







































Ecology, Economy, and Society–the INSEE Journal 6(2): 237-252, July 2023 

 

RESEARCH PAPER 

Political Ecology of Urban Agricultural Pollution: 

Cultivating the Yamuna Floodplains in Delhi 

Rajat Kumar* 

Abstract: The Yamuna khadar or the floodplains of the river Yamuna in Delhi is a 

deeply contested agrarian space. While thousands have been involved in farming 

these floodplains for decades, contestations over their legality, compensation, land 

use, displacement, and impact on the river, soil, and city have been significant public 

concerns over the last few decades. In this paper, I focus on one aspect of this 

agrarian landscape—the toxicity associated with river water due to the pesticides and 

fertilizers used in agriculture. I examine how toxicity is perceived, discursively 

constructed, and dealt with by differently located stakeholders in this landscape. The 

differently located stakeholders associated with the toxic agrarian landscape of 

Yamuna khadar are not experiencing pollution as a homogenous community, i.e., 

neither all of them see themselves as suffering from pollution nor do they see 

themselves as contributing to the toxicity of the landscape in a similar way.  

Keywords: Toxicity, Commercial agriculture, Floodplain, Uncertainty, Lay 

epidemiology, Urban ecologies. 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Yamuna khadar or the floodplains of the river Yamuna in Delhi, a 22 km 

stretch passing through the city, has historically been cultivated by the 

agrarian castes residing in the villages along the river. With rapid 

urbanization, the site has undergone deagrarianization, i.e., close to 2000 

hectares of agrarian land around the river has been acquired over the last 60 

years for projects like roads, flyovers, metro rails, urban parks, temples, 

Commonwealth Games villages, compensatory afforestation drives, and 

biodiversity conservation projects. However, the acquisition of the land has 

 
* Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, India. 

rajjat.kr@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Kumar 2023. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © NonCommercial 

4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 

Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581–6152 (print); 2581–6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.1052  

 

mailto:rajjat.kr@gmail.com
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v6i2.1052


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [238] 

 

 

not led to the immediate dispossession of agrarian communities from the 

khadar. Indeed, agrarian communities and poor migrant tenants have found 

ways to continue cultivating in the khadar even following the acquisition of 

land, although in a highly precarious manner. This phenomenon can be 

acknowledged as a case of “incremental dispossession” (Oskarsson, Lahiri‐
Dutt, and Wennström 2019), whereby dispossession is not a moment/event 

which is followed by crisis. Instead, it is gradual, intermittent, and 

incremental, and it results in uncertainty and anxieties about dispossession 

among agrarian actors. The process reflects the changing nature of 

agriculture, the agrarian structure, property relations, conflictual claims to 

land, and speculation by agrarian actors. This kind of incremental 

dispossession, over the years, is legitimized via discourses of urbanization, 

development, encroachment by the poor, and (currently) under transnational 

discourses on environmentalism and the “world-class city1”, whereby cities 

of the Global South are understood to be suffering from a crisis of 

underdevelopment, unsustainable urbanization, and ecological disorder 

(Rademacher 2011). In order to overcome this crisis, infrastructural, 

environmental, and recreational projects, which are backed by experts and 

state agencies, take precedence over the land-based livelihood activities of 

agrarian communities and poor migrants (Baviskar 2011; Nagendra 2016). 

Therefore, the Yamuna khadar has become a deeply contested agrarian space. 

While thousands have been farming these floodplains for decades, 

contestations over legality, compensation, land use, displacement, the toxicity 

of the river and groundwater, the quality of vegetables, the soil, and the city 

have been significant topics of public concern in the last few decades. In this 

paper, I focus on only one aspect of this contested agrarian landscape: the 

discourse on the toxicity of the river water, pesticides, and fertilizers used in 

agriculture.  

To understand the contestations around toxicity in the khadar, I analyse the 

National Green Tribunal (NGT) ban2 (discussed in detail in the section 2.1 

of this essay) on cultivation in this region and the reaction of the locals to 

this ban. This decision to ban cultivation is premised upon “expert 

 
1 Phrase taken from Ghertner (2015). 
2 This ban is discussed in detail later. In short, the NGT states that “unless the river is restored 

to its original health, the agricultural activity would result in seriously jeopardising the 

environment as well as human health. The period involved in the restoration (cleaning of river 

and floodplains) under the project approved by the Tribunal is not very long. The prohibition 

of cultivation is not of [a] permanent nature but is only for a limited period of two and a half 

years” (44). The ban was for 2.5 years, but agriculture in the khadar has become more 

precarious since the ban. 



[239] Kumar 

 

 

knowledge,” whose validity is contested by locals. In this paper, I first 

consider how the locals contest the “expert claims”, which are based on 

“scientific evidence” provided by agencies whose reports contradict NGT 

claims. Second, I show how locals also invoke lay epidemiology, which is 

situated within a larger socio-political system based on unequal power 

relations (Lora-Wainwright 2013a). I demonstrate how locals’ experience 

(and definition) of toxicity is influenced by lay epidemiology, which factors 

in existing concerns around livelihood, lack of affordable housing, and so on. 

In doing so, I depart from the existing literature on toxic experiences and 

popular epidemiology (Levine 1982; Brown and Mikkelsen 1990; Cable and 

Walsh 1991), which focuses on disputes wherein locals contest expert 

authorities who claim there is no toxicity. This paper highlights disputes in 

which expert authorities contest locals claiming that there is no toxicity.  

This paper examines how toxicity is socially perceived, discursively 

constructed, and dealt with by differently located stakeholders in the 

landscape. The experience of living with pollution is not homogenous across 

all stakeholders because neither do they all see themselves as suffering 

because of pollution, nor do they see themselves as contributing to it. The 

Yamuna floodplains are not inert spaces. Rather, these contesting 

communities are embedded in the khadar, historically, socially, and 

economically. This paper explores the multiple experiences of toxicity in 

three sections: experts versus cultivators; toxicity and social life; and lay 

epidemiology: uncertainties and toxicities. These sections are preceded by a 

discussion on the methodology, aims, and objectives of this study.  

2. METHODOLOGY 

Between February 2019 and March 2020, I conducted an ethnographic study 

of agrarian communities in the Yamuna khadar to understand how the 

agrarian landscape is produced and experienced in their lives, and how it is 

affected by their understanding of the river, riverine ecology, community 

relations, state politics, urbanization, and market integration. The techniques 

of data collection included participant observation, interviews, life histories, 

and surveys. I examine the changing nature of agriculture and agricultural 

practices, cultivators’ struggles and aspirations, the nature of ownership of 

land and labour relations, planting technologies, changing market demand, 

and the sociality that develops around the agrarian ecology of the khadar.  

My research began with a pilot study of 10 regions in the Yamuna khadar. I 

conducted random surveys and interviews to explore practices of cultivation; 

relationships of cultivators with the land and river, and with local state 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [240] 

 

 

agencies/officers; the experiences accruing from the dirtiness of the river; the 

changing nature of agriculture; property tenurial arrangements, etc. I 

discovered that, firstly, cultivation in the khadar is regulated/facilitated via 

three property tenurial arrangements3 which influences the social ecology of 

this space and vice versa. Secondly, rapid urbanization and the surge of 

migrants from Uttar Pradesh (primarily belonging to the Murav caste),4 in 

recent years, have led to a shift from fodder crops to vegetable cultivation. 

Thirdly, cultivators experience toxicity differently from “experts”. And lastly, 

the acquisition of land for infrastructural and development projects has not 

led to the disappearance of agriculture. Rather, agrarian communities have 

found ways to co-exist with these new developments.  

For the purposes of clarity and rigour, I focus only on the Saapla-Ujjua5 area 

of the khadar, where all the aforementioned trends were observable. I 

surveyed Saapla-Ujjua for two months while also conducting interviews with 

migrants and landowners. My primary respondent was Ganesh, a landowner 

who arranged a jhopdi (shack) on his farm for my stay, thereby facilitating my 

participation in community activities in the khadar. Ganesh’s khet (agrarian 

field), which he rented from Sunil, another landowner, was located along the 

river, and could only be irrigated using the toxic river water. Ganesh 

introduced me to other migrants who had farms adjacent to his, and similarly 

used the toxic river water for irrigation. My interactions with Ganesh, Sunil, 

and other migrants allowed me to gain valuable qualitative insights into my 

field of study.  

Transnational discourses on environmentalism and sustainability emphasize 

that biodiversity parks, clean rivers, afforestation drives, and walkways are 

essential to make cities “liveable”. But how and for whom are cities becoming 

liveable (Gururani 2018)? By focusing on excluded communities, like the 

cultivators in the khadar, this paper highlights the problems of uneven 

development and exclusive urban ecologies. The NGT ban on cultivation—

 
3 There are three types of property tenurial arrangements. The first is dadalai zameen (ancestral 

property), which is privately owned land. Another type is the land that was given on lease by 

the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1949 to farmers of the Delhi Peasants Co-

operative Multipurpose Society; the leases are subject to renewal every 10 years. This society 

became a defaulter in 1966. After many years of judicial struggle, the Supreme Court of India 

asked the farmers to vacate the land on 31 April 2020. The other category is the private land 

which got acquired in 1992 for channelization of the Yamuna River. The DDA, however, 

never took possession of the land. Meanwhile, the farmers got compensated for the land but 

are yet to be dispossessed and continue to cultivate. 
4 Classified as Other Backward Classes in Uttar Pradesh, India, they are gardening castes and 

are excellent at vegetable cultivation. 
5 In this paper, the names of people and places are pseudonyms. 



[241] Kumar 

 

 

and the contestations that followed—allows us to explore these inequities in 

detail. Spaces categorized as toxic by experts and environmentalists can be 

spaces of value for the poor and agrarian communities. Therefore, many 

communities continue to inhabit “toxic” spaces. Bans, of the kind imposed 

by the NGT, make the communities even more vulnerable and precarious. 

By highlighting the multiple experiences of toxicity and contestations around 

the NGT ban, I demonstrate the embeddedness of communities in toxic 

ecologies. To develop inclusive and just ecologies, environmentalist 

discourses must take such embeddedness into account.  

2.1 Experts Versus Cultivators 

Large scale agricultural activity[,] on the river bank or floodplain, is one 

of the glaring examples of indirect impacts of environmental pollution. 

The vegetables grown in these areas, for which the direct source of 

irrigation is the ground water or water flowing in River Yamuna, are 

bound to be contaminated. We have noticed in some detail the serious 

health hazards, including diseases like cancer and other serious diseases 

from which the persons consuming such products may suffer. Thus, the 

agricultural activity needs to be stopped immediately to prevent further 

environmental and health hazards and in any case till the time Yamuna 

is restored to its original status and carries only wholesome water or the 

water which can be used for irrigation purposes, without exposing the 

residents of Delhi to serious diseases and health hazards…pesticides are 

being used and sprayed over the agricultural produce, which only makes 

them worse for human consumption in regard to the injury that they 

would cause to human health. (Manoj Misra & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 

Ors. Original Application No. 6 of 2012 And M.A. Nos. 967/2013 & 

275/2014, 43–4)6.  

“It is the polluted river which will become the reason for our displacement, 

and the irony is that we did not even dirty it. Yamuna was the reason for the 

continuance of our agriculture in the city since no construction could take 

place around the river, but now it will become the reason for our 

displacement.” (Farmer Devki, Interview with author, January 7, 2020) 

In Manoj Misra & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors (Original Application No. 6 

of 2012 And M.A. Nos. 967/2013 & 275/2014; popularly known as NGT 

judgement in Khadar), in 2015, the NGT claimed that vegetables cultivated 

 
6 Available at 

https://nmcg.nic.in/writereaddata/fileupload/ngtmatters/NGT%20judgement%2013.01.15

.pdf. Accessed on 14 April 2023. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [242] 

 

 

in the Yamuna khadar were toxic. Raj Singh, an influential landowner in the 

khadar, questioned the report. During my interactions with him, Raj regularly 

stressed that he had good educational credentials. “Unlike other farmers who 

make emotional arguments, I collect facts which I can use in court to fight 

against unjust organizations like the NGT and [Delhi Development 

Authority] DDA”, he claimed. After the NGT ban, Raj arranged for his 

vegetables to be tested at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (ICAR, 

popularly known as PUSA Institute) and the groundwater to be tested at the 

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). He was determined to quash the 

rumours about khadar produce being toxic. In the reports, the toxicity levels 

of the vegetable and water samples were declared to be within the permissible 

limits. He argued that these reports could not be any less scientific than those 

used by the NGT to back its claims. Indeed, the reports were from 

prestigious science-backed institutions in the country, thereby leading to a 

situation of conflictual claims on toxicity based on scientific testing.  As Raj’s 

farm was relatively far from the river, he did not use the river water for 

cultivation. “Humara khet nadi se 1 km door hai, hum kaise lagayenge nadi 

ka paani. Yeh sab afwaein hai [Our farm is 1 km away from the river. How 

would we use the river water? It’s all rumours]” (Farmer Raj Singh, Interview 

with author, September 17, 2019). However, he argued that, while farmers 

who did not use the river water were not culpable, those using the toxic water 

should not be blamed either. Moreover, because the Yamuna khadar is 

categorised as a floodplain, no other activity other than cultivation is legally 

permissible there.  

In response to the NGT ban, Devki, a member of the Delhi Peasants Co-

operative Multipurpose Society, claimed that farmers were being maligned by 

agencies like the NGT and DDA. He was cultivating on 30 bighas of land in 

the Yamuna khadar given to him on lease by the DDA in 1949, under the 

arrangement of batai.7 He opined that it was not the chemicals used in 

agriculture that were toxifying the river, but rather the waste generated by city 

dwellers and industries. The NGT ban, in this sense, can be understood 

within a larger class framework, whereby the affluent get to deflect 

responsibility for pollution on to the poor. For Devki, the use of chemicals 

was a regular practice in agrarian activities everywhere in the world that did 

 
7 In this part of the Yamuna khadar there are two types of land tenurial arrangements: batai 

(sharecropping) and jama (annual rent). In the case of batai, the landowner and the tenant, who 

is working on the land, share the input costs incurred during cultivation and the money made 

from selling the produce in a 50–50 arrangement. In the case of jama, the owner has no say in 

the type and process of cultivation. The owner is paid the rent annually, usually in two or three 

instalments each year. 



[243] Kumar 

 

 

not pollute the river or land, rather it was the pollution from cars and waste 

of city dwellers that flowed directly into the river, which made the river dirty. 

Nevertheless, he was not opposed to a shift in favour of organic farming, or 

other forms of nonchemical kheti (farming) in the floodplains, but only if the 

government facilitated it. Like Devki, Sunil (whose profile is discussed later 

in the essay) also stressed the absence of incentives for taking up organic 

farming. He shared anxieties about his land getting acquired following the 

Commonwealth Games (CWG), which further deterred him from investing 

in organic farming. Sunil also said that the reports about agriculture in the 

khadar polluting the Yamuna were exaggerated.  

Devki feared that the NGT judgement would strengthen discourses on 

ecological ruination and reinforce efforts aimed at grabbing cultivation land8 

from farmers, leading to further precarity and dispossession. This kind of 

land grabbing results in an urban ecology which is often associated with 

markers like beautified parks rather than crops, fruits, and vegetables 

(Baviskar 2011). Indeed, Nagendra (2016) argues that “infrastructure, 

regulatory and recreational ecosystem services take precedence over 

productive uses of ecosystems in the minds of the members of the urban 

public, media, and city administration”(15). Such conceptions ignore the fact 

that elderly farmers in the Yamuna khadar, for instance, have been embedded 

in urban agriculture for decades. These people have a deep attachment to the 

landscape, which is bound to their sense of identity and community. As such, 

displacement of these people would cause considerable trauma as well as 

economic hardship.  

In response to the recent evictions by the DDA, Devki emphasised that 

nobody listens to farmers in the city anymore. Farmers have no voice in the 

urban economy. He claimed meanwhile that his kheti had protected the 

landscape from encroachers like sand mafias, land mafias, jhuggi-jhopri 

settlements, and other illegal residential localities. He not only safeguarded 

the space, but also made it productive, safe, and beautiful. The green plains 

of the khadar, according to Devki, were rugged and uneven before the 

cultivators settled there. It is agricultural labour which made it even and 

productive. In addition, cultivators provide food and livelihood to the poor 

in the city. Devki recalled that cultivation became precarious in 1966, when 

farmers’ leases were not renewed by the DDA. But they continued 

cultivating, routinely negotiating with the sta. However, with the NGT ban 

 
8 Devki told me that land belonging to one of the cooperative society members Rakesh Singh 

was forcefully taken away in the name of a “public project” for the Akarshdham Mandir. He 

asked me, “How is Akshardham a public project? It is no road or flyover”. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [244] 

 

 

on cultivation in 2015, cultivation is now near impossible. JCBs (Joseph Cyril 

Bamford), popularly known as bulldozers in the khadar, reportedly ran over 

the standing crops, replacing the crops with plants and trees allotted for 

compensatory afforestation drives. Devki, for his part, failed to see how trees 

enhance greenery but crops do not.  

While refusing to distinguish between crops and trees, with respect to their 

ecological role, Devki made a distinction between the ecological impacts of 

individual farmers in the khadar. While discussing the toxicity of the river 

water, Devki pushed me to differentiate between farmers who cultivated land 

adjacent to the river, and those whose land was further away from the river. 

The latter, according to Devki, used borewell water while the former used 

the toxic river water for irrigation. As such, the experience of toxicity and the 

responsibility for toxicity, according to him, varied according to the location 

of the land in the Yamuna khadar. Therefore, the farmers were not one 

homogeneous unit that polluted the river together, but had conflicting claims 

even among themselves. Similarly, the blame for pollution was deflected, not 

merely on to the rich and affluent, but also on to fellow farmers who 

happened to cultivate in greater proximity to the river. Clearly, Devki 

associated proximity to the river with culpability.  

In the forthcoming sections, I argue that along with contestations using 

scientific evidence, agrarian communities invoke lay epidemiology and 

experiences of toxicity in relation to other social problems. All these 

experiences and contestations are broadly influenced by class, caste, physical 

distance from the river, and occupation.  

2.2 Toxicity and Social Life 

“Jamuna ka paani garam hai, sabzi ki growth achi hoti hai [The water of the 

Yamuna is warm, which helps the vegetables grow fast]” (Migrant Tenant 

Ramesh, Interview with author, October 13, 2019). 

“Bilkul cream jagah hai [The Yamuna khadar is the best place for poor migrants 

like us to live in the city]” (Migrant Tenant Udaylal, Interview with author, 

November, 2, 2019). 

Auyero and Swistun (2009, as cited in Lora-Wainwright 2013a), argue that 

“to understand locals’ experiences of pollution and their attitudes to it, they 

should be examined vis-à-vis all the other pressing problems they face” (82), 

such as affordable housing, crime, safety of the locality, potential for  finding 

employment, lack of schooling and medical facilities, the bureaucracy 

involved in accessing welfare, and so on. The authors emphasise that “despite 

their knowledge of pollution, locals have become slowly tied to the place, 



[245] Kumar 

 

 

taking root in the neighbourhood through work, family, and friendship 

networks. Therefore, they downplay the dangers they face” (Auyero and 

Swistun 2009, as cited in Lora-Wainwright 2013a, 86). This is what I attempt 

to do in this section.  

In late October 2019, Ramesh was spreading methi beej (fenugreek seeds) in 

his khet, adjacent to the river, along with his mother and father. It was late in 

the evening. By then the place was full of mosquitoes and the Yamuna had 

started to stink. This prompted me to probe Ramesh about his notions about 

cleanliness and the environment. Ramesh was relatively rich, owning a tractor 

and 30 bighas of land in his village. When asked why he did not move to the 

village or somewhere else, he stressed that village khetis were not profitable. 

“Tubewell ke saath bhi moti fasal 9 mein sabzi jitna paisa nahin hai aur gaon mein sabzi 

ke liye market nahin hai [In the village there isn’t much money in moti fasal even 

with a tubewell, and there is no market for vegetables in the village]”, he 

claimed. According to him, one could sell large amounts of vegetables in the 

khadar due to the proximity to the upper/middle class localities in the city. 

Green leafy vegetables have a short shelf life and hence proximity to these 

more affluent localities allowed farmers to sell the produce the same day it 

was harvested. Evidently, livelihood opportunities accruing from this 

proximity to the toxic landscape tended to outweigh any potential desire to 

relocate.  

Apart from livelihood opportunities, Ramesh also found the Yamuna water 

to be extremely conducive to the fast growth of crops. “Garam paani sabzi ke 

liye complete diet hai [The warm water of the Yamuna is a complete diet for the 

vegetables]”, he revealed. Indeed, the Yamuna water carries human and 

animal waste, which makes it “warm”. Waste in the river water acts like khaad 

(manure). The river also has other nutrients like sodium and potassium. Sunil, 

on whose land Ramesh was cultivating, stressed that nutrients from ganda 

paani (dirty water)10 are better than the micronutrients applied externally 

because plants absorb the former better. As such, proximity to the polluted 

river made the large-scale use of pesticides and fertilizers unnecessary, 

rendering cultivation more cost effective.  

Sunil had leased his farms on jama11 to Ramesh and a few other migrant 

tenants. Kachi/nanhi fasal,12 according to Ramesh, it is labor intensive. Hence, 

 
9 Moti fasal (also referred to as pakki fasal) refers to crops like wheat, rice, and maize.  
10 Yamuna water is also referred to as ganda paani. 
11 Explained in Footnote 5.  
12 Green leafy vegetables like methi, bathua (lamb’s quarter), palak (spinach), saag (greens), and 

so on.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [246] 

 

 

the leasing of land to migrant tenants who work on batai or jama. Tenants 

prefer to till land close to the river because the cost of cultivation is lower 

due to the aforementioned reasons. Second, the river water is freely available 

for water-intensive vegetable cultivation. And, third, the river bank is more 

conducive to growing nanhi fasal quickly and several times a year. Also, the 

drainage of soil near the river is good; this makes cultivation possible in 

monsoon months as excess water drains through the soil quickly. These 

factors encourage tenants to take jama land close to the river to grow nanhi 

fasal. Therefore, proximity to the river determines tenurial arrangements 

between landlords and tenants, making toxic landscapes tolerable.  

Cultivators like Ramesh are well educated, having paid for their college 

education with earnings from cultivation. The village did not provide good 

opportunities for education. “Shehar mein kheti ke sahare padh liye. Abhi naukri 

nahi lagi hai issiliye kheti hi kar rahe hai [I studied in the city with the help of 

farming. I haven’t got a job yet. That’s why I am farming]”, he revealed. 

Ramesh had failed thus far to get a government job but still took pride in his 

qualifications. He routinely visited a nearby private library to prepare for the 

upcoming government exams. He wanted his children to receive quality 

education in a government school located nearby, which further deterred him 

from relocating to the village or to another agrarian locality. Thus, he 

experienced and perceived toxicity in relation to his own problems 

concerning livelihoods, unemployment, poverty, lack of clean and affordable 

housing in the city, and a scarcity of educational facilities in the village.  

Udaylal, another migrant tenant from Badaun, cultivated vegetables on batai 

with Ganesh. While Ramesh’s experience and tolerance of toxicity was 

determined by his proximity to the river, Udaylal’s case revealed that ties with 

landowners, in addition to the riverine ecology, were also important to the 

toxic ecology of the khadar. For Udaylal, ties to the landowners were vital to 

survival in the city. “Bilkul cream jagah hai. Hum bhai ke saath batai mein karte 

hai. Humein jama paar suit nahi karta. Bhai bure samay mein humara dhyan rakhte 

hai [We cultivate with Ganesh under the arrangement of sharecropping. We 

do not like cultivating under the arrangement of annual rent. Ganesh takes 

care of us in difficult times]”, he said. Even after JCBs ran over his vegetables, 

following the NGT order in 2015, Udaylal refused to leave. Ganesh, through 

his contacts, negotiated with the DDA chowkidars (a lower ranked DDA official), 

which helped him resume cultivation after a few months. Ganesh looked 

after Udaypal and his family even when cultivation was not possible. 

Occurrences like crop failure, untimely rain, and price fluctuation did not 

stop Ganesh from extending help and support. His support was also crucial 



[247] Kumar 

 

 

during weddings and medical emergencies. In this manner, Ganesh became 

indispensable in the survival of Udaylal and his family. While the toxic river 

“assisted” tenants who worked close to it, for others like Udaypal, it was the 

landlord in the khadar who helped ensure a livelihood. The river, along with 

landowners, influenced cultivators’ experiences of toxicity.  

Udaylal had been cultivating in Delhi for more than two decades. He was not 

well educated and unlikely to find a well-paying job. “Mere jaise anpad log shehar 

mein naukri ya kaam karke ₹8,000–10,000 se zyaada nahi kama sakte [Illiterate 

people like me cannot earn more than ₹8,000–10,000 by doing work in the 

city]”, he confessed. A jhopdi on the farm in the khadar offered better 

prospects and security, compared to other urban poor localities in Delhi. 

Udaylal cultivated nanhi fasal, which is labour intensive, and employed his 

family as labourers to cultivate. A big house/space was required to 

accommodate his large family. He got this from the jhopdi on the farm with 

open space around it. It was sufficient for a big family to live together and 

carry out their daily chores. He said this kind of open space would cost a lot 

in the city. Tenants like Udaylal and Ramesh told me that their living 

conditions, with no water logging, no choked drains, ample lighting and 

ventilation, were better than those of middle class and upper middle class 

localities. Although there were no water and electricity connections in the 

floodplain zone, these people still felt they were better off than those living 

in dark, dingy, and cramped spaces in the city. Also since they were doing 

vegetable cultivation they had to stay on the farm, or close to it, to look after 

their crops. In addition to tilling the land and rearing cattle, most migrant 

peasants sold vegetables in the nearby middle class residential localities.  

In the khadar, migrant tenants develop ties with members of landowning 

castes like the Gujjars and Chauhans, who help them access nearby schools 

and hospitals. With links and contacts with the bureaucracy, these 

landowning castes are able to help migrant tenants obtain Aadhaar cards13 

driving licences, and ration cards, which are crucial to their survival in the 

city and help them avail other benefits and opportunities for their children 

and families. Landowners also facilitate borrowing seeds, pesticides, and 

other kinds of chemicals from local shopkeepers. A sense of community is 

apparent, growing in the vicinity of the toxic river. Strong ties enhance a sense 

of safety, outweighing the hazards of living in a toxic landscape.  

 
13 Aadhaar is a 12 digit individual identification number issued by the Unique Identification 

Authority of India on behalf of the Government of India. The number serves as a proof of 

identity and address, anywhere in India” (UIDAI n.d.). 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [248] 

 

 

Migrant tenants’ experiences of toxicity are anchored to the local ecology of 

the Yamuna khadar, i.e., in the social relationships with the landowners, river, 

soil, and the city. The nature of the landowner–tenant relationship in the two 

types of land tenurial arrangements, i.e., batai and jama, is different in the 

sense that the batai relationship exceeds its economic implications. The batai 

is an arrangement employed by migrant tenants for their own safety in case 

of crop failure and a lack of other kinds of livelihood support in the city. The 

nature of the relationship in the jama case is primarily economic; the 

landowner does not have much say in how the labour is employed in the 

kheti. As the case of Ramesh suggests, some tenants are more dependent on 

the toxic river soil than others. But the negotiating power of the landowner, 

particularly during anti-encroachment drives and other emergencies, remains 

the common element. Hence, deep ties with the city and the local ecology, 

along with landowners, drive contestation and negotiation of tenants with 

state agencies. Tenants experience toxicity differently from tenants, based on 

their distance from the river, their type of property, tenurial arrangements, 

and the nature of their cultivation.  

2.3 Lay Epidemiology: Uncertainties and Toxicities 

“Shehar ke logon ko plate par choice chahiye [City dwellers want choice in their 

meals]” (Migrant Tenant Aditya, Interview with author, August 9, 2019). 

Anna Lora-Wainwright (2013b) explores the issue of “uncertainty 

surrounding illness causation” (303) with the help of the concept of “lay 

epidemiology” (“perceptions of illness causation where pollution features 

alongside a range of other factors” [303]) in a heavily industrialized village in 

China, where the population of the village continues to work and live in a 

toxic environment. Through this work she highlights that locals are 

concerned about pollution but uncertain about whether they can attribute 

particular symptoms or illnesses to it. This is because “the embeddedness of 

locals’” (306) environmental health consciousness within a wider lay 

epidemiology is at least partially a result of the communities’ dependence on 

the local ecology for livelihoods and on local power relations. In this section 

I explore lay epidemiology in relation to life in the Yamuna khadar.  

Aditya, a skilled technician who helped his family grow and sell crops, was 

selling bhindi (okra) at the mandi near the khadar at a time when prices had 

fallen drastically. I interacted with him during his visits to the market. There 

was considerable anger and despair among the migrant tenants due to low 

prices. Excess supply was one of the causes of the fall in prices. “Par market 

mein uthav nahi hai [There is no demand in the market]”, noted Aditya. 



[249] Kumar 

 

 

Anticipation of upcoming winter crops was growing, and people in the cities 

were looking for alternatives to eat. Aditya stressed that people in cities 

wanted “choice”. “Ab batao kisaan kaise karega choice paida [How will the farmer 

create choice]?” Aditya wondered. City dwellers quickly lose interest in 

seasonal vegetables like bhindi which sometimes forces cultivators to 

advance to sowing winter crops, for instance, in the late monsoon. This 

encourages farmers to use diammonium phosphate (popularly known as 

DAP), urea, pesticides, micronutrients, and other chemicals. In doing so, 

cultivators provoke the ire of environmentally conscious city dwellers, the 

NGT, environmentalists, etc. Still, the link between unpredictable consumer 

behaviour and toxic cultivation practices is generally ignored. Livelihood 

precarities like high rents and the need for non-stop cultivation render 

farmers susceptible to the pressures of changing consumer demands. Like 

Devki, Aditya also highlighted that farmers should not be held culpable for 

polluting the river because, while chemicals and pesticides are used by 

farmers everywhere, the rivers are not similarly polluted in other places.  

While the NGT indicates that vegetables grown in the khadar are toxic, 

Aditya denied these claims. Cultivators and their families have been 

consuming these crops for decades. Aditya stressed that no one in the khadar 

had ever developed any ailment from consuming these crops. While I 

interacted with Aditya at the mandi, we were joined by a group of cultivators. 

They clarified the reason for their good health: “Kyunki hum shudh hawa lete 

hai, shoodh pain peete hai, shoodh sabzi khaate hai aur paseena bahate hai [Because 

we breathe pure air, drink pure water, eat pure vegetables, and sweat it out in 

the fields]”, they stressed. Aditya agreed with them. He emphasized that 

illnesses like cancer, which the NGT claims are caused by the consumption 

of toxic vegetables, have multiple causes and a direct correlation between 

toxic crops and cancer is impossible.  

Raj Singh, who had challenged the NGT facts on toxicity stated in the NGT 

judgement, had a unique technique for testing the purity of the water. While 

he claimed that the groundwater in khadar was not polluted, residents of the 

khadar regularly lined up to take drinking water from Delhi Jal Board (DJB) 

tankers. Raj Singh shared that water samples collected from hand pumps and 

borewells in the khadar were left in plastic bottles for three months. He 

claimed that if the water did not turn yellow, it was not polluted. Sunil, on 

the other hand, claimed that he could test the pollution level in the water just 

by tasting it. He even identified a specific hand pump in the khadar which 

delivered water of “high quality” and even increased his immunity. Sunil 

encouraged others to drink water only from that hand pump. He had a deep 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [250] 

 

 

distrust of packaged mineral water, because it apparently did not have the 

“appropriate” taste and was not good for one’s immunity. Because at least 

one hand pump had healthy tasting water, according to Sunil, NGT claims 

could be deemed false. Such informal strategies would be discounted by 

experts as unscientific and therefore unreliable. But limited access to formal, 

scientific testing has prompted khadar cultivators to adopt strategies 

deviating from, and to call for an expansion of, definitions of scientific 

evidence and citizen knowledge. Formally recognizing such knowledge and 

strategies may be crucial to ensuring social justice (Lora-Wainwright 2013a; 

2013b). 

Unlike the general trend in epidemiological studies, in which local people 

expose toxicity while state agencies deny its presence (Levine 1982; Brown 

and Mikkelsen 1990; Cable and Walsh 1991), we see here a case of state 

agencies claiming toxicity while the locals deny its existence. Agrarian 

communities in the khadar are tied to land-based livelihood activities because 

opportunities for them in other sectors of the urban economy are limited, 

and their income from non-agrarian ventures is not enough for them to live 

in a dignified way in a city. These conditions of dependency and limited 

opportunities influence the agrarian communities’ uncertainty when it comes 

to attributing illness or poor health to pollution.  

3. CONCLUSION  

In this paper, I highlight that communities experience the polluted urban 

ecology of the Yamuna khadar in multiple ways. The various communities 

associated with the toxic agrarian landscape of the Yamuna khadar do not 

experience pollution in a homogenous way, i.e., neither do they all see 

themselves as suffering from pollution, nor do they all contribute to the 

toxicity of the landscape in the same way. My study focuses on the contesting 

claims about, and multiple experiences of, toxicity, not merely between the 

NGT and cultivators, but also between city dwellers and cultivators, and 

among the cultivators themselves. I highlight that cultivators feel they are 

being wrongly blamed for a problem created by rich and upper middle class 

citizens and, in this case, the non-agrarian urban poor whose locality pollutes 

the river. For some, pollution provides an opportunity to make a living and 

find a foothold in the city for themselves and their families. Others 

experience it in relation to problems like unemployment, with a sense of loss, 

displacement, and antagonism. The experiences of toxicity are embedded in 

the social, political, and economic context of the urban ecology of the 

Yamuna khadar. For instance, migrant tenants cultivating on jama react 



[251] Kumar 

 

 

to/experience toxicity differently from migrant tenants working on batai, as 

discussed in the case of Ramesh (jama) and Udaylal (batai). 

Their embeddedness in the toxic ecology is part of the domination and 

compulsion that agrarian communities face. Firstly, migrant tenants do not 

have any other choice but to farm in toxic urban ecologies, as other 

employment opportunities do not give them enough to survive in the city. 

Secondly, migrant tenants cannot but accept the exploitative nature of high 

rents imposed on them by the landowners. Thirdly, farmers and landowners 

bribe or negotiate with officials to continue with cultivation. Lastly, unequal 

power relations, dependence on the land-based livelihood in a city, and the 

toxic effects of their cultivation practices make cultivators susceptible to 

displacement in favour of big capital projects like metro rails, flyovers, 

premium residential buildings, and biodiversity parks. Toxicity and the nature 

of contestations around it provide a means for mapping large-scale struggles 

around space, livelihood, knowledge systems, and materiality. These struggles 

intersect along the lines of class, caste, location, and occupation, highlighting 

that toxicity is not merely a medical or scientific fact (as advocated by 

“experts”) but a social one that influences, and is embedded in, a community 

members’ manners of acting, thinking, and feeling.  

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I am thankful to Julien-François Gerber for the useful suggestions and 

comments; Asmita Kabra and Sudha Vasan for their valuable feedback on 

my initial draft, and Chitralekha Manohar and The Clean Copy for her careful 

copy editing.  

Ethics Statement: I hereby confirm that this study complies with 
requirements of ethical approvals from the institutional ethics committee for 
the conduct of this research.  

Data Availability statement: The data used in this paper is available in a 
repository and the hyperlinks and persistent identifiers (e.g. DOI or accession 
number) are stated in the paper. 

Conflict of Interest Statement: No potential conflict of interest was 
reported by the author. 

REFERENCES  

Auyero, Javier, and Débora Alejandra Swistun. 2009. Flammable: Environmental 

Suffering in an Argentine Shantytown. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Baviskar, Amita. 2011. “What the Eye Does Not See: The Yamuna in the 

Imagination of Delhi.” Economic & Political Weekly XLVI, no. 50: 45–53.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [252] 

 

 

Brown, Phil, and Edwin Mikkelsen. 1990. No Safe Place: Toxic Waste, Leukemia, and 

Community Action. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Cable, Sherry, and Edward Walsh. 1991. “The Emergence of Environmental Protest: 

Yellow Creek and TMI Compared.” In Communities at Risk: Collective Responses to 

Technological Hazards, edited by Stephen Robert Couch and J. Stephen Kroll-Smith, 

113–32. New York: Peter Lang. 

Ghertner, D. A. 2015. Rule by Aesthetics: World-class City Making in Delhi. Oxford 

University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199385560.001.0001  

Gururani, Shubhra. 2018. “When Land Becomes Gold: Changing Political Ecology 

of the Commons in a Rural–Urban Frontier.” In Land Rights, Biodiversity Conservation 

and Justice: Rethinking Parks and People, edited by Sharlene Mollett and Thembela Kepe, 

107–125. London and New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315439488-7  

Levine, Adeline Gordon. 1982. Love Canal: Science, Politics, and People. Toronto: 

Lexington Books. 

Lora-Wainwright, Anna. 2013a. “Plural Forms of Evidence and Uncertainty in 

Environmental Health: A Comparison of Two Chinese Cases.” Evidence and Policy 9, 

no. 1: 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662554.  

Lora-Wainwright, Anna. 2013b. “The Inadequate Life: Rural Industrial Pollution and 

Lay Epidemiology in China.” The China Quarterly 214: 302–320. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741013000349   

Nagendra, Harini. 2016. Nature in the City: Bengaluru in the Past, Present and Future. New 

Delhi: Oxford University Press. 

Oskarsson, Patrik, Kuntala Lahiri‐Dutt, and Patrick Wennström. 2019. “From 

Incremental Dispossession to a Cumulative Land Grab: Understanding Territorial 

Transformation in India’s North Karanpura Coalfield.” Development and Change 50, 

no. 6, 1485–1508. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12513  

Rademacher, Anne. 2011. Reigning the River: Urban Ecologies and Political Transformation 

in Kathmandu. New York: Duke University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394525  

UIDAI. n.d. “Home.” Accessed July 17, 2023. https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-

english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-

aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identi

fication%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%2

0India. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199385560.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315439488-7
https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X662554
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741013000349
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12513
https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822394525
https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identification%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%20India
https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identification%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%20India
https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identification%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%20India
https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identification%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%20India
https://www.uidai.gov.in/en/16-english-uk/aapka-aadhaar/14-what-is-aadhaar.html#:~:text=Aadhaar%20is%20a%2012%20digit%20individual%20identification%20number%20issued%20by,and%20address%2C%20anywhere%20in%20India

