1

Rural Sanitation - Unaddressed Issues

Naresh Chandra Saxena

Background

Government of India (GOI) started way back in the 1970s many social sector programmes in
poverty alleviation, drinking water, health, nutrition etc; however upto 1986 there was no
such central sector programme for sanitation. The 1981 Census revealed that rural sanitation
coverage was a meagre 1%, and open defecation was the norm even for well-to-do families.
For the first time in 1986 a new Central Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) was introduced
by Government of India for construction of household toilets in rural areas with huge
subsidy element, which was in 1998 Rs 3,000 per toilet available to all. This resulted in
construction of a large number of toilets mostly by contractors and hence of poor quality, but
these were hardly used for want of felt need, and gradually became dysfunctional.

As Secretary Rural Development in Government of India when I started the Total Sanitation
Campaign (TSC) in 1999, I totally abolished subsidy for non-BPL population and reduced it
for the BPL from Rs 3000 to only Rs 500, but vastly increased funds for communication and
extension. This “demand driven” approach emphasized more on Information, Education and
Communication (IEC) activities to increase awareness among the rural people and
generation of demand for using toilets.

However the states did not like reduction in subsidy, and even funds for IEC were not
effectively utilised. Often these were given to some NGO who would publish publicity
material that remained undistributed and confined to some junk room. Gradually under
pressure from the states the amount of subsidy kept on increasing and it became Rs 10,000
per toilet in 2012, when the scheme was renamed as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA). States
argue that not even 10% of the toilets constructed during the low subsidy regime are in
existence now as there was no superstructure and only a single pit was constructed.
According to them sustainability of the low cost toilets constructed was a major issue and
therefore they are in favour of higher subsidy to construct more durable IHLs (Individual
Household Latrines).
States seem to have convinced the new Government on the importance of subsidy that was
further increased to Rs 12,000 in December 2014. Heavy reliance on subsidy has been
criticised by many, such as Spears and Kar, who argue that it delays community
participation. However, it seems irreversible now.

Convergence with NREGA

My own field work shows that quality of construction (arising out of the fact that the house
owner does not control expenditure) is a larger bottleneck than lack of awareness. The
households’ control over funds was further diluted in April 2012, when government decided
to make subsidy available from two different budget heads, NBA and NREGA. However it is
almost impossible at the village level to converge and get funds from the two schemes
quickly, and this was the biggest dampener for the programme in the last two years of the
UPA regime. Before convergence, the implementation of NREGA and NBA were undertaken
by different departments who had their own systems of fund flow and work flow. Sanitation
and NREGA guidelines are conceptually different from each other, as sanitation guidelines
give money only as incentive, whereas NREGA gives money for construction. Moreover toilet
construction is not a labour intensive activity, as total labour cost in toilet construction is less
than 30%.

Another challenge to convergence is the huge paperwork that de-motivates the implementing
stakeholders. The net result is that the subsidy amount and therefore construction of toilet is
not controlled by the house owner. It is done by someone else in the village who purchases
 2

pan, pipes, and pays to the labour. Since a part of subsidy ends up in paying bribes, quality of
construction, especially what is underground remains poor, and soon the toilet falls into
disuse. How to ensure that the entire subsidy is passed on to the house owner and he alone
takes all financial decisions with full sense of ownership and with the intention of using the
toilet is the biggest challenge in the programme.

Wherever good results are achieved, it is because some district Collector/CEO or BDO
assumes leadership, takes risks and decides to flout or ignore rules and procedures. For
instance, the subsidy amount from NBA funds was to be given as incentive for using the
toilet, and after its construction. However, in practice it was often advanced by the block to
the beneficiary, if the gram sewak is convinced about the genuine efforts of the beneficiary.
Similarly, the NREGA guidelines lay down that each toilet is to be treated as a separate
project (which is time consuming), but it was often not observed. Sometimes the supplier of
material would supply these in advance, hoping that the gram sewak or rozgar sahayak
would be able to arrange for funds soon. Thus personal interest by the government servant
and the panchayat becomes an important factor in the success of the programme.

The new Swachh Bharat Mission

The Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) was launched by the Prime Minister on 2nd Oct, 2014
with the following objectives:
• To make India Open Defecation Free (ODF) India by 2019, by providing access to
toilet facilities to all;
• To provide toilets, separately for Boys and Girls in all schools by 15.8.2015;
• To provide toilets to all Anganwadis;
• Villages to be kept clean with Solid and Liquid Waste Management.

It is significant to note that the new government in its circular dated 18th December, 2014
permitted the entire Incentive money of Rs 12,000 per toilet chargeable on the Mission from
the sanitation sector, thereby putting an end to the necessity of drawing money from two
different heads. States will have flexibility to decide whether to give the subsidy to the
individual household or to the community or as a combination of both. Ideally the
construction activities should be taken up by the individual beneficiaries themselves with
support from/or through agencies in the village. States may decide to provide incentives to
households in two phases, one at the pre-construction stage and the other on completion of
construction and usage. However, the community incentive, if any, can only be released after
the village unit is open defecation free for a significant length of time.
Thus the new Guidelines allow for a great deal of flexibility and states have been empowered
to decide how they wish to spend the funds. States could even give subsidy higher than Rs
12,000 per toilet, but the additional money must come from state and not central resources.
Thus NREGA is out of the sanitation sector, and NBA-NREGA convergence, which was the
main bottleneck, has become a non-issue.
Who is eligible for subsidy? - In TSC, subsidy was available only to the BPL which was a
well defined category. The UPA government later added in 2012 all SCs, STs, small &
marginal farmers, NREGA workers, landless labourers with homestead, physically
handicapped, and ‘woman-headed household’ in the eligibility criteria. These categories have
been repeated in the SBM circular too.

Some of these categories are not well defined, and leave a lot to adhoc decisions. One BDO in
Pune told me that he is able to provide subsidy even to prosperous farmers by declaring one
of the adult woman as head of the family, and provide subsidy to them as ‘woman-headed
household’. Or if land is in the name of a prosperous farmer, his son may not have any land
in his name, and thus he gets entitled as landless. By making the entitlement universal the
BDO has been able to generate a lot of demand for subsidy from the rich people. However,
 3

such discretion can be misused and may lead to corruption. It also leads to confusion and
delays, as in one block the eligibility criteria may be liberally interpreted, whereas the
neighbouring block may take a more restrictive view. When I discussed this issue with the
Joint Secretary in the Ministry, he said GOI would not like to issue any clarification on this
issue, and he would not mind if even the non-poor get subsidy as it would lead to more
number of toilets. A study done by UNICEF in July-Aug 2017 showed that 53 per cent in the
richest quintile were able to get government subsidy for toilet construction. In some states,
such as Gujarat, all households with dysfunctional toilets (irrespective of whether they are
APL or BPL) receive Rs. 12000. In case any household had received incentive amount from
earlier schemes, that amount is deducted from Rs. 12000.
The missing toilets
The objective of TSC was to attain 100% sanitation coverage in terms of rural households by
the end of the Eleventh Plan (2012). According to the state governments, the coverage
progressively moved from 39% to 73% during the period 2007-11, leaving behind only 27% to
be covered after 2011. The year-wise reported figures claiming that more than 10 crore (or
100 million) rural IHHLs were constructed before SBM are given below:

Table 1: Year-wise construction of rural toilets

Total IHHL(APL+BPL)
Financial Year
2001-2002 638680
2002-2003 596380
2003-2004 6137010
2004-2005 4582283
2005-2006 9171407
2006-2007 9700380
2007-2008 11527890
2008-2009 11265882
2009-2010 12407778
2010-2011 12243731
2011-2012 8798864
2012-2013 4559162
2013-2014 4976294
2014-2015 4954987
2015-2016 12558369
2016-2017 21819261
2017-2018 29803290
2018-2019 21809380
Total :- 18,75,51,028

Such optimistic claims of state governments were however not supported by Third Party
studies. NSSO in its 65th Report of Nov 2010 for Housing Amenities indicated that 65% rural
households and 11% urban households have no latrine facility. The sad story of fudging of
data by the field staff got further publicity when the census report in 2011 (Figure 1) brought
forth the startling revelation that about 3.5 crore toilets built in the last ten years at the
individual household levels were missing. In some states the number of missing toilets was
more than 60%, as in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The number of
missing toilets was as high as 72% in Madhya Pradesh and 78% in Uttar Pradesh. Although
the census figures were contested by the Ministry, the baseline survey done in 2012 also
gives an indication that the scenario is not good in the BIMAROU states.
 4

Figure 1: Coverage of toilets by Census 2011 and by state governments

120

100

80

60

40
Fudging by States
20
census
0 UTTARAKHAND
CHHATTISGARH
MADHYA PRADESH

TAMIL NADU

ASSAM
J&K

NAGALAND
JHARKHAND

HARYANA

PUNJAB
ANDHRAPRADESH

WEST BENGAL

TOTAL
GUJARAT
BIHAR

KERALA
ORISSA

RAJASTHAN

KARNATAKA

MAHARASHTRA
UTTAR PRADESH

MEGHALAYA

HIMACHAL PRADESH

The census of 2011 shows that only 32% households in rural India have access to sanitation.
If we count shared and community toilets this figure for rural India goes to about 40%, way
below what was being reported by the states. Similarly although more than 28,000 GPs
achieved ODF over the 2005-2014 period, studies indicate significant (more than 90 percent
according to a WSP sample survey) slip-back (reversion) of ODF achievement1. This kind of
over-reporting totally vitiates accountability, and must be discouraged.
In the ten years from 2001 to 2011 the percentage of households with toilets in UP increased
only from 19.2 to 21.8. However, UP is now reporting that 58.3 per cent households have
toilets in Feb 2018. In other words, the number has almost trebled in the last six years,
though in the previous ten years improvement was by a meagre two percentage points. One
cannot escape from suspecting that UP may have again resorted to inflated reporting, as in
the past.
Figure 2: Missing toilets in UP

1 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/850971468033846496/pdf/Swachh-Bharat-Appraisal-Stage-PID-Final-2015.pdf
 5

90
80
70
60
50 Census
40
30 TSC/NBA
19.2 21.8
20
10
0
2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The difference between field reports as compiled by GOI (DDWS) for the entire country and
independent surveys is shown below.

A study by TARU of NGP villages suggested that only 109 Gram Panchayats out of 162 GPs
surveyed were having toilet usages of more than 60%, i.e. the balance slipped back to the
open defecation status.
Table 2: Proportion Of NGP Awarded GPs Reporting Usage Of Toilets
State Proportion of people using Toilet Total
None <20% 20% - 40% - 60% - >80% 100%
40% 60% 80%
Andhra Pradesh 1 4 5 10
Chhattisgarh 1 5 4 10
Maharashtra 1 7 6 4 36 6 60
Tamil Nadu 2 5 9 6 11 33
Uttar Pradesh 1 6 7 1 15
West Bengal 2 3 18 11 34
Total 4 20 29 39 64 6 162
Source: TARU study
 6

Thus in UP, of the 15 villages studied only one village reported more than 60% usage. What
is more damaging is the fact that in UP, of those certified as toilets constructed, only 55%
were found to be in existence.
Although TSC provided subsidy only to the BPL population, NSSO 2008-09 showed dismal
performance amongst the poorer quintiles. NSSO has divided the rural population into five
wealth quintiles. The sanitation coverage against each wealth quintile has been reported as
follows.

Figure 4: Sanitation trends by wealth quintiles as per NSSO 2008-09 (%)

Source: http://www.wssinfo.org)

The above comparison of sanitation practices between the poorest and the richest 20% of
households in the country is only an indicator of the inherent inequities in the programming
and implementation. This also indicates that in its agenda of progress, India has not reached
out to its poorest households who are supposed to be getting subsidy and it is the rich who
have constructed toilets either on their own or by getting government subsidy by hook or by
crook.
Many states, such as UP, Gujarat, and AP have no strategy for addressing dysfunctional
toilets. Some others use NREGA funds, although toilet construction is not a labour intensive
activity.
Achievement under SBM

The latest data show that over 6.27 crore household toilets have been constructed in rural
areas since SBM was launched on October 2, 2014. The Ministry has claimed that toilet
coverage has increased from 39% in October 2014 to 79% in Feb 2018. 3.23 lakh villages and
314 districts (roughly half of the total) have been declared as ODF. In addition, 11 States
including Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, and Gujarat have been declared ODF. Rajasthan's
coverage is stated to be 99.7%, it was only 30% in October, 2014. Year-wise progress on the
number of toilets constructed is given in Figure 5.
 7

Figure 5: Annual construction of

toilets in lakhs
250

200

150

100

50

0
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

However a recent World Bank study found that by and large States do not have a system to
track ODF sustainability. Hence, declared ODF villages are self-reported achievements based
on a one-time check by the State machinery. In some states, political pressure has resulted in
a construction-driven approach with limited attention to behaviour change. The most
striking examples of this are Gujarat (where several districts were declared ODF
prematurely) and Andhra Pradesh. In Jharkhand the State’s implementation approach is
geared towards completion of toilet construction mostly through VWSCs with little focus on
community involvement. Consequently, despite access to toilets usage was found to be low in
2016.
Therefore, what is the guarantee that these toilets would not suffer the same fate as the
toilets constructed before 2014, and would continue to be used in future without further
financial support from government? To answer this question we need to assess the reasons
for toilets becoming dysfunctional or enthusiastic over-reporting in the past.
Reasons for ‘missing toilets’
There are critical factors contributing towards a difference in toilets available on paper
against the actual coverage figure – the missing toilets. Some of them are:
1. There are cases where toilets were never constructed but were reported as existing,
especially for APL.
2. Toilets of poor quality constructed with low-incentives starting from ‘Sector Reform
Project’ and early years of TCS became dysfunctional and hardly exist on the ground.
3. Restoration/ renovation of one toilet counting the toilet twice or thrice or perhaps more.
4. Subsidy for one toilet is being claimed by different adult members in the same household,
resulting in inflated government figures.
5. Progress was monitored at the GP level in numbers and not by names, making the
situation open to over reporting for reward (Now the progress is monitored on the MIS/Base
Line Survey by names2).

2 http://www.indrastra.com/2017/10/ThinkTank-Lessons-From-Past-Rural-Households-
Toilet-Stats-Centrally-Sponsored-Sanitation-Progs-003-10-2017-0021.html
 8

In Gujarat a WB team observed in 2016 that most often toilets are constructed on a large
scale by the GPs by engaging contractors, with little involvement of users in the choice of
technology or location of toilet. In 3 out of 4 GPs visited, newly constructed toilets were
either not being used or being used as store rooms.
The reasons for dysfunctional toilets in the TARU study were given as follows:

Thus the reasons for not using were rooted in poor construction, or technological norms not
being followed, and not lack of awareness or reluctance to use, as is the common impression.
If the toilet is functional, of good quality, with sufficient water, chances of its being used (at
least by women, children, old & sick, and during the rains) are quite high.
A study (Hindu 9 June 2014) showed that of the persons defecating in the open, 86 per cent
did not have toilets. Same conclusion was drawn in the PEO evaluation3 of 2013, quoted
below:

‘The incidence of open defecation is less than 1% in case of households in Sikkim and
Kerala. Percentages are quite low in the states of Assam (2.3%), Meghalaya (4.0%)
etc. On the other hand, high incidence of open defecation was noticed in the states of
Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha. Out of the 73
households per 100 households that practice open defecation, 66 households are
forced to do so due to unavailability of individual household or community toilets,
and 7 household do so in spite of having toilets.’

‘32% of households having toilets have reported the need for walls, doors, as well as
roofs for their toilets. Such problems were non-existent in the states of Karnataka,
Kerala, Sikkim Tamil Nadu, Haryana and Gujarat. Manipur also has many bucket
type toilets. The perception of construction related deficiency seems to be the
maximum in West Bengal. It can further be seen that most of the households having
issues about doors, roofs and walls, also have problems with the depth of the toilet
pit. 76% of those households who have expressed the need for walls, roof, as well as
door are also dissatisfied about the pit-depth. Thus, according to our estimates, out of
the 73 households per 100 rural households where at least one member of the family

3 Programme Evaluation Organisation 2013 Evaluation Study on Total Sanitation

Campaign Planning Commission
 9

practices open defecation, 66 households are forced to do so due to unavailability of

individual household or community toilets, 1 household is forced to resort to open
defecation due to the inadequacy of the number of toilets in the household and 6
households do so in spite of having toilets. Clearly, out of the two component of open
defecation, non-availability or inadequate availability of toilets is by far the more
important issue. Given the availability of toilets, less than 10% households practice
open defecation in 9 out of the 20 states.’

The EPCO-UNICEF study on MP shows that almost 80% of the households that have toilet
actually use them. In NGP villages of MP, only 6.4% households don’t use toilet in spite of
having a functional toilet.
The Quality Council of India (QCI) has conducted a third-party assessment of the present
status of rural sanitation in all states and UTs, called Swachh Survekshan Gramin 2017.QCI
surveyed 1.4 lakh rural households across 4,626 villages and found the overall toilet coverage
to be 62.45%.At the time of the survey, i.e. May-June 2017, the Swachh Bharat Mission
(Gramin) MIS reported the coverage to be 63.73%.The survey also observed that 91.29% of
the people having access to a toilet use it.
The counter-argument is given by Dean Spears (epw, 20 Sept 2014) that ‘many people have a
revealed preference for open defecation, and therefore merely providing latrine “access”
without promoting latrine use is unlikely to reduce open defecation’. About 25% working
males and 15% working females practice OD, despite having a toilet. Is it because of cultural
preference, or because of their nature of work which forces them to go to their farm quite
early in the morning to perform crop operations? What needs to be observed is whether the
partial use gets converted into full use in course of time, or remains partial even after a year
or two.
Even the total subsidy amount of Rs 12,000 is not sufficient to meet the full cost, and
households have to pitch in their own funds. UNICEF implemented an independent survey
on a sample of 18,376 respondents representing 10,051 rural households, randomly selected
from 550 Gram Panchayats across 12 states accounting for 90 per cent of open defecation in
India. The survey was carried out from 20 July – 11 August 2017. The out-of pocket
contribution of those household receiving government support was on an average INR 9,942
from own funds. It was INR 29,900 for those not receiving any government support, thus
averaging INR 16,262 (US$252.12) across all households. 82 per cent of households in
poorest quintile received government support compared to 53 per cent in the richest
quintile.

Table 3: Costs in Rs to households and government per household sampled, by

wealth quintile

Group 1. Financial costs paid by 2. Financial costs paid by 3. Non-financial

household from own funds government or other financier costs (time)
covered by
household
Investment Annual Investment Investment Annual O&M
O&M
All 16,626 2,359 8,199 1,007 6,082
Poorest 6,971 1,743 9,691 1,192 4,189
Q2 13,874 2,286 8,825 917 5,104
Q3 16,499 2,397 8,382 803 5,958
Q4 19,160 2,653 7,803 744 6,772
Richest 26,613 2,752 6,229 895 8,650
 10

Another unsolved sanitation related problem is the lack of usable land to build a toilet. In a
World Bank study of Samastipur and Ganjam many low-caste households had no land to
build a toilet, as they had smaller homes and no additional land4. This would be a pain point
mostly for households living in villages near a city or town (as land prices are higher in these
villages), or in Census towns.
The division of families who are without toilets facilities should be categorised as below.
A. Having land & funds but not having mentality
B. Having land but lacking funds.
C. Having funds but no lands
D. Neither having land nor having funds
In Chhattisgarh, special provisions are made to ensure landless gain access. This includes,
row toilets, community toilets, land donations, construction of toilets on the first floor of
house, construction by GP in case of poorest of the poor/old/infirm, providing land (patta) to
landless families. One needs to know how other states are addressing this issue.

Technical issues

In India often the size of pits are several times the recommended size of 50 cuft. This is being
done to ensure that the pit never gets filled up. A World Bank report observed that there was
low acceptance of technically correct leach pit among people due to belief that ‘low’ depth
leach pit will get filled up quickly. This results in modification of leach pits such as increase
in depth of pit to over 9 feet and up to aquifer level.
For a family of 6, the WHO estimates that it will take about 5 years for a 50 cuft pit to fill. To
protect the health of pit emptiers, and to reduce the risks of disease transmission from fresh
sludge, the Indian government recommends the construction of twin pit latrines. Twin-pit
latrines reduce the health hazards of manual emptying of latrine pits because the feces in the
full pit can be left to decompose for several months while the household channels feces into
the second pit. Unfortunately, adoption of the twin pit model was very low in rural north
India, at least till 2015. In Odisha, single pit is promoted even after 2015. On the other hand,
in Telengana, the incentive is withheld if toilet is not a twin leach pit. In UP, there are no
state specific guidelines for ensuring quality of construction to be monitored at every level.
This could lead to problems in construction and eventually in technically sound toilets
constructed.
In the SQUAT survey, only 2.5% of households with a latrine were using a twin pit model.
The SQUAT survey found that where government latrines were in use, they were likely to be
single pit latrines that were not used by all family members. They might be used by women,
by the infirm, or only for “emergencies.” Indeed, the privately constructed latrines in use in
rural India are different from those in other developing countries because they have very
large underground pits or septic tanks. The median pit size of a privately constructed latrine
in the SQUAT survey was five times as large as the Indian government recommends. Many
households aspire to owning pits even larger than that.The demand for very large pits and
septic tanks drives of up the cost of constructing a latrine considerably. Much of the
difference in cost between a Bangladeshi latrine, which might cost as little as 2,000 rupees,
and an Indian latrine is due to the difference in the size of the underground pit.
Government bodies also need to realize the limitations of promoting only one type of
sanitation solution (the current brick super structure & twin pit system) and understand the
different situations where this is not a suitable solution. An example of an unsolved
sanitation related problem is the unsuitability of the twin pit toilet system as a solution in the

4 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/850971468033846496/pdf/Swachh-Bharat-Appraisal-Stage-PID-Final-2015.pdf
 11

flood prone regions. With a heavy clay soil profile and being a low plain in between multiple
rivers, some areas may be prone to flooding every few years. This flooding risk is even more
evident in the low lying areas that most low income communities occupy. Incidentally these
communities have the maximum number of households who do not yet have toilets. Even
otherwise groundwater enters the leach pits in a good rainfall year and fills them up.
SLWM - Although SLWM is an integral component of national SBMG guidelines, the
present focus is on achieving ODF status. As a result, States have generally not developed a
State specific strategy for SLWM; targets are minimal unlike ODF; dedicated systems for HR,
training and monitoring of progress are largely not found in any State.
The experience from Punjab shows that while the state has achieved high toilet coverage, it
has also compounded the problem of water pollution and diseases. It now needs an efficient
and affordable sewage treatment system for the avoidance of surface pollution and
groundwater contamination. Therefore, integrating the liquid and solid waste management
and complete sanitation chain is needed to ensure the microenvironment and sustainable
operations and maintenance should not be ignored.
To sum up, action needs to taken on a number of fronts, such as:

 The mismatch between targets and budget provision should be sorted out.
 Construction of toilets is controlled by some middleman, and not by the household.
This must be changed by better monitoring and flow of funds directly to the
household.
 States should be disincentivised from doing inflated reporting.
 States should monitor the size of the pit, and withdraw subsidy if it is more than 100
cuft in size.
 Problems of those without land and of those areas unsuited for twin pits should be
addressed.

Research issues
If a new study is to be done, it could investigate the issues listed below.

What percentage of toilets built with government funds during 2000-2014 are still
operational and in use? If this percentage is very low, what is the guarantee that toilets built
after 2014 would be sustained after, say, ten years? Is there a significant difference in the
technology being followed before and after 2014? How is fecal matter being disposed off
from the toilets built before 2014?

How is the problem of defunct toilets being addressed? According to a UNICEF report
(Status of Defunct toilet in Maharashtra & Estimated Expenditure to convert them to
functional), India as a whole is burdened with 88.7 lakh dysfunctional or defunct toilet at
baseline that requires to be converted into functional ones to achieve ODF status. Less than
1% have been converted into functional ones. What about the rest?

How many toilets are being constructed by the household, panchayat, or other
intermediaries? Who pays for the material and wages for mason etc? How is the mode of
payment and supervision related to quality, durability, and sustained use?

If households are in control of funds, how does each individual procure the material? A
general tone of complaint reverberates through the villages that material required for
construction of household toilet is not easy to get. There is no sanitary mart/production
centre or any other alternative arrangement to ensure supply of materials at the door step of
the household in an organized manner. Procuring in small quantity is difficult, which makes
transportation cost quite high. Therefore how economic is direct procurement by the
household because of the cost of transportation?
 12

Status of community toilets: who maintains them and are they well maintained and
used? In Maharashtra it was found that a community toilet was completely dilapidated and
lying defunct since it has been located in a place with no access to water though the village is
covered by piped water.

How good is the quality of motivators (Swachhagrahi)? Are there too many vacancies in their
cadre because persons with more competence leave for better jobs? A World Bank report
found that in Bihar percentage of HR post filled at State and District level was only 40% and
17% respectively. Are they sufficiently motivated? Low remuneration, low travel support to
visit villages and lack of supervision could be the major causes behind poor motivation.
Delays in release of Central share: There is no overall shortage of funds for the
programme. However, the way funds flow has many shortcomings Delays of up to 9 months
in central release and lack of predictability in timing of release are reported in UP as issues.
HH are motivated to invest own resources in some states, such as Bihar. A 2016 WB study
found substantial delays in receipt of incentive amount by the beneficiaries in some states.
There was delay in release of Central grant along with matching State share ranging from 35
to 90 days. Shortage of funds in some States/districts, esp where large scale construction was
initiated has been reported such as in Gujarat, Odisha, and selected Rajasthan districts.
How do the poor manage funds, and how is purchase and transportation of pan arranged?
How efficient is the fund flow? Is there too much of delay in verification of muster rolls,
taking measurements and releasing payments? The number of Junior Engineer in the block
is limited and they take time to go to the village and complete documentation necessary to
release funds. There should be more delegation to the GP to cut short the process and
settling much matter as fast as possible at the GP level.

Are poorer households being excluded from government subsidy because they cannot
arrange for their own contribution? What about those households, especially in census towns
who have no surplus land to build the toilet?

One of the most direct ways in which people have been ‘triggered’ to stop going for open
defecation has been by getting a group of people (sometimes under the name of nigrani or
surveillance committee) to whistle people away from their defecation spots early in the
morning. The trigger starts with a form of pressure, even though this is conceptualized as a
‘community led’ mechanism. More worrying from a sanitation point of view is the fact that
these whistling squads only have their whistles as a device of persuasion. Indeed, no
temporary toilets are provided, either to show people how to use them or to persuade them
of the positive consequences of using a toilet. The impact of community pressure on toilet
use should be studied.
Conclusion
To sum up, amidst the big noise about India’s ‘fast’ growing economy and its growth
quotient, the country is still limping to attain total sanitation for its people. Raising demand
of the households leading to desired change in behaviour and construction of self-financed
toilets (with incentive money later) has behavioural, financial, administrative, as well as
structural constraints, and cannot be achieved easily on a large scale. There is no proper
maintenance of public toilets, including school toilets that are often under lock and key of the
teachers. There are more than 26 lakhs dry latrines, where humans have to clean the other
human’s excreta by hand. Despite tall claims and high promises, we are not able to abolish
this inhuman practice and tradition.
Thus challenges are of gigantic proportions. Prime Minister has rightly given a clarion call
for mobilising peoples’ awareness on cleanliness, but the states too need to monitor the
programme closely and fix accountability of ground staff through objective third party
assessments, so that tendency to report inflated figures on targets is kept under check.