Whistle-blowing on Open Defecation in India

Published on by in Academic

A good article.

Many years ago, gigantic dams were said to be temples of modern India. Years later, we have significantly scaled down our ambitions and decided that it is going to be the humble household toilet. Successive political regimes have paid it their obeisance through generous grants. A case in point is the budgetary promise of a whopping Rs 40 billion to ensure that every Indian has a toilet. Moreover, the government had decided to get 5.3 million latrines constructed by the time it completed 100 days in office. This urgency was prompted by the embarrassing fact that a nation which recently sent a mission to Mars also accounts for almost 59 per cent of the total global population defecating in the open.

When public embarrassment and ridicule drive policy, its execution is driven by desperation. In recent years, NGOs and state governments have attempted to send those who defecate in the open in urban and rural India scurrying into toilets by shaming them in public. It started with equipping children with whistles, which they would blow at any villager caught relieving themselves in the open. Later it took on newer forms — in Satara in Maharashtra, the ‘Good Morning' campaign witnessed volunteers hiding in areas where people defecated in the open and detaining whoever was caught. School bands were made to play in front of ‘toiletless' households to shame them into building one. In the neighbouring state of Madhya Pradesh, the government put up hoardings which show villagers and dogs defecating in the open side by side, and exhorting villagers to not behave like their four-legged counterparts. Under the ‘ Maryada ' campaign in MP, each village is to set up a sanitation monitoring committee which takes photographs and videos of villagers defecating in the open and threatens a public screening unless they agree to build or use a toilet.

Allied forces

While sanitation campaigns in rural India seem to be doing well in promoting dignity by taking it away from people, urban India is not far behind. Masked vigilantes in Mumbai, manning a bright yellow water tanker, are sneaking up on unsuspecting people urinating in public and turning the water hose on them. As the victims make desperate efforts to escape, a crowd gathers around.

In the history of sanitation drives in India, instead of turning against each other, people led by example to bring about change. Sant Gadge Baba carried a broom and swept gutters and streets in the villages he visited. This simple act had a lasting impact on villagers who were unaccustomed to seeing someone doing this voluntarily. In Noakhali (now in Bangladesh), prior to Partition, Mahatma Gandhi had done something unique. When his political opponents defecated on the narrow pathways to prevent his entry into riot-affected villages, he ignored pleas to take a different route and proceeded to clean up the pathways himself. He did this a few more times; the defecation stopped.

Times have changed. No action has been taken against the Mumbai vigilantes. If citizens are encouraged to shame one another, such vigilantism can be seen as State-endorsed. A look at other dimensions of public health would paint a different picture. For example, the total number of public urinals in New Delhi is only 3,200 (out of which only 130 are for women). The population of the city in 2014 is approximately 17 million. Public toilets are poorly lit and dysfunctional. Over half the city's population lives in slums. The unavailability of sanitation measures means they use roads and pavements to do their business, just like the rural poor do with railway tracks. Toilets are being constructed in a great hurry in villages; they are rarely used owing to bad design and inferior quality.

The sanitation drive in India now is a tale of citizens seeing one another as the problem rather than as allies. Will a drive for a fully sanitized India require one section of society to lose empathy for the others?

Source:http://www.telegraphindia.com/1141029/jsp/opinion/story_18961484.jsp#.VFjda_TF-IB

Taxonomy

4 Answers

  1. funny but i feel a good initiative.

  2. Dans le monde entier et cela concerne chaque être humain la problématique de déféquer est la même. A quoi sert donc une étude une stratégie. Le nombre d'habitant ne change pas la donne sur la défécation: 40 millions de tonnes d'excréments sont produits annuellement sur terre. Cen'est la taille de l'infrastructure qui changera la problématique qui est : l'élimination des excréments. Toute installation de latrines publiques enclenche la déresponsabilisation de l'individu de ses excréments. Le regroupement des excréments entraîne une augmentation de la toxicité du milieu. Dans les pays très industrialisés comme la France , 20 000 tonnes d'excréments sortent des stations d'épuration. où est la performance épuratoire? nulle part. le reliquat d'eau rejeté par ces stations d'épuration est une pollution à haute toxicité urinaire à laquelle il faut y ajouter une proportion d'une toxicité chimique du aux micros polluant chimiques. Où est la perforamnce épuratoire? nulle part. Lorsque vous mettez à la disposition d'un outil qui va détruire entièrement la matière fécale, qui va purifier les eaux usées de la pollution urinaire, que le dispositif ne dégage pas d'odeurs pestilentielles nauséabondes, qu'il n'est pas nécessaire d'effectuer des vidanges au moindre dysfonctionnement, les gens arrêtent la défécation à l'air libre et arrosent leur jardin avec le reliquat d'eau. Worldwide and it concerns every human being the problem of defecating is the same. What is it for a study strategy. The number of inhabitants does not change the situation on defecation: 40 million tons of excrement are produced annually on Earth. Cen'est the size of the infrastructure that will change that is the problem: excreta disposal. Any installation of public latrines snaps disempowerment of the individual feces. Grouping feces increases the toxicity of the medium. In highly industrialized countries such as France, 20,000 tons of feces out of the treatment plants. where is the purifying performance? nowhere. the water balance rejected by these treatment plants is a high pollution urinary toxicity which must be added a proportion of chemical toxicity of the pollutant chemical microphones. Where is the purifying perforamnce? nowhere. When you make available a tool that will completely destroy the fecal matter, which will purify wastewater urinary pollution, the device does not give off noxious pestilential odors, it is not necessary perform oil changes at the slightest malfunction, people stop defecating in the open air and water their garden with the water balance.

  3. Its true that toilet structures are poorly designed without focusing on the quality slandered and such structures demolish within few months. Govt agencies focus on "quantity" without considering the quality Now there is a need to design "Long term implementation strategy" which consist of following steps 1)Base survey of the whole country and especially those areas where open defecation ratio is high. 2)Develop cluster approach by making small groups of the areas with respect to population size and environmental conditions. 3)Design a proposal which clearly indicates the design ,size and quantity of the product according to the demographic condition and requirement of the population. You will see each study indicates that every area has its own needs we can not design same strategy for every place as every area has its own needs and wants and I think this approach is the only way to resolve this issue.

  4. "Toilets are being white Constructed in a great hurry in villages; They Are Rarely Used owing to bad design and inferior quality". Poor design. defecate into a toilet or in the open air, the position is the same. Lower quality. How good are we talking about? there is no quality to defecate in a place of comfort than to do outdoors. In highly developed countries people retain maximum rather than using public toilets need to make their home. It is not a matter of place of comfort or latrine but just in unhealthy places. In the open air droppings do not emit pestilential odors such as latrines. the problem boils down to one thing: excrement. In nature the active biological process of their destruction without emanation unpleasant, these droppings in latrines become putrid sludge under the effect of a strong methane. In your presentation, the wastewater is not a matter of destruction feces, but simply a matter of infrastructure and attitude. "Une mauvaise conception". déféquer dans une latrine ou à l'air libre, la position est la même. "Qualité inférieure". De quelle qualité parle t-on? il n'y a aucune qualité de déféquer dans un lieu d'aisance ou celle de le faire à l'air libre. Dans les pays très développés les gens se retiendront au maximum plutôt que d'utiliser des toilettes publiques afin de faire leur besoin chez eux. Ce n'est pas une question de lieu d'aisance ou de latrine mais tout simplement d'insalubrité des lieux. A l'air libre les excréments ne dégagent pas d'odeurs pestilentielles comme celles des latrines. la problématique se résume qu'à une seule chose: les excréments. Dans la nature la biologie active le processus de leurs destruction sans émanation désagréable, dans les latrines ces excréments se transforment en boue qui putréfie sous l'effet d'une forte méthanisation. Dans votre présentation, l'assainissement des eaux usées n'est pas une question de destruction des excréments, mais tout simplement une question d'infrastructure et d'attitude.

    1 Comment