Introduction

Irrigation policies and interventions until recently never demanded distinctions between categories of water users. The thrust of irrigation development was to make more water available for agriculture as warranted by geographical patterns. There was obviously little concern over which particular communities and social groups needed access to water. It was a matter of even less concern which households gained benefit from such huge public expenditure, leave alone which members of the household. This process had therefore totally overlooked any opportunity for women farmers to claim rights to water. Recent attempts to sensitise irrigation management have simply been translated into designing gender-sensitive systems – building washing spaces and bathing areas in the proximity of the canals. This, it is claimed, has helped in meeting rural women's practical needs, which are governed by the socio-cultural context within which the gender division of labour has evolved (Kulkarni and Rao, 2002).

Whereas it is important to address women's practical concerns, it is equally important to ensure that while doing so, gender-specific roles are not perpetuated.

It therefore becomes critical that policy design should not simply go by the actual uses of water by women, but rather by the possible uses if entitlements were given to women. The fear or the unwillingness of policy makers and planners to openly intervene within the private family sphere is as evident in the water sector as anywhere else.