80
K. Khare and S. Jose
reduction in the rate of open defecation from half of the population practicing it
to just 2%. However, the study affirms that the design of the toilets is predicated
on the assumption that fecal matter will eventually be safely managed. One-fourth
of the households have unsanitary latrines, i.e. without pits, so the night soil has
to be removed on a daily basis and the fecal matter is dumped near their house
premises. These concerns explored the potential of introducing (i) cost-effective
semi-mechanized tool intervention for on-site systems for pit emptying like Vaccutug, Gulper, Diaphragm, diesel, and electric which have been tested across the
dimensions of minimum spillage, affordability, reliability and, feasibility and (ii)
policy implications by creating space for policy dialogue for the willingness to pay
and financing for transportation of sludge. Although the cultural constraints in India
around the particular activity still has a long way to go, yet it provides viable solutions and sets standards for separating fecal matter from the pits in on-site sanitation
responses and provides a ground for potential discourse. Along the similar lines,
Uddin et al. (2016) explain how in Mongolia, pit latrines and soak pits still remain in
unhygienic conditions and there arises a need of acknowledging and making available superior technological and costly options—eco-toilets in this case. The study
provides for the possibility of addressing financial limitations by focusing on the
micro financing and the scope of social capital in sustainable disposal options.
The mission in its policy guidelines upend substantial vehemence on equity and
inclusion of socially and economically marginalized. However, in its Sanitation and
Hygiene Advocacy and Communication Strategy Framework (2012), there is hardly
any plan of action addressing the same. The primary focus still hovers around getting
people habituated with civilized sanitation practices without addressing the reasons
that breeds such practices. The word ‘caste’ appears only once in the mission document, thereby absolutely oblivion to caste-based inequalities (Coffey and Spears
2017). The dominant focus of the mission is demand driven by aggressive pursuit of
community mobilization techniques. The problem is compounded when the efforts
are directed with binary assumptions that presence of toilet would essentially translate
into absence of fecal matter. What it inadvertently ignores is the point that sanitation
uptake is not a simple outcome of sensitizing and facilitating people to construct
toilets but whether socio-cultural factors allow them to opt for sustained toilet usage.
5 Conclusion
Interventions in water and sanitation necessitate looking beyond infrastructural provision and aiming at good health with a bearing on overall well-being of individual
and human flourishing. Slippage, therefore, is an outcome of lack of focus on the
‘information,’ (Sen, p. 231, 2009) as to where and what to look at when well-being
is evaluated and interventions are conceived. With the benefit of hindsight, the interventional focus could be gauged; planning and investments could be redirected and
allocated equitably to the components of sustainability where they are needed the
most. The application of human development approach utilizes realization focused
K. Khare and S. Jose
reduction in the rate of open defecation from half of the population practicing it
to just 2%. However, the study affirms that the design of the toilets is predicated
on the assumption that fecal matter will eventually be safely managed. One-fourth
of the households have unsanitary latrines, i.e. without pits, so the night soil has
to be removed on a daily basis and the fecal matter is dumped near their house
premises. These concerns explored the potential of introducing (i) cost-effective
semi-mechanized tool intervention for on-site systems for pit emptying like Vaccutug, Gulper, Diaphragm, diesel, and electric which have been tested across the
dimensions of minimum spillage, affordability, reliability and, feasibility and (ii)
policy implications by creating space for policy dialogue for the willingness to pay
and financing for transportation of sludge. Although the cultural constraints in India
around the particular activity still has a long way to go, yet it provides viable solutions and sets standards for separating fecal matter from the pits in on-site sanitation
responses and provides a ground for potential discourse. Along the similar lines,
Uddin et al. (2016) explain how in Mongolia, pit latrines and soak pits still remain in
unhygienic conditions and there arises a need of acknowledging and making available superior technological and costly options—eco-toilets in this case. The study
provides for the possibility of addressing financial limitations by focusing on the
micro financing and the scope of social capital in sustainable disposal options.
The mission in its policy guidelines upend substantial vehemence on equity and
inclusion of socially and economically marginalized. However, in its Sanitation and
Hygiene Advocacy and Communication Strategy Framework (2012), there is hardly
any plan of action addressing the same. The primary focus still hovers around getting
people habituated with civilized sanitation practices without addressing the reasons
that breeds such practices. The word ‘caste’ appears only once in the mission document, thereby absolutely oblivion to caste-based inequalities (Coffey and Spears
2017). The dominant focus of the mission is demand driven by aggressive pursuit of
community mobilization techniques. The problem is compounded when the efforts
are directed with binary assumptions that presence of toilet would essentially translate
into absence of fecal matter. What it inadvertently ignores is the point that sanitation
uptake is not a simple outcome of sensitizing and facilitating people to construct
toilets but whether socio-cultural factors allow them to opt for sustained toilet usage.
5 Conclusion
Interventions in water and sanitation necessitate looking beyond infrastructural provision and aiming at good health with a bearing on overall well-being of individual
and human flourishing. Slippage, therefore, is an outcome of lack of focus on the
‘information,’ (Sen, p. 231, 2009) as to where and what to look at when well-being
is evaluated and interventions are conceived. With the benefit of hindsight, the interventional focus could be gauged; planning and investments could be redirected and
allocated equitably to the components of sustainability where they are needed the
most. The application of human development approach utilizes realization focused