Indian Politics & Policy Volume 1, Number 2, Fall 2018 | Page 97

Indian Politics & Policy
Informality, the
Hydrosocial Cycle, and
the Flexibat Approach
Our approach extends from
previous investigations of the
acceptability of water reuse
schemes in India and other countries
(Hurlimann and McKay 2007; Kuttuva,
Lele, and Mendez 2018; Molinos-Senante,
Hernández-Sancho, and Sala-Garrido
2011; Lienhoop et al. 2014 Roomratanapun
2001; Suneethi et al. 2015). 3
We also contribute to discussions on
the extent to which decentralized systems
can replace or complement centralized
wastewater treatment systems
(Arora et al. 2015). Centralized systems
work best in locales where there is a
fully piped sewerage network with an
accoutrement of pumping stations, bioreactors
and ancillary equipment such
as backup generators, and materials for
repairs. There is nothing close to full
sewerage for cities in India and more
than 70% of wastewater runs untreated
to contaminate surface and ground water
supplies. 4 So, the majority of studies
in India cover the functioning and acceptability
of small-scale decentralized
units (Kuttuva, Lele, and Mendez 2018;
Lienhoop et al. 2012; Ravishankar, Nautiyal,
and Seshaiah 2018; Suneethi et al.
2015). 5 Here, we approach a similar
question, which is, to what extent do
small-scale systems work and why?
How can we find the best examples? In
our research, several key concepts and
approaches have been useful in orienting
our perspective. First, we draw
upon the understanding of informality
developed by others and that we have
expanded in other work (Alley 2015,
2016; Follmann 2014; Ranganathan
2016; Roy and Ong 2012; Schwartz et
al. 2015). Water informality happens
when the state uses laws and principles
that are appropriate for the moment,
but then changes those uses and even
works contrary to them at a later date.
Ranganathan (2016, 3) defines urban
water informality as the uneven application
or suspension of laws, rules, and
official procedures in the governance of
space and water infrastructure. The inverted
notion of informality developed
by Ananya Roy (2009) and reformulated
by Ranganathan (2016) describes
the intentional vagueness or opacity
of project maps, plans, protocols, and
compliance to rules and regulations.
The intentional vagueness in articulating
and implementing official rules and
procedures helps to keep the circle of
real knowledge small, so that it can be
controlled by fewer people (Bear 2015,
105–122). Roy (2009, 83) has noted that
the absence of land titles, the existence
of fuzzy boundaries and incomplete
maps, and the vagueness of policies are
“the basis of state authority and serve as
modes of sovereignty and discipline.”
We find evidence of informality in the
decisions taken in infrastructure design
and contracting, and in the governance
and control over groundwater.
Others have toyed with ways of
describing infrastructure failures in
sanitation by digging deeper into the
actual running of facilities and services
such as in operation and maintenance.
For instance, Starkl et al. (2017) have
noted that hidden failures may exist
94