{"title":"The Duty of Water: Land, Labour, and the Racialisation of Waste in Colonial and Contemporary Punjab","authors":"Maira Hayat","doi":"10.1111/anti.13021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In our present changing climate, water governance is fast becoming a matter of concern everywhere, but especially in the Global South, which has long been the object of (mis)understandings of state failure and dysfunction. A common characterisation of “bad” water governance calls attention to the waste of water. In this article I show how contemporary development discourse and practice around the waste of water articulate conceptions of bureaucratic labour, farmer capability, and the suitability of irrigation practices, recalling a prior moment in colonial water governance. Examining the development of the “duty of water” in the context of canal irrigation infrastructure in colonial Punjab, I argue that seemingly “technical” measures and metrics of water governance are rooted in a colonial grammar, and show how the duty of water articulated racialised classifications of natives as wasteful, their places as waste, and of their labour, both agricultural and bureaucratic. While the tendency has been to view colonial irrigation as a battle with nature, I emphasise it instead as a battle of British with native labour to contribute to conceptualisations of environment and bureaucracy inseparable from, and incomplete without, an understanding of racialised labour. Today, figurations of labour have changed, but the underlying view of labour impeding, not enabling, governance, continues.</p>","PeriodicalId":8241,"journal":{"name":"Antipode","volume":"56 4","pages":"1329-1356"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anti.13021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antipode","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.13021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In our present changing climate, water governance is fast becoming a matter of concern everywhere, but especially in the Global South, which has long been the object of (mis)understandings of state failure and dysfunction. A common characterisation of “bad” water governance calls attention to the waste of water. In this article I show how contemporary development discourse and practice around the waste of water articulate conceptions of bureaucratic labour, farmer capability, and the suitability of irrigation practices, recalling a prior moment in colonial water governance. Examining the development of the “duty of water” in the context of canal irrigation infrastructure in colonial Punjab, I argue that seemingly “technical” measures and metrics of water governance are rooted in a colonial grammar, and show how the duty of water articulated racialised classifications of natives as wasteful, their places as waste, and of their labour, both agricultural and bureaucratic. While the tendency has been to view colonial irrigation as a battle with nature, I emphasise it instead as a battle of British with native labour to contribute to conceptualisations of environment and bureaucracy inseparable from, and incomplete without, an understanding of racialised labour. Today, figurations of labour have changed, but the underlying view of labour impeding, not enabling, governance, continues.
期刊介绍:
Antipode has published dissenting scholarship that explores and utilizes key geographical ideas like space, scale, place, borders and landscape. It aims to challenge dominant and orthodox views of the world through debate, scholarship and politically-committed research, creating new spaces and envisioning new futures. Antipode welcomes the infusion of new ideas and the shaking up of old positions, without being committed to just one view of radical analysis or politics.