Water is perceived in a number of ways by common people as well as theoreticians; as a

commodity, as commons, as a basic right and as a sacred resource or divinity. These perceptions
seemed to be diametrically opposed to each other, but each has its own significance in different
contexts, often denies other ones. For example those who regard water as a common good or
Common Property Resource (CPR) will never agree that water is a commodity for sale.
Contemporary western view held water as a commodity; an object to merchandise and not as a
free natural good. Thus the intrinsic value of water is changed to instrumental value. The
perception is that, if water is considered as a commodity, water market and prices would be
established as such resource conservation and sustainability would taken care of, equity would be
ensured and conflicts would automatically be resolved by market forces. But no one is quite
comfortable with this description so a more sophisticated and generalized version has accepted
which described water as an 'economic and social good'.

Traditionally water is perceived as a common property means, 'a class of resource for which
exclusion is difficult and joint use involves subtractability'. In this concept the whole water
source in a particular region belongs to that community or local people who resides there and
water right is identified as a user right of that group. Water sustains life and therefore it is a basic
necessity. In this aspect water is a fundamental human right. Water is a part of natural
environment, sustaining it and sustained by it, leads to its being regarded as a 'sacred resource1.
Thus water right as natural rights does not originate with the state; they evolved out of a given
ecological context of human existence. As natural rights water rights are usufructuary rights i.e.,
water can be used but not owned (Shiva, 2002).

Principle 4 of the Dublin Statement Proclaims that - "Water has an economic value in all its
competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good". Yet the statement clarified that
within this principle "it is vital to recognize first the basic right of all human beings to have
access to clean water and sanitation at an affordable price".

Right to Water in the Indian Constitution

Right to water as a fundamental right was not added to the constitution originally. As such water
rights exists in the Indian Constitution as riparian rights under Article 262. This provision was
created in order to resolve the conflicts between states regarding inter-state river waters. This
article clearly defines the rights of each state over inter-state rivers and constituted an
institutional mechanism for its efficient implementation. In Indian constitution confusion
regarding whether water is a state subject or national subject still not come to an end. According
to Entry 17 of the State List, water is a state subject but subject to Entry 56 of the Union List.
Thus water is as much a central subject as a state subject, particularly as most of the country's
important rivers are inter-state, (Iyer, 2003). Later the identification of water more as a
fundamental right than a riparian right felt as an urgent necessity due to the increasing demand
and scarcity of fresh drinking water. In such a context the Supreme Court ruled that clean
drinking water is a fundamental right of all citizens, in Surana Oils/Derivatives (India) Limited
case. The apex Court said that Article 2 1 of the constitution guarantee right to life and it also
includes the Right to Clean Drinking Water'. The court also quoted the 1977 resolution of the
UN Water Conference that pledges access to clean drinking water for everybody, to which India
is signatory (Singh, 2004)

The failure of water supply systems in urban and rural areas either by a private agency or public
body resulted into acute water scarcity. These too negate the right to water.

Privatization and Right to Water

The water privatization agenda has found its place in many recent national and international
water policies. For instance a World Bank Policy paper of the mid '90s on water recommended
the creation of "water markets to tradable water rights". It was argued that rights to deliver of
water can be freely bought and sold, farmers with new crops or will be able to obtain water
provided, if they are willing to pay higher rates than existing users and established users will take
account of its sale value in deciding what and how much to produce. The international
conferences on water from Dublin to Kyoto were steps in developing the privatization agenda.
National Governments influenced by theWorld Bank, regional development banks and the
multinational water companies, are promoting privatization of water and sanitation as the
principle means for improving the adverse condition of millions of people across the world. For
example Government of India parroted this principle in its National Water Policy 2002. Article
13 of the policy reads, "private sector participation should be encouraged in planning,
development and management of water resources for diverse use, wherever possible"(Singh,
2004).

Right to Water : Theoretical Concerns and Practical Issues

In India Right to Water should be included in Article 2 1 as a sub-clause by amending the

constitution. A new National Water Policy aiming the welfare of millions of people who are
deprived in access to safe drinking water should be formulated. Based on this, comprehensive
legislations, regulating the use of ground water and surface water should brought down
immediately. Moreover Indian state has the obligation to follow the guidelines in Directive
Principles of State Policy. Right to water can be provided positively by implementing Directive
Principles and negatively by preventing violation of water rights under Fundamental Rights.
Thus right to water can be ensured with creation of necessary legislation and its effective
implementation.