Dear Shobana
The Baseline survey conducted by the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Govt. of India during 2012-13 for rural areas in all the states and Districts at GP ( Gram / Village Panchayat) level is available at--http://sbm.gov.in/BLS2012/Home.aspx
At Panchayat level the information includes number of households of different socio-economic categories having toilets (functional and non functional) and without toilets.To know Panchayat level status pl click on "Know Your Panchayat Status" on the home page. The page mentions different states. It gives summary of data of the concerned State.
There is no such baseline information available for Urban areas in India.
Hope the information is useful.
Regards
Pawan

Dear Pawan,

Could you please share the baseline report or perhaps, give a link to where the data is ? It would be interesting to see whether there are striking differences between the states or if the open defecation is spread uniformly across India.

On a wider perspective, the lifestyle or routine behaviour in India is probably much similar in all religions and the differences come from the economic status or the unfortunate caste -system ( prevalent in all religions). For me, the question is if the ununsed toilets are actually connected to a sewer network or if they are pit latrines with non-existent service chain. ( Incase people would rather prefer open defecation than paying for emptying the pits)

Regards,
Shobana

Dear Shobana and all

As you rightly mentioned Manusmriti was wrote in more than 2000 years ago when there was no concept of toilet design.There is no any reference available for any toilet requiring no manual handling during those period. Manu was not in favour of open defecation, rather it was the culture and concept. Many sections of Manusmriti are based on how to maintain hygiene and environment protection. It clearly mentions that one should defecate quite away from homes and must not defecate/ urinate near water body, on the mountain etc.In Hindu religion- Earth, Water, Fire, Sky and Ocean are regarded as the five elements of the environment and the Manausmriti wanted to preserve all these components religiously. However, some people take it other way. They say it promoted open defecation for religious purpose. Manu highlighted the importance of environment and its protection during 2000 years ago, and we are struggling for the same today.
Percentage of sanitation coverage/ open defecation at district level in each state in India is available. Recently a Base line survey has been conducted at state level. It is available. However, there are several questions mentioned in you post, are not available.

regards
pawan

Dear Joe,

Having been brought up in India, i found these lines below quite surprising as well.

I was interested to read this:

Hindu tradition, seen for example in the “Laws of Manu”, a Hindu text some 2,000 years old, encourages defecation in the open, far from home, to avoid ritual impurity.
I suppose it just shows my ignorance that I had not even considered that there might be a religious reason why open defecation is such a big problem in India.

The reason: I had no idea what the 'laws of Manu'were !
I certainly do not claim to know all religious traditions and i think some of them had posted their opinion onthis before, but i decided to share my comments on blaming the Manu law.
Here are some articles i found contradicting Spears' paper:

www.firstpost.com/living/indias-open-def...to-this-1634347.html

hafsite.org/blog/new-york-times-fecal-load-of-hinduphobia/

Nobody carries the 'Manusmriti' in their pockets and i doubt if anybody ever reads it these days. It cannot be compared to other religious books present in monotheistic religions. Having written in the B.Cs and prior to the existence of sewer systems, the texts encourage hygiene in all possible ways and not just as 'religious impurity'.

The other texts relevant to defecation in the Manu which did not appear in the literature nor newspapers.

Manusmriti, Chapter 4:
45. Let him not eat, dressed with one garment only; let him not bathe naked; let him NOT void urine on a ROAD, on ashes, or in a cow-pen,
46. Nor on ploughed land, in WATER, on an altar of bricks, on a mountain, on the ruins of a temple, nor ever on an ant-hill,
47. Nor in holes inhabited by living creatures, nor while he walks or stands, nor on reaching the bank of a river, nor on the top of a mountain.
48. Let him never void faeces or urine, facing the wind, or a fire, or looking towards a Brahmana, the sun, water, or cows.

The question is are we simply trying to blame open defecation on two lines in the sacred texts which that most of Indians are not even aware about?
The caste system and some traditions related to it exist in all religions, have grown deeply in India and have been complicated further by the political system. Night-soil pickers (people belonging to the lowest caste) were shunned by the society and considered dirty. Hence, anything related to faecal matter is considered dirty.

So people do not like to clean their own toilets but cannot afford to pay for it as well. The burden of cleaning a toilet lands on a woman in the family and it is extremely difficult to maintain toilets when there is no running water supply.
Most articles either focus on a very few under developed states in India or small rural communities in a single state. As several cultural differences exist between north and south of India, generalising data based on specific regions may be a wrong approach.

It would be interesting to know if there are statistics/articles available on :

- What percentage of people defecate in the open only because they lack toilets, running water
- how many people cannot have toilets due to lack of space
- No. of people who practice open defecation that are educated and aware of sewer systems.
- Gender ratio for willingness to clean toilets
- Percentage of open defecation practiced in every state in India
- Open defecation with respect to water availability - a comparison between water scarce deserts of north western India and water abundant North eastern states.

Regards,
Shobana

I saw this article mentioned on Twitter by WASH United and it reminded me of the discussion we had here.
The tweet by WASH United was:
Armed with tablets & smartphones, gov't officials in #India are tracking #toilet usage. Will it work?

www.dailytech.com/India+Uses+Tablets+to+...Use/article37045.htm

India Uses Tablets to Track Public Defecation, Toilet Use

The comments below the article are generally a bit disappointing, some of the them focus again on the notion that it has something to do with hinduism.
One of them also mentions corruption.

I think it is an interesting idea for government officials to try and track toilet usage. Provided it is coupled with a real assessment of what stops people from using toilets (if they indeed have a functional toilet). My assumption is that it is very often due to the fact that the toilets are too dirty and not pleasant to use, perhaps also too far away from the dwelling.

I wonder if such a monitoring system could be combined with monitoring other health indicators at the same time, incidences of worm infections, behaviour on handwashing, breastfeeding, domestic violence etc. I mean if the households are meant to be visited then one might as well gather a more complete dataset?

Does anyone on this forum have more information about this initiative in India?

Kind regards,
Elisabeth

Below find an interesting link to an article called The link between sanitation and schooling in an Indian daily newspaper. The author Kiran Bhatty highlights several essential facts and factors of sanitation that generally are forgotten or rather readily neglected due to their uncomfortable reflections on the Indian society. Construction of toilets is the easiest of the tasks. Connecting (flush) toilets to water supply seems already much more difficult. Education in toilet use - potty training - seems to be a huge challenge. And maintenance of toilets becomes an insurmountable objective.

When it comes to work with waste and sewage, the society's conditioning into classes resp. castes seems to be as fossilized as ever; no Mahatma or Ambedkar, no amount of Scheduled Cast (SC) quota nor any change in terminology from outcast to harijan to dalit to SC seems to have changed that. And the educated and prosperous of India must be made to recognize this, in particular if sanitation is claimed to be taken up seriously.

Mrs. Kiran Bhatty, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, is a rare voice in publications on sanitation.

Link to the article (and comments on the article):
www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-link-...g/article6423571.ece



I cope the article below in case the link doesn't work anymore:

+++++++++

Published: September 19, 2014 01:32 IST | Updated: September 19, 2014 01:32 IST

The link between sanitation and schooling

The revival of the issue of toilets in schools has brought to the fore a discussion that has for long existed among educationists, with varying positions occupying centre stage at different times. A couple of decades ago, when the deplorable state of education began to be noticed, the importance of toilets was highlighted, and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) — the government’s flagship programme for universalisation of elementary education — included a specific provision for separate toilets for girls and boys. But soon after, a shift in focus to learning outcomes made toilets a dirty word as far as education was concerned, so much so that the emphasis on infrastructure, and toilets in particular, was held almost responsible for taking attention away from “learning.” Arguments were made that no correlation could be found between the presence of toilets and learning levels of children in school; therefore toilets were an unnecessary expense. Others claimed that since most poor rural children did not have toilets at home, they would not miss them in school either. What they needed was education, not toilets. The lack of sanitary habits among people who are not used to toilets and the issue of who would keep the toilets clean have also been part of the ongoing debate.

The need for functional toilets

So, where do we stand on these issues today and what can we expect from the Human Resource Development Ministry as it tries to fulfil Narendra Modi’s promises made on Independence Day? Perhaps a good place to start is by looking at some facts related to the provisioning of toilets, their use and cleanliness, and where the responsibility for the availability and functioning of toilets lies.

As mandated by the Right to Education Act, all children are required to spend six hours in school every day. During this period they would want to use the toilets. Irrespective of how and where they relieve themselves when at home, if the school does not have a functional toilet, they will need to go outside the school for their “bio-breaks.” The reality is that if they do leave the school, they are unlikely to return. Or if they are not allowed to leave, which is often the case for fear of the outcome mentioned above, they could end up soiling their clothes, for which they are likely to be penalised. A quick look at the complaints received by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (during 2010-2011, for instance) reveals that many complaints of corporal punishment were made because of this reason. Corporal punishment, like lack of toilets for girls, is a reason for dropouts.

In addition to all children needing toilets in schools, the teachers also need them. They are required to spend even longer hours in school to complete non-teaching work as well as prepare for classes. The lack of adequate toilets often necessitates the locking of toilets by teachers for their exclusive use. Among poor working conditions for teachers in schools, the lack of toilets is one, and probably contributes to teachers’ less than desired rate of attendance.
Despite the Act specifying separate toilets for boys and girls in each school, data from the District Information System for Education, 2013, shows that 10 per cent of elementary schools (nearly 2 lakh schools) still do not have functional toilets. In fact, in 2004, a civil writ petition (No (S) 631) was filed against the Delhi administration for the lack of toilets in schools, which resulted in the Supreme Court asking each State to submit affidavits on the status of toilets in their respective States. In early 2012, 18 State governments told the apex court in written affidavits signed by the highest-ranking bureaucrat in each of these States that they had met the requirement for toilets in accordance with RTE norms, or would do so by March 2012. In addition to the fact that this does not square up with the official data, if these 18 States have indeed met the norms as submitted in court, does it mean we can expect no further action on toilets in their jurisdictions?

There is, in fact, a great deal of ambiguity on whose responsibility it is to ensure functional toilets with adequate water facility in schools. Is it the HRD Ministry or the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) or the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation (MDWS) or all three?
The SSA has a provision for construction of toilets which ranges from Rs. 50,000 per toilet (Himachal Pradesh) to Rs. 70,000 per toilet (Jharkhand). The provision of sanitation facilities, however, is the responsibility of the MDWS. As a result, one finds a peculiar situation where scores of schools have constructed toilets — but without sanitation facilities or water supply. Their use, if at all, is naturally limited. What is not clear is who is responsible for ensuring convergence between these Ministries.

Minister for Rural Development and Drinking Water and Sanitation Nitin Gadkari recently announced that toilets would be delinked from the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. He announced that the amount allocated for the construction of individual toilets would be increased from Rs.10,000 to Rs. 15,000, for school toilets from Rs. 35,000 to Rs. 54,000, apart from an increase in the amount for construction of anganwadi toilets and community toilets. Does this mean these toilets will be provided water supply too? At the end of the day, if functional toilets do not exist in any given school, who will be held to account?

Keeping toilets clean

Finally, there is the issue of keeping toilets clean. At present there is no provision in SSA for the cleaning of toilets. In fact, during a review of the SSA framework a couple of years ago, this issue was raised and hotly debated. But it was decided that in the interest of educating children about hygiene and sanitation, no other provision should be made. Instead, the children and teachers should be encouraged to keep the toilets clean. The reality, as we all know, is that teachers do not involve themselves in this enterprise. As a result, the toilets are either cleaned or not cleaned by children — or more precisely, they are cleaned by Dalit children because they can be coerced into doing what other children will refuse to do. If a clean and hygienic environment is to be provided, some children should not have to create it for others.

If Mr. Modi and the HRD Ministry are serious about toilets in schools, they will need to do a more comprehensive rethink of all that it involves. In addition to an adequate provision of funds cleaning, sanitation training, maintenance of toilets and other things, the issue of fixing accountability must be addressed. Else we will keep visiting the basic issues over and over again, reformulating strategies and recommissioning funds.

(Kiran Bhatty is senior fellow, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)

Keywords: Toilets in school, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, child rights, National Commission for Protection of Child Rights


© The Hindu

+++++++++

Regards,
Lucas

In India (Tamilnadu) Sri Lanka and Nepal, I came across the following aspects of not using the pour-flush or other toilet, and OD nearby in the grass or bush.
A. Men and women do not want to use the same toilet (for whatever reasons). This means that when a house only has one latrine, half the members use the bush, usulally the women.
For development organisations to provide two toilets for one house is often considered too expensive. Interestingly, when aid organisations built toilets in refugee camps, strict separation between male and female toilets is made and all people use them. The refugee camp use is probably because there is no bush at all.
B. Some aid organisations provided low-cost toilets which were cheaply finished with cement plaster floors and lower walls. These will become soiled after a while, and urine penetrates into the lower quality cement finishing. Hence the place starts smelling bad and is abandoned.
C. People are aware of good quality spacious toilets having ceramic pans and tiled floors and lower walls. These can be kept properly clean and are nearly always used by households that do not allow others to share their toilets. When aid organisations or governments provide cement finish toilets of narrow spacing (underess-dress)the recipients do not want to use them in protest.
D. For several households using the same toilets, there must be a very clear agreement on who keeps the place clean. Richer families or Brahmans do not like to take that cleaning task or burden, but they also do not want to pay for the services. Availability of cleaning water (anal and toilet) is essential; who brings the water?, Where it is stored? In SE Asia and Indonesia often a waterbasin is located in the more spacier toilet area, facilitating cleaning both ways.
E. Some villagers did not want the toilet as part of the house. Inevitably it was to be build in the farest corner of the property. In many cases there was just no room.

Just building a singel low-cost cemented toilet for one family, a crampy latrine without water services for cleaning and handwashing is not going to improve the situation. Villagers who build their own tiled toilet are definately using them. Sometimes these are even becoming part of the house.

True that. The factors are multi-faceted and so should be the solutions.
Any meaningful attempt should responds to institutional, technical and social gaps. From my opinion, the most important aspect of any sanitation action is to understand the obstacles clearly and this should involve the potential beneficiaries. Rarely do we have universal solutions, every situation calls for an individual solution.

Someone recently said to me that the problem is that there is *too much* focus on faecal management and too little on access to clean water.

I do not agree, as unsafe defecation has implications beyond direct contamination of drinking water.

But I wonder if users are being given the message too often that the provision of clean water is of most importance, perhaps reinforced by the relative investment priorities of NGOs and governments in water vs faecal management schemes. Thoughts?

Maybe us development and public health practitioners have to realize that we are also dealing with a "lost generation", i.e. no matter the effort in so called behaviour change interventions, the generations that have been practising OD for decades will probably not stop doing it.

I think it is vital to have the facilities and get the younger generations start to appreciate the various advantages. Of course this isn't going to have a huge health impact in the short run (with so many still practising open defecation) but it hopefully will in the generations to come.

This thread has been helpful to me; we are just starting a project in South Africa looking at attitudes, behaviour and beliefs regarding open defecation, geophagia (soil eating), helminths and the links between the three.

I've noticed that some of the literature (eg. reports from some of the big international health organisations) are misleading and sometimes inaccurate in that they equate the provision of sanitation with being "open defecation free". So I think the zone where open defecation continues to happen in the presence of sanitation systems is really important to bring to light, although the reasons may vary enormously from one place to another.

In South Africa it appears (from limited interviews and anecdotal evidence) that open defecation by preschoolers is widely accepted and even encouraged because parents fear their child falling into the pit through the toilet seat (the VIP being the most common form of basic sanitation rolled out by the government). For kids still in nappies, the trend even among very poor people to use disposal nappies may also encourage parents to let their baby go bare bummed and defecate outside whenever possible to reduce the number of nappies used.

Here too we have found families, even when offered a pour flush toilet, sometimes choosing to build the toilet away from the house, despite the greater safety and convenience that an inside toilet provides. I think as others have mentioned this has to do with a tradition of toilets, animals etc being dirty, outdoor parts of life that shouldn't come inside. On the one hand with an abundance of chicken, cow and dog shit scattered around the yard their is less sensitivity to the presence of human shit in the outdoor environment, on the other hand, there is a feeling that all of that belongs outside of the house. Because an indoor flush toilet is also seen as a status symbol these two views are in tension and one family might choose to put the toilet inside and the next to put it outside. We have also found some families which were forced to accept an indoor toilet (in government housing schemes where low flush toilets were provided inside the houses)don't like having the toilet inside; some have gone as far as to build a latrine outside. In addition to the reasons given above, I think that even in the case of a flush toilet smells and sounds are produced by toilet users which may not be noticeable in a big house where the toilet is located down the passage from the main living area but can be embarrassing and unpleasant if the house is small and the toilet is located directly off of the living room or kitchen. Cultural issues around gender or age (ie. who is hearing whose bodily functions)could intensify discomfort around using an indoor toilet (it could also be harder to manage menstruation with an indoor toilet where access to the toilet may be in full view of everyone in the main living area. It seems that for these situations it may be an acceptable compromise to build the toilet attached to the house but with a separate entrance, balancing issues of safety and convenience against privacy and "purity" of the house.

A spiral superstructure design has been used for some toilets in South Africa, which eliminates the need for a door, and this may be more comfortable for users used to open defecation such as the one quoted in the article who don't like the feeling of being shut in; however there is no knowing who or what might be waiting for you inside when you enter the spiral opening, which could be a safety concern.

I will keep you posted regarding the behaviours and perspectives that come to light in our study.

Regards

Bobbie

Reading back through the thread again it seems maybe using some form of simplified sewerage with decentralized treatment would be culturally the best match. It would use water (which is considered ritually cleansing) and transport the faecal waste away from the house. It would probably be also the closest to people’s concept of modernity and progress. If simplified sewerage cannot be used using some form of water seal is probably a very good step. The Sulabh toilet in India does this, it would be nice to see some sustained usage data from their projects.

The simplified sewer solution would however be more expensive and water based, while large parts of India experience water scarcity already. But perhaps it is time to consider these kinds of systems for denser settlements on the basis that a medium cost solution that is used is still better value for money than pit latrines that nobody uses?

This is off coarse once again a technological fix, maybe better user engagement could also increase the popularity of pit latrines?

Another anecdote regarding people not wanting to use a new latrine.
The project in question was the first one in the area that used cement as a building material (only to create a cleanable floor). Thus some older people felt that using this most beautiful new room for something essentially dirty was not appropriate. This project did take more than a year for follow-up to deal with such issues, and in the end succeeded in convincing everyone to use the latrines built (which had a 50% user contribution also).

Regards

Marijn