- Topics
- Feature
- Opportunities & Events
- About
- Hindi Portal
- Data
- Topics
- Feature
- Opportunities & Events
- About
- Hindi Portal
- Data
In the face of global climate change and the growing pressure on water resources, several scholars and policymakers have highlighted the importance of reviving traditional irrigation systems. Often praised for being sustainable, environmentally friendly, and economically viable, these systems are considered alternatives to large-scale irrigation infrastructures that are frequently costly and ecologically damaging. Among these systems, the ahar-pyne system of South Bihar, India, has garnered particular attention. However, a deeper look reveals that these systems, while beneficial in many ways, are not without their flaws, particularly in terms of social justice and equity.
This paper ‘Revisiting community-based traditional irrigation systems in India’ re-examines the ahar-pyne system through a socio-historical lens, focusing on the complexities of its governance, the role of caste in its operation, and the implications of its revival in contemporary times. By examining the system’s evolution and the lived experiences of marginalised communities, the paper critiques the assumption that traditional irrigation systems are inherently just and equitable.
The ahar-pyne system is an ancient irrigation technique that developed in the South Bihar region of India. Characterised by a network of ahars (rainwater storage tanks) and pynes (water channels), this system enabled the region’s predominantly agrarian population to manage seasonal floods and dry spells effectively. The ahars are large water storage tanks that collect rainwater, while the pynes are channels that divert water from rivers into the fields for irrigation. The system was highly effective in the past, irrigating large areas of land, supporting agriculture, and preventing flooding.
Historically, the system was maintained through community labour known as goam, where farmers and labourers would come together to perform maintenance work such as silt removal and embankment repairs. However, these tasks were not equally shared among all members of the community. Instead, they were largely carried out by marginalised caste groups, particularly the Beldars, who were responsible for the labour-intensive work of digging and maintaining the irrigation channels.
While the ahar-pyne system is often viewed as a communal effort that benefited all, it is essential to recognise the social hierarchies that underpinned its operation. The system was not a homogenous or egalitarian structure. Instead, it was deeply influenced by caste-based divisions, with the labour and maintenance work falling primarily on the shoulders of lower-caste groups, particularly the Beldars. These communities, often subjected to bonded labour, worked under coercive conditions for minimal compensation, despite being essential to the system's functioning.
The traditional irrigation system was, therefore, not an entirely just or inclusive model. Although the system facilitated collective farming and improved agricultural productivity, it was rooted in a highly exploitative agrarian structure. Large landowners, mostly from dominant castes, reaped the benefits, while marginalised labourers were left with few rewards beyond their basic subsistence. This dynamic reinforces a broader social order where the Beldars and other lower-caste groups continued to bear the brunt of the work, often without fair compensation or recognition.
The decline of the ahar-pyne system can be attributed to a combination of economic, political, and social factors. During the colonial era, the British administration introduced the zamindari system, which altered the land tenure structure and shifted control of agricultural land to large landowners. This change led to the neglect of traditional irrigation systems, as the British favoured canal-based irrigation over local methods. As a result, the ahar-pyne system began to deteriorate due to lack of maintenance and the loss of community involvement.
Post-independence, the abolition of the zamindari system and the redistribution of land shifted the social and economic dynamics. While these changes were initially seen as progressive, they did not lead to a more equitable distribution of water resources. Instead, new irrigation technologies, such as tube wells and borewells, gradually replaced the traditional systems, further reducing the community-based nature of water management.
In addition to technological shifts, the social order in rural Bihar began to change with the political mobilisation of lower-caste communities. These communities, historically subjugated, began to assert their rights, challenging the hierarchical structure that had previously dictated their role in irrigation management. However, despite these social changes, the lack of an institutionalised governance framework to manage the ahar-pyne system led to its further decline.
The central role of caste in the operation and maintenance of the ahar-pyne system cannot be overstated. While the ahar-pyne system is often portrayed as a community-driven effort, the reality was far more complex. The labour of marginalised caste groups, such as the Beldars, was essential to the functioning of the system, but these communities were excluded from the benefits of irrigation. The zamindars, who were primarily from upper-caste groups, controlled the water and reaped the rewards, while lower-caste labourers were relegated to the role of subservient workers.
The Beldars, who were responsible for the physical labour of digging and maintaining the ahars and pynes, were often subjected to bonded labour and low wages. Their labour was crucial to the survival of the irrigation system, yet they were denied access to the water they helped manage. In the feudal agrarian structure of South Bihar, the Beldars were economically dependent on the zamindars and were bound to them by longstanding socio-economic ties. These ties were marked by exploitation, as the Beldars worked under coercion, receiving minimal wages and often facing the threat of physical violence if they failed to perform their duties.
The contemporary push to revive traditional irrigation systems like ahar-pyne often overlooks the social inequalities embedded within these systems. While these systems may offer ecological and economic advantages, it is crucial to address the historical injustices that shaped them. A simple physical revival of the ahar-pyne system, without considering the social and political dimensions, is unlikely to result in a sustainable or just solution.
Government initiatives, such as Bihar’s Jal Jeevan Hariyali Mission, have focused on restoring these systems through technical and financial interventions. However, these efforts often overlook the socio-cultural complexities that underpin their governance.
State-led restoration projects have introduced modern materials and machinery, sidelining the tacit knowledge of local communities. This disconnect has not only diminished community involvement but also altered the physical and social fabric of the ahar-pyne. For instance, mechanical desilting methods, though efficient, disrupt traditional practices and ecological balances, such as preserving tree-lined embankments.
Developmental actors, both governmental and non-governmental, must recognise the complex interplay of caste, labour, and power in rural water management. The rehabilitation of the ahar-pyne system should not only focus on restoring the infrastructure but also on addressing the social dynamics that underpin its operation. This includes acknowledging the role of marginalised communities in the construction and maintenance of these systems and ensuring that they receive fair compensation and benefits.
The question of social justice and sustainability
The paper emphasises that the ahar-pyne system cannot be understood merely as a technical or ecological artefact; it is a socio-technical ensemble shaped by historical, social, and political forces. Any attempt to revive such systems must grapple with the inherent inequalities that defined their functioning in the past and persist in modified forms today.
Rather than viewing these systems through a binary lens of success or failure, it is crucial to analyse their impact on different social groups. For marginalised communities, the ahar-pyne represents not just a source of water but also a symbol of systemic oppression and exclusion. Therefore, its revival must prioritise social justice alongside environmental and economic goals.
Key takeaways for policy and practice
The findings underscore the need for a holistic approach to traditional irrigation system revival, one that integrates historical and social insights with contemporary governance frameworks. Key recommendations include:
Community participation: Revival efforts must actively involve all stakeholder groups, especially marginalised communities, in decision-making processes.
Equitable access: Policies should address disparities in land and water access, ensuring that benefits are distributed fairly.
Recognition of tacit knowledge: Local expertise and traditional practices should be incorporated into restoration projects to enhance their sustainability.
Institutional support: Strong local governance mechanisms are needed to manage conflicts and coordinate maintenance efforts effectively.