Water and Public Policy in India:

Politics, Rights, and Governance 1st

Edition Deepti Acharya
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/water-and-public-policy-in-india-politics-rights-and-gov
ernance-1st-edition-deepti-acharya/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Water Governance and Management in India Issues and

Perspectives 1st Edition Girish Chadha

https://ebookmeta.com/product/water-governance-and-management-in-
india-issues-and-perspectives-1st-edition-girish-chadha/

Women and Entrepreneurship in India Governance

Sustainability and Policy 1st Edition Harpreet Kaur

https://ebookmeta.com/product/women-and-entrepreneurship-in-
india-governance-sustainability-and-policy-1st-edition-harpreet-
kaur/

Public Policy in India 1st Edition Rajesh Chakrabarti

https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-policy-in-india-1st-edition-
rajesh-chakrabarti/

Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public

Policy, and Governance 2nd Edition Ali Farazmand

https://ebookmeta.com/product/global-encyclopedia-of-public-
administration-public-policy-and-governance-2nd-edition-ali-
farazmand/
Cambridge IGCSE and O Level History Workbook 2C - Depth
Study: the United States, 1919-41 2nd Edition Benjamin
Harrison

https://ebookmeta.com/product/cambridge-igcse-and-o-level-
history-workbook-2c-depth-study-the-united-states-1919-41-2nd-
edition-benjamin-harrison/

Public-Private Partnerships in Transitional Nations :

Policy, Governance and Praxis 1st Edition Nikolai
Mouraviev

https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-private-partnerships-in-
transitional-nations-policy-governance-and-praxis-1st-edition-
nikolai-mouraviev/

Water Politics Governance Justice and the Right to

Water Earthscan Water Text 1st Edition Farhana Sultana
Editor Alex Loftus Editor

https://ebookmeta.com/product/water-politics-governance-justice-
and-the-right-to-water-earthscan-water-text-1st-edition-farhana-
sultana-editor-alex-loftus-editor/

Urban Politics in India Area Power and Policy in a

Penetrated System Rodney W. Jones

https://ebookmeta.com/product/urban-politics-in-india-area-power-
and-policy-in-a-penetrated-system-rodney-w-jones/

Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives 7th

Edition Michael E. Kraft

https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-policy-politics-analysis-
and-alternatives-7th-edition-michael-e-kraft/
Water and Public Policy in India

This book explores the conceptual and theoretical frameworks of Right to

Water and analyses its values in the context of water policy frameworks of
the union governments in India. It uses a qualitative approach and combines
critical hermeneutics with critical content analysis to introduce a new water
policy framework. The volume maps the complex argumentative narrations
which have emerged and evolved in the idea of Right to Water and traces
the various contours and the nature of water policy texts in independent
India. The book argues that the idea of Right to Water has emerged, evolved
and is being argued through theoretical arguments and is shaped with the
help of institutional arrangements developed at the international, regional
and national levels. Finally, the book underlines that India’s national water
policies drafted respectively in 1987, 2002 and 2012 are ideal but are not
embracing the values and elements of Right to Water.
The volume will be of critical importance to scholars and researchers of
public policy, environment, especially water policy, law, and South Asian
studies.

Deepti Acharya is a political scientist and a researcher. For the last 15 years,
she has been associated with the Department of Political Science, Faculty of
Arts, The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India, as Senior Assis-
tant Professor of Political Studies. As a faculty and a guide, she is allied with
different faculties, institutions and departments, including All India Services
Training Center, The M.S. University of Baroda (2010–14), Faculty of Law,
Department of Architecture and Faculty of technology of the M.S. Univer-
sity of Baroda, Vadodara (2010–13) and Department of Political Science,
Parul University of Vadodara, India. She has presented several papers in the
international and national seminars and has dozens of research papers to
her credit.
Water and Public Policy in
India
Politics, Rights, and Governance

Deepti Acharya
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2022 Deepti Acharya
The right of Deepti Acharya to be identified as author of this
work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and
78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British
Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-032-00548-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-07829-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-21173-0 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003211730
Typeset in Sabon
by SPi Technologies India Pvt Ltd (Straive)
MAA and PAPA
Contents

List of figures viii

List of tables ix
Preface x

1 Introduction 1

2 The concept of Right to Water: Emergence and evolution 12

3 Indian understanding on Right to Water 50

4 Right to Water in India’s national water policies 84

5 Conclusion: Towards Right to Water in India 151

Bibilography 166
Appendix A: General Comment 15 195
Appendix B: India’s National Water Policy – 1987 211
Appendix C: India’s National Water Policy – 2002 219
Appendix D: India’s National Water Policy – 2012 231

Index 245
Figures

1.1 Conceptual approach 3

1.2 The flow of the discussion 4
2.1 Dividing understanding on right to water: At global level 18
2.2 Conceptual evolution of an idea can be called as Right to
Water: expansion and relation 28
2.3 What is Right to Water? (Derived through theoretical
argument and establishments evolved through process of
institutional framework) 32
3.1 Major contributors in the rise of the idea of Right to Water
in India 72
3.2 Process of identifying and endorsing the idea of Right to
Water in post-colonial independent India 73
4.1 Water policy analysis guiding framework in context of the
idea of Right to Water 85
Tables

2.1 Meaning and Flow of Right to Water 34

3.1 Understandings on Water Resources management and on
the Idea of Right to Water: British Colonial India and Post-
colonial Independent India 62
3.2 NGO Objectives and Major Aspects of Right to Water 68
4.1 Water for/to All: Available, Accessible and Acceptable 88
4.2 Children, Women, Disadvantaged Sections and Disabled as
Special Beneficiaries 93
4.3 Needs and Priority of Water Uses 95
4.4 Government (Union as Well as State) as Duty Bearers 100
4.5 Duty-Bearing Responsibilities Private Sector as Water Supplier 104
4.6 Duties of Citizens, Civil Society and Research
community (141) 106
4.7 Institutional Arrangements to Ensure Right to Water 110
4.8 National Objectives with Regional Preferences and Local
Concerns (Special Cases of Drought and Floods) 114
4.9 Mechanisms to Facilitate, Protect and Promote Right to
Water to All 119
4.10 Efficiency with Absence of Monopoly, Discrimination and
Exploitation 126
4.11 Measures to Ensure Accountability, Transparency, and
People’s Participation 132
4.12 Sustainability (for Future Use and Protection of Environment) 139
4.13 Monitoring Systems (Review and Assessment) 145
Preface

For those people who belong to “water-have areas”, a fact which provides
that in India the water availability has been reduced to 1,486 cubic metres
per person per year (as endorsed by the World Bank in 2019), can be merely
a figure. However, for the individuals, communities and regions that are fac-
ing the consequences of the loss of water, it is a question of existence. Since
the people who are water-poor are facing the problem of water shortage
throughout the year, for them, availability and accessibility of water became
a concern of the right. As I am a student of political and policy sciences, my
sensitivity, sensibilities and concerns about such questions of existence are
natural. This is because I am one of the victims who have experienced the
meaning of no or limited water. As a resident of Rajasthan (Jaipur, Urban
area), I had felt and lived with such burning questions of survival. I am
mentioning the late 1980s and 1990s when annual per capita water avail-
ability in India was around 2,849 cubic meters per person, as the World
Bank has reported.
In those years, for families like us and others, a question of survival that
could hold a promise of development and growth was a fake argument.
The only meaning of development was to get a constant water supply from
the nearest place. This was socialised and engendered so deeply that as a
child, my belief about life and duty became limited to fetching and col-
lecting water for daily uses. I still remember that in the “water-have-not”
communities, the ability of a man or woman was pronounced based on
his/her competence to fetch water. In my area, the strongest person of the
family had a responsibility to fetch water for the entire family, and that too
from a distant place. Considerably, this was the most common scenario.
Spending three to four hours every day and climbing more than 50 stairs,
just to get water, was not a surprise. This was so much of a part of our
lives that for us, like many others, it was not a struggle. The principle of
equality was relatively working here. Rich or upper-middle-class families
were having just a few benefits. For instance, they could buy water from
the “Water Tank Owner” or could have servants who could fetch water
for them. Otherwise, the level of water tension was the same. To me, like
others, the ownership status of these “Owners”, over water, was a matter of
surprise. An unanswered question was that if the entire region was suffering
 Preface xi
from water stress, then from where were these “Owners” getting water, and
that too for selling? Many times, the purchase of water at a high price, from
these Owners, had disturbed our monthly budget, due to which we had to
compromise on many things, including social visits. On contemplation, I
can recollect that at the cost of water, my family had missed many impor-
tant social gatherings.
Social visits and gatherings were not social, in the full sense. Due to the
uncertainties associated with the water supply, the water fetchers of the
family could hardly get a chance to visit relatives or attend social gather-
ings. They were bound to remain at home to fetch water. These water fetch-
ers, who were the heroes for the family, were hardly popular among the
neighbours. This was because, in the water queues, they were harsh to them.
The uncertain condition of the water supply had left no room for mercy.
In my colony, a senior citizen whom we used to call “dadi” had to manage
with two buckets of water. Since she was living alone, there was nobody
who could fetch water for her, and none of us was in a position to help her.
About those who had physical difficulties, I have no words to write. Their
pain and suffering are justifiably beyond any expression.
Now, when I think about those days, I feel that for all of us, the question
of availability, accessibility and affordability of water had created peculiar
problems that had curtailed the right of surviving with happiness. For peo-
ple like us, the unavailability of water had created a situation where the
problem of no or limited water was not only a struggle to get water, but it
had led to new social problems, where finding a partner for marriage was
a never-ending struggle. A girl, who had played the role of “water fetcher
or water accumulator” in her parental house, would hardly agree to get
married to a boy who resides in the same situation. The fear was common
because nobody wanted to spend his/her entire life fetching water. The cri-
teria to get married was not a choice or love, but rather the availability of
water. One of my friends got married to a middle-aged man just because he
had his own house, with an ample water supply. Yes, the scenario is unim-
aginable at so many levels, but so it is. The problem was so grave that it had
killed the spirit and desire to think and work for better earning. My father,
like his friends, was more worried about fetching and collecting water than
about his enhancement and development – personal and professional. The
majority of the young boys and girls of my area who were “Bhaiyas and
didis” to me, were the water heroes, and hence they had no time to study
or train for a job. The shortage of water has made the whole generation so
busy that they had no time to think about their future. There was no pain,
no voice, just a loud silence. The story that weaves in common across every
section of the society was that of a much-awaited noise of slow-flowing
water and a rough, hard voice of feet.
A couple of years ago, as an Assistant Professor and an employee of The
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, I started thinking whether the
story had changed. I was curious to know if the Indian government/state
xii Preface
government(s) had made any efforts to change the scenario. Since India is
federal with a Union of states, my expectations were more from the Union
government, and hence, I was keen if any of the national water policy had
acknowledged water as a right and had entitled those people bereft of water
with categorisation as “water-have-nots”. My curiosity was at an all-time
high because, in 2015, the United Nations – with 195 nations – had replaced
the Millennium Development Goals with the Sustainable Development
Goals (17 goals). The new goals were formulated with a belief that differ-
ent nations with the United Nations can change the world for the better.
Significantly, for this, the idea of sustainable development has emphasised
ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation
for all (at present, Goal 6) and has endorsed this as a right. The United
Nations, along with other nations, has to achieve these goals by 2030. Since
India is one of the signatories of the promise, for me it was interesting to
investigate how Indian governments will keep the promise, especially when
per-person average water availability is reduced and is reducing constantly.
This book is an outcome of these curiosities and interests, which, instead
of underlining the problem of water scarcity and stress, argues for water
justice. My basic concern and interest, about the right to water, has made
this book multifold. This is because, to work on the line of these interests,
this book investigates multiple subjects. The book intends to investigate
the theoretical understandings and implications of the Right to Water and
explore the status of the Right to Water in India, particularly concerning
constitutional provisions, legal frameworks and judicial interpretations.
The book further examines the water governance framework concerning
the Right to Water from 1947 to 1987 and studies the three national water
policies, drafted respectively in 1989, 2002 and 2012. The core aim of the
analysis of these policies is to explore if the three policies embrace the idea
of the Right to Water.
The book explores the idea of the Right to Water, in the larger context; its
significance is not limited to India, but it is global. The strength of the book
lies specifically in three areas i.e., in the discourse of right to water, water
discourses in India and perception on Right to Water and lastly to water
policy frameworks. A normative and empirical commitment of this book
has expanded its significance that focuses on the idea of Right to Water
and argues to ensure it through national water policies as the part of the
execution of water justice. The focus of this book is extremely relevant for
water governance, as it conceptualises the idea of the Right to Water in the
context of the policy framework.
This book is intended for students and scholars in the interdisciplinary
subjects of political philosophy, public policy and environment as well as
readers with an interest in water policies in India and the region. It will be of
interest to policy makers, policy planners, bureaucrats, non-governmental
organizations working on water-related issues and the scholars interested
 Preface xiii
in water-related jurisdictions, and so it should find a place in their personal
and institutional libraries.
A word of thanks is due to all those people whose support knowledge
and input form an essential part of the present book. I am grateful to the
author of the books and research articles on water and water policies. I owe
an enormous debt of gratitude to Professor Amit Dholakia, Department of
Political Science, the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, who has
remained a great source of support, advice and knowledge. I also acknowl-
edge the Hansa Mehta Library and Nehru Memorial Library for providing
access to a wide body of literature.
I would like to thank Routledge management for placing this research in
academia. It was the personal care and interest of Mr. Aakash Chakrabarty
and his able and efficient team, who ensured the publication of the book.
This book is dedicated to those generations whose voices have flowed
with the water and have not reached the top level. I dedicate this work to
Maa and Papa, who with all difficulties of our lives have remained a pillar
of strength for me. They are the real source of inspiration throughout the
academic career that has led this book here in the first place.
1 Introduction

Arguing water as a right with reference to Right to Water, and examining

the same in the context of India’s national water policies, is an explicit
objective of this book. The book, for this purpose presents normative and
empirical discussions on a fact that water is a right and argues to realise the
significance of water policies in the context of Right to Water.
The core focus of this book is relevant, as the issue of right to water is
complex and increasingly dynamic. Globally, it has imposed new challenges
to water freedoms and water equalities. In the tradition of policy research,
the issue and content of right to water is often studied in the background
of international declarations. This has often missed or ignored necessary
normative descriptions, and therefore studies have failed to address the
problem of right to water as the “central question” of water justice. This
book, while arguing for water justice as the central question of water gov-
ernance, insists that the entitlement of individuals over water resources will
be possible only if a nation will understand the concept of Right to Water
and will inculcate its values in its water policies. The book, in this stance,
explains that the notion of Right to Water is an empirical question which
needs to be described and understood against a theoretical background. It
conceptualises the idea of Right to Water with the reference of normative
arguments, empirical agreements and arrangements evolved at the regional
and national levels. Importantly, in the book, the idea of Right to Water has
been discussed as a policy concern, and hence it has not presented a descrip-
tive analysis on the problem of water scarcity or abundance. Instead of
doing so, the book has endorsed that water, in all situations, should be pre-
served as a right, and its preservation should be ensured through a policy.
To preserve individuals’ right over water resources, policies are considered
as significant because as the choices of the government, they are meant to
address uncertainties; and since availability of water on earth and in India
is most uncertain, a discussion on the idea of Right to Water in the line of
policy discourses in essential. The book, while drawing the idea of Right to
Water, argues that the actual right to water is an issue of concern to water
justice, and hence the concept of Right to Water can have many meanings
and interpretations.1

DOI: 10.4324/9781003211730-1
2 Introduction
The discussions presented in this book are drawn upon the facts and
arguments of previous studies which have commonly concluded that glob-
ally, ensuring right to water to all is becoming increasing difficult (Gleick,
1993; Iyer, 2007; Shiva, 2002; Salman and McInerney-Lankford, 2006;
Brooks, 2007, 2010; Bakker, 2010; Cullet, 2010, 2013; D’Souza, 2008;
Thielbörger, 2014; Singh, 2016). The book, in the context of identified dif-
ficulties, takes a major shift from discussing the water problem in the ref-
erence of water pollution (Larry, Deborah, and Knox, 1990; Sen, 2017);
water wastage, health and sanitation (Mckeown and Bugyi, 2015); water
stress/scarcity and quality of water resources and their relation with water
conflicts and water disputes (Anderson, 1983; Gleick, 1993; Rogers, Lla-
mas, and Cortina, 2006; Gupta, 2008; Shiva, 1989; Colopy, 2012; Chel-
laney, 2014; Kallen, 2015; Steenhuis and Warhaft, 2016), floods, drought,
food, irrigation, pollution and management (Rao, 1991; Maloney and Raju,
1994; Vaidyanathan, 1999; Vaidyanathan & Oudshoom, 2004; Iyer, 2007,
Shiva, 2002; Sridhar, Thangaradjou, Senthil, and Kannan, 2006; Kumar and
Furlong, 2012; Chellaney, 2019); water management and water laws (Cul-
let, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013); and rights of lower and upper riparian states
(Shiva, 2002; Iyer, 2007, 2009; Chellaney, 2014). Instead, it focuses on the
idea of Right to Water and investigates contents of the national water poli-
cies of the union government in India in the same context.
While taking such a shift, the book argues that in the water discourses,
the meaning(s) and elements of Right to Water are not explicit. They are
implicit and are needed to be derived from various sources, evolved at inter-
national, regional and national levels. In respect to this stance, this book
elaborates and discusses upon the process of the conceptualisation of the
idea of Right to Water. The book, for this purpose, focuses upon the global
and Indian perspective of the concept of Right to Water. While so doing,
the book reads and interprets the international, regional and national docu-
ments, the verdicts of the Indian judiciary and deeds of Indian civil societies,
not as a guarantor of right to water, but in realising their importance as a
definer of Right to Water. Since the second major objective of this volume
is to examine India’s national water policies, the book contextualises the
same, critically, with respect to the water policies drafted by the union gov-
ernment of India respectively in 1987, 2002 and 2012.2

1.1 Key focuses and framework for the discussion

This book, while explaining the idea of Right to Water in the context of
the water policies of the union government in India, embraces two major
areas of political studies, i.e. political philosophy and public policy analysis.
Chapter 2 of the book explores the meaning of Right to Water as a part of
political philosophy and describes India’s national water policies as part of
public policy analysis in Chapter 4. Chapter 3 focuses specifically on India’s
understanding on the idea of Right to Water.
 Introduction 3
To attain the desired comprehensive understanding on the idea of Right
to Water, the book focuses on the Right Based Approach throughout. Main-
taining focus on the Right Based Approach has multiple advantages as it
offers directive principles and values of obligation, accountability, respect
and transparency to state policies that helps to standardise the value of
Right to Water. At the same time, the approach helps in policy making and
policy analysis and also in setting priorities for water policy to ensure that
no person is deprived of sufficient water supply.
The discussions and arguments of this book are developed on the basis
of a framework, which presents the core areas and flows of the discussions.
The key topics of discussion of this book can be understood from Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 draws the key focuses of the book. It presents that in this book:

• Water is at the centre and is considered as a basic biological need for

life.
• Water as a right is argued in the context of Right to Water and mean-
ings of it are drawn from theoretical and institutional understandings,
evolved at the global level and in India.
• India’s national water policies are analysed on the basis of the under-
standings drawn from the theoretical and institutional interpretations.

India’s National

Water Policies:

Critical Analysis

of 1987, 2002,

2012

Water as a

basic

biological

need for life Meaning of Right

to Water:
theoretical and
institutional
understandings
evolved at the
global level and in
India

Figure 1.1 Conceptual approach.

4 Introduction
The three key focuses of the book, i.e. water, the idea of Right to Water
and India’s national water polices, are interlinked.

1.2 Flow of the discussion

To present the discussion and to maintain the connection between the key
focuses, this book has maintained a flow. The discussion, in this regard has
three steps and each step represents to one aim, as Figure 1.2 shows.

Distributive

Towards Right to Water Concept1 Right to Water Benchmark2 Core principles of Right to Water Water Policy Strategies3

Management

Figure 1.2 The flow of the discussion.

Figure 1.2 shows that in this book, the emergence and evolution of the
concept of Right to Water is discussed as the first step. The second step of
the discussion has identified the core principles of Right to Water as the
ideal benchmarks and has used them as a tool to analyse India’s national
water policies, respectively drafted in 1989, 2002 and 2012. To make the
analysis precisely in favour of the idea of Right to Water, and to explore
if India’s national water policies are inclined towards Right to Water, the
book has investigated the distributive and management strategies, proposed
by the three national water policies, as the third step.
Figures 1.1 and 1.2 together draw the conceptual and theoretical frame-
works of Right to Water that this book explores, and they analyse its values
in the context of water policy frameworks of the union governments in
India. The book, for this purpose, uses a qualitative approach and com-
bines critical hermeneutics with critical content analysis. Noticeably, critical
hermeneutics is used to understand the complex argumentative narrations
which have emerged and evolved in the idea of Right to Water, and critical
content analysis is used to identify and explore if the three national water
policies are embracing the idea of Right to Water.

1.3 Water as a right in water discourses

In academia, multiple dimensions of water and issues concerning it are
allied with technical aspects. However, traditional understandings shifted
mainly after the Durbin Conference,3 as they follow classical liberal trends
in water governance. A paradigm shift has divided water literature into
two different approaches. The first approach is market-based that moves
towards privatisation, the trends of which are noticed in World Bank
group4 activities. The second approach is right-based, which emphasises
water equality. (Bakker, 2010: Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and
the World’s Urban Water Crisis). A market-based approach in water gov-
ernance is observed as an obvious part of neoliberal culture. However, this
 Introduction 5
obviousness is profoundly challenged by the water warriors (name given by
the water activist to themselves) as “liberal environmentalism” (Bernstein,
2001), “green neoliberalism” (Goldman, 2005), or market environmental-
ism (Bakker, 2004), and as “neoliberalization of nature” (McAfee, 2003;
Bridge, 2002; Mansfield, 2004; McCarthy, 2004; McCarthy and Prudham,
2004; Perreault, 2006). The scholars, while arguing against neoliberalism,
have humanised the water-related issues and have highlighted human suf-
ferings, extensively. The works done by Salman and McInerney-Lankford
(2006), Riedel (2006), Baviskar (1995), Shah (2009), Asthana (2009),
Bandyopadhyay (2009), Iyer (2009), Cullet and Koonan (2011), Rayner
(2010), Shiva (2002), Amanda and Ripley (2011) and Winkler (2014) are
the few examples of the same.
Both the discourses, that are opposite in arguments, are keen to solve the
problems related to water use and management in favour of/for life, devel-
opment and environment. However, the consensus on the idea that water
is a right has not evolved with the same grounding and objectives. As such,
the arguments and studies that focus on the economic aspects of water are
efficiency oriented. The studies made in this regard argue to ensure water
efficiency in all situations. According to such studies, efficiency is a tool to
ensure justice, and so the focus of water management should be on efficiency
(World Bank, 1993). In deep contrast to this, philosophical arguments that
are concerned with ensuring water as a right are purely justice oriented. For
such studies, equality is justice (Baxi, 2012). The arguments evolved in this
respect emphasise water equality over water efficiency. Evidently, between
the two, contradictions are extreme and arguments overlap each other. In
water studies, such contradictions are classified and studied as neoliber-
alism (Cleaver and Elson, 1995; Spiertz and Wiber, 1996; Lipschutz and
Crawford, 1998; Barlow and Clarke 2002; McAfee, 1999; Bond, 2000) vs.
Post-neoliberalism (Bakker, 2010). In water policy studies, this is further
framed and analysed as Washington Consensus and Post Washington Con-
sensus (SandBrook, 2005).
Due to the influence of Washington Consensus and Post Washington
Consensus, the consent on the idea that water is a right is attempted to be
achieved through the institutionalisation of the idea, and the initiatives are
made in this regard at various levels. However, in comparison to initiatives
made by regional and national institutions, undertakings made by the inter-
national organisations like United Nations (hereafter UN) are found to be
more influential due to their approach and reach. The principles offered
by the UN through resolutions and declarations insist upon recognising
water as a human right. These ideas are theorised (not in the traditional
senses) in the human rights tradition and are recognised as the third gen-
eration of Human Rights (Salman and McInerney-Lankford (2006)).5 The
principles offered by the UN Declarations have added humanitarian values
in the water management processes. However, the idea has not remained
unchallenged for long. The principles and undertaking of the UN that has
stimulated the concept of Human Right to Water have been challenged
6 Introduction
by academia. The ideas are fundamentally criticised by the “Water War-
riors”, a group of water activists and water scholars who have initiated
the Global Justice Movement with reference to the individual’s rights over
water (Bakker, 2001; Shiva, 2002; D’Souza, 2008; Boelens, Perreault, and
Vos, 2018).
A group of scholars, while opposing the idea of Human Right to Water,
basically argued against the idea of international institutionalisation of the
idea that water is a right. These scholars have claimed that the globalisation
of the idea has created a situation of cross-border obligations, which can-
not be perceived in favour of water-poor states. Also, undertakings made
under the internationalisation of the rights over water are so strict that
their implementation ultimately goes against the water interests of water-
poor states as they introduce the same benchmarks for different situations.
For the water-poor states, measures that are decided by water-rich states
are indeed unachievable because their water-related needs and situations
of water availability are vastly different from those of the water-rich states.
In the global indexes, the unattainability of standardised measures by these
states is often considered as a failure of the states. Since these states are the
signatories of the declarations, the failure permits international actors to
be active in water politics (World Bank and International Monetary Fund)
and to intervene in water management processes of water-poor states. Since
every interference has a cost, the involvement of international actors in the
water management process of water-poor states raises serious issues con-
cerning water affordability and dilutes the spirit of right to water (Bakker,
2010; Mestrallet, 2001; Shiva, 2002, 2010; Barlow and Clarke, 2002;
Grusky, 2002; Shrybman, 2002).
In the view of the serious consequences of the internationalisation of
the idea that water is a right, scholars like Karen Bakker (2001, 2010),
Ramaswamy Iyer (2007), Vandana Shiva (2002) and P. Sangameswaran
(2007) argue and advocate for consideration of the term Right to Water
over Human Right to Water. The fundamental claim of water scholars is
that the principles offered by the term Right to Water are more real in the
sense that while emphasising to ensure availability and accessibility of water
to all, they consider the availability of water resources at the local level.
This gives confidence to the states and the local authorities, responsible
for distribution and management of water, to take appropriate decisions in
favour of right to water to all. Further, the authorisation on water resources
that are limited and uncertain empowers and enables the local authorities
to fulfil cultural and economic requirements of different societies.

1.4 Water scenario in India

According to a report published in ‘Maps of India’ on 14 March 2021, the
per capita availability of water in India has gone down from 6,042 cubic
metres in 1947 to about 1,486 cubic metres in 2021.6 Since water avail-
ability is decreasing rapidly, the reports published by the United Nations
 Introduction 7
(respectively in March 2019 by UN Water Conservation and Development
and in March 2020 by UN World Water Development) have estimated that
by 2040 there will be no drinking water available in almost all of India. It
is warned that the situation will be grimmer by 2051 because the per capita
availability of water will reduce to 1,228 cubic metres. The problem is even
noted by NITI Aayog. While pointing to the problem of water scarcity, the
Aayog, in 2017, stated that due to the water crisis in India, 600 million
people face high to extreme water stress, whereas 75 percent of households
do not have drinking water on premise and 84 percent of rural households
do not have pipe water access.7
The problem related to water stress and scarcity is extended due to fail-
ure of conservation and protection of water resources and has ultimately
affected the availability of drinking water. In the past few years, it is noted
that the scarcity or stress is faced even in the situation like water abundance.
For instance, there are shortages of drinking water in Kerala, Odisha, Pun-
jab, Maharashtra and Gujarat, where good rain is not solving the problem
of water shortage. This indicates that the problem of water scarcity and
management is not always natural, but many times it is artificial as well,
as claimed by water scholars like Shiva and Bakker. These scholars explain
that liberalised justification of water use for development over the use of
water for life is one of the factors which have created artificial scarcity.
Since the use of water for developmental purposes has caused water pollu-
tion and has added to the cost of water use, the problem that was initially
merely one of availability became the problem of accessibility, acceptability
and affordability as well. The question of accessibility, acceptability and
affordability has affected commoners the most and has suspended the indi-
vidual’s rights over water resources to a larger extent. Since unfair justifica-
tions of water use and mismanagement of water resources create situations
of water injustice, it is important to study the idea of Right to Water with
the perspective of social sciences and should assure and maintain the same
in the policy context.

1.5 National Water Policies of India

Water planning in India has multiple objectives. Along with drinking and
domestic purposes, planning of water management is essential for food
security and development, aspects which have a bearing on poverty elimi-
nation. The multilayered requirement was attempted to be addressed with
the help of water policies drafted respectively in 1987 under the leadership
of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, in 2002 under the leadership of Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and lastly in 2012 under the leadership of
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.8 All these policies have comprehensive
objectives that intensively focus on water management, cover all dimen-
sions of water management, including irrigation and industrial planning
along with environmental protection. The successive Indian governments
have claimed that the policies for water management are efficient and are
8 Introduction
capable to make the idea of Right to Water a reality, but the truth is yet to
be investigated.

1.6 Aim: the choice of Right to Water in the context of

national water policies of India
In June 2019, Chennai’s main reservoirs had ran completely dry, proving
that the fear that has been constantly expressed by water experts about
the acute water conditions of India was justified. In Chennai, this was the
first time in history when schools and offices were shut down due to a
water shortage. The situation further proved that the water planning and
management process that have been introduced since independence are not
based on reality and have failed to assure water to all. For India, which is
one of the signatories of the Sustainable Development Goals and, in 2015,
confirmed its commitment to realise the goal of securing water for all by
2030, the situation like such is worrisome.
Such extreme failures of water governance raise a fundamental ques-
tion about India’s understanding on Right to Water and even create doubts
about the water policy frameworks that have emerged with the national
water policies of 1987, 2002 and 2012. What went wrong in the water pol-
icy process, and why? A fundamental question before India concerns why
policies have failed in the implementation processes, as NITI Ayoga has
pointed in 2019. The failures raise a question about whether the content
of India’s national water policies are based on a Right Based Approach. To
address these fundamental questions, this book draws discussions in three
references – i.e. the meanings of Right to Water, India’s understanding on
Right to Water and the status of Right to Water in India’s national water
policies. Clearly, the aim of this book is fourfold. First, it aims to bring forth
a new understanding on water discourses by arguing that to assure and
maintain rights of individuals over water resources, it is essential to under-
stand the meanings and elements of Right to Water. Second, towards the
end, the book aims to explore the Indian understanding on the idea of Right
to Water and, thirdly, the contents of the water policies in the context of
the idea of Right to Water. The book in the reference to this aim focuses on
the distributive and management strategies proposed by the three national
water policies and investigates if the national water policies of India, respec-
tively drafted in 1987, 2002 and 2012, are embracing the values of Right to
Water. Finally, through this effort, the book aims to enrich water justice dis-
courses by introducing Right to Water in the water governance perspective.

1.7 Significance and outline of the book

This book has adopted a problem-solving approach. It shifts the focus of
the traditional water discourses by introducing the idea of Right to Water
and incorporating its value in the water policies for the fulfilment of right
to water. For this purpose, the book narrows down India’s national water
 Introduction 9
policies in the context of Right to Water, which actually has entitled com-
moners to claim and have water as their right.
In respect to its purposes and approach, the significance of this book can
be claimed on multiple grounds. For instance, the book has (1) simplified
the idea of Right to Water by narrowing down the claims of individuals
on water and arguing it as a claim against local authorities; (2) recognised,
acknowledged and entitled individual’s right over water more appropriately
as it prevents interventions of international actors against the will of the
local inhabitants; (3) introduced the process of evolution of Right to Water
and scrutinised the relationship between normative contents and theoreti-
cal arguments which have emerged at different levels, and by doing so has
contributed to understanding the argumentative perceptions on the idea of
Right to Water and has helped to attain the institutional developments on
the same; (4) looked into the idea beyond the undertaking of the legislature
and the executive and has placed the Indian judiciary and civil society as
expounders of Right to Water; (5) offered a useful tool to analyse the con-
tents of water laws, water planning and water policies in the context of
Right to Water, called the Water Policy Analysis Guiding Framework; (6)
offered practical meaning to Right to Water and by this suggested that what
actually policy makers and planners are supposed to do; (7) has explained
and ascertained the declarations of international, regional and national
documents as interpreters of Right to Water.
In view of these many significant factors, this book is an addition to the
discourse of rights as it pinpoints and discusses the threats arising before the
water freedoms and water equalities. Further, since this volume has discussed
Right to Water in the context of water policies drafted by the union govern-
ment in India and not in the reference of legal frameworks, the study has actu-
ally established the value of policy framework in fulfilment of right to water.

1.8 Scheme of chapters
To justify the choice of Right to Water in the context of National Water Pol-
icies of India and to present the analysis in a coherent way, the discussions
of the book are divided into five chapters.

Chapter 1: Introduction
“Introduces the book”
This first chapter sought to explain the background, significance, and
objectives of this book. The chapter presented the key interests of the
book and highlighted the rationale of the same.

Chapter 2: The Concept of Right to Water: Emergence and Evolution

“Exploring the idea of Right to Water”
Chapter 2 is the foundation of the book. To make a critical analysis of
India’s national water policies, it proposes the meaning, background,
understandings and elements of Right to Water.
10 Introduction
Chapter 3: Indian Understanding on Right to Water
“Seeking Indian perspective on the idea of Right to Water”
This chapter is a continuation of Chapter 2 and focuses on the Indian
perspective of Right to Water. To present discussions on the idea of
Right to Water in the Indian context, the chapter presents historical
descriptions and analyses the status of right to water in pre- and post-
independence India.

Chapter 4: Right to Water in India’s National Water Policies

“Investigating India’s national water policies in the context of Right
to Water”
This chapter turns to analyse the idea of Right to Water in the context
of India’s national water policies, drafted respectively in 1987, 2002
and 2012. The chapter, for this purpose, recognises distributive and
management strategies and describes the status of the idea of Right to
Water in the national policies, introduces a framework called “Water
Policy Analysis Guiding Framework”.

Chapter 5: Towards Right to Water in India

“Presenting the concluding words”
This chapter presents concluding observations and outlook. It further
elaborates what policy makers can do to draft policy documents in
favour of Right to Water.

Notes
1 It is important to note that throughout this book, “Right to Water”, i.e. caps,
indicates the concept; and “right to water”, i.e. without caps, indicates the right
itself.
2 The Union Minister of State for Jal Shakti and Social Justice and Empowerment,
Shri Rattan Lal Kataria, while giving a written reply in Lok Sabha, informed that
to address the present challenges in water sector, revision of National Water
Policy 2012 (http://mowr.gov.in/policies-guideline/policies/national-water-pol-
icy. Retrieved on 22 May 2021) was envisaged by the Department of Water
Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jal Shakti,
and a drafting committee was constituted on 5 November 2019 to revise the
National Water Policy.
3 Durbin Conference 1992, principle no. 4: Water is an economic good and the
emphasis is to treat it as a commodity.
4 The term refers to the World Bank and its affiliates, the International Finance
Corporation and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
5 Some scholars contend that the idea of Human Right to Water was first argued
in theoretical discourses and then adopted by the United Nations (for instance,
D’Souza, 2008). Since the objective of this book is not to throw light on the
debate, the author here ignores the debate and puts forth both arguments.
6 Available at https://www.mapsofindia.com/my-india/india/world-water-day-
2017-indias-wake-up-call. Retrieved on 21 May 2021.
 Introduction 11
7 For details, see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/gujarat-
tops-niti-aayogs-water-management-index/articleshow/64589595.cms.
Retrieved on 23 May 2021.
8 The Government of India has constituted a committee for the formulation of the
fourth National Water Policy i.e. NWP 2020; (National Water Policy Plan 2020).
For the details see: https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/reports/
genrep/bkpap2020/10_bg2020.pdf (Retrieved on 22 May 2021); however, since
the process is underway as of this writing, it is not appropriate to mention the
details of the same. A brief is given in Chapter 3 of this book.
2 The concept of Right to Water
Emergence and evolution

Introduction
The key purpose of rights is to satisfy human needs and enable them to
live with dignity. With regard to needs, the idea that water is a right is
fundamentally inarguable, because it is a common requirement of human
existence (Gleick, 1996, 2000; Scanlon, Cassar and Nemes, 2004). The idea
is simple; however, in modern times the argument of “common requirement
of human survival” requires further clarification. The requirement is urgent
because neoliberals have argued for development as a common need, and
that to attain it, water should be seen as multidimensional and emphasised
on the multiple uses for development. Clearly, with the new shift, uses of
water for other than life itself is justified. As a part of water governance,
this has allowed water to be claimed and used for developmental purposes
at the cost of life itself. Since in academia, the meaning elements and scope
of rights over water and water resources are not clear, it is difficult to sus-
pend the claims which insist that water is for development and can be used
at the cost of life itself. A winning position of this argument is challenging
for the water-poor states because it allows and justifies uses of the larger
part of water resources by influential groups for industrial and agricultural
purposes. Since availability and accessibility of water and water resources
are limited, uncertain and unequal, this further compromises with the water
use for drinking and domestic purposes. For the priority-wise entitlement
of water as a right, it is essential to narrow down the idea of Right to Water
and explore what can be the appropriate meaning of a fact that water is a
right, whose right it is and what it contains.
This chapter takes the call and attempts to answer these questions. To
make an investigation in the light of the aforementioned questions, this
chapter focuses on the philosophical arguments and institutional undertak-
ings that have emerged and evolved at global, regional and national levels.
The chapter, instead of discussing them as a guarantor of right to water,
analyses them as the interpreter of the same.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003211730-2
 The concept of Right to Water 13
2.1 Towards water as a right in modern political thought
An argument that water is a right can be observed in modern political
thought.1 In regard to this, contributions of scholars like Hobbes, Locke,
Hegel, Blackstone, Getzler and Nozick are significant. These scholars, while
describing water as a right, have focused on the different issues concern-
ing water uses and have discussed this idea mainly in three contexts: (i)
need of/for life (Hobbes, Locke); (ii) ownership (Locke, Blackstone) and
(iii) essential elements of development (Nozick). In both Hobbesian and
Lockean theses, water is considered a need of life. Considerably, the Hob-
besian account addresses why water is required to be considered as a right;
the Lockean perspective, on the other hand, focuses on how the same can
be established as a right.
While answering the why of the question, Hobbes explains that water is
one of the basic necessities of life and is essential for human survival. He
highlights the significance of water in his tenth natural law, writing that:

As it is necessary for all men who seek peace to lay down certain rights
of nature, that is to say, not to have liberty to do whatever they like, so
it is also necessary for man’s life to retain some rights – the right to take
care of their own bodies, to enjoy air, water, motion, ways to go from
place to place, and everything else that a man needs if he is to live, or
to live well.2

For Hobbes, water is a right; the use of water is a liberty that is essential to
maintain peace (opening words of Leviathan, chapter 15). For him, right on
water is claimable because it comes under the category of right to self-pres-
ervation (Donnelly, 1981). In his writing, Hobbes explains that man has the
right to have a body which includes protection of body as well. For him, it
is the first right of man, which obviously includes all basic needs, including
water. In this sense, his argument of right to self-preservation is a right to
have water. His idea of self-preservation is a claim for water not merely for
life, but for a good life.
The idea is further expanded through the Lockean perception. Locke
explains how water as a right can be attained. For him, having a right over
water as a right to life is not a plain right, but enjoyment of it is attached
with labour. In his work, he explains that:

Though the water running in the fountain is every one’s, yet who can
doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour
hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and
belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it
to himself.3
14 The concept of Right to Water
Like Hobbes, his texts accept that water is a gift of nature and belongs to
all. However, his idea of everyone’s right is not a natural right, but it is a
right that can be enjoyed only if it has added human labour. Thus, for him,
water is common until labour is not added to it; added labour gives a sense
of ownership on water, which indeed is not a choice or a matter of dom-
inance. In the Second Treatise of Government, chapter 5, paragraph 33,
Locke explains this in the following words:

Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man,

though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same
water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water,
where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

The expression explains that having ownership of water, as a result of

labour, is negative freedom on use and claim on water. Since human labour
has natural limitations, there is an obvious limitation of right over water
as well. He clarifies that right over water can be claimed as “just” only if it
has satisfied a proviso that is based on a principle that enough must be left
for others. Clearly, his views on use of water are based on morality, which
insists that a sufficient and good amount of water must be left for others and
there must be no wastage. Notably, these two statements together provide
Locke’s understanding about water and offer three basic elements which
together argue for a proviso. The first understanding states that water is
the most significant element for the existence of life. The second insists that
water be made available to all and that water can be enjoyed only by adding
labour to it; and the last argues that water is available to all and should not
be owned by one to deprive others.
The Lockean idea of labour is redefined by Blackstone, which he calls
“law of labour”, i.e. based on the principles of law of nature. Blackstone,
while reflecting on the idea, infers that water is a moveable thing; there-
fore, ownership, attained by adding labour into it, cannot be permanent
in nature, and changes with the change of labourer. This means that one
who will add his labour to fetch water will own it. Thus, in his concept, the
idea is defined with reference to temporary ownership. In one of his texts,
“Commentaries on the Law of England”, Chapter 2:18, he writes: “Water
is a moveable, wandering thing, and must of necessity continue common by
the law of nature; so that I can only have a temporary, transient, usufruc-
tuary property therein”.4 Unlike Locke and Blackstone, in Getzler’s view,
water is a real right and is a subject of personal property that is measured
on the basis of its transient quality. He explains this in the following words:
“Water is a subject to real rights, but its transient qualities give it some of
the character of personal property” (Getzler, 2004). For Cicero5 and Pufen-
dorf,6 however, such is not the fact. They argue that fresh water, like fire and
council, should be given free because it is useful to the receiver and of no
trouble to the giver.7 Similar thoughts are expressed by Adam Smith (1776).
 The concept of Right to Water 15
For him, water is a basic need, and so is a public good. He suggests that
there can be no price on water.8
In the discussions on water as a right, Hegel’s argument is interestingly
a claim against the Lockean proviso of labour. For Hegel, water is a free
right. According to him, water is the only raw material which does not need
to be worked on before use; we can drink it as we find it. Therefore, there
can be no claim on water as a right to property; even a claim as a result of
labour is not permissible.9 Nozick, in his expression of justice, rejects what
Hegel opined and follows the Lockean proviso with certain limitations. He
has viewed water as a use right and argued it as an individual property,
which ultimately allows an individual to do what s/he wants to do with it
(1974). His understanding about right to property has made water an abso-
lute right of an individual, transfer of which requires consent of the owner.
Noticeably, in Nozick’s (1974) works, the idea of self is dominating, which
indeed is different from Locke’s understanding,10 Nozick has re-interpreted
the Lockean proviso in individualist terms and states that “enough and as
good be left for others, but in case of dry his/her ownership on his/her
own resources can’t be denied, rejected or challenged by any authority”. He
explains this as:

This excludes … his using it in a way, in coordination with others or

independently of them, so as to violate the proviso by making the situa-
tion of others worse than their baseline situation. … Thus a person may
not appropriate the only water hole in a desert and charge what he will.
Nor may he charge what he will if he possesses one, and unfortunately
it happens that all the water holes in the desert dry up, except for his,
this unfortunate circumstance, admittedly no fault of his.
(Nozick, 1974)

Evidently, unlike Locke, Nozick is not concerned with the adverse impacts
of private ownership. His extreme individualism makes survival of others
difficult as they don’t have any other source of water. For him, as everything
is better off after appropriation, then that appropriation is just (1974).
Here, Nozick values water for its inherent virtue of “all-purpose means”
that satisfy vital necessitates and offers a “well-being achievement” that,
however, is selectively in favour of water owners.
A visible fact about the understandings of these scholars is that for them,
water is a right. However, the logics of the same are different. While accept-
ing that water is a right, they mainly have explained two different views.
One of these views states water as a free right, and the other argues that
water is a right that results from labour and has linked it with right to
property. Since the ideas of the modern political thinkers are not further
discussed in required detail, relevance of their views cannot be argued as
a theory of Right to Water. However, even with the existing limitations, in
comparison to all other views, Lockean understanding about water can be
16 The concept of Right to Water
taken as the inspiration of the modern conception of Right to Water. Like
modern states, Locke’s major concern is to define and assure the ability to
access water. In policy making, the idea can be evolved as a concept that
insists upon guaranteeing that no single individual or institution will have
entire control over water. In the situation of water stress, guarantee of such
nature is essential as in reality of the “many uses of water”,11 it protects the
individual’s right to have water. The understanding is even otherwise worth
considering as Locke’s idea of labour is reinterpreted in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, where labour is seen as efficiency. Notably, the revi-
sion is not the revision of proviso, as in the new argument, water is not
merely seen as life but is considered and treated as a utility which does not
argue about leaving enough water for others. Globally, principles developed
under this view are known as Thatcherism12 and Washington Consensus.13
In political philosophy, principles introduced by Thatcherism and Wash-
ington Consensus have evolved new trends that has added new values to
liberalism. The principles insist that water is a right because it has many
utilities. This ultimately has created an argument that as water has multiple
uses, it is essential to protect and preserve it efficiently. Importantly, the
requirements considered in the neoliberal perspective have made a universal
call to adopt neoliberal values in water management. It has been ascertained
that water is not a free right, but a right which includes cost of labour, i.e.
management. The idea has valued labour more than water itself and has
encouraged states in the move towards water privatisation (Cleaver and
Elson, 1995; Spiertz and Wiber, 1996; Lipschutz, 1996; Barlow and Clarke,
2002; McAfee, 1999; Bond, 2000). Since the idea has created a threat to
water equality, it has received notable objections from different discourses
including neo-Marxism, eco-feminism and post-neoliberalism. Significantly,
the discussions that have emerged in the form of objections have created new
discourses, and together they have promoted the idea that water is a right.
However, instead of offering meanings and aspects of right to water, these
have debated the justifications of their own arguments. For instance, while
justifying water as a right, neo-Marxism argues that water is a common
need and not merely a utility resource, as neoliberalism insists. To counter
the idea of water privatisation, Marxism insists that water be considered
as a free right (Bernstein, 2001; McAfee, 2003; Bridge, 2002; Mansfield,
2004; McCarthy, 2004; McCarthy and Prudham, 2004; Goldman, 2005;
Perreault, 2006). Feminist discourse argues against both neoliberalism and
neo-Marxism and insists that water is the need of all but foremost the right
of women. Notably, in water studies, such arguments have evolved under
eco-feminism (Griffin, 1978; Gwyn, 1997; Shiva, 2002; Plumwood, 1994;
Bleisch, 2006). Different from these arguments, the human rights discourse
argues for water equality and water justice. Globally, the idea has evolved
as an argument against neoliberalism and is known as post-neoliberalism
(Gleick, 1993; Mclnerney and Lankford, 2004; Riedel, 2008; Brand, 2009;
Saden, 2009; Burdick, Oxhorn and Roberts, 2009; Escobar, 2010; Sand-
brook, 2011; Lancu 2013; Winkler, 2014; Risse, 2015; McDonald, 2016).
 The concept of Right to Water 17
Note that these discourses, instead of offering required details on the idea
of Right to Water, present arguments that are articulated to determine to
whom water should be given and with what logic. Since there is an absence
of a specific meaning of right to water, in all four schools of thought – neo-
liberalism, neo-Marxism, eco-feminism and post-neoliberalism – emergence
of the concept of Right to Water cannot be claimed as a result of theoretical
advancements (D’Souza, 2008). As political theory has left out the question
that asks the meaning and elements of Right to Water, it is important to
seek answers from other discourses that are equally political in nature. In
this respect, to fill the gap, the philosophical arguments and institutional
understandings that have emerged and evolved in the form of declarations,
resolutions and constitutional arrangements can be examined.

2.2 Conceptual evolution of the idea of Right to Water

An argument which insists that water be recognised as a right is institution-
alised globally. Significantly, the idea is evolved as a process14 and emerged
in the context of international, regional and national arguments, events and
undertakings.15 The events and declarations together have created three
understandings on right to water, respectively effective for international,
regional and national water governance. Importantly, at the international
level, ideas that can be further explored as Right to Water are evolved in
two contexts; this can be classified further as normative discussions and
institutional frameworks.16

2.2.1 International level: Water is a Right

At the international level, the idea that can be called as Right to Water
is presented, argued and evolved in two discourses.17 The first discourse
argues that the idea has emerged and evolved along with the process of
insititutionalisation of the idea. The basic argument here is that interna-
tional institutions have identified and discussed that water is a right and
have assured the right to water through international documents. However,
the other discourse, which evolved as part of the water justice movement,
rejects the claim by saying that the real contributors are water scholars and
water activists as they put pressure on states to assure right to water to all.
Globally, these two discourses are evolved as normative support and
institutional frameworks. Normative support presents arguments against
neoliberalism.18 Institutional framework, on the other hand, arises as a con-
sequence of institutionalisation of the idea that insists that water is a right.
In this regard, international humanitarian and criminal law treaties19 and
in international environmental and labour treaties20 are some of the initial
undertakings. However, since these initiatives ensure water as a right in
specific conditions only, as for instance, providing water to war prisoners
and to employees at the workplace,21 their relevance is not realised in a
wider sense. In comparing to them the undertakings and arguments that are
18 The concept of Right to Water
emerged as post-neoliberalism and measures offered by declarations, reso-
lutions and conventions of the UN, mainly General Comment 15 received
wider attention. This is because these ideas and understandings collectively
presents relatively a wider understanding. On the logic of the concerns,
reflected in the contents of the arguments and documents, initiatives and
undertakings that are made in different periods of time can be classified in
two categories.

Includes Internaonal
Ideas that have valued right Humanitarian Law,
Narrow sense: Accepng
to water,but inspecific Treaes and
afact that water is a
condions and provide Internaonal
right
relavely less details. Environmentaland
Labour Treaes.

Evoluon of right to
water at the
Internaonal level
Arguments developed in
Post-neoliberalism and
Ideas and documents measures offered by
Widersense:Real which explain right to Declaraons, Resoluons
Conceptualisaon of water in detail and and convenons of UN
Right toWater provide scope for use mainly focusing on
of water Comment 15

Figure 2.1 Dividing understanding on right to water: At global level.

As Figure 2.1 explains, that international humanitarian law treaties and

international environmental and labour treaties are the narrow interpreta-
tions and the claims against neoliberalism, i.e. post-neoliberalism and dec-
larations, conventions and resolutions undertaken by the United Nations,
represents wider understandings. The arguments evolved as post-neoliber-
alism are wider in the sense that they are actually putting pressure on the
international organisations to mechanise water as a right.22

2.2.1.1 Argument (s) against neoliberalism

The concept that can be called Right to Water is evolved not as theory but
is developed along with the argument which insists on ascertaining water as
a right of all. The argument has emerged and evolved around three develop-
ments that have changed traditional understandings of water management
globally. The first two developments are ideological in nature, known as
Thatcherism and Washington Consensus. The third development, impor-
tantly, is the consequences of an International Conference on Water and
Sustainable Development, known as the Dublin Conference of 1992.23
 The concept of Right to Water 19
The ideas developed in these contexts have argued that water is a source of
profit and presented it as essential for economic development. For the pur-
pose of development, the ideas, in above three, have called for treating water
as a commodity and suggested implementing the principle of pay and use in
water management.24 Significantly, these ideas were reinforced by the World
Bank in 1996.25 The documents released by the World Bank emphasised
that water can be entitled as a right only if efficiency is maintained in water
supply.26 Global partners in this regard argue that the efficiency in water
supply can be assured only by using a neoliberal approach to management
processes.27 Since efficiency in water management is the basic requirement
of developing states, those states, even with limited water resources, have
adopted the idea with a hope that the claimed efficiency will entitle every
individual with water. However, the expectation has proved wrong, as neo-
liberal practices in water management have made life of commons miser-
able.28 Bolivian experiences have endorsed the miseries of neoliberalism.29
Globally, experiences, gained from neoliberal practices, draw new argu-
ments, contending that the claim that right to water is a gift of international
declarations is wrong and misguiding (Bakker, 2002, 2010; Barlow and
Clarke, 2002; Shiva, 2002; Balakrishnan, 2003; D’Souza, 2005, 2008; Baxi,
2007). The arguments made by water activists, in this regard, insist that
in reality, the understandings developed after the 1992 Dublin Conference
have created “neoliberal globalizers” (Smith, 2005), whose principles and
values are not concerned with water justice.30 Since principles have valued
water as a commodity, instead of creating water equality it has given rise to
an economic fascism that has destroyed people’s rights to resources (Shiva,
2002). It has been argued that valuing water as commodity and manag-
ing it with the principle of pay and use have made water unaffordable.
Consequently, water has become inaccessible to the poor. To highlight the
problems of neoliberal practices in water management, water scholars and
water activists insist on deconstructing the principles of pay and use. They
reject the claimed efficiency of neoliberalism and urge assurance of water
to all. To attain global attention, they started a movement against neo-glo-
balisers31 and put pressure on states and international organisations to con-
sider water as a basic need. These water activists emphasise that water as a
right is required to be conceptualised in a way that can assure and protect
rights of commons over water resources.
While condemning the principles of Thatcherism, Washington Consensus
and strategies of the World Bank, water scholars and activists argue that
the three together shape water rights and not Right to Water (Lindquist and
Gleick, 1997; Shiva, 2002; Sangameswaran, 2007; Iyer, 2010b; Khadka,
2010). They argue that developments made in these three are the domino
effect of industrialisation, which observes water as a demand for devel-
opment and allows treatment of water as a commodity that can be sold.
The arguments they put forth insist that the use of water for trade often
work against securing a “right to water”, particularly for the marginalised,
poor and vulnerable populations (Sangameswaran, 2007; Khadka, 2010).32
20 The concept of Right to Water
According to water scholars and water activists, profit-oriented tendencies
and the ideas presented and endorsed as efficiency cannot be considered as
an assurance to right to water as they ignore the most basic requirements of
human beings as drinking, food, sanitation and health (Iyer, 2007). Notably,
arguments given by water scholars and water activists are further advanced
in philosophical debates and discussed and argued as post-neoliberalism
(Brand, 2009; Burdick, Oxhorn, and Roberts, 2009; Saden, 2009; Escobar,
2010) and upheld as Post Washington Consensus (Sandbrook, 2011). The
concerns expressed in post-neoliberalism emphasise interpretation of right
to water in the context of social and ecological conditions and its assurance
as a right to all.33
The arguments put as post-neoliberalism are sound in the sense that glob-
ally, they make an effective emotional appeal and in so doing insist for water
justice. Actually, here, the goal of post-neoliberal arguments is to search for
a dignified life beyond neoliberal practices in water distribution (Marston,
2013), and for this they urge for protection of local water sources from
government or corporate abuse. They persist upon the use of the theory
of “equitable distribution” in water management.34 Since post-neoliberal
arguments are deeply concerned with the common good, values of it have
shaped the theoretical foundations for the idea of Right to Water.
The provided foundations are significant. However, are they enough, as
the offerings of the arguments are limited to what Right to Water ought to
be and are less interested in presenting what the right entails? In respect
to these questions, the discourses that are evolved in the context of decla-
rations, conventions and resolutions made by international organisations,
mainly the United Nations (UN), are important. This is because the UN as
the legitimate political institution has taken an international call for ascer-
taining water as a biological need. General Comment 15, in this view, is
significant, as provisions of it persist to ensure water as a right of the com-
mons. The undertaking is even otherwise, noteworthy as it provides a legal
base to the idea.

2.2.1.2 International undertakings: major landmarks

International documents initially have presented the idea that water is a right
only as a supportive right35 and was stated in multiple references, including
environment (Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in
1972,36 Mar del Plata Conference held in 197737 and Conference on Envi-
ronment and Development, called Rio Summit, held in June 199238), food
and health (Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in November
198939 and the Conference on Population and Development held in Sep-
tember 199440), development (Water and Sustainable Development held in
January 1992 called Dublin Conference41, Conference on Population and
Development held in September 199442, Resolution A/Res/54/175/adopted
in December 199943 and World Summit on Sustainable Development held
on September 200244), dignity (November 2002, General Commit No 1545),
 The concept of Right to Water 21
and assurance against discrimination (Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted in December 197946
and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 200647). Sig-
nificantly, to ensure water as a right, the UN has offered guidelines (the
Right to Water and Sanitation, E/CN4/Sub2/2005/25, 200548) and given
suggestions to decide on the obligations of the parties responsible for water
management (Paper of the UN High Commissioner for the Human Right
on the scope and content of the relevant human rights, 200749). The practice
was continued even after 2010. One of the major developments after 2010
is the HR Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/16/2, adopted in April 2011.50
The task was further taken up in 2013 when the UN passed two important
resolutions, one passed by the General Assembly called the Human Right to
Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2013 (A/RES/68/157), and the second
with the same objectives adopted by the Human Rights Council, without
vote and known as The Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanita-
tion, 2013 (A/HRC/RES/24/18).51
In comparison to other documents Comment 15 adopted by the United
Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Right in 2002 and
the UN General Assembly Resolution A/Res/64/292 adopted in 2010 are the
major landmarks. As being a first elaborative document on right to water,52
Comment 15 has defined water as the right of everyone to “sufficient”,53
“safe”,54 “acceptable”,55 “physically accessible”56 and “affordable”57 water
for personal and domestic uses.58 The declaration while redefining the Inter-
national Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), held
in 1966, states that water is indispensable to leading life with dignity (Arti-
cle 1.1). It has described right to water as everyone’s right and claimed it
as essential to attain adequate standard of living, including adequate food,
freedom from hunger (Article 11), and highest standard of physical health
(Article 12).59
Similarly, in respect to the fulfilment of right to water, the UNGA Resolu-
tion A/RES/64/292, adopted on 28 July 2010 is the second major develop-
ment because provisions of it have transformed the value of right to water
as a human right and endorsed it as universal. The resolution has stated
water as “The Human Right to Water and Sanitation”60 and insists to “rec-
ognize human right to water”61 with two other rights, i.e. right to safe and
clean drinking water, and right to sanitation. To pursue for these rights in
a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis
(para 6), it gives two instructions to states: to “Acknowledge” the impor-
tance of equitable access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as
an integral component of human right to water.62 To ensure accountability
in water management, the resolution has “Reaffirmed” the responsibility
of states for the promotion and protection of all human rights. In order to
scale up the efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking
water and sanitation for all (para. 8), the resolution insists on international
assistance and corporation for which it has called upon states to provide
financial support and technology transfer.
22 The concept of Right to Water
Globally, in policy matters, the idea and content expressed in Comment
15 and UNGA Resolution A/RES/64/292 are used as the directive prin-
ciples of state policies. However, the content offered in Comment 15 is
relatively more popular among water scholars, as in the works of Langford
(2006), Cahill (2005), Salman and McInerney-Lankford (2006), Kiefer and
Brölmann (2005) and Pierre Thielbörger (2014). In the water discussions,
content of Comment 15 is argued as global and independent because it has
lifted the right to water from the shadow of other associated human rights
and has synthesised the values of individualism and collectivism.63 The
scope of right to water in Comment 15 is comprehensively clear;64 along
with effective and equal supply, it insists on fresh and drinkable water and
states that women and children need to be ensured as the first beneficiary
of right to water. It states that water should be free from microorganisms,
chemical substances and radiological hazards because it would constitute a
threat to human health. It explains that “An adequate amount of safe water
is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water
related diseases and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and
domestic hygienic requirements”.65 Comment 15 thus maintains human
right to water as an independent right essential for good health (para. 12b)
and for leading a life with dignity (para. 3). To maintain a universal claim
on right to water, it has emphasised the values of “non-discrimination”,
“equality” and “non-retrogression”. Comment 15 insists upon “immediate
obligations”, “utilization of maximum available resources” and to “under-
take steps to progressively realize the right of all”.66 It further holds that
states must be accountable,67 transparent68 and open in their actions.69
Importantly, in the plan of action, these principles obligate states beyond
borders70 and enhance fulfilment of right to water as a global responsibil-
ity, of which national and international organisations including NGOs, the
World Bank and the World Trade Organisation are the co-parties (para.
37). Article III (17–18) of Comment 15 in this view insists that the national
and international parties have “constant and continuing duty” to move “as
expeditiously and effectively as possible towards the full realization of the
right to water”. The duties mentioned in Comment 15 are further elabo-
rated in the document released by the World Health Organisation in 2003.
The document offered certain measures of right to water and has developed
certain guidelines for the states. For effective enjoyment of rights, the docu-
ment has classified obligation in different categories that work at different
levels. The principles insist that both parties, i.e. the public and the private,
have an obligation to respect,71 protect72 and fulfil73 right to water.74
Further, to make right to water a complete right, the document signifi-
cantly emphasises people’s participation75 and insists on making it an inte-
gral part of any strategy, program and policy.76 For effective participation
it insists that water users, including individuals and groups, must be made
aware of participatory processes and must be informed about the func-
tions performed by different mechanisms.77 It urges states to take steps to
 The concept of Right to Water 23
ensure that women should not be excluded from decision-making processes
of water resources and entitlements (para. 16).78
In the water governance processes, the provisions of Comment 15, which
insists for global partnership in water management, are periodically re-em-
phasised. The most recent development in this respect can be observed in
the form of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs, also
known as the Global Goals, are initiated by the United Nations Develop-
ment Agency and were adopted by all UN Member States in 2015 as a
universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that
all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030. Since people’s joy and pros-
perity cannot be attained without assuring water as a right, the idea of
Sustainable Goals extensively focuses on the availability, accessibility and
affordability of water for all. Goal 6 in this respect is committed to ensuring
universal safe and affordable drinking water, which involves reaching 800
million people who lack basic services. However, since water is a local issue,
a promise like such cannot be considered as a guarantee to right to water,
until the local conditions and reality are not checked, appropriately. This
is because the usability of international documents have limitations of cul-
tural relativism and, along with realities of availability of water resources,
places major restrictions. The international undertakings ensure rights for
humans over water resources but, while doing so, does not offer a required
meaning of Right to Water. In such a case, the internationalisation of right
to water will either remain an empty promise or, due to heavy requirement
of water management, will encourage external intervention, which is not a
favourable condition for developing states. It is a fact that merely placing
any right in the human rights category cannot ensure it as a right of all com-
mons, especially in the case of a resource like water, management of which
is local in nature so is an unavoidable fact.

2.2.1.3 The regional understanding: major landmarks

Water is a regional problem (Jeffords and Minkler, 2014) and hence enti-
tlements to right to water can be more decisive only within the frameworks
offered by regional documents. Importance of regional documents in fulfil-
ment of right to water is considered as inarguable mainly because they are
prepared taking into consideration the cultural and geographical realities and
comprise beliefs that represent cultural similarities of a region (Bakker, 2010;
Shiva, 2001). Since provisions of the documents express and protect the val-
ues of cultural relativism and generally point to specific regional require-
ments, the level of possibility of water assurance is relatively very high.79
While ensuring right to water to all, regional documents very often follow
and supplement the international objectives and endorse the ideas presented
by international organisations.80 The documents of regional organisations
such as the European Union and African Charter are some examples of
this. Like the UN’s initial initiatives, regional undertakings of the African
24 The concept of Right to Water
Charter also see water as an essential part of other rights including, right
to environment (African Charter in Human and People’s Rights, 1981: Art.
2481), right of children (Rights and Welfare of the Child 1990: Art. 14:182)
right of individual (African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 1995:
Art. 1683) and women (Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peo-
ples Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa 2003, Art. 15: a).84
Notably, in the Protocol of San Salvador (1988), right to water is stated
with reference to the environment.85 The Protocol states that every individ-
ual should have the right to live in a healthy environment (Article 11:1),
and it is the duty of the state to promote the protection, preservation and
improvement of the environment (Article 11:2).86 The obligations of states
are further explained in the Declaration of the Forum on Human Rights
called the “Summit of the Americans” (2001). Article 4 of this declaration
proclaimed that the state must take measures to ensure complete fulfilment
of the right of all people to free determination, food, health care, access to
water, land and other resources under conditions of equality.
Importantly, in the European discourse on right to water, States are
made responsible to take measures for equitable access to water, adequate
in terms of both quality and quantity. European thought urges that water
should be provided to the whole population, especially to those who suffer
social disadvantage and exclusion. To remove poverty, it insists upon use
of water for development (The protocol of Water and Health: (1992) and
the Convention on the use of Transboundary Water-resources and Interna-
tional Lakes declared by United Nations for Europe ECE; Art. 4(2) 1999).87
In 2000, the idea of development was added to sustainable development.
In this regard, the European Council of Environmental Law (ECEL, 2000)
opined that access to water is part of the policy for sustainable development
and cannot be regulated by market forces alone. Article 1 continued with
the provision that the right to water cannot be dissociated from the right to
housing, food and health. Each person has the right to water in sufficient
quantity and quality for one’s life and health.88
The declarations and resolutions made by the European Union are fur-
ther adding to the value of sustainable development and contemplating
right to water as an essential aspect of the welfare state (European Parlia-
ment of European Commission 2003). However, while they explain water
as a right, they clarify that the cost of water management is associated with
the production and utilisation of water resources. Therefore, the supply
of water shall be subjected to payment, and the state should supply water
without any discrimination.89
The water discourses evolved in the European Union have claimed that
the objective of the European declarations is to entitle the deprived to right
to water and ensure them food security against hunger (Madeira Declara-
tion on the Sustainable Management of Water Resources (ECEL) 1999,90 the
European Charter on Water Resources 200191 and Recommendation 14 of
the Committee of Ministers of the Member States). In respect to these objec-
tives, the need for a legal framework was realised in 2011. The European
 The concept of Right to Water 25
Commission of Citizen’s Initiative pinpoints that the promise of right to
water must be legalised by making legislation on the same.92 Due to the
European Citizen’s Initiative, one million signatures were collected from at
least a quarter of the EU Member States within a period of 12 months agree-
ing on the matter, the core idea of which is refined by Regulation 211/2011.
For the Asia-Pacific region, assurance of right to water is embedded in a
concern for human security. In 2007, Asia-Pacific leaders agreed to recog-
nise people’s right to safe drinking water and sanitation as a basic human
right and a fundamental aspect of human security. In the Abuja Declaration
2006, heads of state and government declared that they would promote the
right of their citizens to have access to clean and safe water and sanitation
within their respective jurisdictions.
The declarations on matter of water management made by regional
organisations are not legally binding on member states (except the Euro-
pean Commission’s conventions passed in 2012, by the committee as a leg-
islature). However, in legal and policy frameworks, they are approved as
collective moral consensus that is indeed an expression of political will of
regional parties. A meeting held on 28 and 29 January 2014 of the heads of
state and government of Latin America and the Caribbean states in Havana,
Cuba,93 is one such example of political will. In the meeting, the participant
states collectively accepted the significance of right to water and sanitation
in human life and placed the human right to drinking water and sanitation
in their Post-2015 Development Agenda.94
Political will, expressed by these regional initiatives, takes individuals
one step ahead to right to water. Like international undertakings, regional
arrangements offer guidelines to preserve water as a right to all and suggest
what to do, why and how. However, since assurance of the right to water
is a national subject, it is obvious that guarantees given by regional institu-
tions cannot be feasible without effective support from the national frame-
works. Hence, there is a need for national understanding on the issue.95

2.2.1.4 Understandings of national constitutions and national laws

Since water is a domestic issue, the core values of Right to Water, as entitle-
ment, accessibility and affordability and as promises of participation and
non-discrimination, can be ensured and maintained at the state level only.
Significantly, declarations made by international and regional institutions
also suggest the same and states that state machineries are accountable to
assure water to all. In this respect, the guidelines they offered mention pri-
vate sectors as the obligator, but that does not relieve the states from the
obligation of ensuring right to water to all. The documents clearly state that
the ultimate responsibility for providing water lies with the states’ govern-
ments, even if water supply is maintained by a private sector. Significantly,
the idea of a state’s obligation is even endorsed by some national constitu-
tions, and the same was developed prior to the UN. Constitutions such as the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,96 the Constitution of
26 The concept of Right to Water
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,97 the Constitution of Republic of Uru-
guay,98 the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia,99 Constitution
of Uganda,100 Constitution of Republic of the Gambia,101 Constitution of
Republic of South Africa,102 Constitution of Zambia,103 and Constitution of
Republic of Venezuela under Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela104, are some
of the examples of the same.105 However, constitutions such as those of
Congo,106 Ecuador,107 Maldives,108 Kenya,109 South Sudan,110 Egypt111 and
Zimbabwe,112 brought major changes only after 2002, the year that Com-
ment 15 acknowledged water as a right.113
These constitutions, while offering provisions related to rights, focus
on the idea of water equality.114 However, in comparison to national laws,
constitutional provisions are thin documents, mainly because they empha-
sise only the core value of right to water that many times miss the decid-
ing details that are essential to identify the elements of Right to Water.115
Further, the required elements, as recognition and entitlement of right to
water, availability, accessibility, affordability, quality, participation in deci-
sion making and non-discrimination in water supply, are easily evident in
national laws.116 Laws developed by different nations offer important mean-
ings of Right to Water and highlight important aspects of it. These include:

a. Right to access water from natural resources (Swaziland’s Water Act,

the Mauritanian Water Code, Costa Rica’s Water Law, Kyrgyzstan
Water Code or South Africa’s National Water Act),
b. Exemption from having to apply for a licence to access water from a
water body that is adjacent to the land that they occupy, if this water is
used for personal and domestic uses (South Africa’s Basic Water Policy),
c. Equal allocation and availability (legislation of Chad, Costa Rica,
Indonesia, Lithuania and Kazakhstan117),
d. Recognise and assure water needs for all regions and in all legal cul-
tures (Indonesian Regulation,118 South Africa’s Basic Water Policy,119
Georgia’s water laws, Tajikistan’s Water Code prescribe and China’s
water laws),
e. Prohibit the use of water of drinking water quality for non-domestic
purposes (laws of Brasília,120 Georgia and Kazakhstan,121 and China,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan122),
f. Preserve and ensure good quality and quantity of water (Brazilian
Law on Sanitation, nation laws of China, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan,123
Finland Water Services Act, Indonesia Government Regulation No. 82
of 2001124),
g. Ensure that water will be accessible, affordable and acceptable
(France’s Law on Water and Aquatic Environment in 2006125 and Law
No 2005-95126),
h. Safety of water resources and a common right over it, including assur-
ance of physical accessibility and affordability of water (South Africa’s
Water Services Act,127 Costa Rica’s Law on the Regulating Authority
for Public Services, Nicaragua’s General Law on Drinking Water and
 The concept of Right to Water 27
Sanitation Services, Peru’s General Law on Water and Sanitation
Services and in Water Code of the Republic of Congo, Venezuela’s
Organic Law, Chile’s Law 18.778,128 Australian Utilities Act, United
Kingdom’s Water Industry Act, Finland’s Water Service Act,129 South
African Water Services Act, and Indonesia’s Regulation No. 23/2006
Indonesia’s Regulation No. 23/2006130),
i. Water for the poor and the weak and freedom from disconnection
of water supply (United Kingdom’s Water Industry Act131 and South
African Water Services Act),
j. Participation of people in decision making (Australian Utilities Act, the
South African Water Services Act, Brazilian Law on Basic Sanitation,
Malaysian Water Service Industry Act and New Zealand’s Local
Government Act. Laws),
k. Right to have information (Brazilian law,132 South Africa’s Water
Services Act133),
l. Non-discrimination and especial entitlement is assured for vulnerable
groups (regional Canadian Human Rights Codes, Colombia’s Law 142,
Guyana’s Public Utilities Commission Act, Mexico’s Water Law of the
Distrito Federal or Niger’s Decree 2003-145/PRN/MHE/LCD, United
Kingdom’s Water Industry Act and South African Water Services Act134).

The aspects presented here show that the understandings evolved at

national level are comprehensive, which is more relevant as they represent
ground realities that build greater possibilities in favour of right to water.

2.3 Conceptual progression of Right to Water: Expansion and

relation
Since the idea which insists that water be assured as a right is realised, argued
and endorsed at different levels, it is difficult to claim that it is an inde-
pendent phenomenon. Each level has its own contribution and significance.
Hence, the development at the three levels does not represent isolation of
ideas, but its progress is a process that has established an unavoidable rela-
tionship in between. The relationship between theoretical perspective and
institutional frameworks is interacting argumentatively for constructive
purposes. Even though policy suggestions offered by institutional frame-
works are critically observed by theoretical perceptions, i.e. post-neoliber-
alism, the links between them are positive and offer supplementary ideas
to each other. The arguments put forth by post-neoliberalism have set a
moral pressure on international, regional and national organisations to take
steps to assure right of water to all and make it available, accessible and
affordable for all. It has actually offered an idea to be worked on. Similarly,
the ideas developed within institutional frameworks have strengthened the
theoretical discourse by offering global implications on the idea that can be
understood and argued as Right to Water. Due to the internationalisation
and institutionalisation of the idea, theory (not in the traditional sense) has
28 The concept of Right to Water
reached and argued globally. Clearly, both theoretical discussions and insti-
tutional frameworks are inter-influential and flow two ways, as

Theoretical Discussions ↔ Institutional Frameworks

The ideas developed at different levels have preserved the concept that can be
called as Right to Water with almost the same understanding, and there is no
serious contradiction between them (only with reference to that is discussed).
The relations between the regional understandings and constitutional and
legal provisions are effectively connected with the international declarations
and also with each other. It would be incorrect to say that only international
declarations have inspired the regional and national undertakings. In some
cases, it is just the opposite: there are some regional and national initiatives
that are noted much before international declarations (see the endnotes of the
earlier discussion). Note that there is a relation between these ideas and the
initiatives. The flow of the relation and influence is as follows:

Post Neoliberalism:
1st step Theorecal frame work An argument against
neoliberalism
Internaonal level:
Concerning Global
Interests 2nd type of relaon

Mainly General
Instuonal frame work
Comment 15
1st type of
relaon

2nd type of relaon

Conceptual 2nd step

evoluon of
an idea that Regional level: Represenng Constuonal and Legal
can be called Regional Interests provisions
as Right to
Water:
Discussing
broader
sense
1st type
of relaon 2nd type of relaon

3rd step

Naonal Level: Emphasizing Naonal Naonal Constuonal and

Interests Naonal Laws

Figure 2.2 C
 onceptual evolution of an idea can be called as Right to Water:
expansion and relation.
Note: Curves show the levels of growth, simple lines show the emerging points of
the idea and arrows with two directions represents relationship. Notably, steps do
not represent hierarchical growth of idea.
 The concept of Right to Water 29
Figure 2.2 demonstrates the conceptual evolution of an idea that can be
called Right to Water. It denotes three features: the emerging point of Right
to Water, its growth and the relation between various aspects attached
with the idea. Step 1 shows development at an international level. At this
level, the idea that can be called Right to Water has emerged in two con-
texts. First, the theoretical framework has emerged as an argument against
neoliberalism called post-neoliberalism, and the second is the institutional
framework, offered mainly by Comment 15. Step 2 presents the regional
development. It further shows the ideas stated in the two documents known
as constitutional and legal provisions. Similarly, Step 3 shows emergence of
Right to Water at the national level as evolved from national constitutions
and national laws.
In the figure, all three levels or steps have arrows in two directions. This
represents two types of relations: first, the connection between the three lev-
els; and second, the relations between the theoretical ideas and institutional
frameworks as have emerged and evolved at different levels. The arrows
(in two directions) which represent the “first type of relations” interpret
that the conceptual evolution of an idea can be called as Right to Water at
three levels, i.e. international, regional and national, and is positively inter-
connected (at least in documentation and arguments) because they are all
equally concerned with entitling water as a right.
Similarly, the arrows in two directions represent the “second type of rela-
tions”, i.e. between theoretical arguments and institutional frameworks,
being constant and in the same flow. This signifies that the influence of
theoretical arguments can be observed at each level, and each level simulta-
neously influences the theoretical arguments. It presents that post-neoliber-
alism has strengthened the institutional frameworks by offering theoretical
justification to the concept, and at the same time, institutional frameworks
have brought theoretical aspirations into reality. The argument like such
has a point because the values put by post-neoliberals, like water to all,
right to participate in decision making and non-discrimination in water
supply, find place in Comment 15 and are mentioned in the document, peri-
odically released by international, regional and national institutions.135 Sim-
ilarly, the contents of various documents have created new dimensions in
theoretical arguments. The expected role of the private sector mentioned in
Comment 15 and other documents is a subject of theoretical debates. Karen
Bakker’s (2010) conceptual discussion on the subject of obligation and her
objection to the use of the term Human Right to Water is one such example.
It is essential to note that a critic of the contents of Comment 15 as “revi-
sionist”136 and “unreflective”137 has actually helped the UN to improvise
the documents. In the water discourses, the argumentative attitude of the
theoretical discussions, like such, towards institutional undertakings and
arrangements has helped in conceptualising the idea of Right to Water in a
way which deserves to be placed in policy design.
30 The concept of Right to Water
2.4 Discussing the meaning (s) of Right to Water
The discussions so far show that attaining the meaning of Right to Water
is difficult. Since the idea has evolved as a process, it is difficult to get at
its actual meaning immediately. This is because of the fact that in the pro-
cess of modernisation, water as a right is viewed and argued in multiple
contexts, and in management processes, this has justified multiple uses of
water. In the conception of Right to Water, multiplicity of water uses cre-
ates problems of priority. This is becoming more problematic where water
is found to be limited. If right to water regards the fulfilment of water as a
basic need, then what the limit of this basic need should be always remains
a question. Thus, there is an obvious divide of what right to water includes
and what it does not.

2.4.1 Water is a Right: The popular offerings and their significance

A notion which insists on realising and assuring water as a right is evolved
with three viewpoints, developed in different contexts. The first view defines
water as for commons (Shiva, 2000; Anand, 2007; Bakker, 2010; Iyer,
2010a), implying that the concept of Right to Water is based on freedom
and that its claimability is universal. The second perspective underlines that
the meaning of freedom to “use” is not unlimited; however, the scope of
freedom to use water is based on the priority of requirements (Salman,
2002; Anand, 2007). This argument insists that water is a free resource and
its use is endorsed primarily for biological needs (international, regional
and national understandings emphasise this). The third view emphasises
the duty part of right to water. This insists that to enjoy right to water as
freedom, it is important to maintain an effective balance between its uses
and its users (Anand, 2007). This essentially requires some duties to be per-
formed by both individuals and the states.
To attain a meaning of Right to Water, it is essential to synthesise the
various understandings and arguments that are developed at various levels.
Among all, understandings of Anand (2007: right to water as rights and
duties), Shiva and Bakker (2002; 2010: water for commons) and Cahill
(2005: Scope of water use), and documents and guidelines released by Com-
ment 15 and the World Health Organisation (2003),138 are significant. This
is because each of these offers significant discussion on right to water and
hence their amalgamation helps to understand correctly the concept and
scope of Right to Water. The scope of Right to Water, attained by the discus-
sion, informs an individual what s/he is entitled to. This makes people aware
about what they can lay claim on and what is under the preview of entitle-
ment. The second view on right to water, i.e. correlation of rights and duties,
supports the first view. It insists that without fulfilling obligations (by states
and private parties) and duties (by peoples), one cannot enjoy water as a right.
The meaning of water for commons is the consequence of the two. It shows
that only knowing its scope and the correlating of rights and duties together
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Az emberiség

képviselői
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

Title: Az emberiség képviselői

Author: Ralph Waldo Emerson

Translator: Ödön Wildner

Release date: June 15, 2022 [eBook #68321]

Language: Hungarian

Original publication: Hungary: Franklin-Társulat, 1923

Credits: Albert László from page images generously made

available by the Library of the Hungarian Academy of
Sciences

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK AZ

EMBERISÉG KÉPVISELŐI ***
 Megjegyzés:
A tartalomjegyzék a 237. oldalon található.
 KULTURA és TUDOMÁNY

AZ EMBERISÉG KÉPVISELŐI

(REPRESENTATIVE MEN)

IRTA RALPH WALDO EMERSON

FORDITOTTA Dr WILDNER ÖDÖN

BUDAPEST, 1923

FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT
MAGYAR IROD. INTÉZET ÉS KÖNYVNYOMDA

KIADÁSA

AZ EMBERISÉG KÉPVISELŐI
 (REPRESENTATIVE MEN)
IRTA

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

FORDITOTTA

Dr WILDNER ÖDÖN

BUDAPEST, 1923

FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT
MAGYAR IROD. INTÉZET ÉS KÖNYVNYOMDA

KIADÁSA
FRANKLIN-TÁRSULAT NYOMDÁJA.
 ELŐSZÓ.

Az amerikai filozófus-költőnek második fordításkötetét veszi itt az

olvasó kezemtől ugyanebben a vállalatban. Az 1850-ben megjelent:
«Representative Men» első magyar átültetője: a nagyérdemű Szász
Károly volt s munkája «Az Emberi Szellem Képviselői» cím alatt az
Akadémia könyvkiadóvállalatában 1894-ben jelent meg. Ez a kiadás
azóta teljesen elfogyott, a magyar közönség pedig, amely – közben
megtett örvendetes fejlődésről tanuskodva, – szép érdeklődést mutat
az efajta népszerűbb, bár nem könnyű bölcseleti olvasmányok iránt,
keresve-keresi a munkát magyarul, holott Akadémiánk, úgy tudom
egy régi, s ma már különös alapszabályi rendelkezés következtében,
nem adja ki újra. (A közkeletű német [Reclam-] fordítás nem ér
valami sokat, mert igen «mellébeszél», anélkül, hogy a megértést
elősegítené.) Ez indította a «Kultúra és Tudomány» vállalatot, hogy
hazai olvasóinknak ismét hozzáférhetővé tegye ezt a standard-
művet, s engem bízott meg a fordítással. Örömmel vállaltam, mert
éppen Emerson egyéb essay-be is beledolgoztam magam, minek
gyümölcse két más fordításkötetem.1)
Emersonról, stílusáról, fordításának óriás nehézségeiről, ezzel
szemben saját fordítói álláspontomról voltam bátor már az előbbi,
ugyanitt megjelent Emerson-tanulmányok élén nyilatkozni. Most is
csak azt ismétlem: bár tudtam, hogy Emersont kell adnom s nem
magamat, néhol inkább feláldoztam a filológiai hűséget, hogy csak
közelebb hozzam a megértéshez. Elvégre az idegen jó, szép és igaz
is csak úgy hathat reánk, csak akkor válik bármi kis részt nemzeti
kultúránk tényezőjévé, ha – hamisítás nélkül – kapcsolható hazai,
adott előzményekhez, fejlettségi fokhoz és hozzásímul
gondolkozásunk, érzésünk és kifejezésünk sajátos módjaihoz,
egyébként az átvétel csak az álkultúra szenvelgése, múló divat,
sallang.
Fordításom semmiképen nem akar idétlen és kegyeletsértő
vetélkedés lenni boldog emlékű elődömmel, akinek úttörő nagy
érdemeit magam ismerem el legjobban, aki a magam munkája
közben az ő munkáját is szem előtt tartottam, bár ez nem gátolt,
hogy saját felelősségemre s jóhiszeműleg helyenkint mást ne
olvassak ki az eredetiből, mint ő. Emerson, sajnos, gyakran olyan
homályos, hogy bizony ez megtörténhetik, – sokszor három, négy
fordítás is mást mond, – anélkül, hogy az illető helyre nézve ne
lehetne továbbra is azt mondani: «sub judice lis est». Emerson
osztozik ebben congeniális barátjával, Carlylelel, akivel a nagy
egyének csodálatában is osztozik, bár ő kissé hűvösebben tiszteli a
hősöket, mint a lángszavú Hero-worship írója.
W. Ö.
 I.

A NAGY EMBEREK HASZNA.

A nagy emberbe vetett hit természetes dolog. Ha gyermekkori

társaink történetesen hősökként jelentkeznének, királyi
életkörülményekkel: ez nem lepne meg bennünket. Minden
mithologia küszöbén félisteneket találunk magasztos és költői
környezetben, lángeszük fölényénél fogva. Gautama2) legendáiban
az első emberek földet ettek és azt pompásan édesnek ízlelték.
A természetnek az a színe, mintha csak a kiválók kedvéért volna.
A világ fentartója a jó emberek igaz volta: ők teszik a földet
egészségessé. Akik velük élnek, vidámnak és táplálónak érzik az
életet. Az élet csakis egy ilyen társadalomban való hitünk révén válik
édessé és elviselhetővé s gyakorlatban vagy legalább elméletben,
mindig arra törekszünk, hogy fölöttünk álló emberekkel éljünk. Róluk
nevezzük el gyermekeinket és földeinket. Neveik belevésődnek
nyelvünkbe; műveik, képeik ott vannak házunkban s a nap minden
körülménye valamely róluk szóló esetet idéz eszünkbe.
A nagy emberek keresése az ifjúság délibábja, s a férfikor
legkomolyabb foglalkozása. Idegen vidékekre utazunk, hogy
meglássuk műveiket s – ha lehet, – egy percre őket magukat is. De
helyettük csak külső javak jutnak osztályrészünkül. Fölállítjátok a
tételt: az angol nép gyakorlatias, a német vendégszerető;
Valenciában szelid az éghajlat, s a Sacramento halmain aranyat
lehet ásni. Elhiszem. De én nem azért utazom oda, hogy
kényelemben, gazdagságban élő, vendégbarát népeket, derűs eget,
vagy igen nagy árú aranyrudakat találjak. Ha ellenben volna olyan
mágnes a világon, amelynek hegye megmutatná a tájékokat és
házakat, ahol valóban dús és hatalmas lelkü emberek laknak:
mindenemen túladnék, hogy az árán megvegyem ezt a mágnest és
útmutatása szerint még ma fölkerekedném az útra.
Az egész fajt az ő hitelük fémjelzi nekünk. Ha tudjuk, hogy ebben
vagy abban a városban él az az ember, aki a vasutat föltalálta, ez
szemünkben a város minden más polgárát magasabbra emeli. De a
rengeteg néptömeg, ha nem egyéb, mint csupa koldus, utálatos,
mint a pondrós sajt, nyüzsgő hangyaboly vagy bolhasereg: mentől
több van belőle, annál rosszabb.
Vallásunk e védőszentjeink iránt táplált szeretetből és hódolatból
áll. A hitrege istenei a nagy emberek ragyogó perceinek emlékei.
Minden edényünket egy mintában öntjük. A judaizmus,
christianizmus, buddhizmus, mahometizmus, összes hatalmas
hitrendszereink mind az emberi szellem szervezeti, szükségszerű
működésének alkotásai. A történelem búvára hasonlít az emberhez,
aki az árúházba szövetet vagy szőnyeget megy vásárolni. Azt
képzeli, új dolgot szerez; pedig ha elmegy a gyárba, azt találja, hogy
ez az új szövet is csak azokat a kacskaringós és rózsás mintákat
ismétli, mik a thébai pyramisok belső falába vannak írva.
Theizmusunk az emberi szellem tisztulása. Az ember nem tud mást
festeni, alkotni, elgondolni, mint csak embert. Azt hiszi, hogy a
természet nagy anyagi elemei is az ő gondolatából eredtek, s
bölcsészetünk csak egyetlen lényeget ismer összegyülemlett vagy
szétosztódott állapotban.
Ha már most annak a kutatásába fogunk, minémű haszon
háramlik ránk másoktól, szolgáljon intőjelül némely modern
tudomány veszedelme s kezdjük szépen alulról! Ne tusakodjunk a
szeretet ellen; ne vitassuk el, hogy mások létezése is lényeges.
Vannak erőink, amelyek csakis a társas együttlétből fakadnak.
Másokhoz való szeretetünk olyan előnyt teremt, amelyet semmi
egyéb nem tud pótolni. Mások révén meg bírom tenni, amit egyedül
nem tudok megtenni. Kimondhatom neked, amit előbb nem
mondhattam ki enmagamnak. Embertársaink olyan üveglencsék,
amelyeken át saját lelkünkben olvasunk. Minden ember a magáétól
különböző tulajdonságokat keresi, de a maguk nemében jókat, azaz
különbözőket, sőt a legjobban különbözőket keresi. Mentől erősebb
valakinek a természete, annál erősebb visszahatást gyakorol.
Nyúljunk a tisztaságában jelentkező tulajdonság után. A csekély
tehetségre ne hederítsünk.
A főkülönbséget az teszi az emberek közt, hogy saját ügyükben
járnak-e el, vagy sem. Az ember olyan nemes növény, amely – mint
a pálma – belülről nő kifelé. Ő a maga dolgát, bár az mások számára
lehetetlen volna, gyorsan, szinte játszva fejti ki, s végezi el. Könnyű
a cukornak édesnek lenni, s könnyű a salétromnak sósnak lenni.
Sokat bajoskodunk azzal, hogy olyasmit hajhászunk, ami
magától hull az ölünkbe. Azt sorolom a nagy emberek közé, aki a
gondolat olyan magasabb körében él, ahová más ember csak nagy
üggyel-bajjal bír felküzködni. Ő neki csak a szemét kell kinyitnia,
hogy a dolgokat igazi világításukban s széleskörű viszonylataikban
lássa, holott amazoknak kínos igazításokat kell tenniök s éber
szemmel kell őrizkedniök a tévedés fölös forrásától. Hasonló a nagy
emberek haszna számunkra. Egy szép személynek nem kerül
fáradságába, hogy képét szemünkbe fesse, s mégis, milyen
fejedelmi ajándékot ad vele. Épp ilyen kevés áldozatába kerül a
bölcs léleknek, hogy a maga kiválóságát másokkal közölje. Mindenki
javadolgát a legsímábban végzi: «Kevés eszközzel nagy hatást!» Az
a valóban nagy, aki természeténél fogva az, s aki sohasem
emlékeztet bennünket másokra.
Mindazonáltal kell, hogy rokonunk legyen és életünk igéretet
nyerjen tőle, hogy azt föl fogja világosítani. Ha például én meg sem
tudom mondani, mit is szeretnék tudni, viszont találkoztam
emberekkel, akik jellemükkel és cselekedetükkel felelnek olyan
kérdésekre, miket én föl sem tudnék tenni. Előfordul, hogy bizonyos
egyén olyan kérdésre válaszol, amelyet egyik kortársa sem tett föl és
ezzel elszigetelve marad. Elmúlt és elmúlóban lévő hitek és filozófiák
megint egyéb kérdésekre válaszolnak. Bizonyos emberek ismét azt
a benyomást keltik, hogy gazdag lehetőséget rejtenek ugyan
magukban, azonban még magukkal sem tudnak mit elkezdeni s
nincsenek hasznára kortársaiknak, – mintha merőben valamely a
levegőben keringő ösztön szeszélyes játéka lennének, – úgy hogy
nem elégítik ki szükségleteinket. Ellenben a nagy emberek közel
élnek hozzánk; első látásra megismerjük. Kielégítik a
várakozásunkat és kellő időben teremnek őket megillető helyükre.
Ami valóban jó, az termékeny is; maga csinál helyet, maga szerez
táplálékot, szövetségeseket magának. Az egészséges alma magot
terem; a vackor nem. Ha az ember a maga helyén van, akkor alkotó,
termékeny, mágneses, egész seregeket betölt céljával, hogy azt
végrehajtsák. A folyó maga ássa meg medrét s minden helyes
eszme maga módolja ki csatornáit és befogadó kikötőjét, aratását,
kifejező intézményeit, harci jelvényeit, terjesztő, magyarázó
tanítványait. Az igazi művész piedestálja az egész földkerekség,
holott a szerencselovag évtizedes küzdelem után is csupán azt a
talpalatnyi földet mondhatja a magáénak, amelyre éppen talpát
ráteszi.
Közbeszédünk a nagy ember kétféle hasznát különbözteti meg. A
«közvetlen adomány» kedvenc hite az embernek korai fejlődési
fokain; ilyenek pl. az anyagi vagy szellemi segítség, egészség, örök
ifjúság, finom érzékek, a gyógyító- vagy varázserő, a jóstehetség
ajándékai. A kis fiú azt hiszi, hogy a tanító pénzért tölcsérrel
csöpögtetheti belé a bölcseségét. Az egyházak is hisznek átháramló
érdemekben. Ámde, ha szigorúbban vizsgáljuk a dolgot, nem sok
esetét látjuk a közvetlen szolgálatnak, haszonnak. Az ember
endogén, belülről fejlődő és a nevelés csupán arra jó, hogy
kibontakoztassa a lényét. Mások segítsége csak gépies jelentőségű,
ha szembeállítjuk benső természetünk önnön fölfedezéseivel. Amit
így tanulunk, az megtevés által gyönyörűséggé és maradandó
hatásúvá válik. A helyes erkölcs középponti dolog s a lélekből
sugárzik kifelé. Az ajándék, ingyen adomány tulajdonkép ellenkezik
a világegyetem törvényével. Ha másokat szolgálunk, magunkat
szolgáljuk. Csak magam adhatok magamnak fölmentést. «Intézd el a
dolgod magaddal, te bolond» – mondja a lélek – «csak nem fogsz az
egekkel vagy más emberekkel törődni?» Így hát csak a közvetett
szolgálat, vagy haszon jön számba. Az embereknek festői vagy
képviselő tulajdonságuk van s ők értelmünknek vannak hasznára.
Böhme és Swedenborg3) fölismerték a dolgok jelképi mivoltát. Tehát
az emberek reprezentativok; elsősorban a dolgok képviselői,
másodsorban eszméké.
Ahogyan a növények az ásványokat az állatok táplálékává
alakítják át, úgy minden ember a természet valamelyes
nyersanyagát emberi használatra alakítja át. A tűz, villamosság,
mágnesség, vas, ólom, üveg, vászon, selyem, gyapot, a
szerszámok, a tizedes mérték föltalálója, a földmérő, a
gépészmérnök, a muzsikus valamennyien megkönnyítik
embertársaik útját ismeretlen és úttalan rengetegeken át. Minden
embert titokzatos hasonlóság révén rokonság fűz a Természet
valamely negyedéhez, amelynek ő a működtető tényezője és
magyarázója: így pl. Linné a növényeké, Huber a méheké, Fries a
gombáké, Van Mons a körtéké, Dalton az atomformáké, Euklides a
vonalaké, s Newton a differenciális- és integrálisoké.
Az igazi férfiú a Természet középpontja, akitől a viszonylatok
szálai minden dolog felé szövődnek akár folyékony vagy szilárd,
akár testi vagy lelki is az. A földgömb forog; minden röge, köve
elérkezik a délkörhöz: éppígy minden szervnek, működésnek,
savnak, kristálynak, porszemnek megvan a maga viszonya az
agyhoz. Minden növénynek megvan a maga élősdije s minden
teremtménynek a szerelmese és poétája. Jogaihoz jutott már a gőz,
a vas, a fa, a szén, a mágneskő, a jód, a gabona, a gyapot, de
mégis mily kevés anyagot használtak még ki mesterségeink. A
teremtmények és tulajdonságaik túlnyomó tömege még lappang és
fölfedezésre, fölhasználásra vár, mintha a mesebeli elvarázsolt
hercegkisasszony volna, aki sorskijelölte fölszabadítóját várná.
Mindegyik varázslatát meg kell törni, hogy ember képében jusson
napvilágra. A találmányok történetében a lappangó, de érett igazság
nyilván maga teremti meg fölfogó agyvelejét. A mágnesnek emberré
kell válnia, egy Gilbert-té, Swedenborg-gá, Oersted-dé, s csak így
férkőzhet az általános értelem az ő erőihez.
Az első előnyökre korlátozva szemünket: íme mily tiszta báj
fűződik az ásvány- és növényországhoz, amely legmagasabb
mozzanataiban mint a természeti szép jelentkezik: a földpát
csillámlása, a vegyrokonság biztossága, a szögek pontossága.
Világosság és sötétség, meleg és hideg, éhség és táplálék, édes és
savanyú, szilárd, cseppfolyó és légnemű – mindez a gyönyörűségek
füzérjével övez bennünket s kellemetes versengésével megkönnyíti
mindennapi életünket. Szemünk nap-nap mellett ismétli a dolgok
első dicshimnuszát: «S látá, hogy mindenek jól vannak.» Tudjuk, hol
találjuk meg őket, s ezek a művészek annál jobban megnyerik
tetszésünket, mentől jobban behatolunk a versengő fajok
ismeretébe.
De még magasabb előnyökre is van jogunk. A tudomány mindig
hiányos, valamíg meg nem emberiesedett. Más dolog a
logarithmustábla, s megint más eleven játéka a növénytanban, a
hang- és fénytanban, az építészetben. Valóságos, bár eleinte kissé
sanda tekintettel nézett haladást jelent a számok, az anatómia, az
építészet, a csillagászat körében, ha az emberi értelem és akarat
révén beszállnak a reális életbe s újra megjelennek beszélgetésben,
a jellemekben, a politikában.
De ez későbbi dolog. Most csak arról szólunk, mint ismerkedünk
meg velük a saját körükben, s mint vonzzák magukhoz és bilincselik
le a geniuszt, aki egész életén át egy dologgal foglalkozik. A
tolmácsolás, magyarázás lehetőségét a megfigyelő egyénnek és a
megfigyelt dolognak azonossága adja meg. Minden anyagnak
megvan a maga égi oldala, megvan az emberiség által történő
átvitele a szellemi és törvényszerű szférába, ahol épp oly
leronthatatlan szerepet játszik, mint bármi más. S efelé, mint végső
célja felé törekszik minden. A gázok fölszállnak s a szilárd
mennyezeten gyülekeznek. A vegyi tömeg eléri a növényt s nőtteti
azt; eléri a négylábú állatot és vele együtt jár; eléri az embert és
benne gondolkozik. De az alkatelemek meghatározzák a
képviselőjük viselkedését is. Nemcsak képviseltek, hanem részesek
is. Hasonlót csak hasonló ismerhet meg. Annak az oka, hogy valaki
behatol az ismeretükbe, az, hogy ő is közülük való, hasonló
természeti anyagból eredt, annak része ő is. A lelkes chlor ismeri a
chlort, a megtestesült horgany ismeri a horganyt. Az ő sajátságuknál
fogva futja meg ő a pályáját és ő különféleképpen nyilváníthatja ki
erőiket, mert hisz ő belőlük tevődik össze. A világ porából lett ember
nem feledheti eredetét, s mindaz, a mi ma még lelketlen és halott:
egy szép nap beszélni fog és értelmes lénnyé válik. A még nem
közölt Természet minden titkát el fogja mondatni. A kvarchegyek
számtalan Werner-ré, Buch-há, Beaumont-ná porladoznak s a légkör
laboratóriuma nem tudom hány Berzelius és Davy oldatát foglalja
magában.
A tűzhely körül ülünk és a föld sarkait fogjuk át. Ez a mintegy
mindenütt-jelenvalóság istápolja körülményeink gyöngeségét. Az
isteni napok egyikén, amidőn meny és föld találkozik és egymást
ékesíti, mily szegénységnek látszik, hogy csak egyszer élvezhetjük
ezt a napot: azt kívánnók, vajha volna ezer fejünk, ezer testünk,
hogy végtelen szépségét sok, sok helyen, sok, sok módon
ünnepelhetnők. Avagy délibáb ez? Lám, csakugyan
megsokszorozódunk helyettesítőink révén. Mily könnyen sajátítjuk el
művüket. Minden hajó, amely Amerikába jön, Columbustól nyerte a
kiváltságlevelét. Minden regény Homeros adósa. Minden ács, aki
minta szerint gyalul, kölcsönt vesz valamely elfeledett föltalálótól. Az
életet a tudományok öve veszi körül, s a tudományok olyan emberek
adományaiból tevődnek össze, akik tönkrementek, csakhogy egy kis
fénylőponttal szaporíthassák az egünk fényét. Mérnök, bankár,
jogász, orvos, moralista, hittudós s bárki emberfia, amennyiben van
egy kis tudománya, emberi életünk szélességi és hosszúsági
fokainak meghatározója és térképrajzolója. Ezek az útkészítők
gazdagítanak mindkét kezükkel. Ki kell terjesztenünk életünk határait
és meg kell szaporítanunk viszonylatainkat. Éppannyit nyerünk, ha új
sajátságokat fedezünk föl az öreg földünkön, mintha új bolygót
szereznénk meg.
Mi nagyon passziv módon fogadjuk be ezeket az anyagi vagy
félig-meddig anyagi segítségeket. Nem kell éppen egyszerű
zsákoknak vagy gyomroknak lennünk. Ha rokonszenvünk segít,
könnyebben hágunk egy lépcsőfokkal feljebb. A közös munkálkodás
ragadós. Ha odanézünk, ahová mások néznek és ha ugyanazokkal
a dolgokkal társalkodunk, átárad reánk is a bűbáj, amely őket rabul
ejtette. Napoleon mondta: «Ne hadakozz túlgyakran ugyanazzal az
ellenséggel, mert különben minden haditudományodra megtanítod
őt». Ha erőteljes szellemű emberrel sokat érintkezünk, nagyon
hamar elsajátítjuk a dolgoknak ugyanolyan szemszögből való
szemléletét s minduntalan előre kitaláljuk a gondolatait.
Az emberek egymást értelmükkel és érzéseikkel segítik. Minden
más segítség csalóka tünemény. Ha nagyra vagy vele, hogy
kenyeret és tüzet adsz nekem, én viszont tudom, hogy teljes árát
megadom s végezetre nem tesz se jobbá, se rosszabbá. Ellenben
minden értelmi és erkölcsi erő pozitív jószág, érték. Kiárad belőled,
akár akarod, akár nem, s ott is hasznomra van, ahol sohasem
gyanítottad volna. Sőt nem is hallhatok semmiféle személyes
derekasságról, nagy alakító erőről, anélkül, hogy az friss
elhatározást ne ébresztene bennem. Vetélkedők vagyunk
mindabban, amit ember csak megtehet. Cecil mondása Sir Walter
Raleighról: «Tudom, szörnyen sokat tud dolgozni» – villamszikraként
hat reám. Ilyenek Clarendon arcképei is. Pl. Hampdenről: «Olyan
iparkodás és éberség volt benne, hogy semmi sem fáraszthatta ki;
olyan éleslátás, hogy a legcsalafintábbak sem szedhették rá; olyan
személyes bátorság, amely méltó volt többi legjobb tehetségéhez.»
Vagy Falkland-ról: «Olyan szigorú imádója volt az igazságnak, hogy
könnyebben lehetett volna lopásra csábítani, mint a képmutatásra».
Plutarchost nem olvashatjuk anélkül, hogy ne hozná forrongásba a
vérünket, s aláírom a khinai Mencius mondását: «A bölcs száz
nemzedék tanítója. Ha Loo erkölcsi oktatásait hallja, a bárgyú
értelmes lénnyé, a habozó erős elhatározásúvá válik tőlük.»4)
Ilyen az életrajz erkölcsi hatása. Pedig az elköltözött emberek
bajosabban hatnak reánk élőkre, mint saját kortársaink, holott az ő
nevük nem lesz olyan hosszúéletű. Ki az nekem, akire sohasem
gondolok, míg minden magánosságunkban is hozzánk szegődnek
azok, akik géniuszunkat segítik és csodás módon ösztökélnek. Nagy
a szeretet hatalma, amellyel jobban megsejti más sorsát, mint ez a
más tudná és hősi buzdításokkal feladatához hűvé teszi. Van-e
nagyobb jele a barátságnak, mint az a magasztos vonzás, amelyet
minden bennünk meglévő erény iránt érez? Nem fogunk többé
alacsonyan gondolkozni magunkról vagy az életről, mert valamely
feladatra vagyunk tüzelve, s a vasúttöltés kubikosainak szorgalma
nem fog többé szégyenbe hozni.
 Ebbe a fejezetbe tartozik az a szerintem nagyon jogos hódolat,
amellyel minden rangú és rendű ember adózik a nap hőseinek
Coriolanustól és Gracchustól Pitt-, Lafayette-, Wellington-, Webster-,
Lamartine-ig. Halljátok az üdvrivalgást az utcán! A nép nem bír
betelni képükkel. Gyönyörködik az igazi férfiban. Ez aztán a fej, a
törzs! Micsoda homlok; micsoda szem! Atlas vállai! Egész tartása
hősies, s mily méltó belső erő hajtja a nagy gépet! S gyönyörünk
azon, hogy ami a magunk tapasztalata szerint rendesen csak
csökevényesen és elfojtva nyilvánul, itt teljes kifejezést talál, még
magasabb formákat is ölt s nyitja annak a titoknak, miért találunk
élvezetet az irodalmi genie-ben. Semmi sincs benne fékezve. Annyi
tűz van itt, hogy meg tudna olvasztani akár érchegyeket is.
Shakespeare főfőérdeméül azt szokták tekinteni, hogy ő minden
ember között legjobban értett az angol nyelvhez és mindent ki tudott
fejezni, amit csak akart. Ámde a kifejezésnek ezek az el nem dugult
csatornái és zsilipei csupán egészség és szerencsés alkat dolga és
Shakespeare neve még egyéb, merőben szellemi adományokat is
jelent.
Szenátusok, fejedelmek érmeikkel, díszkardjaikkal,
címerpajzsaikkal nem osztogathatnak olyan megtiszteltetést, mint
aminő az, ha bizonyos magasságból, megértést föltételezve,
gondolatok intéztetnek egy más emberi lényhez. Ezt a tisztességet,
amely a személyes érintkezésben ritkán esik meg kétszer az
életben, a géniuszok örökösen osztogatják s meg vannak elégedve,
ha olykor-olykor, egy-egy században el is fogadják az ajándékukat.
Az anyag értékmérői holmi szakács vagy cukrász rangjára
sülyednek, ha megjelennek az eszmei értékek mérői. A géniusz az
érzékfölötti régiók természettudósa vagy térképírója s miközben a
cselekvőség új mezőit ismerteti meg velünk, lehűti a régi iránt táplált
érzéseinket. Azokat legott realitásnak fogadjuk el, amelyhez képest
az a világ, amelyben eleddig forgolódtunk, merő délibáb.
Tornacsarnokba és uszodába azért megyünk, hogy lássuk a test
erejét és szépségét. Ugyanilyen, sőt magasabb a gyönyörűségünk
mindennemű értelmi ügyesség láttára, mint pl. az emlékezet vagy
mathematikai kombináció gimnasztikája, az elvonás nagy
képessége, az átalakító képzelet, a szellemi mozgékonyság vagy
összpontosítás műveletei láttára. Mert mindezek megláttatják a
szellem láthatatlan szerveit, tagjait, amelyek rendre megfelelnek a
test részeinek, tagjainak. Új tornapályára lépünk itt s megtanuljuk az
emberek legigazibb ismertető jeleit, megtanuljuk Plato szerint:
«megismerni azokat, akik a szem vagy más szerv segítsége nélkül
tudnak előhatolni az igazságra és életre». E működések előterében
állnak a képzelőtehetség bukfencei, varázsigéi és felszökellései. Ha
ez eleven, az ember mintha megtízszerezné, nem,
megezerszerezné az erőit. Fölkelti a határtalannak gyönyörét és az
értelem vak merészségét. Olyan ruganyosak vagyunk, mint a
puskapor gáza s egy-egy mondás valamely könyvben, egy-egy
beszéd közben elejtett szó fölszabadítja a képzeletünket s fejünk
tüstént a tejútban fürdik és lábunk az alvilág folyósóit tapodja. S ez a
jótétemény valódi, mert képzeletünk e határkibővítéseire jogunk van
s ha egyszer leráztuk bilincseinket, sohasem válhatunk többé ismét
olyan nyomorult pedáns fráterekké, aminők azelőtt voltunk.
A lélek magas funkciói oly szorosan összefüggnek, hogy
bizonyos képzelőerő rendesen minden kiváló szellemben
megnyílvánul, még az elsőrangú mathematikusokban is, de
különösen az intuitiv gondolkozású szemlélődő emberekben. Ez az
osztály azzal tesz nekünk szolgálatot, hogy élénk érzéke van az
azonosság és visszahatás iránt. Plato, Shakespeare, Swedenborg,
Goethe szeme sohasem zárkózott el ezekkel a törvényekkel
szemben. Ezek észrevevése mintegy fokmérője az értelem erejének.
A kis lelkek azért kicsik, mert nem tudják meglátni.
Ámde még ez a gyönyörűségünk is túlzásba vihető. Az ész
csodálata: hirnöke bálványozásává fajul. Kivált akkor találkozunk az
elnyomás tanubizonyságaival, ha egy hatalmas rendszerű léleknek
tanítványai támadnak. Aristoteles, a Ptolemæus-i csillagászat,
Luther, Bacon, Locke hitele, a vallás, a hierarchiák, szentek és az
alapítóik nevét fölvett felekezetek története: megannyi példával
szolgálnak erre. Óh jaj, minden ember áldozatául esik ennek! Az
ember gyöngesége mindenkor kihívja a hatalom szemérmetlen
túlkapását. A közönséges tehetség szokása, hogy elkápráztatja a
nézőt; ellenben az igazi lángész inkább arra törekszik, hogy
távoltartson, óva-intsen magától. Az igazi lángész nem szegényíteni
akar, hanem fölszabadítani, új érzékekkel gazdagítani. Ha
történetesen bölcs ember telepedik falunkba, azokban, akik vele
közlekednek, a gazdagság új tudatát ébreszti föl, amidőn eddig
figyelembe nem vett előnyök, javak iránt nyitja meg szemeiket;
rendíthetetlen egyenlőség érzékét gyökerezteti belénk, s megnyugtat
azzal a biztosítással, hogy nem fogunk csalódni, mivelhogy mindenki
megláthatná a maga helyzete utalványait és zálogleveleit. A gazdag
észrevenné ballépéséit és tulajdonképi szegénységét, s a szegény
mentő eszközeit és segítő forrásait.
Mindezt kellő időben meghozza a Természet. A forgandóság az ő
gyógyszere. A lélek ráun mestereire és mohón kap a változáson. A
háziasszonyok azt szokták mondani derék szolgálójukról: «Eleget élt
már velem.» Valahányan csak irányzatok, jobban mondva
jelenségek vagyunk s egyikünk sem teljes egész. Jövünk, megyünk
és sok élet habját iszogatjuk. Forgandóság a Természet törvénye.
Mihelyt eltávolít egy nagy embert, a tömeg nyomban kémleli a
látóhatárt, föltűnik-e azon az utódja. De csak senki sem jön,
mivelhogy az ő rendje kihalt vele. A legközelebbi nagy ember
valamely egészen más mezőn fog föltűnni; nem Jefferson, nem
Franklin lesz az, hanem valamely nagystílű kereskedő, azután
útépítő, azután a halak természettudósa, majd egy bivalyvadász
felfedező vagy egy félvad hadvezér Amerika nyugati részein. Így
fejtünk ki ellentállást durvább mestereinkkel szemben, de a
legjobbakkal szemben is van orvosszerünk, persze finomabb annál.
A hatalom ugyanis, amelyet velünk közölnek, nem az övék. S ha
föllelkesítenek eszméikkel, ezt nem Plato javára írjuk, hanem az
eszme javára, amelytől Plato maga is kölcsönzött.
Észben kell tartanom, hogy az emberek egy bizonyos fajtájának
különösen le vagyunk kötelezve. Az Élet lépcsőfokokból áll. Nagy
embereink rangja közt tágas közök tátonganak. Az emberiség
minden időkben csak kevésszámú egyéniséghez ragaszkodott,
akiket a bennük testet öltött eszme értéke vagy széleskörű
gondolkozásuk tett hivatottakká a vezéri és törvényhozói tisztre.
Ezek nyitják meg szemünket az őstermészet tulajdonságainak, –
hozzáeresztenek a dolgok ősalkatához. Egyébként napról-napra a
káprázatok folyamán úszunk s embertársainkkal együtt csalóka