Swachh Bharat Mission: 6 reasons why it looks doubtful with a focus on Latrine Construction
1. Availability of Water for Latrines: Sanitation is always linked with water. In rural India as per 2011 census, hand-pump (43.6%) was the leading source of drinking water in households followed by tap water (treated-18% & untreated-13%) and well (covered-1.5% & uncovered-12%). This figures would have changed drastically with water table going down leading to handpumps and wells going defunct. Hence in 2011 the government was only able to provide 31% of households with treated and untreated tap water (assuming water came in those taps for at least sufficient time to fill household storage). With 69% of household with no assured water how does a latrine technology work in rural India?
2. Availability of Housing: Census of India 2011 puts rural households at 221 million. Out of these only 206 million were found to be occupied at the time of census. Among this 52 million were permanent, 30.1 semi permanent. Also the same census tells us that good houses in the rural areas are less than half (46 per cent). This itself denotes the huge problem which comes in the way of individual household latrines i.e. if a family does not have a good livable permanent house how will they afford or construct a latrine.
On top of the above it was estimated that a total housing shortage of 48.8 million houses for the plan period (2012–17) (MoRD 2011). According to it, 90 per cent of these shortages are for BPL families which turn out to be 43.93 million houses which is a huge red flag for a individual household latrine construction.
3. Latrine Construction: Prevalent information for rural sanitation in the public domain involves single pit, twin pit or septic tank toilets. Between the information disseminated as desirable for sanitation and the construction worker in the village (village mason or plumber etc) who does the latrine construction, there is a huge gap. For example most village masons or plumber discourage the construction of pit toilets because most people believe a pit will fill up very fast along with the fact that the septic toilet is what they know along with that a septic tank involves more money for them. Hence pits are constructed less and as septic tanks require huge investments and space most rural households don’t get a latrine constructed.
4. Subsidy for construction of Latrines: Gupta, Khalid et.al (2019) writing in “The India Form” state:
Many households in rural India do not want to build or use affordable latrines (Coffey & Spears 2017). Unlike in neighbouring Bangladesh, where inexpensive pit latrines are the norm, many households in rural India prefer expensive latrines with large pits or containment chambers (Coffey et al 2017).
Large pits and containment chambers require less frequent emptying than affordable latrine pits, so they help their owners avoid hiring a manual scavenger. Such latrines are, however, substantially more expensive than the Rs 12,000 provided by the SBM. Indeed, the average cost of a latrine that a household constructed itself in the 2018 survey cost nearly three times that much, about Rs 34,000
So even when the subsidy for individual household latrine construction is larger at Rs 12,000 under Swaacch Bharat Mission compared to the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan’s (NBA, 2012–2014) Rs 10,000, and the Total Sanitation Campaign’s (TSC, 2001–2011) Rs 4,500, the money is inadequate for expensive latrines and hence latrines not constructed even after taking subsidy.
5. Community Toilets don’t work in rural India: Community toilets are proposed in villages where individual households don’t have land, water or resources for construction. First and foremost the community toilets can be constructed on panchayat land(common land owned by the village) which is normally far away from where the community stays, secondly nobody owns this structure hence the upkeep of the structure and providing water and cleanliness has no accountability leading to these structures either never used or go into disuse.
6. Communication Message : Messages communicated are garbled and target driven approach gets government functionaries to use all means to show construction on paper. Gupta, Khalid et.al (2019) on “The India Form” write
Most local officials were also familiar with key messages of Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) — that open defecation spreads diseases; that disgust can be used to motivate latrine construction and use; and that in the absence of latrines people who defecate in the open should cover their feces. Despite familiarity with these messages, however, local officials often had little time to pass them on to households.
Also as the village mason, community leader and influencer still want to push an expensive, fancy septic pit type latrine, the messages get garbled at the ground level. The additional factor of coercion makes sure that a pushback happens rather than changes in culture.
The local population which is supposed to take benefit of a particular development is not being considered as a stakeholder by the government officials, the classic mistake all development communication books and theories talk about, one which should never be made in social development.
People are the reason why any particular development activity is being undertaken and if they are not a part of planning, implementation and execution, the activity will struggle to take off.
References:
http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v3(4)/Version-3/I03403050060.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319037923_Rural_Housing_in_India_Status_and_Policy_Challenges
https://tnrd.gov.in/schemes/cen_nba_15.html
https://www.unicef.org/wash/sanitation
Gupta, A , Khalid, N et. al. (April 9, 2019) Coercion, Construction, and ‘ODF paper pe’ : Swachh Bharat According to Local Officials. https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/swachh-bharat-mission-according-local-government-officials retrieved Nov 1, 2021
