Understanding eco-hydrology is not easy, as Jayanta Bandyopadhyay points out in his book. It requires an incisive look at the development of modern water supply systems dictated by engineers. The book places traditional community systems in the context of the recent mega projects and the increasing pre-eminence of groundwater. It strongly argues for a multi-disciplinary approach to managing water systems.

The first hurdle is lack of formal training in eco-hydrology. Also, much of the work in this inter-disciplinary area has been conducted by researchers from various backgrounds such as hydrology, sociology and engineering. Hence, their work is not necessarily well-informed.

The second hurdle is absence of data, especially in India. The paradigm of eco-hydrology is relevant in India due to its extensive and intensive traditional knowledge base of water management and factors such as diversity of culture and geography, unique rainfall pattern, high but uneven per capita water availability. However, many of these areas do not have clear data. For example, we have rainfall data for only the past few decades. That too is not comprehensive. Further, we have no data on glaciers, the main source of water in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) river basin.

The third hurdle is the sectoral approach to water management. Engineers, educated under our westernised system of education, have fixed notions of water management through large storage structures. They have dominated modern water management, says Bandyopadhyay, marginalising other aspects of water supply and use. Recently, the high cost of new water projects prompted the government to shift part of the cost to local people in the name of ‘community ownership’. But the back-end remains biased towards engineering solutions.

Jayanta Bandyopadhyay teaches science, environment and development at IIM Calcutta. He has been a consultant to several international organisations such as UNDP, Unesco and Swiss Development Cooperation. He was a member of the Task Force on Mountain Ecosystems of the Planning Commission of India. Bandyopadhyay has also authored more than 10 books on ecology.

In recent years, the environmental movement has brought out the need to maintain ecosystem services provided by rivers. This is something the engineers had neglected. Another neglected area is the social constructs that help traditional water systems. Large, centralised schemes do not have place for these elements, considering the externalities.

The book cites several examples from developed countries, where water policy is becoming more multi-disciplinary. In Europe, the Water Framework Directive exemplifies an ecosystem perspective, rather than a traditional engineering perspective. However, India’s water policy says planning, management and development of water resources need to be governed by national perspective. It does not take into account the expanding inter-disciplinary knowledge on water systems. In other words, eco-hydrology, right to water, property rights and community institutions do not find place in India’s approach. This is ironic. India’s current approach to water is based on the European perspective, while Europe itself has moved to a more broad-based approach.

The starting point, the book says, is the integration of knowledge from various disciplines of natural and social sciences with engineering. The next step is to induct this knowledge into the development and management of water systems. Bandyopadhyay says this is difficult to do in an institutional culture unwilling to engage with critics. Had it made workable suggestions about how this can be achieved, the book would have had much more impact.

It stresses the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to water management. For those interested in pursuing the topic in-depth, Bandyopadhyay’s book is a rich source of information, as it provides plenty of leads for further reading.

Nitya Jacob is the author of Jalyatra (2008)

The book is full of such insightful examples, and the author brings out his rich and diverse experience to lay down a roadmap for companies to follow. To start with, companies need to prioritise innovation initiatives. Standard tools of measurement such as first year revenues are not sufficient. Had Google been measured on these counts, it would have been written off as a failure. Factors such as upside potential and unique contribution to portfolio balance serve better. The book also lends a personal dimension by asking leaders to learn to manage paradoxical situations. Towards the end, the author lists ten disruptive ideas of the future, including Facebook and Alibaba.com. These are indeed the silver lining.
Suresh Rajagopal

The story begins with Sam, the house boy, starting his life at his master’s house, the River House. There he befriends many, especially the master’s son and dog. Sam’s story ends with a certain tragic incident in the master's family.

In between, the story traces Sam’s roots as well. The narrative, seamlessly shifting through time zones, tracks two locations: the River House and Sam’s village. Sam comes from an unrelentingly harsh environment. His bleak past is unspooled when he tells us instances such as how he would rush back home from school to tell tall stories of the sweets he ate, where in reality he had got only wrappers. He tells us how his mother would take care of her six children, and how the polls promised them everything, but gave nothing. Sam recalls how he lost his friend Piya in the floods. One of Sam’s brothers dies in the war. Like Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage , Sam’s mother is left with the loss of her children.

The understated voice and tone of the book uplift the mood, leaving the reader with knowledge of a place and its people who remain resilient in the face of horror. Jayawardena achieves this by infusing a simple hope in Sam, which, in some ways, survives his harsh life.
Amandeep Sandhu

(Businessworld Issue Dated 18-24 Aug 2009)