According
to this article in The Hindu, when it comes to the matter
of open defecation in India, "increased spending alone will in
no way turn out to be a magic bullet....[B]ringing about a change in
mindset is the paramount need."
The
question I wish to raise is, whose mindset? The article
is sure it is the mindset of the people who 'choose' to defecate in
the open.
I think
the article presents just one part of the problem. It is important to
understand and remember this because in India much of the problems
with conceptualising, planning, and implementing policies arise
because of the sociocultural differences between those making and
supporting policies, and those seen as the 'objects' of
policy-making. It is simpler to see all problems as arising from
absence of adequate technological resources and absence of adequate
information. In this case better water treatment and technologies for
it are sought on the one hand, and greater awareness among those
defecating in the open on the other.
Doubtless,
the two are eminent suggestions. One, India does need to treat and
recycle water, considering both increased use and depleting water
resources. Nothing wrong with the idea of spreading awareness
regarding hygiene either. My problem is with two assumptions which
seem to have been made here: that increased allocation and
technological solutions shall be adequate answers. Secondly, that
people defecate in the open because they do not understand the health
issues lack of sanitation contributes to.
The
problem of sanitation is directly related to two other issues - that
of availability of water and proper housing. All three issues require
systematic long-term planning and investment of resources in
developing requisite infrastructure. When it comes to urban areas,
there are numerous other issues: one of the biggest being
increasing migration from rural areas, which is directly related to
our very skewed economic paradigm. This paradigm has done little to
develop jobs or infrastructure in rural areas, or support local,
traditional and rural economic link themselves with the larger
economic processes. Instead, local and traditional economic systems
and occupations have been killed or at best ignored, and nothing has
been planned to take their place. That has caused some of the largest
internal migration in India in the last 2-2.5 decades. There can be
no sustainable plan for providing water, sanitation or housing if the
population is going to fluctuate so much this frequently. Not that we
have tried sustainable planning. Or any kind of urban planning. Or
worried about the urban poor constantly losing out on basic rights
and services.
To go
back to water, there has to be adequate and reliable supply of clean
water everywhere, and problems of access need to be addressed too. If
there are wells or hand-pumps or lakes and rivers which are not
accessible to sections of local populations (local conflicts -
gender/caste/community/ethnicity based), the problem of sanitation
can not be addressed. Or, if there is no water available most of the
time, which is true for large numbers of urban localities too.
Thirdly, we need the infrastructure to purify, supply and treat
water.
Housing.
Another skeleton in the GoI closet. It is such a big problem and has
been for so long we don't even talk about it. Or get to read about
it. Again, as I said, it is also related to forced internal migration
and skewed economic planning. Successive governments cannot just talk
about and invest only in common toilets. Though we badly need some
policy-research on the usefulness and cleanliness of common toilets,
I would argue even now: why should people have to go out of their
houses to access toilets? Secondly, hygiene is not simply about
problems of open defecation. Particularly, for women and girls in
underdeveloped and underserved regions, sanitation and hygiene are
about much more - about taking care of their bodies, and reproductive
health, and having their safety ensured. So, we do need to talk about
housing when we talk about sanitation.
When
funds are allocated for constructing toilets, there are many other
issues which need to be tackled at different levels of governance and
administration. Are time-frames taken seriously? Are funds actually
spent on construction toilets and ensuring water availability? What
dynamics of caste, class, gender, bureaucracy come into play to
decide who gets contracts for constructions? How democratic and
transparent are local processes of decision-making? Who decides
where and how many toilets will be constructed? Are women and lower
castes really represented in decision making bodies? If people don't
use toilets, has anyone tried to find out why they don't? Is water
really available, say, in the early morning when people are most
likely to need to use toilets? What are the mechanisms for
post-construction evaluation on the ground?
What is
wrong is the assumption that the poor - who are the ones without
access to toilets - do not know better than to defecate in the open.
Yes, there are traditional practices which are responsible, but, it
is only a very small factor. Biggest factor is lack of understanding
on the part of policy-makers of the multiple, complex and interlinked
problems that various underprivileged sections face everyday.
Finally,
I also want to problematise our tendency not to take class conflicts
and class, caste, or gender-based marginalization seriously. When
poor or/and illiterate people make a complaint to a company or govt
office providing services do they respond with as much alacrity and
sense of duty as they would were the complainant a middle/upper class
person? Has decentralisation meant that local elected representatives
hear people out irrespective of their gender and caste? Can the
highest policy-makers ever really hear what problems a child working
in a brick kiln faces, or the woman rolling beedis or sweeping
municipal schools? Or, the man trying to survive on selling earthen
pots or on daily wages paid to an urban construction worker? None of
these people have access to sanitation. But, their problems are not
one-dimensional. So, we - the middle and upper classes reading
English language newspapers, the national news media, and our
secular, liberal, technology-smitten, denial-stricken policy-makers
need to get off our respective high horses, and accept that we do not
always know what the solution should be. Or even what the problem
really is. But we need to find out. From the people who actually live
with those problems, and take their experiences, ideas and needs into
account when planning, funding and implementing. Remember,
democracy...and rights?
So,
yes, bringing about a change in mindset is the paramount
need.
