Kudimaramathu not a clean job: Ryots

As the sun beats down the earth in all its fury, turning once post-card worthy brimming lakes in to parched summer playgrounds of kids on vacation, farmers in the state have started sharpening their shovels spades and crow bars, hoping to undertake ‘kudimaramathu’, an ancient participatory water management scheme, at least this year and replenish the irrigation sources for the next crop season.

Deputy chief minister O Panneerselvam, a farmer himself, had only contributed to their soaring hopes by announcing Rs 300 crore for this year’s exercise to cleanse and maintain the water bodies. Intentions of both parties are good, but, application is an area where at least the government may have disappointed many as ryots allege lack of transparency and neglect of farmers in work execution. 

Traditionally, kudimaramathu means engaging ayacutar s (read as farmers) who would contribute a bit (10% funds) monetarily and directly engage in replenishment of the water bodies that feed their paddy fields. The idea was to let the stakeholder farmers restore lakes themselves so that the work would be done sincerely. Even as per the recent government directive issued with regard to the project, local farmers committees must be constituted before commencing kudimaramathu in an area. In the mid-1950s and 60s, it was practiced to source one worker per acre from land owning farmers for kudimaramathu. Those farmers who had failed to depute workers were made to compensate equally by way of cash to engage farmer workers. Pan out and return to 2018, the same farmers now fear that their shovels and spades have no business in the new world order. 

A good majority of farmers DT Next spoke to across the state accused the government of not executing the project as it should be done. From lack of transparency to involvement of contractors, ryots have complaints aplenty in executing the project, revived in 2016 with Rs 100 crore and extended this year with an allocation of Rs 300 crore. 

‘Iyilai’ Sivasurian, district secretary and state executive committee member of Tamil Nadu Vivasayigal Sagnam from Tiruchy says, “Officials are only engaging contractors, who use heavy machinery like earth movers, and ignoring ayacutars. It defeats the very purpose of the project. Drought in 2016 taught us a good lesson. Last year, water did not reach many tail end areas of Delta. Government should have learnt its lesson from the past two years’ exercise and engaged itself sincerely in restoring water bodies. It seemed not to have happened.” 

Arupathy Kalayanam, general secretary of Federation of Farmers Associations – Cauvery Delta from Nagapattinam, alleged lack of transparency and said, “The government should release block and taluk-wise details of works carried out in all districts thus far. Which water body was restored, when and to what extent? Who did they engage for the work? What was estimate and how much was completed in the first phase? No one knows. In Nagapattinam, there is no work worth recalling.” 

“The government should release the list of water bodies it intends to restore with Rs 300 crore allocated this year. So, let them post the details on the website of agriculture engineering or water resource department,” Kalyanam added, suggesting that only machines could be engaged for the allocation, but the machines should be used effectively.

Another farmer’s association member from Delta, who did not wish to be named, alleged pilferage of funds and said; “If contractors spend a given sum on 10-km-long channel, farmers will cover 40 km for the same amount. Political involvement at various level has resulted in seepage of funds. Local politicians intervene, work with officials and take up work. Farmers involvement is minimum. Sometimes, nil.” 

Another area the ryots found fault with officials was identification of water bodies. Channels are as important as lakes. “Some channels have normal flow. Some have minimum flow and a few channels would have no flow despite substantial water release. Such abandoned channels would mostly have head sluices in urban areas where urbanisation have put them to disuse. Government should survey and take up such water sources for restoration,” Kalayanam added, suggesting a micro-level approach in Kudimaramathu scheme. 

Cauvery Dhanapalan, General secretary, Cauvery Farmers Protection Association of Thanjavur says, “there are 638 farmers associations registered under TN Societies Act. Why could they not give it to farmers associations. 

When we suggested the idea, WRD officials refused saying that they would only give it to those who had registered before 1980. Hardly, any association was registered before that. Instead of ayacutars , they are constituted village committee meetings and handing over works to people with political influence.” When asked, engineer in chief (irrigation), state Water Resource Department, M Bhaktavatchalam told DT Next, “Works were executed only after constituting and engaging local farmers committees. This year, we are surveying lakes that are dry and still wet. After identification of lakes, the estimates would be prepared, local farmers committees constituted and engaged to do the work.” 

On farmers allegations he said, “There is no question of issuing contracts. Concept of floating tenders does not arise in this project at all. People who come up with allegations with specific works executed in their areas,” calling “generalized allegations” baseless.