Learning and Mislearning 8130p per 10,000 litres to the society which then sold it to its members on a per acre
basis with a substantial margin. Its members benefited and the society became an
instant success (Patil and Datye, 1986, p4).
This success, and these benefits, were, though, based on special and privileged
conditions. The cooperative had strong leadership. Seventy per cent of members
were Patels, reputed to be commercially astute. Location was favourable: the soci-
ety is close to Surat city, a national highway, and the Chalthon Sugar Mill. There
was special government help: at the outset, the distribution network of canals was
renovated at government expense, additional outlets to the minor were added,
vulnerable reaches even of water courses were lined, and ‘all preliminary proce-
dures were set up for smooth interaction with local officers of Government for all
matters’ (Dave, 1983, p132).
For the first three years the state government provided a manager, a supervisor,
and two clerks and agreed to reimburse any net loss.
There was also exceptional access to high-level staff, with solutions to prob-
lems worked out at the deputy executive engineer and executive engineer (EE)
levels (Shah, 1986, p13). Although the designed crop pattern limited the area of
the profitable crop of sugarcane to only 18 per cent, the actual area in Mohini
Command exceeded 85 per cent (Patil and Datye, 1986, p4).
When a high-powered task force visited the Kakrapar Command in 1983, the
cooperative visited was almost certainly Mohini. The task force chairman, S. P.
Mukerji, the Secretary of Agriculture, wrote:
Much has been talked about the water cooperatives in this Command. Unfortunately,
we were not very much impressed by our visit and discussions with the members of a
water cooperative society. The cooperative covers only 440 hectares around a sugar mill
and most of the area has been brought under sugarcane... The cooperative has been a
method by these farmers to obtain water in bulk at a concessional rate and distribute the
same amongst the members for production of sugarcane under the overall protective
umbrella and support of the local sugar mill. (MOA, 1984, p64)The low water rate and the heavy reliance on sugarcane gave both society and
farmers favourable financial margins. Perhaps, most important of all, before the
society was formed, irregular water supplies from the main system adversely
affected farming, but with the society a reliable and adequate supply was assured.
Indeed, it would have been an unusually imprudent EE or Deputy EE who did not
go to pains to ensure a good water supply to an area which attracted such frequent
visitors and so much national attention.
An impression easily grew that there were other functioning water cooperatives
like Mohini. V. S. Sinha (1984, p264) reported the registration of a second coop-
erative, the Dhanori Changa Piyat Sahakari Mandli, and a demand in 1982 for 37
more. In 1986, 21 water cooperative societies were reported to have been regis-
tered in the Ukai-Kakrapar Command Area, and two were said to have started
functioning in 1985 (Shah, 1986, p14). But one authority, while supporting the