Luiza Prado: Welcome to Collusion, a pod­cast about tech­nol­o­gy and pow­er. In the sec­ond episode, we will talk about water and irri­ga­tion tech­nol­o­gy and their influ­ence on the polit­i­cal con­fig­u­ra­tion of the con­tem­po­rary world.

One of the rea­sons that encour­aged us to choose water as the main theme for the sec­ond episode was its rela­tion to the theme of the first episode, seeds. We talked quite a bit about seeds, crops, and how they influ­enced his­tor­i­cal events, from World War II to the col­o­niza­tion of the Americas. However, none of the his­to­ry we dis­cussed in our first episode would have been pos­si­ble if human­i­ty hadn’t fig­ured out how to con­trol the flow of water to its will. Access to clean drink­ing water is one of the most basic human needs. The devel­op­ment of irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies was essen­tial for humans to set­tle and form more com­plex soci­eties. So today we will dis­cuss how these tech­nolo­gies have influ­enced the polit­i­cal for­ma­tion of sev­er­al nations through­out his­to­ry, and how this influ­ence is still very present today.

Zara Rahman: The use of tech­nol­o­gy and infra­struc­ture to con­trol the flow of water is a use­ful start­ing point, not least because it con­tin­ues to be con­tro­ver­sial today. Throughout the colonies of the var­i­ous European pow­ers, water engi­neers used dams, ditch­es, and sluices to con­trol the flow of water. They claimed that their approach to water man­age­ment was more ratio­nal and effi­cient than exist­ing indige­nous approach­es.

In prac­tice, how­ev­er, out­comes were mixed. Some argue that irri­ga­tion works in India con­tributed to food inse­cu­ri­ty by reori­ent­ing domes­tic agri­cul­ture towards over­seas mar­kets. In Egypt, large dams con­tributed to sali­na­tion prob­lems and cre­at­ed a depen­den­cy on agri­cul­tur­al chem­i­cals because they pre­vent­ed the Nile’s annu­al inun­da­tion of sur­round­ing land in silt depo­si­tion. The wider sto­ry of water tech­nol­o­gy and infra­struc­ture in the colonies was often that ideas like ratio­nal­i­ty and effi­cien­cy dis­guised the polit­i­cal agen­das involved. New water­ways and canals were built to enhance com­mu­ni­ca­tions, and thus make colonies eas­i­er to con­trol and defend. From the colo­nial per­spec­tive, irri­ga­tion was also use­ful because it encour­aged nomadic peo­ple to become seden­tary, and thus eas­i­er to gov­ern. It also helped draw them in to wage labor, and ori­en­tate agri­cul­tur­al towards over­seas mar­kets, thus mak­ing colonies more prof­itable.

Beneath the imme­di­ate social and phys­i­cal impacts of new tech­nol­o­gy and the medium-term agen­das of colo­nial pow­ers, more fun­da­men­tal process­es linked tech­nol­o­gy, envi­ron­ment, and colo­nial­ism. Many colo­nial sci­en­tists were curi­ous about indige­nous tech­nolo­gies. Some engi­neers admired them, and argued that tra­di­tion­al prac­tices were supe­ri­or to ones which colo­nial pow­ers want­ed to intro­duce.

More com­mon­ly, how­ev­er, and par­tic­u­lar­ly from the mid 18th cen­tu­ry, Europeans took the view that their tech­nolo­gies were supe­ri­or, and that their soci­ety was supe­ri­or as a result. Not only that, they believed they had an oblig­a­tion to improve the world, and tech­nol­o­gy was cen­tral to this.

Let’s take a look now at an area whose use of water changed con­sid­er­ably thanks to tech­no­log­i­cal inter­ven­tions, India under British rule. The exten­sion and devel­op­ment of irri­ga­tion were arguably the most trans­for­ma­tive inno­va­tion that hap­pened in colo­nial India. Development of an exten­sive canal net­work across the coun­try nat­u­ral­ly had a huge effect on agri­cul­ture and the lives of those who lived off the land.

On the sur­face, this net­work of canals seems to be one of the most pos­i­tive ways in which the British colo­nial regime con­tributed to the wel­fare of Indian peo­ple. But, if there’s any­thing I’ve learned so far, these nar­ra­tives are rarely as rosy as they seem, so let’s dig a lit­tle fur­ther.

Beginning in the 1880s, the British built a series of all-season canals, known as peren­ni­al canals. The flow of water was con­trolled by per­ma­nent low dams known as weirs built across the rivers. The argu­ment for the canals was strong. It appeared to open up mil­lions of acres of waste­land for new agri­cul­tur­al set­tle­ment. It was also one of the most obvi­ous and vis­i­ble inter­faces between colo­nial pres­ence and peas­ant soci­ety, and much more tan­gi­ble than most. Peasants, for exam­ple, could stop spend­ing so much time on man­u­al well irri­ga­tion and use that time for increas­ing their pro­duc­tiv­i­ty and out­put.

It turns out, though, that the moti­va­tions of the British weren’t quite so noble. Irrigation of land is nat­u­ral­ly close­ly linked to agri­cul­ture, and this was key to British colo­nial pol­i­cy. Before these trans­for­ma­tions took place, many com­mu­ni­ties were focused on rais­ing live­stock, and they were known as pas­toral­ists. They were nomadic, and so they were much hard­er for the British to keep track of.

So to counter this, the British decid­ed that one of the key points for their colo­nial state would be to change these pas­toral­ist com­mu­ni­ties into agri­cul­tur­al com­mu­ni­ties. This meant that they would be tied to their land, and much eas­i­er to mon­i­tor and con­trol. Giving them the means of cul­ti­vat­ing and the means of irri­ga­tion was seen as the best way to estab­lish this more sta­ble peas­antry. This was seen as a pri­or­i­ty for British pow­ers, as it is linked close­ly to polit­i­cal sta­bil­i­ty.

Another aim for build­ing the new irri­ga­tion works was to increase colo­nial rev­enues and expand com­mer­cial pro­duc­tion. Investment in canal irri­ga­tion con­sis­tent­ly yield­ed an 8 to 10 per cent return on invest­ment up until 1945. So it was seen by the British gov­ern­ment to be a suc­cess­ful and prof­itable inter­ven­tion. Later on, famine fac­tored into the dis­cus­sion of rev­enue. After a dis­as­trous famine in 1837 to 1838, the British East India Company suf­fered a con­sid­er­able loss of rev­enue after spend­ing near­ly $10 mil­lion rupees on relief works. Building up irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies to enable more peo­ple to get easy access to water was seen as a way to pre­vent future famines.

So how did all these canals actu­al­ly get built? In order to dig the canals, man­u­al labor was need­ed and nat­u­ral­ly this came in the shape of poor­er com­mu­ni­ties. This class of peo­ple were often dom­i­nat­ed by priv­i­leged local elites, and they became indis­pens­able both for the ini­tial dig­ging and for year­ly oblig­a­tions like canal main­te­nance and silt clear­ance. Being able to mobi­lize these com­mu­ni­ties was crit­i­cal to main­tain­ing the canals in work­ing order. Though it was of key impor­tance to state pol­i­cy, it was achieved less by direct state con­trol than by the state’s abil­i­ty to manip­u­late local elites. These local elites then in turn manip­u­lat­ed the com­mu­ni­ties of canal shar­ers, or poor­er com­mu­ni­ties that they had con­trol over.

As a result, the struc­ture cen­tered around build­ing those canals then linked two already pow­er­ful com­mu­ni­ties more tight­ly togeth­er. This gives a good exam­ple of how canal build­ing wasn’t sim­ply mat­ter of tech­ni­cal inno­va­tion, but it was actu­al­ly strong­ly con­nect­ed with the polit­i­cal struc­tures in play at the time.

We’ve dis­cussed briefly the com­mer­cial rea­sons for set­ting up the canal net­work, in terms of boost­ing agri­cul­ture. But the prof­it tak­en by the state wasn’t just lim­it­ed to the increased agri­cul­tur­al out­put. A canal water tax was charged to near­by pop­u­la­tions, regard­less of whether or not use was made of the canal in a par­tic­u­lar year. Or, some­what incred­i­bly, whether or not there was a reli­able sup­ply of water from the canal.

Elizabeth Whitcombe argues that the expan­sion of canal irri­ga­tion led to the growth of more lucra­tive com­mer­cial crops at the expense of sta­ble food crops. This meant that dur­ing drought-induced scarci­ty, peo­ple did not have enough to eat, and their depen­den­cy on mar­kets and mon­ey lenders increased.

Some less talked-about effects of canals were observed in the Punjab, which is now an area of land split between modern-day India and Pakistan. As per British pol­i­cy, which we men­tioned ear­li­er, colo­nial water tech­nolo­gies such as weirs and dams were focused on pro­vid­ing con­stant irri­ga­tion for set­tled agri­cul­ture. None of them took into account already-existing water tech­nolo­gies, how­ev­er. And it turns out this wasn’t so much that this was because they couldn’t coex­ist with tra­di­tion­al water har­vest­ing sys­tems, but more than that, they were aimed at actu­al­ly elim­i­nat­ing the exist­ing water sys­tems.

Prior to irri­ga­tion brought by the British, tra­di­tion­al water har­vest­ing tech­niques such as ahar pynes exist­ed. These were tra­di­tion­al flood­wa­ter har­vest­ing sys­tems, indige­nous to south Bihar, which up until the late 19th cen­tu­ry were the most impor­tant source of irri­ga­tion into the region. They con­sist­ed of catch­ment basins embanked on three sides (these were known as ahars), linked by pynes, arti­fi­cial chan­nels con­struct­ed to use riv­er water and agri­cul­tur­al fields, and these were con­struct­ed up to 20 kilo­me­ters in length.

During the canal build­ing process, reports state that engi­neer­ing staff often con­scious­ly placed canal dis­trib­u­taries across exist­ing ahar and pynes, with the sole inten­tion of injur­ing or destroy­ing them. This deci­sion came with unin­tend­ed con­se­quences still seen in recent times. In 1949, a flood advi­so­ry com­mit­tee inves­ti­gat­ing con­tin­u­ous floods in Bihar’s Gaya dis­trict came to the con­clu­sion that the fun­da­men­tal rea­son for occur­rence of floods was the destruc­tion of the old irri­ga­tion sys­tem in the dis­trict.

A report released by a Delhi-based NGO called the Center for Science and Environment in 1997 called Dying Wisdom also out­lined a his­tor­i­cal claim that irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies had much more wide­spread and neg­a­tive social impacts on Indian soci­ety. The way that leg­is­la­tion around access to canals was laid out put a clear empha­sis on the idea of com­mod­i­fy­ing land and insti­tut­ing pri­vate prop­er­ty. These struc­tures pri­or­i­tized over pre­vi­ous social struc­tures such as com­mu­ni­ty con­trol.

Other intend­ed con­se­quences came from trans­form­ing flood plains from being watered by sea­son canals to sites for con­stant and con­sis­tent irri­ga­tion works. This trans­for­ma­tion brought with it mul­ti­ple assump­tions about social rules, eco­nom­ic prac­tices, and as a result social and phys­i­cal con­texts were reordered. This com­bi­na­tion of engi­neer­ing sci­ence and con­trol of soci­ety and nature (or attempt­ed con­trol) has been labeled by David Gilmartin as a cre­ation of a colo­nial resource regime, and lat­er dis­cussed as colo­nial hydrol­o­gy.”

The commonly-heard incit­ing nar­ra­tive of the canals pro­vid­ing irri­ga­tion to des­o­late waste­lands also seems to have some holes in it. An essay by Indu Agnihotri out­lines how colo­nial canal sys­tems over­ran and erod­ed vibrant pas­toral com­mu­ni­ties in the Punjab region. Although the land didn’t sup­port a set­tled pop­u­la­tion as the British under­stood pop­u­la­tion to be, it pro­vid­ed vital resources to nomadic tribes­men. But, because of the way the colo­nial land rights sys­tem was estab­lished, these com­mu­ni­ties had no claim over this land. The lands were labeled as unclaimed lands and this claim was sup­port­ed by oth­er colo­nial leg­is­la­tion around forestry and tribes, and it was claimed by the British as Crown waste.”

So the plan to set­tle pas­toral­ist com­mu­ni­ties went ahead. The local pop­u­la­tion was tied to the land, mak­ing it eas­i­er for admin­is­tra­tors to quan­ti­fy and doc­u­ment the soci­ety in a way that made sense to them, giv­ing them shares in vil­lage assets and indi­vid­ual prop­er­ty rights.

A severe con­se­quence of colo­nial irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies was around drainage. Seepage from canals raised the lev­el of ground­wa­ter, ren­der­ing land unfit for cul­ti­va­tion, often accom­pa­nied by devel­op­ment of patch­es of salt, which pro­hib­it­ed the growth of crops. Though some stop­gap pro­ce­dures were attempt­ed, like clos­ing some canals for a cer­tain peri­od of time, they proved to be inad­e­quate. This led to a major prob­lem: out­breaks of malar­ia. During 1925 to 1930, the British province of Punjab had the high­est death rate in the whole sub-continent, with two-thirds of all deaths being attrib­uted to malar­ia. By the time of inde­pen­dence, two mil­lion acres, about one quar­ter of the total canal irri­gat­ed area in Punjab, was con­sid­ered to be water­logged.

A more recent study from 2012 by Elizabeth Whitcombe ana­lyzed obser­va­tions on geo­log­i­cal and weather-related events pub­lished by the Geological Survey of India in its annu­al reports since the 1870s, and tal­lied this with records main­tained by dis­trict med­ical offices, san­i­tary com­mis­sion­ers, and reg­is­trars of births and deaths to ana­lyze the link between dis­ease, irri­ga­tion, and cli­mate. She con­clud­ed that

Variations in its trans­mis­sion, inci­dence and preva­lence were close­ly tied to the dif­fer­ent delta­ic envi­ron­ments of the Bengal and Indus basins and to the short-sightedness of many irri­ga­tion and relat­ed engi­neer­ing schemes.
Elizabeth Whitcombe, Indo-Gangetic riv­er sys­tems, mon­soon and malar­ia

By the time colo­nial rule end­ed on the Indian sub-continent, its inter­ven­tion in the sphere of irri­ga­tion had end­ed up estab­lish­ing state monop­oly over water resources, and total­ly chang­ing the way that agri­cul­ture and irri­ga­tion worked across India, with huge social con­se­quences. Their aims of con­quer­ing nature end­ed up strength­en­ing what some call tech­no­log­i­cal pater­nal­ism” and, some­what incred­i­bly, the main nar­ra­tive today around British efforts at estab­lish­ing irri­ga­tion net­works in India still remains one of ben­e­fits brought to the Indian peo­ple thanks to advances in Western tech­nol­o­gy.

Luiza: Unfortunately, India’s his­to­ry with irri­ga­tion tech­nol­o­gy and colo­nial­ism is not an excep­tion. While research­ing for this episode, we came across many many exam­ples of this kind of tech­nol­o­gy being used as a dom­i­na­tion strat­e­gy. Water grab­bing, along with land grab­bing, are con­sid­ered by many schol­ars as a new form of colo­nial­ism, allow­ing pow­er­ful agents to eject native, dis­en­fran­chised pop­u­la­tions from cer­tain areas.

One exam­ple of this is the sit­u­a­tion in Palestine. Most of the Jordan Valley’s sur­face water sup­ply comes from the Jordan River. While there have been plans to build canals that would dis­trib­ute water between the dwellers of the val­ley, these plans nev­er real­ly came to be. Adding to that, Israel has been deplet­ing the water sup­ply from the riv­er for decades, as well as redi­rect­ing it towards its own ter­ri­to­ries. As a con­se­quence, the Palestinian pop­u­la­tion has dealt with severe water scarci­ty for decades. Israel also lim­its the devel­op­ment of wells on the West Bank, and since the war in 1967 has tak­en con­trol over all major water resources in the region. This, unsur­pris­ing­ly, is the result of a series of mil­i­tary actions and has helped Israel claim the most fer­tile chunk of that ter­ri­to­ry for itself. As a result of these actions, up to 800,000 Palestinians have fled into exile, and the devel­op­ment of the state of Palestine has been heav­i­ly hin­dered.

In Brazil, the con­struc­tion of the Belo Monte Dam, the fourth-biggest in the world, in the Amazon region has affect­ed the Kayapó, Arara, Juruna, Araweté, Xikrin, Asurini and Parakanã peo­ples, whose liveli­hoods depend upon the Xingu River. They have been tire­less­ly fight­ing against the dam since its project was first pre­sent­ed in the 1980s, but to no avail. Construction start­ed in 2011. As a result, some of these peo­ple have been dis­placed from their ances­tral lands. The qual­i­ty of the water in the Xingu River and bio­di­ver­si­ty in the region have already been affect­ed, jeop­ar­diz­ing the pri­ma­ry food sources of local com­mu­ni­ties. There also may be uncon­tact­ed tribes in the affect­ed area, which would be par­tic­u­lar­ly vul­ner­a­ble if dis­placed, as they are high­ly sus­cep­ti­ble to most of our com­mon dis­eases.

The dam is part of a huge hydro­elec­tric plant that will pro­vide ener­gy for the entire coun­try and pro­pel the devel­op­ment of the alu­minum and met­al­lur­gic indus­tries. At what cost, though? By divert­ing the waters of the Xingu River in order to feed this indus­tri­al devel­op­ment plan, the Brazilian gov­ern­ment car­ries for­ward the dec­i­ma­tion of the indige­nous peo­ple of Brazil, a bloody prac­tice start­ed by Portuguese colonists more than five hun­dred years ago.

The rhetoric behind projects like Belo Monte isn’t new. It is the rhetoric or a colo­nial­ist who brings devel­op­ment to sup­pos­ed­ly back­ward or unciv­i­lized pop­u­la­tions. This nar­ra­tive is a com­mon denom­i­na­tor in the sto­ries we have dis­cussed today. It starts from the promise that these pop­u­la­tions are inca­pable of under­stand­ing the true val­ue of their land, and thus the colo­nial pow­ers must show them how to make the most of it. The col­o­niz­er then goes on to build the nec­es­sary infra­struc­ture, an infra­struc­ture that is not designed for the ben­e­fit of the local pop­u­la­tion, mind you, but to extract as much wealth as pos­si­ble from their land.

Of course, build­ing infra­struc­ture requires man­pow­er and nat­ur­al resources. The man­pow­er is pro­vid­ed by the—often forced—labor of the local pop­u­la­tion. And the nat­ur­al resources can be extract­ed from the occu­pied land. A neat lit­tle pack­age for a colo­nial metrop­o­lis, one that requires lit­tle invest­ment and gives enor­mous prof­its.

In his bril­liant indict­ment of European colo­nial­ism titled How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, Walter Rodney men­tions that upon arriv­ing in Zimbabwe Cecil Rhodes and his agents observed such mas­ter­ful irri­ga­tion sys­tems that they came to the con­clu­sion they could only have been built by oth­er Europeans. These irri­ga­tion sys­tems had been built, of course, by old­er Zimbabwean soci­eties, who had devel­oped their own irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies through cen­turies of obser­va­tion. However, the colo­nial­ists’ Euro-centric mind­set pre­vent­ed them from even con­sid­er­ing this pos­si­bil­i­ty.

Luckily, the his­to­ry of water and irri­ga­tion is not exclu­sive­ly one of oppres­sion and colo­nial­ism. There are exam­ples through­out his­to­ry that show how access to water and irri­ga­tion tech­nol­o­gy can empow­er com­mu­ni­ties and pro­pel their growth.

In Burkina Faso, for instance, self-organized local com­mit­tees all over the coun­try built mini dams and dis­trib­uted water for farm­ing dur­ing Thomas Sankara’s gov­ern­ment in the 1980s. In Brazil, com­mu­ni­ties in the state of Minas Gerais have his­tor­i­cal­ly treat­ed many ill­ness­es with the famous min­er­al waters of São Lourenço or Caxambu, although that is now also chang­ing.

What real­ly struck me as we researched for this episode was how much pow­er derives from access to water and irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies. Access to clean drink­ing water is a sub­ject that we do see pop­ping up fre­quent­ly, espe­cial­ly if cou­pled with a dis­cus­sion on sus­tain­abil­i­ty. However, I had nev­er real­ly thought about how irri­ga­tion tech­nolo­gies have influ­enced the polit­i­cal, social, and cul­tur­al for­ma­tion of entire coun­tries.

Quite frankly, we have found such a mas­sive amount of infor­ma­tion on this sub­ject that for me at first it was quite dif­fi­cult to make sense of it all. After a while, though, we start­ed see­ing repeat­ing pat­terns, par­tic­u­lar­ly how irri­ga­tion and access to water were sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly used by colo­nial pow­ers to dom­i­nate local pop­u­la­tions and it was pret­ty depress­ing to real­ize that this dom­i­na­tion strat­e­gy is still being used today as high­light­ed by the cas­es of Belo Monte and Israel’s dom­i­na­tion of Palestine.

Right now, water is one of humanity’s main con­cerns for the next decades. Many new tech­nolo­gies for facil­i­tat­ing access to clean drink­ing water and for crop irri­ga­tion are cur­rent­ly being devel­oped, but after read­ing all of these sto­ries, we can’t help but won­der, who will these tech­nolo­gies real­ly serve?

Thanks for lis­ten­ing to the sec­ond episode of Collusion, and until next time.

Further Reference

Research and links for this episode at the Collusion Tumblr site.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.