The Borewells of a Nalgonda Village
Class 8 is discussing a village of about 300 households on the edge of a tank in Nalgonda district. Cotton is grown on roughly 400 acres. In 2013 the village had 40 borewells; by 2023 it had 210. The measured water table fell from about 30 feet to about 180 feet, and the tank has held water in only two of the last ten years. Rainfall figures read out by the teacher are 900 mm as the long-term average, and 640 mm, 590 mm and 710 mm in the last three years. Electricity for agricultural pumps is free; cotton has an assured minimum support price. One student says, 'The farmers are greedy.' Another says, 'It did not rain, so nobody is to blame.' A third says, 'The government gave free power, so the government is to blame.' The teacher has one period to turn three opinions into a structured enquiry.
1. Separate the data in the passage into fact, inference and opinion, and show where the line between them is genuinely arguable.
Read the worked answer
Facts as stated: about 300 households; roughly 400 acres of cotton; 40 borewells in 2013 and 210 in 2023; water table from about 30 ft to about 180 ft; tank held water in two of the last ten years; rainfall average 900 mm against 640, 590 and 710 mm; free power for agricultural pumps; cotton has an assured MSP.
Inferences, not stated: that the extra borewells caused the fall in the water table; that the tank's decline has the same cause; that free power increased pumping hours. Each is plausible and each needs its own evidence.
Opinions: 'farmers are greedy'; 'nobody is to blame'; 'the government is to blame'. These name a culprit; they do not explain a mechanism.
Where the line is arguable: the tank's 'two of ten years' is a fact, but whether that is a rainfall effect or a pumping effect cannot be settled from these numbers - both explanations fit. Also, the 30 ft figure carries no date, and an undated measurement is half a fact. Teaching point: a fact, an inference and an accusation can all be expressed in the same confident sentence, and the confidence tells you nothing.
2. Build a causal explanation with at least three contributing factors; for each, state one specific piece of evidence the class would need before asserting it.
Read the worked answer
Factor 1 - more extraction. Borewells rose five-fold in ten years. Evidence needed: pump-hours or agricultural electricity consumption per year, and the intake depth of the pumps - the count of wells alone does not show how much water left the ground.
Factor 2 - weaker recharge. Three years below the 900 mm average. Evidence needed: at least 15–20 years of rainfall, plus the tank's filling record and ayacut register; three dry years cannot explain a ten-year decline on their own.
Factor 3 - crop choice. Cotton's water demand combined with an assured MSP lowers the risk of staying with cotton. Evidence needed: acreage under cotton over the same decade, and gross margins for a low-water alternative such as a pulse or millet.
Possible factor 4 - free power removing the cost signal. Evidence needed: metered versus unmetered connections and whether pumping hours differ between them. Plausible, but the passage does not establish it.
Rule to state explicitly: a list is not an explanation. One factor must be shown to change at the same time and in the same direction as the water table, and the class should say which factor they would test first and why.
3. Design the one-period activity - what students produce in 40 minutes, and how you would assess whether they understood trade-offs rather than just naming a culprit.
Read the worked answer
The activity (40 minutes, groups of four): each group gets the data table and one instruction - propose exactly one policy (meter agricultural power, subsidise drip irrigation, stop new borewell connections, fund tank recharge, support a shift to a dryland crop) and complete a chart with four cells: who gains in the next year, who loses in the next year, who gains in ten years, who loses in ten years. Each group must also name one group that will resist their policy and state why that resistance is rational rather than stupid.
Assessment criteria, shared with the class beforehand: (a) at least one loser is named; (b) short run and long run are distinguished; (c) at least one number from the table is used; (d) a reason is given for the resistance, not a moral judgement.
What the criteria detect: 'Ban borewells; farmers gain' scores low - no loser, no time distinction. 'Metering cuts pumping, but the smallest farmer with one well and no capital loses first, so pair metering with a drip subsidy' scores high. A student who can only name a villain has a moral story; a student who can name a loser has understood a trade-off.
Exit ticket: one sentence naming a person in the village who would disagree with the group and why.