This investigation is a study o f social change and the prim ary source o f data is the experiences o f oustees recounted in their own words.^ Research was carried out with individuals and at the community level. It must be recognised that the work was conducted at a particular time: as time passes, oustees may will feel differently about their new homes in the plains.
Since Narmada is such a controversial subject I have also sought to ‘triangulate’ my evidence using different sources to obtain information about the same issue, countering one-sided or selective accounts. In total I spent a year in Gujarat conducting fieldwork. During that time I used multiple techniques to fulfil the research objectives, including both quantitative and qualitative research tools.
Contextual Analysis
A survey was undertaken o f resettlement policy documents. The Sardar Sarovar Punavasahat Agency provided minutes o f their meetings detailing when and why changes to resettlement policy (such as the decision to provide oustees with Rs 45,000 for house construction) were made. Over eighty resolutions have been passed
adding to resettlement policy. These minutes and resolutions provide insight into the legislative and administrative context o f resettlement.
To avoid reinventing the past or wrongly attributing broader processes o f social change to resettlement, I familiarised m yself with recent pre-displacement ethnographies (such as Hakim 1995, Baviskar 1995) and Centre for Social Studies reports on submergence villages.
Before going to the resettlement sites I consulted a variety o f sources o f information. The SSPA provided me with the official register o f all project-affected persons relocated to the resettlement site, including their ethnicity and place o f origin. I obtained information on the design and layout o f the resettlement sites, including the position o f house plots and agricultural plots. NGOs were also a rich source o f information. In addition to providing valuable oral accounts o f the history o f resettlement for each displaced community, ARCH-Vahini and the NBA, for example, gave me access to their libraries, which hold reports on earlier research at the resettlement sites. I also made use o f reports by the Centre for Social Studies on the ‘Monitoring and Evaluation o f Resettlement and Rehabilitation Programme for the Sardar Sarovar Project’. These reports tried to compare people’s standard o f living before and after resettlement through questionnaires at both village and household level. The household questionnaires sought information from the heads o f households about the socio-economic status o f household members. They also asked about changes in housing, land, livestock, agriculture, labour, production and distribution, assets, consumption pattern, education and health, as well as the experience o f relocation. Although the research aims o f the CSS differed from mine, I also required the kinds o f information described above. This secondary data was thus useful background information, although it is presented in amalgamated form, without the detail I required for individual households.
Group meetings
My preliminary field visit, when 1 was taken to seven resettlement sites, demonstrated that much could be learnt from oustees through informal discussions. When not in their fields, men in particular spent a lot o f time chatting with one another outside their houses. For example, in the part o f the vasahat occupied by oustees from Dhumna and Charbara, men frequently gathered on the porch area outside their leader’s house (Figure 4.6). There is no tree-platform on this side o f the vasahat
where oustees can sit. Although there is a tree-platform on the side occupied by oustees from Panderia and Hafeshwar, it is unusable (Figure 4.7). In Vadaj-1, however, the tree-platform is the most popular place to gather (Figure 4.8). Deepa and 1 spent many hours engaged in informal and spontaneous group discussion, often at these places. Group meetings were used to gather information on aspects o f village life (past and present). They enabled us to gain an overview o f changes in community relations, relations between oustees and hosts, authority structures, social and economic practices and group identity. 1 used this opportunity to obtain oustees’ version o f their ‘resettlement history’ i.e. how they came to arrive at that particular
vasahat.
Figure 4.7 Deepa trying out the tree-platform
i l
Figure 4.8 People relaxing in Vadaj-1
I also gained a general sense o f the overall level o f satisfaction with resettlement, including an understanding o f the major issues o f concern to oustees. Our first weeks in Kandewal were therefore spent ‘chatting’ to oustees, not only to gather information, but also to ‘break the ice’, helping to establish a good rapport. As the research progressed to more formal information gathering, less time was spent in this way, although we sat with people to chat throughout our time in the vasahats.
The household survey
Defining the household; There is a large literature on definition o f the household. I used the definition employed by the Centre for Social Studies: all those sharing a hearth (eating from the same pot) belong to the same household. This was the most appropriate definition, particularly as many o f the houses constructed in the vasahats
were built to accommodate two households thus rendering any definition o f the household as people ‘living under the same ro o f meaningless.
Purpose: The aim was to survey every household in the two vasahats: to obtain a socio-economic profile o f each individual in the household; to map the changes in household structure resulting from resettlement; to map any separations from other family members; to document the establishment o f residence at the vasahat, including the period when household members arrived at the site, the length o f residence in temporary dwellings and the present housing, and the cost o f house construction (Appendix 1).
The survey section on the socio-economic profile o f household members was loosely based on the survey designed by the Centre for Social Studies. Some vital questions were not included in their profiling, however, including the circumstances o f adult males, whether as project-affected persons entitled to the resettlement and rehabilitation package or as non-project-affected persons.
Respondent: The rationale for the household survey was to gather factual information, which in theory should not be person-dependent, meaning any
household member could provide the information requested. Two considerations favoured asking the head o f household to answer the household survey. I defined the head as the eldest person with project-affected status. Although there is an extensive literature on the nature and definition o f the head o f household, such debates are in practice pre-empted by the practices o f the resettlement agencies. The reasons for targeting the head for the household for surveys were therefore as follow.
a) One o f the main purposes was to ascertain the extent o f household and family separations. Changes in household structure had to be described in relation to a fixed person, so the response from households could be compared. The easiest approach to identifying such a ‘reference’ person is to use the head o f household. Thus it made sense that they be the respondents.
b) It was far easier to secure an interview with male oustees. I wished to save my time with women for the individual surveys and in-depth interviews to seek their views o f resettlement. In most cases the heads o f household were men as project- affected-person status is not given to women except for those widowed before 1987. In a household where both father and son received land, I considered the father to be the head o f the household.
In total we conducted 103 household surveys (interviewed 103 heads o f households): 66 in Kandewal (all but one household in the vasahat) and 37 in Vadaj (which covered all but a handful o f households).
On the whole conducting the household survey was fairly straightforward. Since virtually everyone was illiterate it was conducted orally with the responses handwritten by me on the survey. The only question to create difficulties was the age o f household members. Most people were able to work out the ages o f their children by calculating how many years before or after resettlement they were bom, but the ages o f older household members proved more elusive.
Economie survey
Purpose: The economic survey had two sections. The first sought information on the domestic economy before and after resettlement: the amount o f land cultivated and its status (owned, rented, illegally cultivated etc), cultivation arrangements, crops grown, yield, earnings from crop sales, sources o f income, employment o f labourers, debts, ability to meet consumption needs, diet and livestock owned (Appendix 2). All the questions related to the completed agricultural year prior to the survey (i.e. September 1998 to August 1999). Concerns about the reliability o f the information gathered are discussed later in this section and in Chapter 5.
The second section included a series o f open-ended questions (Appendix 3). These probed perceived changes to the household economy and resources and culminated in general questions about whether respondents felt better or worse off after resettlement. The aim was to gain a sense o f levels o f satisfaction with changes in production and consumption, and hence the influence o f economic factors on oustees’ satisfaction with their new home. Responses were recorded and the findings are analysed in Chapter 5.
Respondent: The head o f household was again targeted for the economic survey, although ideally the views o f both the head and their partner would have been sought. Women are likely to have different perceptions from men o f changes in the domestic economy since they make a different contribution to it. For example, the response to questions on the ease o f feeding the household may well have been different. However, many women used the in-depth interviews to talk about these issues.
At first attempts were made to survey households that were selected using random sampling methods, but after much inefficient use o f time (calling on households repeatedly until we could pin-down the required respondent or until we thought it was fhiitless to keep trying) a more practical approach was adopted - surveying any head o f household who was around and willing to participate. In total 40 economic surveys were conducted in Kandewal. Regrettably most o f the data collected in Vadaj
for the first section o f the economic survey went missing (although the recordings with 28 household heads were still available). As a result, the changes in production and consumption documented in Chapter 5 are primarily based on findings from Kandewal vasahat.
The economic survey was the most problematic element o f the methodology. At the best o f times information about household economic circumstances is difficult to elicit. In this highly politicised case, the accuracy o f some o f the data is highly questionable. During fieldwork, oustees in Kandewal were pressing for the inclusion o f 22 young adult males on the list o f project-affected-persons. This classification would entitle them to the resettlement package, including 5 acres o f agricultural land. Some oustees were therefore keen to express to outsiders their hardships as a result o f resettlement to a region where land is in shorter supply. This emerged primarily in responses to questions about circumstances in their original village, particularly the amount o f land previously cultivated. On two occasions Deepa understood the dialect words o f fellow oustees urging the interviewee to ‘tell them m ore’ i.e. to report a greater area than had actually been cultivated.
A contact at ARCH-Vahini lamented that this was typical o f what has happened everywhere in the Sardar Sarovar resettlement. He commented that people they had known and with whom they had enjoyed an excellent rapport for years were now telling a different version o f events from what both parties knew to be the case. Before resettlement, he said, it was much easier to introduce researchers to the villagers, ‘they [the researcher] could just get on with it [their w ork]’. M y impression was that anybody conducting research on Sardar Sarovar resettlement would face these difficulties. My contact in the NBA advised us to collect information through group interviews, as there was less chance o f our being misinformed. Experience suggested this was not necessarily the case: in fact, as noted above, a respondent could be ‘egged on’ by others. Oustees in Kandewal were keen to demonstrate a collective voice on the issue o f hardships faced by landless oustees. Their solidarity with those less fortunate was apparent when those with land said they would rather
the dam remain unbuilt (even if they had to wait longer for irrigation) as this would increase the chances o f the 22 landless oustees getting project-affected-person status. (Once the dam is built oustees are convinced the government will forget about them.) I imagine this was also the reason why one Kandewal oustee changed his tune about post-resettlement economic circumstances when a brother o f a landless oustee walked into the house in the middle o f an interview. Oustees also displayed solidarity with the NGOs seeking to help them. In Vadaj-2, for example, one interviewee suggested that oustees would be unwilling to acknowledge that they had benefited from resettlement for fear o f undermining the work o f the NBA.
It would, however, be wrong to leave the impression that inaccuracies in the data (particularly on production and consumption in the original villages) are the result only o f misrepresentation. It was difficult for oustees to quantify such things as the amount o f land cultivated and crop production when these were previously unmeasured. I imagine the amount o f cultivated land in the hills could appear greater simply because there were no tangible boundaries, leaving the eye with the impression o f large tracts. Moreover, perception is as important as the ‘objective’ situation. Chapter 5, where most o f the analysis o f the economic survey is presented, will demonstrate a way o f coping with these problems.
Individual survey
Respondent: This survey was administered to all adult members o f a household, not just the head, to examine variations in perceptions o f resettlement according to age and gender.^ There was no systematic selection o f respondents; individual surveys were conducted with people as and when they were available. Altogether 147 individual surveys were conducted. In Kandewal we surveyed a total o f 56 adults (29 men and 27 women) and in Vadaj we surveyed 91 people (50 men and 41 women).
Purpose: The aim o f the individual survey was to investigate people’s perception o f the impact o f resettlement on various aspects o f life (Appendix 4). I was interested in
the extent to which resettlement concerns are related to the home through questions on the following:
The built environment: not only satisfaction with the dwellings themselves, but also their configuration and layout in the vasahat. Oustees now live in compact villages: how did they feel about this change?
Activities and leisure: individual roles within the household, establishing whether these had changed and whether or not it was now more or less difficult to carry out these roles. Changes in household duties affect the amount o f leisure time available, so this section included questions on free time.
Social activities, social relations and support networks: the impact o f removing
adivasi people from their social milieu on individuals and on the community. Many general statements have been made by anti-dam critics about the removal o f tribal people from their environment and its disastrous effects. An assumption is often made that only ‘hard’ subjects require quantitative data collection and analysis, rather than ‘soft’ subjects relating to social matters. A primary objective o f this survey was to gather quantitative data concerning levels o f social activity, enjoyment o f activities and changes in support networks to provide a more informed assessment o f the impact o f resettlement on oustees’ social lives.
Amenities: this relatively short section could have been expanded to include questions on a greater range o f amenities but this had to be balanced with the need to keep the survey brief.
General questions: an open question on the advantages and disadvantages o f living in Kandewal/Vadaj enabled oustees to express their feelings on issues they chose to raise. M y purpose was to gauge the individual’s overall satisfaction with resettlement. The final question ‘Does KandewaLVadaj feel like your place?’, was the most
difficult to word but also perhaps the most important in attempting to gain a sense o f whether or not oustees feel at home in their new environment.
The individual survey changed substantially from the first draft produced before the main research visit. It was modified as a result o f three inputs: a) consultation with and feedback from academic institutions and NGOs b) reflections on the pilot eonducted in Phata vasahat (a vasahat neighbouring Kandewal) and c) reassessment after commeneing the survey with oustees in Kandewal. For example:
1) A section comparing mobility before and after resettlement was revised to focus on specified social activities. For instanee, the original question required details o f all the occasions in the year when oustees ventured outside their village, but this proved unworkable because o f the sheer volume o f movement. The question was abandoned in favour o f a more foeused effort to determine whether attendance at events sueh as festivals and fairs had decreased or increased since resettlement.
2) The question on the level o f practical help from fellow oustees before and after resettlement was divided up to distinguish between help for house eonstruction and help on the fields etc.
3) Questions elieiting the same responses from all oustees were removed. For instance, oustees did not discuss individual preferences coneeming the decision to resettle at the chosen vasahat, instead they simply repeated the grounds on which the eollective deeision to do so was reaehed.^
M ost o f the modifications to the individual survey arose from the pilot study, condueted in Phata. The draft survey took two hours per person to eomplete. The final draft usually lasted 50 minutes. M any o f the questions involved answering a follow-up question or expanding on an answer if there had been a change. The shortest session was 30 minutes long, with an oustee who responded ‘the same’ (no