COMMENTARY january 25, 2014 vol xlix no 4 EPW Economic & Political Weekly 22 Precipitation Indices in South Africa: 1910-2004”, International Journal of Climatology, 26 (15): 2275-85. Pal, I and Al Tabbaa A (2009): “Regional Changes in Extreme Monsoon Rainfall Deficit and Excess in India”, Dynamics of Atmosphere and Oceans, 49 (2-3): 206-14. Ranbir, R, R Bhagat, V Kalia and H Lal (2009): “Impact of Climate Change on Shift of Apple Belt in Himachal Pradesh”, paper presented at conference of ISPRS on Climate Change and Agriculture, Ahmedabad, December. Shrestha, A B, C P Wake, P A Mayeski and J E Dibb (1999): “Maximum Temperature Trends in the Himalaya and Its Vicinity: An Analysis Based on Temperature Records from Nepal for the Period 1971-94”, Journal of Climate, 12: 2773-87. Vedwan, N and R Rhoades (2001): “Climate Change in Western Himalayas of India: A Study of Local Perception and Response”, Climate Research, 19: 109-17. Government of Himachal Pradesh (2012): “District Level Economic Indicator 2010-11”, Department of Economics and Statistics, Himachal Pradesh, www.himachal.nic.in/economics/pub.htm, viewed on 15 July 2013. Huntington, Ellsworth (1922): Principles of Human Geography (New York: Wiley). IPCC (2007): “Climate Change 2007, Synthesis Re- port” [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR 4)], Geneva, Switzerland. Kruger, A C (2006): “Observed Trends in Daily Historical Validity of Mullaperiyar Project R Seenivasan This historical analysis of the Periyar project questions the arguments and some of the contemporary claims made about the project’s engineering and construction, and its environmental impact. Far from being an environmentally destructive project, this was a “pacifist” scheme when it was built. The article throws light on these issues by analysing historical documents. C ontroversies surrounding the Periyar dam have acquired differ- ent dimensions over time. New claims have been made that the original conception of the project itself was an environmentally harmful idea. For Ra- maswamy R Iyer, a proponent of such a theory, the dam appears to be a case of hubristic and maximalist engineering and a bad example, 1 and he raises some basic questions about the planning and the need for the dam itself. 2 These arguments resemble in many ways the theories advanced by historians 3 study- ing north and east Indian floodplains. Without making any statements on these studies, this article examines the merits of similar arguments advanced by Iyer. This article uses Periyar project docu- ments, district manuals and gazetteers of the times, and engineering histories written by “engineers” on the project. It argues that whatever was done by the British in Vaigai and Periyar was an ex- tension of the possibilities that existed in irrigation engineering at the time. These examples of engineering and planning cannot be solely ascribed to the European way of science and engineering. How True Are These Claims? It is true that building the Periyar dam had no precedence in engineering and was an extraordinary effort for its time. In the late 19th century, the project gen- erated great interest among engineers, geographers, administrators and revenue officials. The number of proposals and plans made 4 about the Periyar project it- self is an indication of an intense and passionate debate about using natural resources. The project, unlike many oth- er contemporary projects, had to under- go vetting by several agencies of the time and took nearly 11 years to get ap- proved by the British government. While there is no doubt that land revenue gen- eration was a major consideration, the project was also put forth as a famine control measure 5 and for the social development of certain denotified castes that lived in the area. The project invited attention from around the world, and was watched carefully for its results. For example, the Royal Geographic Society’s monthly journal reported about the difficulties and benefits of this endeavour in the fol- lowing words: The difficulties of the undertaking were increased by the nature of the country – jungle-clad, malarious, and uninhabited– and the altitude (2800 feet) to which the materials had to be dragged up steep slopes with an average gradient of 1 in 15, four large unbridged rivers also having to be crossed on the way from the nearest railway station. Water-power was utilized in the work wherever possible, and altogether the best economy of force was practised, with a result that the total cost of this bene- ficent undertaking has been less than half a million sterling at the present rate of exchange, on which outlay the direct profits should yield a handsome return (The Society 1895: 567). The dam construction used mostly local ingredients such as stone and lime sourced nearby. Very few machineries and iron works came from Europe. The project had three main components – the dam and lake on the hills, a tunnel to transmit, and channels inside the Vaigai basin. Local technicians, artisans and labourers from the neighbouring R Seenivasan (r.seenivasan@gmail.com) is a PhD candidate at the School of Law, University of Westminster, London.