Keywords

8.1 Introduction

The wellbeing of small-scale fishing populations depends on a combination of environmental, economic and social conditions. After all, if the fish on which livelihoods depend are unavailable, economic circumstances are defective, and social relations are disturbed, small-scale fishers and their households inevitably face hard times. It is the task of governors to prevent such disruption and, if it occurs nonetheless, to find solutions. This is one side of what is known as the ‘social contract’ between rulers and those who are ruled (Rousseau 1994). Social contract theory has a long history and is generally, but not only, applied to describe the ideal-typical relations between government and its citizens. In this chapter, I take it as starting point for analysing the role of community-based fisher institutions with regard to the wellbeing of ‘their’ members. I examine the latter from the perspective of wellbeing thinking, which distinguishes material, relational and subjective dimensions (Coulthard et al. 2011). I am interested in the wellbeing outcomes of ur panchayat work, and also in processes and structured relationships of local governance (ibid.: 458–9). My lens is necessarily partial, largely ignoring the role of national and global actors and processes in fisher wellbeing.

Agrawal (2003) has rightly pointed out that community-based organizations rarely meet standards of fairness and consensuality (cf. Leach et al. 1999). Instead, he notes the importance of understanding political relations of domination and resistance, arguing that: “a greater focus on how power works within communities and in the governance of common-pool resources can help strengthen greatly the force of writings on common property” (Agrawal 2003:258). I will contend that although power differences inevitably play a role in fishing communities too, the legitimacy of community organizations depends on the extent to which they are felt to address, if not resolve, general wellbeing issues. The activities of these organizations can thus be held to reflect, if imperfectly, the wellbeing concerns of their membership. A study of the interaction between community-organizations and the fishing population therefore throws light on values that are considered important.

My focus is on the fishing village councils, or ur panchayats, of the coast of Tamil Nadu. These organisations, which have roots in the caste-based structure of Indian society, are comprehensive and multi-facetted. Ur panchayats constitute a form of what Macaulay (1986) termed ‘private government’, and work with clear notions of territorial prerogative and citizenship. As such, they are partially in competition with government agencies, with which they make up a complicated arrangement of legal pluralism (Benda-Beckmann 2002). By studying the performance of ur panchayats, I hope to throw light on the range of their members’ well-being concerns and also highlight the variations that occur.

It is not only the wellbeing concerns of fishers that I will dwell upon, however. Government officials working at the interface with the fishing population have a singular appreciation of the workings of ur panchayats, and it is with a reflection on officials’ subjective wellbeing that this chapter concludes. This consideration is in line with the suggestion in Chap. 1 (this volume) that small-scale fisheries and its institutions have value for other parties in society too.

My ethnographic research on fisheries in Tamil Nadu commenced in the mid-1990s (Bavinck 2001) and has continued at regular intervals until the present day. The present chapter draws particularly on a one-month study in Nagapattinam and Karaikal districts that was conducted in the context of the implementation of FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fishing (FAO 2015; Jentoft 2014). This region was chosen for its institutional density and evidence of historical connectivity between fishing settlements. In order to understand the possible variety of roles of ur panchayats, about which very little prior information was available,Footnote 1 I made a random sample of every tenth fishing settlement along this coast, leading to a total of five villages. In addition, I added the traditional head village of the region (see below) to the selection. A total of 24–30 h was spent in each village, observing activities on the landing site, and having informal conversations in Tamil with a variety of inhabitants,Footnote 2 including at least two members of each ur panchayat. I often (but not always) pencilled notes while talking, typing out a fuller report that same day. A short survey of each ur panchayat included questions on structure, scope and activities. I also spoke to local dignitaries such as the fisheries cooperative president, Gram PanchayatFootnote 3 president, and school headmasters. The final days of research were spent visiting key fisher organizations in the region, attending a fisher meeting, and conducting interviews with government officials. I lastly made an analysis of the data according to topic, discussing results with my Indian colleagues in FishMARC.Footnote 4

Two caveats are in order. Firstly, this study did not allow for a structured assessment of the subjective wellbeing of the fishers concerned or their individual opinions of the ur panchayat. I am assuming that the issues that come to the ur panchayats’ notice are ones that are relevant for the wellbeing of their fisher constituencies. Whether the ur panchayats actually meet expectations is a different matter, however, and deserves separate study.

The second caveat is that the Nagapattinam and Karaikal region is characterized by fishing settlements that gather together small-scale as well as semi-industrial fishers. As ur panchayats are responsible for entire village populations, it is often difficult to distinguish their specific function for small-scale fishers.

8.2 Fishing Communities along the Coromandel Coast

The Coromandel Coast of Tamil Nadu runs from Point Calimere in the south to the border with Andhra Pradesh in the north and has a length of approximately 400 km (see Fig. 8.1). This coastline contains 237 fishing settlements with a total fisher population of 300,000 (CMFRI 2012), almost all of which belongs to the Pattinavar group. The Pattinavar constitute a traditional ocean fishing caste (Bharati 1999; Bavinck 2001) that has occupied the Coromandel Coast for many generations and possesses a strong system of self-governance. Their settlements are relatively small (500–5000 persons) and homogeneous, with single-caste occupation being the norm. Fishing has traditionally been carried out with small, beach-landing craft called kattumaram and a variety of small-scale fishing gears. Ever since the 1960s, however, the government of Tamil Nadu has promoted the use of semi-industrial fishing vessels, or mechanized boats, based in new harbour settings. Along the northern part of this coast, this has resulted in a segregation of small-scale and then semi-industrial fisheries. Along the southern section of the Coromandel coast, however, cohabitation of semi-industrial and small-scale fishers continues. The post-tsunami rehabilitation of fisheries along this coastline has also precipitated a replacement of kattumarams by small, motorized, fibre-glass boats.

Fig. 8.1
figure 1

Research locations in Nagapattinam and Karaikal Districts, Tamil Nadu

Full size image

Nagapattinam District covers the southern section of the Coromandel Coast and extends southward past Point Calimere into the Palk Bay. Karaikal District adjoins Nagapattinam District in the north and belongs not to Tamil Nadu but to the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Both districts were badly affected by the tsunami of 2004 (Salagrama 2006). Relief and rehabilitation organizations working in this region expressed surprise at the strength of ur panchayats and at their constructive role in the post-disaster phase (Gomathy 2006; Bavinck 2008; Bavinck et al. 2015a, b).

8.3 Ur Panchayats: Structures and Processes

Mandelbaum (1970) points out three meanings for the concept of ‘panchayat’ in India: it is (1) the village council, (2) the village meeting which makes decisions, and (3) the process of consensual decision-making that is followed. He notes that the village meeting is “a council of peers” (1970:291), hereby emphasizing the egalitarian ethos that permeates panchayat proceedings. This spirit of egalitarianism, that coincides with what is often found in fishing communities throughout the world (McGoodwin 2001), typifies village life in the geographical region under consideration. In the following, we use the term panchayat to refer primarily to the council that is ‘in charge’ of fisher affairs in each fishing village. It is to be noted that such councils are found in many other parts of the South Indian coastline too.

The ur panchayats of Nagapattinam-Karaikal have historically consisted of at least three levels, all of which have carried into the present. They are nowadays strongest at the base or settlement (Tamil: ur) level, and this is the aspect to which we will pay most attention. The next level nowadays coincides with the taluk (or sub-district). There are five such groupings in the Nagapattinam-Karaikal region, with one ur panchayat in each grouping playing the role of talai gramam (head village). The fisher population view villages that possess this status as having more power, either because of their population count, or because of their economic wealth and influence. In case of sub-regional issues that need addressing, it is the head village that calls (or is requested to call) a meeting.

The final layer includes the fishing population of the region as a whole, and is known as the Fisher Organization of Nagapattinam (Nagapattinam Miinavar Amaippu). Its jurisdiction coincides more or less with a remembered coastal unit of 64-villages, which is held to derive from Chola times (XIIth century). Nowadays, however, it unites all 58 fishing settlements along this coastline (including those from Karaikal). The traditional head of this organization is the ur panchayat of Nambiarnagar. More recently, however, this position has been usurped by nearby Akkaraipettai. Although the transition is contested, the underlying causes are clear: Akkaraipettai hosts the largest, and richest, mechanized boat fisher population of the region; the fact that theTamil Nadu Minister of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries at the time of research came from Akkaraipettai provided its ur panchayat with additional power and authority.

The sub-regional and regional organizations come to life only upon necessity, and their powers are limited. In Sect. 8.6, I discuss how these organizations struggle to deal with some of the larger challenges affecting the fishing population of the region.

The ur panchayats in our sample range in size from 5 to 22 men, with an average age of 41 years. Although all members belong to the Pattinavar fishing caste and live in their respective villages, not all of them are active fishers – some have in fact during their lifetimes diversified into other occupations. In the past, many of the fishing villages of this region possessed hereditary leaders called naaddaar, but these have almost ubiquitously been pushed aside; it is now the undifferentiated council that rules. None of the ur panchayats under study have functions such as president or secretary; the only exception is the appointment of one or two members to take charge of money matters.

Ur panchayats form the pinnacle of a village society that is made up of various family groupings and residential units (Bavinck 2001). In fact, it is these groupings and units that appoint representatives into the ur panchayat, with various qualities guiding selection: level of education, experience in fishing, ability to articulate ideas well, size of following, and connections to the outside world. For purposes of taxation, ur panchayats make use of a variety of membership lists. Traditionally these lists include the names of all adult fishers; in some of the case study villages this list has been broadened to include all male income-earners (aal vari), whereas in others the ur panchayat has taken recourse to the government’s list of ration-card holders, the membership of fisheries cooperative societies, a list of vessel owners, the number of houses in the settlement (viidduvari), the types of nets owned, or a combination of all these. Some councils auction the right to tax villagers to the highest bidding local businessman. The timing of taxes on individuals or households nowadays generally coincides with the government’s distribution of welfare benefits (such as the savings-cum-relief scheme and the off-season relief scheme), when households all have cash at hand. Such taxation provides ur panchayats with a financial base – a prerequisite for any kind of self-government.

Although the hereditary system of naaddaar has generally disappeared, it has not been replaced by open elections. Rather, most ur panchayats opt for a system of nomination, in which past members play a major role. It is important to note that women are universally excluded from participation in ur panchayats, despite recent urgings by NGOs and – in rare cases – village women themselves. Women are generally also not allowed to participate in village meetings, but are represented through their menfolk. This is not always, however, appreciated. In Kalikuppam, for example, fisher women complained that ur panchayat members did not show interest in the things which bothered women most, such as the solid waste that collects in village streets. Women in Vanavanmahadevi also grumbled that ur panchayat members were not listening to them sufficiently.

Counsellors’ (panchayataar) terms of office vary substantially, with some villages setting maximum terms of 2 or 3 years, while others allow for continuation, depending on public support and the candidate’s individual disposition. All villages, however, allow for the instant dismissal of panchayataar, which sometimes occurs even within months of appointment. Improper financial management is one of the most common reasons for dismissal. All ur panchayats provide for the public scrutiny of accounts at least once a year.

Ur panchayats rely largely on ‘voluntary labour’ for carrying out their tasks. Thus the members of these councils are officially not paid (although they can profit from secondary benefits). Moreover, many of their decisions are implemented not by specialized staff, but by the village population itself. Still all ur panchayats employ at least one person: a village crier, known as kudipillai, who conveys messages to the population by word of mouth or by modern (loudspeaker) means. Many ur panchayats also pay a priest to take care of temple rituals. In addition, each village traditionally has people who play a role in rituals of marriage, coming of age and death. Some ur panchayats employ additional staff for cleaning the landing site, or even public space in the settlement as a whole.

The array of sanctions in the ur panchayat toolbox has changed over the years, with corporal punishment largely having been replaced by monetary fines. These fines can be quite substantial, depending on the transgression at hand. In addition, the ur panchayats possess means of ‘public shaming’ and, in extreme cases, excommunication from village society. Ur panchayats also have the option of proclaiming a stop on fishing, such as for the purpose of village meetings and other important events.

In the end, ur panchayats’ influence depends firstly on their jurisdiction over the fishing population. The legitimacy of their authority rests largely on a shared, historical identity of belonging to the same caste and community. It is in this perspective that the ur panchayat is an expression of social contract, with authority delegated to its council for the common good. The increasing integration of villages in larger societal wholes and the corresponding decline of their homogeneity obviously puts pressure on the ability of ur panchayats to exercise social control– the decline of their authority is most clear in urbanizing environments. In these contexts ur panchayats are gradually losing influence to other actors, such as political parties, government agencies, etc. But even those living in urbanized settings understand that ur panchayats have a crucial role to play, if only for their protection against outside forces.

Ur panchayats’ authority also depends on their continued control over coastal and marine space. Thus village lands are generally still held collectively under ur panchayat jurisdiction.Footnote 5 Other coastal lands, officially registered as porombookku (waste lands), are part of their unofficial sphere of influence, with new users of coastal space having to take account of panchayat claims. Ur panchayats also control beaches adjoining fishing settlements, and adjacent marine waters too. Although no ur panchayat in a right frame of mind would think of excluding other fishers from what they see as ‘their waters’ (as this would also lock their own fishers in), all ur panchayats in this region claim the right – in principle – to regulate whatever fishing goes on in contiguous waters. Many current frustrations derive from this right being violated. I return to this situation below.

Until now I have assumed the legitimacy of ur panchayats amongst their settlement populations, and their authority over local affairs. Although other research along this coastline (Bavinck 2001) has demonstrated the possibility of crisis in such self-governed entities, none of the sample villages in this study was severely factionalized.Footnote 6 There is evidence, however, of ur panchayats in the region being dominated by individuals (or groupings thereof), and of the presence of cliques with different priorities.

8.4 A Typology of Ur Panchayats

All of the fishing settlements in our sample currently possess a well-functioning (in contrast to a conflict-ridden) ur panchayat. These ur panchayats vary from each other, however, on dimensions of structure, scope, and activity, and can loosely be positioned on a scale ranging from ‘traditional’ to ‘modern’ (see Fig. 8.2).Footnote 7 ‘Structure’ refers to counsellors’ background in fishing or in newer occupations. ‘Scope‘ pertains to the evident breadth of ur panchayats’ concerns: the level of their involvement in internal social matters and fisheries issues and the availability of an orientation toward the outside world. ‘Activity’ distinguishes more traditional roles (such as interference with inter-caste marriage) with modern tasks (such as accessing government programmes).

Fig. 8.2
figure 2

Position of research locations on a scale from ‘traditional’ to ‘modern’

Full size image

On the left side of the scale we find the ur panchayats of Vanavanmahadevi and Keezhmoovarkarai. The composition of their councils is ‘traditional’ in the sense that they consist almost completely of fishers. These ur panchayats take upon themselves a wide range of tasks and play a strong role in community affairs. Their traditional concerns emerge from examples of interference in marriage relations. They are also heavily involved in fisher dispute regulation and rule-making.

The ur panchayat of Chinnangudi is on the other side of the spectrum. The leaders here are well-educated and have largely moved out of fishing. Their interests have shifted to handling the relations between the village and the outside world, and in accessing relevant governmental programmes. The concerns of fishing concomitantly receive less attention. Still this ur panchayat assumes prime authority over local affairs. It implements a public sanitation programme, one of only a few ur panchayats to do so.

Other ur panchayats occupy middle positions on the scale from traditional to modern, thereby confirming their institutional dynamism and a very local centre of gravity. Whereas more remote settlements tend to have more traditional ur panchayats, and settlements located close to urban centres have more ‘modern’ ur panchayats, this pattern does not, however, always run true. Other factors – which lie, however, beyond the scope of this chapter - seem to play an intermediary role.

8.5 Changing Wellbeing Functions

Ur panchayat activities can be categorized in various ways, none of which are infallible or exclusive. I divide their internal wellbeing functions into three realms: social, economic and environmental. Each realm has material and relational dimensions (Coulthard et al. 2011). As mentioned above, I do not explicitly study the subjective dimension of wellbeing in this chapter, although I believe that it shows through repeatedly in statements made to ur panchayats (see Boxes 8.1 and 8.2) as well as to myself. Ur panchayats also play an important role with regard to the outside world, connecting with, or defending against, government. This then is the fourth realm to be discussed.

8.5.1 Social Realm of Wellbeing

Ur panchayats’ prime responsibility – and the ultimate justification for their work – is social in nature and can be formulated generally as ‘care for the settlement’s population’. This concern expresses itself in various ways. From a financial viewpoint, the largest outlay any ur panchayat in the region makes is for the annual village temple festival, which lasts several days and draws crowds from the wider environs. The costs of these festivals in the sample villages vary from Rs 500,000 to 2 million per year (US$ 8–32,000). Festivals are partly a matter of status and identity. They also follow, however, from the conviction that the local female deity is to be suitably propitiated if she is to take care of the village population. Neglect can have harmful consequences, whereas lavish celebration is expected to have real economic and social benefits. Besides a local deity, each settlement also counts supernatural beings relevant for fishing (Bavinck 2015b). Attention for these beings promotes safety at sea as well as the possibility of good catches. It is for all these reasons that the religious activities of ur panchayats cannot be dissociated from the inhabitants’ sense of wellbeing, and from the hope and expectation of continued wealth from the sea.

Traditionally, as Mandelbaum (1970) points out, the caste-related panchayats of India have a role to play in protecting the purity of their caste and its members. Thus the more traditional ur panchayats of Nagapattinam-Karaikal continue to discourage inter-caste and so-called love marriages, and watch carefully over the integrity of their womenfolk. For example, in a recent case involving three young men from Poombuhar who were accused of intimidating a woman from Keezhmoovarkarai, the ur panchayat imposed a fine on each of Rs 50,000 (US$ 800).

Ur panchayats can also encourage or discourage rural-rural migration of fisherfolk by imposing demands on those wishing to settle in a fishing village. The ur panchayat in Vanavanmahadevi thus has the habit of questioning any would-be immigrant severely, afraid that they might introduce unwanted habits and behaviours.

Dispute-resolution is one of the ur panchayats’ main responsibilities. In the fishing settlements of the study region it is generally understood that – with the exception of serious offences like murder – disputes are preferably handled by the ur panchayat and not by the police (which is felt to bring about serious losses in terms of money and time). Fines are actually imposed on those who, without prior consent, do lodge a case at the police station. Here the function of defending the village population against the interference of state agencies – and of maintaining the authority of the ur panchayat - comes to the fore. It is interesting to note that the police often revert cases back to the ur panchayats, thereby acknowledging the latter’s role in dispute management. Of importance are also the cases where ur panchayats act to discourage violence between inhabitants. In Keezhmoovarkarai, for example, the ur panchayat recently fined a drunken man severely for having drawn a knife in a quarrel.

The range of disputes handled by ur panchayats is wide and reflects the variety of conflicts that characterize closely-knit rural communities. Box 8.1 provides an example of the cases that I was able to observe on the day that I attended an ur panchayat meeting. The majority of cases are local in nature. Others, however, involve parties outside the local settlement and are addressed in alliance with other ur panchayats. In some cases, an ur panchayat goes no further than writing a letter to colleagues in another village drawing their attention and requesting action on a particular case (such as assuring that so-and-so repays his debt). Other matters have broader implications and require joint panchayat sessions or the involvement of the so-called head village of the taluk. Where issues have a bearing on the region as a whole, leaders may actually request a meeting of the Fisher Organization of Nagapattinam. The introduction of ringseines is one such instance, which I discuss below.

Box 8.1 Examples of Ur Panchayat Case Deliberations

I paid a visit to the ur panchayat of Nambiarnagar, that congregates in a community hall on the main street, on the morning of November 5th, 2013. The ur panchayat of this village officially consists of 17 members, representing each of the five streets. This morning, however, only seven members have gathered to hear whatever cases are brought forward. The hall has been arranged by the kudipillai, who otherwise plays a supportive role. A number of chairs are positioned at the front for the councillors, with petitioners coming forward to present their cases. Decisions are noted in a leather-bound record book. Jeyabal, a man of approximately 50 years, plays the lead role, with younger men sitting to the side. In the hour that I spend with them, the following cases are brought forward:

  1. 1.

    A well-dressed woman, who turns out not to be the complainant but an intermediary, comes forward and states that a loan that was given for taking a share in a ringseine net has not been repaid. The councillors discuss but there are different accounts of to whom the money should go, so they decide to postpone a decision and do more investigation.

  2. 2.

    A man comes forward to complain that he is not on the list of recipients of the Fisheries Department’s subsidy scheme. He is scolded by one of the younger councillors: “How dare you go to the Fisheries Department without first coming here? “The ur panchayat decides to have the kudipillai make an announcement: tomorrow at 10 am everyone who has not received money should visit the ur panchayat bringing relevant documents.

  3. 3.

    A woman grumbles that an earlier decision by the ur panchayat about the location of a garden wall is not being accepted by her neighbour. The ur panchayat decides to send the kudipillai to inform the neighbour to cooperate. If he doesn’t, the ur panchayat suggests that it will personally oversee the construction of the wall.

  4. 4.

    A man complains that a loan which he gave to a person not living in the village has not been returned. One of the councillors reproaches him: “Why have you gone to ask for repayment again, while I myself promised to go after this! I hereby give you a Rs 3000 (US$48) fine!” But Jeyabal intervenes: “let him apologize instead.” The man stands, folds his arms before him in a gesture of obedience and asks for forgiveness.

  5. 5.

    A man comes forward. He represents a group of four trawl owners who have given catches worth Rs 520,000 (US$ 8320) to an outside trader, who has not paid up. He is questioned: “Why did you give so much fish to the man without asking for a down payment?” The man: “We have worked with him previously, and he has always paid up.” A councillor: “What do you expect us to do? If we send a letter to the trader’s panchayat it will take time to get a response!” The man: “Please do send a letter.”

Most of the functions discussed above belong to ur panchayats’ traditional array of tasks. To this set have been added a number of new ones. The fishing population of the region has now recognized the value of education for children’s ability to diversify into other employment sectors. Education levels are therefore rising for boys and girls alike. Ur panchayats’ role in this process is, however, sometimes remarkable. Thus in Kalikuppam the ur panchayat has committed itself firmly to supporting the government-funded, elementary school in the village. Not only is it obliging parents to send their children to this and not to other schools in the vicinity; it pays the salary of a supplementary teacher, contributes additional school materials, and helps make public events a success. This ur panchayat is exceptional in its promotion of education, but there is evidence that other ur panchayats too respond to needs as they emerge in the context of parent-teacher relations.

Sanitation is the other field in which ur panchayats are making a mark. While post-tsunami housing programmes tried to address the sanitation needs of individual households by providing toilets and drainage facilities, solid waste management has remained a problem in many fishing villages. Following pilot projects initiated by NGOs in the post-tsunami period, two of the case study ur panchayats are now organizing (and paying for) the collection and disposal of solid waste, obviously contributing to public health. But such involvement is not universal, such as reflected in the attitude of women in Kalikuppam mentioned above.

8.5.2 Economic and Environmental Realms of Wellbeing

With the majority of their populations depending on fishing and fish trading for a livelihood, the ur panchayats of the Nagapattinam-Karaikal coast naturally involve themselves in fisheries matters. Dispute management was already discussed in Sect. 8.5.1. Every person I spoke to in the region, including government officers, agrees that the disputes that take place over fishing matters – the quarrels over nets getting entangled or vessels damaged, the fish that has been bought but not paid for, the loans that are not settled – are brought to ur panchayats for resolution and nowhere else. Here again, if such disputes involve parties outside the village, other ur panchayats are involved.

The rule-setting behaviour of ur panchayats is structurally significant. Bavinck and Karunaharan (2006) have noted that ur panchayats along the Coromandel Coast have a strong history of regulating gears that they feel are harmful to the profession. Although this tradition appears to have declined in the Nagapattinam-Karaikal region with the emergence of semi-industrial fishing in the midst of small-scale fishing populations, it is still practiced. Thus four of the six sample villages have banned the use of the snail net (sanguvalai, or kachaavalai), which is also prohibited along the northern Coromandel Coast (cf. Bavinck 1996, 2014). The use of this net is felt to interfere with the marine food chain and causes the disappearance of species that are important for fisher livelihoods. Additionally this net is expected to have a negative effect on elderly fishers who depend the most inshore on fishing grounds. As the snail net is always set close to shore, elderly fishers will suffer most from its environmental impact.

The most significant evidence of ur panchayats’ concern for regulating harmful fishing gear derives, however, from the current debate on the prohibition of pair trawls and ring seines. Some villages have actually prohibited these gears, while others are more permissive. The discussion that takes place over these matters at the regional scale is fierce and still undecided.

While prohibition of gears constitutes one form of regulation, the prevention of negative interactions with other gear types is another. Thus the small-scale fishers of Keezhmoovarkarai, who depend on longlining, have successfully intervened with nearby trawl centres to limit trawl fishing in the inshore zone. And in the 26-village ur panchayat meeting that took place in Tharangambadi on November 8, 2013, the same village negotiated a clause that limits ringseine fishing in the areas in which longlining is also taking place.

Keezhmoovarkarai presents the clearest example of ur panchayats regulating the market at the landing site. After a marketing cooperative run by a NGO was put on hold over a financial matter, the ur panchayat appointed a supervisor to structure the sales process and make sure that traders pay their suppliers within 24 h. In addition it employed some men and women to clean the marketing hall on a daily basis. For these services the ur panchayat charges traders 5% of the sales value.

Safety at sea is an issue of key concern for small-scale fishers: what if an engine fails or the men – for whatever reason – do not return to shore as expected? In these circumstances, ur panchayats take charge of organizing the rescue operations. An example of this is an event in where rough weather caused two crew members in a fibreglass boat from Vanavanmahadevi to be thrown overboard in February 2013. The ur panchayat immediately organized a search party of local fishers, which, however, was unsuccessful. It then rented three trawlers for a total of Rs 30,000 (US$ 480) to continue the search. The corpses of the two fishers were eventually located many kilometres to the south.

8.5.3 Promoting Wellbeing Through Interventions with Government

I have described in previous sections how ur panchayats manage their own affairs. With the development of state power and influence in the coastal zone, other qualities have, however, come to the fore. The relevance of the outside world for fisher affairs manifested itself most clearly in the post-tsunami period, when relief and rehabilitation were important concerns. It was then that ur panchayats realized the relevance of having representatives capable of negotiating with outside agencies, and replaced older, illiterate leaders with younger men who had been to school and knew how to talk to officials (Gomathy 2006; Bavinck et al. 2015a).

Interventions of ur panchayats with government can be divided into two types. The first type is directed towards maintaining village autonomy and protecting villagers from untoward interference. The rule of discouraging the involvement of the police in village matters – mentioned above - is one expression hereof. Ur panchayats similarly guard their autonomy vis-à-vis other government agencies, such as the Fisheries Department. I noted in Box 8.1 that a counsellor in Nambiarnagar scolded a fisher for having approached the Fisheries Department directly, rather than having done so through the ur panchayat.

The other intervention type is aimed at obtaining access to crucial government services. The Fisheries Department is currently the key agency for a variety of fisher welfare schemes, as well as for the distribution of fishing material and the realization of projects such as harbour sites. It is important also for matters such as the registration and licensing of boats. Ur panchayats are therefore well aware of the persons who occupy positions such as of Fisheries Inspector and Assistant-Director, and approach them directly or indirectly if needed. Box 8.2 provides evidence of the range of mediations that ur panchayats carry out with regard to government departments.

Box 8.2 Example of Ur Panchayat Mediations with Government

The ur panchayat of Karaikalmedu, a large fishing village on the outskirts of the town of Karaikal, is well-organized. Its office, located on the temple square, contains an orderly set of files and a blackboard noting the prescribed fisher holidays of the year. The kudipillai also makes use of an advanced loudspeaker system to inform villagers of important matters. On the evening of November 4th, 2013, I visited the office and noted the following engagements with government departments. Four council members, including two elder men, were present.

  1. 1.

    Two villagers come forward to ask for a recommendation letter for the Electricity Board. The Electricity Board apparently requires proof of identity and residence in the village. The ur panchayat asks the kudipillai to draw up a letter that is immediately signed and dispatched.

  2. 2.

    A young man has bought a small-scale fishing boat from his brother, but it has not been officially registered in his name. The Fisheries Department is now handing out ice boxes free of cost, but only to official owners. Could the ur panchayat provide him with a letter testifying to his ownership? The councillors verify whether the young man is registered with the village cooperative society, and then issue a letter immediately.

  3. 3.

    A man requests a letter testifying to his residence, so that he can apply as a member of the village cooperative society. This would make him eligible for various schemes of the Fisheries Department.

  4. 4.

    A group of men come in to complain about the delayed allocation of governmental relief funds regarding the 45-day closed season in April/May. One of the councillors explains that there has been some mix-up at the Fisheries Department, and that they should now re-apply for these funds. He promises that they will receive the money.

  5. 5.

    Another group of residents complains that the money due under the Fisheries Department’s saving-cum-relief scheme of 2011 has not yet been distributed. The ur panchayat orders the kudipillai to make a public announcement asking all eligible villagers to resubmit their documents. The kudipillai is then to ascertain who has not received the stipulated fund; the ur panchayat will then make sure that it is obtained. However, a councillor warns those who have gone directly to the Fisheries Department to complain about this matter not to do so ever again; in that case they would be fined by the ur panchayat.

Other government agencies provide a range of supplementary services. Gram Panchayats are responsible for local roads, provision of water, and street lights. They also coordinate government schemes such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) and Members of Parliament (MP) are useful for tabling a variety of bigger village needs, whether it is a health facility, a school, solid waste collection, or a solution for the rising price of fuel. Ur panchayats constitute the prime fisher platform for deciding on and instigating such action.

8.6 Engaging with ‘Hot’ Fisheries Issues

In this section I sketch the role of ur panchayats with regard to two hot small-scale fishing issues. The first is pair trawling. The government of Tamil Nadu introduced pair trawling for schools of pelagic fish in the late 1980s but prohibited it again in the year 2000, following vehement protests from small-scale fishers throughout the state. In the meantime, however, it had been adopted by a limited number of trawl owners in harbour towns like Nagapattinam. These owners enjoy the patronage of politicians and administrators and have continued operations despite the ban. Small-scale fishers have protested vehemently, arguing that pair trawling depletes the marine environment and is moreover very unfair, providing benefits to only a limited category of fishers. The second hot issue is the practice of ringseining. Ringseining has come to this coastline from Kerala, where it has been carried out since the 1980s. Although ringseining too is officially banned, a growing number of small-scale fishers (in collectives) and some trawl operators are taking it up.

The nature of the dispute differs importantly from one gear to the other. Pair trawling in this region is practised by only a small group of large trawl owners with political support: its locus lies in harbour towns. Ringseining, however, is largely carried out by groups of small-scale fishermen, and results in social conflicts within the small-scale fishing population. Whereas pair trawling fishers blame ringseiners for the problems occurring in fishing and the other way around, ringseining tends to be a divisive issue within the small-scale fishing population itself. Table 8.1 contains provisional figures on the current scale of ringseining in Nagapattinam-Karaikal.

Table 8.1 Ringseine (RS) activity in Nagapattinam-Karaikal (N = 58)
Full size table

Table 8.1 demonstrates that although the number of settlements in which ringseining was occurring at the time of research still made up a sizeable minority, it might well develop soon into a majority. The reason for this is that the technique of ringseining is extremely popular among small-scale fishers due to the promise of large economic returns. These stand in contrast to the decline of earnings from most other kinds of fishing in the region. Still, many fishers, and their ur panchayats, have serious reservations about ringseining, arguing that it results in a decline of total biomass and benefits a few to the exclusion of many. It is for this reason that a number of ur panchayats have actually banned the use of the gear. But ur panchayats are also gathering at higher institutional levels to discuss the matter.

A 64-village ur panchayat meeting was, for example, held in Nagapattinam in May 2013 to discuss the future of pair trawling and ringseining in the region. While the gathering decided to prohibit pair trawling with immediate effect, ringseiners were given 3 years to phase out their operations. These decisions were put to paper, with all delegations adding a signature to the agreement. Implementation of both measures is proving hard, however. As far as ringseining is concerned, there is significant momentum for actually increasing – not decreasing - the number of operations. The ur panchayat of the head village of Tarangambadi Taluk, a village of the same name, thus organized a meeting on November 8, 2013, about the fact that its fishers would like to commence eight new ringseines in 2014. This meeting was attended by representatives of the constituent ur panchayats; it decided to allow the new ringseines for 2 years (until the deadline stipulated by the 64-village agreement), but only in locations where it would not interfere with the operation of other fishing gears. This compromise is indicative of the manifold dilemmas involved. Various respondents voiced serious reservations about the likelihood that ringseining would actually be eliminated in 2016 as planned.

8.7 Ur Panchayats’ Value for Government Bureaucrats

In the previous pages I concentrated attention on the role of ur panchayats for village fishers, highlighting where possible their relevance for the small-scale sector in particular. I have also noted how these institutions stand at the interface with government, defending and enhancing village interests. Section 8.3 referred to the fact that in the wake of the 2004 tsunami, relief and rehabilitation organizations expressed open admiration for the performance of ur panchayats. But in normal life too, ur panchayats have significance for the outside world.

Bavinck (2015a) discusses a case of fisher conflict along the northern Coromandel Coast, which brought in the Fisheries Department and the Police Department too. In this publication I argue that:

Fisheries Department officers have bad memories of times they have tried to steer events in fishing communities, only to find that their often well-intended efforts generated waves of resistance. Time and time again, Department officers stress with experience that fisheries regulations must emanate from the fishers themselves if they are to be successful. Otherwise, the officers explained, regulations would likely be dead on arrival. Introducing measures that lacked fishers’ support was overplaying one’s hand (Bavinck 2015a: 119).

This tactical reasoning seems to hold true for government officials in the Nagapattinam-Karaikal region too. Besides being considered generally more effective, the relegation of many village affairs to ur panchayats also reduces the burden of officers tremendously. By leaving fisheries disputes to ur panchayats to handle, the police and the government courts are relieved of unwanted responsibilities. The same holds true for the delegation of many Fisheries Department affairs. The fact that the always over-burdened officials of this department rarely visit the coast, but rather let ur panchayat leaders visit them, is an expression of the entrusting of many practical matters to these institutions.

8.8 Concluding Remarks

I have situated this case study on the role of community-based fisher organizations, or ur panchayats, in the Nagapattinam-Karaikal region within the parameters of social contract and wellbeing theory. My argument has been that these organizations, like ideal-typical state governments, have an obligation to guard over and promote the collective wellbeing of their village populations. Indeed, I have noted that councillors are easily replaced when they are felt to be lacking.

I pointed out four realms in which ur panchayats realize wellbeing outcomes: social affairs, economic affairs, environmental affairs, and relations with government. Box 8.1 provides examples of occurrences addressed by ur panchayats in the social and economic realms. Box 8.2 illustrates the variegated functions ur panchayats play in mediating between villagers and a variety of government agencies. Their environmental role emerged primarily in their fisheries rule-making activities, with particular issues (pair trawling and ringseining) being contentious and difficult to resolve. In all this, I have pointed out the mix of interests that result from the mingling of small-scale with semi-industrial fisher populations in this region.

The performance of ur panchayats builds on structured relationships between family groupings and their gendered representation in a localized governance structure. This structure achieves solidity from a long and shared maritime profession and a common social identity. Ur panchayats also entertain complementary relations with government agencies, with regular expectations. It is striking to observe the extent to which ur panchayats guard their prerogatives toward government agencies such as the police and the fisheries department.

But ur panchayats are not identical. One of the conspicuous outcomes of this study is the diversity of ur panchayats in terms of structure, scope and activities. I have attempted to bring order to this variety by organizing them on a scale from traditional to modern. The assumption is that their respective village populations will occupy corresponding positions on the same scale. A heterogeneity of values, however, is more than likely with some persons’ wellbeing under a certain ur panchayat being more pronounced than others.

Boxes 8.1 and 8.2, as well as other details in the text point out that wellbeing is, as Coulthard et al. (2011) suggest, a continuously emerging process: a quality that is being realized in interaction between villagers of different kinds and between them and their councillors. To what extent ur panchayats in the Nagapattinam-Karaikal regions are successful in generating subjective wellbeing amongst their village populations is to be investigated further. Preliminary results indicate that their performance is at least appreciated by government officers charged with fisheries affairs.

All this is not to suggest that ur panchayats provide solutions to all of the many challenges facing small-scale fishers in this part of South Asia. Not only has the Blue Revolution that has taken place since the 1950s resulted in a seriously divided and conflictual fishing sector, with important issues of environmental justice arising (Bavinck and Johnson 2008). Environmental degradation and overfishing are important challenges that cannot be addressed by ur panchayats in isolation. Governments perhaps have the lion’s share to take care of. But ur panchayats are definitely playing their part and will hopefully continue to do so in future.