgets. villages less well-endowed with water. On the whole, ongoing reforms need to be thought afresh be-

Notes

1 Example, Subhash Kumar vs State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.

2 Government of India, Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme Guidelines (1999-2000) (AR-WSP Guidelines).

3 ARWSP Guidelines ss 2(2)(3) and 2(3). 4 Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission – Department of Drinking Water Supply, Submission to the National Advisory Committee (2005). 5 Raju et al (2007) and Rajasthan State Water Policy

(Draft) 2008, s 1(2)(3). 6 ARWSP Guidelines s 1(3). 7 ARWSP Guidelines s 3(1). 8 ARWSP Guidelines s 3(1). 9 Planning Commission – Government of India, Elev

enth Five-Year Plan 2007-12, Volume II, Social Sector (New Delhi: Oxford University Press), 2008, p 166.

10 Planning Commission, Report of Working Group on Tenth Plan for Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation 2002-07, p 4.

11 ARWSP Guidelines s 2(3)(1).

12 E g, Rajiv Gandhi National Drinking Water Mission – Department of Drinking Water Supply, Submission to the National Advisory Committee (2005) s 2(2). Note that below the poverty line, SC and ST families are excluded.

13 World Bank, India – Water Resources Management Sector Review – Initiating and Sustaining Water Sector Reforms (Report No 18356-IN, 1998), p 25.

14 World Bank, India – Water Resources Management Sector Review – Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Report (Report No 18323, 1998), p viii.

15 World Bank, Implementation Completion Report

– Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation (Swajal) Project (Report No 27288, 2003), p 4.

16 Ministry of Rural Development, Guidelines on Swajaldhara 2003, s 1(2).

17 Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No 2451, Swajaldhara Yojana, answered by Minister of State in the Ministry of Rural Development (Shri A Narendra) on 18 March 2005.

18 Government of India, Department of Drinking Water Supply, Office Memorandum – Amendment to Swajaldhara Guidelines, Doc No W-11021/2/2003-TM.IV (SW), 15 May 2006.

19 Ministry of Rural Development, Guidelines on Swajaldhara 2003, s 15(1).

20 Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the State Government of ___ and the Department of Drinking Water Supply, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India (2003) s 5.

21 Ibid, s 20.

Circulation Manager,

Economic and Political Weekly

December 12, 2009 vol xliv no 50