reviewing the status of open defecation free india...“open defecation free” (odf) is a term used...

International Journal of All Research Education and Scientific Methods (IJARESM), ISSN: 2455-6211

Volume 8, Issue 10, October-2020, Impact Factor: 7.429, Available online at: www.ijaresm.com

IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com Page 73

Reviewing the Status of Open Defecation Free India

Manisha Tripathi1, Manoj Mishra

2

1, 2 Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh

--------------------------------------------------------------*****************---------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT

“Open defecation free” is a phrase first used in community-led total sanitation (CLTS) programs. ODF has now

entered use in other contexts. The original meaning of Open defecation free stated that all community members are

using sanitation facilities (such as toilets) instead of going to the open for defecation. This definition was improved

and more criteria were added in some countries that have adopted the CLTS approach in their programs to stop the

practice of open defecation. The Indian Ministry of Drinking and Sanitation has in mid-2015 defined Open

defecation free as “the termination of fecal-oral transmission, defined by no visible feces found in the environment

or village and every household as well as public/community institutions using safe technology option for disposal of

feces”. “Safe technology option” means a toilet that contains feces so that there is no contamination of surface soil,

groundwater, or surface water; flies or animals do not come in contact with the open feces; no one handles excreta;

there is no smell and there are no visible feces around in the environment which is a part of the Swachh Bharat

Abhiyan (Clean India Campaign). In this paper, we will review the current status or one can say peek into the

present-day situation of the Open defecation free program based on the data provided by various national agencies.

Keywords: Rural India, Open defecation, Women Safety, Women Health.

I. INTRODUCTION

Open defecation is the human practice of defecating outside (“in the open”) rather than into a toilet. People may choose

fields, bushes, forests, ditches, streets, canals, or other open space for defecation. They do so either because they do not

have a toilet readily accessible or due to traditional cultural practices. The practice is common where sanitation

infrastructure and services are not available. Even if toilets are available, behavior change efforts may still be needed to

promote the use of toilets. “Open defecation free” (ODF) is a term used to describe communities that have shifted to using

toilets instead of open defecation. This can happen, for example, after community-led total sanitation programs have been

implemented.

Open defecation can pollute the environment and cause health problems. High levels of open defecation are linked to

high child mortality, poor nutrition, poverty, and large disparities between rich and poor.

As of 2019, estimated 673 million people practices open defecation, down from about 892 million people (12 percent of the

global population) in 2016. In that year, 76 percent (678 million) of the people practicing open defecation in the world lived

in just seven countries.

Defecating in the open is a very ancient practice. In ancient times, there were more open spaces and less population

pressure on land. It was believed that defecating in the open causes little harm when done in areas with low population,

forests, or camping type situations. With development and urbanization, open defecating started becoming a challenge and

thereby an important public health issue, and an issue of human dignity. With the increase in population in smaller areas,

such as cities and towns, more attention was given to hygiene and health. As a result, there was an increase in global attention towards reducing the practice of open defecation.

Open defecation perpetuates the vicious cycle of disease and poverty and is widely regarded as an affront to personal

dignity. The countries where open defecation is most widely practiced have the highest numbers of deaths of children under

the age of five, as well as high levels of malnutrition, high levels of poverty, and large disparities between the rich and

poor.




II. REASONS BEHIND OPEN DEFECATION

The reasons for open defecation are varied. It can be a voluntary, semi-voluntary, or involuntary choice. Most of the time, a

lack of access to a toilet is the reason. However, in some places, even people with toilets in their houses prefer to defecate

in the open.

A few broad factors that result in the practice of open defecation are listed below:

A. No toilet

Lack of infrastructure: People often lack toilets in their houses, or in the areas where they live.

Lack of toilets in other places: Lack of toilets in places away from people's houses, such as in schools or farms

leads the people to defecate in the open. Another example is the lack of public toilets in cities, which can be a

big problem for homeless people.

Use of toilets for other purposes: In some rural communities, toilets are used for other purposes, such as

storing household items, animals, farm products, or used as kitchens. In such cases, people go outside to

defecate.

B. Uncomfortable or unsafe toilet

Poor quality of toilet: Sometimes people have access to a toilet, but the toilet might be broken, or of poor

quality – Outdoor toilets (pit latrines in particular) typically are devoid of any type of cleaning and reek of

odors. Sometimes, toilets are not well lit at all times, especially in areas that lack electricity. Others lack doors

or may not have water. Toilets with maggots or cockroaches are also disliked by people and hence, they go

out to defecate.

Risky and unsafe: Some toilets are risky to access. There may be a risk to personal safety due to lack of lights

at night, criminals around them, or the presence of animals such as snakes and dogs. Women and children

who do not have toilets inside their houses are often found to be scared to access shared or public toilets,

especially at night. Accessing toilets that are not located in the house might be a problem for disabled people,

especially at night.

Presence of toilet but not privacy: Some toilets do not have a real door, but have a cloth hung as a door. In some communities, toilets are located in places where women are shy to access them due to the presence of

men.

Lack of water near the toilet: Absence of supply of water inside or next to toilets cause people to get water

from a distance before using the toilet. This is an additional task and needs extra time.

Too many people using a toilet: This is especially true in the case of shared or public toilets. If too many

people want to use a toilet at the same time, then some people may go outside to defecate instead of waiting.

In some cases, people might not be able to wait due to diarrhea (or the result of an Irritable Bowel Syndrome

emergency).

Fear of the pit gets filled: In some places, people are scared that their toilets pits will get filled very fast if all

family members use it every day. So they continue to go out to delay the toilet pit filling up. This is especially

true in the case of a pit latrine.

C. Unrelated to toilet infrastructure

Lack of awareness: People in some communities do not know about the benefits of using toilets.

Lack of behavior change: Some communities have toilets, yet people prefer to defecate in the open. In some

cases, these toilets are provided by the government or other organizations and the people do not like them, or

do not value them. They continue to defecate in the open. Also, older people are often found to defecate in the

open and they are hesitant to change their behavior and go inside a closed toilet.

Prefer being in nature: This happens mostly in less populated or rural areas, where people walk outside early

in the morning and go to defecate in the fields or bushes. They prefer to be in nature and the fresh air; instead

of defecating in a closed space such as a toilet. There may be a cultural or habitual preference for defecating

“in the open air”, beside a local river or stream, or even the bush.

Combining open defecation with other activities: Some people walk early in the morning to look after their

farms. Some consider it as a social activity, especially women who like to take some time to go out of their homes. While on their way to the fields for open defecation they can talk to other women and take care of

their animals.

Social Norms: Open defecation is a part of people's lives and daily habits in some regions (e.g. in some rural

regions of India). It is an ancient practice and is hard for many people to stop practicing. It is a part of a

routine or social norm. In some cultures, there may be social taboos where a father-in-law may not use the




same toilet as a daughter-in-law in the same household.

Social or personal preferences: Open defecation is a preferred practice in some parts of the world, notably in

rural India, with many respondents in a survey from 2015 stating that “open defecation was more pleasurable

and desirable than latrine use”.

Fecal incontinence: This medical condition can result in abrupt „emergencies‟ and not enough time to access a

toilet. D. Public defecation for other reasons

In developed countries, open defecation is either due to homelessness or considered to be a part of voluntary, recreational

outdoor activities in remote areas. It is difficult to estimate how many people practice open defecation in these

communities.

III. PREVIOUS DATA AND SURVEY REPORT

The NSO has been collecting data on „Housing Conditions and other Amenities‟ almost since its inception. Data on the

structural aspects of dwelling units and basic housing amenities such as drinking water, bathrooms, sewerage, latrine,

lighting, etc., available to the households were collected by NSO from NSS 7th round (October 1953 - March 1954) to NSS

23rd round (July 1968 - June 1969) through different survey schedules. These surveys were essentially exploratory, designed to give only a broad idea of the dimensions of variables reflecting housing conditions at the national level.

Before NSS 76th round, comprehensive surveys on housing condition with a separate Schedule 1.2 were carried out by

NSO in the 28th round (October 1973 - June 1974), 44th round (July 1988 - June 1989), 49th round (January - June 1993,

58thround (July - December 2002), 65th round (July 2008 - June 2009) and 69th round (July - December 2012). Apart from

these surveys on housing conditions, through Schedule 31 (Common Property Resources, Sanitation & Hygiene, Services)

of NSS 54th round (January - June 1998), detailed information on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene were also

collected.

Before NSS 76th round, the last comprehensive survey on „Drinking Water, Sanitation, Hygiene, and Housing Condition‟

was carried out by NSO in its 69th round (July - December 2012) through Schedule 1.2. Considering the content of

Schedule 1.2 of NSS 69th round, current data demand, and usefulness of the survey results, Schedule 1.2 of NSS 76th round was prepared. The NSO also conducted Rapid Surveys on Swachhata Status during May-June 2015 along with the

other surveys of the NSS 72nd round (July 2014 - June 2015) and during July - December 2017 along with the other

surveys of the NSS 75th round (July 2017 - June 2018).

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Our country is close to attaining the long-sought and desperately important goal of universal sanitation coverage, according

to India‟s official sanitation statistics. The latest data from the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) portal suggests that 27 out of

India‟s 36 states and Union territories are now open defecation free (ODF) with 98.6% of Indian households having access

to toilets.

Here we are quoting some of the statements provided by NSO in their 76th annual report:

“About 56.6% of the households in the rural areas and about 91.2% of the households in the urban areas

had access to the bathroom.”

“Among the households which had access to the bathroom, about 48.4% in the rural areas and about

74.8% in the urban areas used bathroom attached to the dwelling unit.”

“About 71.3% of the households in the rural areas and about 96.2% of the households in the urban areas

had access to a latrine. It may be noted that there may be respondent bias in the reporting of access to

latrine as the question on benefits received by the households from government schemes was asked

before the question on the access of households to a latrine.”

“The major type of latrine used by the households was flush/pour-flush to the septic tank in both rural and urban areas. About 50.9% of the households in rural areas and 48.9% of the households in urban areas

used to flush/pour-flush to septic tank type of latrine.”

“Among the households which had access to a latrine, about 94.7% of the males and 95.7% of the

females in the rural areas used latrine regularly while about 98.0% of the males and 98.1% of the females

in the urban areas used latrine regularly.”

“Among the households which had access to a latrine, about 93.8% of the males and 94.6 % of the




females in the rural areas regularly used improved latrine while about 97.2% of both males and females in

the urban areas regularly used improved latrine.”

“Among the households which had access to a latrine, about 85.8% of the males and 86.4% of the

females in the rural areas regularly used improved latrine which was for the exclusive use of the

household while the corresponding figure was about 82.4% for males and 84.7 percent for females in the

urban areas.”

“Among the households which had access to a latrine, about 3.5% of the household members in the rural

areas and about 1.7% of the household members in the urban areas never used latrine.”

Below we have mentioned in detail (tabular form and graphically) the data available from the National Statistical Office

(NSO) and SBM portal about the exact status of the ODF mission in the country.

Table 1: Percentage distribution of households by access to bathroom1

Table 2: Percentage distribution of households which had access to the bathroom by type of bathroom used by

them1

1 http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_584_final_0.pdf

http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/publication_reports/Report_584_final_0.pdf




Table 3: Percentage distribution of households by access to latrine1

Figure 1: Percentage of households with a different type of access to latrine1

Table 4: Percentage distribution of households having access to latrine by type of latrine used by them1




Table 5: Percentage of households with access to a latrine, percentage of households used improved latrine and

percentage of households with exclusive access to latrine as obtained from NSS 69th and NSS 76th round survey.1

Table 6: The percentage of persons (among persons of the households having access to latrine) regularly used

latrine, regularly used improved latrine, and regularly used improved latrine which was for the exclusive use of the

household1



IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com 9

Table 7: Percentage of persons who never used latrine among those households which had access to a latrine and

the percentage distribution of such persons by reason for not using latrine1

Table 8: Percentage of households having children of age below 3 years and percentage distribution of those

households by the method of disposal of feces of children of age below 3 years1



IJARESM Publication, India >>>> www.ijaresm.com 0

Table 9: Percentage distribution of households by the availability of water in or around the latrine used and

percentage of households having bathroom and latrine both within the household premises1

Table 10: Rural households with no toilet (Data taken from NSO report 2018)

State Percentage

Orissa 50.7

Uttar Pradesh 48

Jharkhand 41.9

Tamil Nadu 37.2

Bihar 36.2

Rajasthan 34.2

Karnataka 30.1

Figure 2: Toilet construction in rural India (Source: SBM Data 2018)




The Swachh Bharat Mission website for rural India stated that by October 2018 toilet access in rural areas had reached

95%. This is a significantly higher figure than that estimated by the NSO in their July-December 2018 survey of just over

71%.

However, the NSO report also notes that there had been a major improvement since its last survey in 2012 when only

40.6% of rural households had toilets and it's important to highlight a caveat about its findings: the report says the question about access to toilets was asked straight after a question about receiving state benefits.

“There may be an inherent tendency to give a negative reply to these questions,” it says, in the expectation “that this may

help get additional benefits through government schemes”.

In the recent survey by SBM2, the information on the accessibility of toilet facility for the household was collected through

a combination of four responses which included i) Own toilet: Households having access to the toilet which is exclusively

used by members of the household ii) Shared toilet: Household having access to toilet used by multiple families iii)

Community toilets: Households having access to a Public toilet facility (toilet is open to the general public) and iv) No

toilet access: Households do not have access to any toilet (family members usually defecate in the bush, fields, or other

locations). Among all the surveyed households (n=92411), the households which had access to toilets represent 93.3 at the

national level. Almost all the households in ODF villages (98.0%) have access to a toilet while households of non-ODF villages reported 89.1% toilet access.

ODF & Non-ODF households rely on the different set-up of toilet facilities depending on ownership status. The main type

of toilet to which the ODF households getting access, is its toilet (89.9%), shared toilet (6.9%), and community toilet

(1.1%). In Non-ODF households also, the trend of using the types of the toilet is same, however, the percent of households

in their toilet is accounted for 73.9%, shared toilet (12.9%), and community toilet (2.3%). Overall, 6.7% of households do

not have access to toilet facilities, meaning they practice open defecation. State-wise analysis of data shows that the states

of North-east (Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Sikkim), and Dadra and Nagar Haveli have all the households (100%)

with access to the toilet. At the national level, the state which has reported toilet access in more than 99% households but

below 100%, are Kerala (99.9%), Tamilnadu (99.7%), Haryana, Arunachal Pradesh & Meghalaya (99.6% each),

Uttarakhand (99.5%) and ANI (99.2%). The percent distributions of toilet access in four states have been reported below 90 percent. The states are J&K (85.3%), Jharkhand (84.7%), Bihar (73.6%), and Odisha (72.2%). The households of ODF

villages of Jharkhand reported below 90 percent of toilet access which accounts to be 89.9 percent followed by Bihar

(85.9%). Surprisingly, across all states, Bihar is the only state wherein ODF (85.9%) and Non-ODF (72.9%) households

both have reported low toilet access.

Figure 3: Accessibility by types of the toilet (%) 2

2 https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/sites/default/files/National_Report_NARSS_2018_19.pdf

https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/sites/default/files/National_Report_NARSS_2018_19.pdf




Figure 4: Accessibility to the toilets among different social groups (%) 2

The table below depicts the accessibility status of the households by socioeconomic categories. Out of the total households

which have got access to the toilet facilities, the majority of the households belonged to the general category which is

accounted for 96.4% followed by the households belonged to the scheduled caste which is 95.0% of the total accessible

households. The number of households that are reported the lowest in this category belonged to the other backward caste

(91.2%). In the ODF category, the percent distribution of the households belonging to the different social categories with

toilet access is almost universal and that almost all the households have access to the toilet except the household which

belongs to other backward castes where the accessibility percentage is lowest among other caste categories. Accessibility to

the toilet facility also varies as per the economic categories of the households. The table depicts that the households

belonging to the APL category have got higher access as compared to the BPL category which constitutes 95.1% overall. The BPL households have got 92.1% toilet access.

Table 11: Accessibility of the toilets by socio-economic characteristics2

A. Key findings of the National Annual Rural Sanitation Survey (NARSS) 2018-19

93.3% of the rural household has access to toilets (National Sanitation Coverage).

96.7% of people who had access to toilets use them.

90.7% of verified Open Defecation Free (ODF) villages are confirmed as ODF.

96.7% of villages found to have a minimal level of waterlogging.

96.5% of villages found to have a minimal level of littering.

The overall accessibility of the toilets for the households was found to be 93.3%, which was 98.0% in




ODF villages and 89.1% in non-ODF villages.

At the national level, 98.6% of the toilets were found to be functional. In ODF villages it was higher

with 99.7% toilets to be functional as compared to 97.5% in non-ODF villages.

95.0% of the toilets were found to be hygienic at the national level. 99.5% of toilets in ODF villages

were found to be hygienic as compared to 90.5%in non-ODF villages.

Safe Disposal mechanism for disposing of human excreta was found to be prevalent in 99.6 % of the household surveyed. In ODF villages 100% reported the same whereas in non-ODF villages 99.1%

reported the same. Safe Disposal mechanisms for disposing children's excreta were followed in 75.4% of

the households. In ODF villages, 95.4% reported of disposing the children's excreta through a safe

method whereas 59.9% in non-ODF villages reported the same.

The majority of the toilet (99.6%) was found to be connected to a tank/ pit or a sewer system.

High toilet usage was found to be prevalent with 96.5% of people reporting to be using the toilets always

among those who had access to toilets.

Most household premises were found to be free from garbage and litter. At a national level, 97.5% of the

household premises were found to be without garbage or litter. More than half of the households i.e.

around 53.3% of the households reported disposing of the solid household waste outside to a common

system. Similarly, the disposal of wastewater to a common system was found to be followed by 60.1% of the households. A mere number of household premises, the presence of stagnant water were observed

which was at 3.7% of the total households.

SUMMARY

The first comprehensive nation-wide rural sanitation program launched by the Government of India was the Central Rural

Sanitation Program in 1986. It included expanded aspects of sanitation such as personal hygiene, home sanitation,

wastewater disposal, garbage disposal, and excreta disposal to improve the quality of life of rural people and the privacy

and dignity of women. Unfortunately, it could only achieve low success because of minimal community participation. The

failure of the Central Rural Sanitation Program led to its restructuring into India's Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in

1991, which was later renamed as Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA) in 2012. According to the reports tabled in Parliament in 2015 by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) based on the audit covering the TSC and NBA between 2009 and

2014, there were planning level weaknesses in the implementation of TSC and later NBA.

The report stressed the need for an improvement of overall governance at the grassroots level else, more deployment of

resources would not have a significant impact. Furthermore, it was suggested that implementation must be based on

realistic planning and backed by large-scale Information-Education-Communication campaigns to bring about behavioral

changes in the target population. It was in this context that the sanitation program was revamped into the Swachh Bharat

Mission in 2014.

Launched on 2nd October 2014, the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) is the Government of India's (GoI) nationwide flagship

program ideated to advance the country's sanitation agenda. Its main aim is to reduce and subsequently eliminate open

defecation through the construction of individual, cluster, and community toilets and establish reliable mechanisms to monitor the latrine usage. SBM aims to achieve an open defecation free3 India by 2nd October 2019.

India aims at being an open defecation-free country by 2019. For that, it had to build toilets for about 6.4 crore families'

across the country. But, in reality, the numbers might vary and are much larger - as about 79 lakh existing toilets are in an

unusable condition and need some reconstruction or renovation. For India (and the world) to go open defecation-free,

majorly four of these Indian states stood at priority: Bihar, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand.

The Government of India, with help from partners like UNICEF, has demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to

making India „Open Defecation Free‟ by 2019.

UNICEF, as a critical Government partner, provides technical support in over 192 districts across 16 states in developing district-wide ODF plans and implementation models.

District ODF Plans incorporate behavior change messaging supporting toilet use, safely managed water supplies, and

handwashing with soap. Importantly, UNICEF ensures that these models adopt a strong equity dimension to prioritize the

most vulnerable communities and are risk-informed in disaster-prone districts and districts affected by civil strife.




“The real success of the drive to make India open defecation-free can only be measured by the number of people who find

it worthwhile to use the toilets that we are building. While flawed toilet technology, shortage of basic resources such as

water, and lack of administrative will remain at the core of factors pulling these states away from becoming ODF, our

report suggests that it is imperative to educate communities (for whom these toilets are being built), build provisions for

better wastewater and solid waste management, and focus on re-use and recycling to achieve tangible results.”

These latest findings reiterate the importance of adopting a more holistic approach to open defecation rather than the

current singular focus on toilet construction. While building more toilets has undeniably helped India‟s sanitation

challenge, the impact would be far greater if these initiatives were combined with interventions targeting behavioral

changes.

Further, for toilets to prevent diseases better, they need to be a part of an integrated sanitation approach that includes water

supply, water connections, and waste management.

The RICE survey highlights the challenge on this front. Of the toilets built with government support in the four states, only

42% were twin-pit latrines-the recommended toilets for safe and sustainable waste management.

REFERENCES

[1] Hannah Ritchie (2019) – “Sanitation”, Published online at OurWorldInData.org.

[2] Ritchie, Roser, Mispy, Ortiz-Ospina “Measuring progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals.” (SDG 6)

(2018).

[3] Clasen et al. (2014) "Effectiveness of a rural sanitation program on diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, and

child malnutrition in Odisha, India: a cluster-randomized trial". The Lancet Global Health. 2 (11): e645–e653.

[4] Progress on drinking water and sanitation, (2014 Update) WHO/UNICEF, Joint Monitoring Programme for Water

Supply and Sanitation (JMP). 2014. ISBN 9789241507240.

[5] J. Ahmad, “How to eliminate open defecation by 2030”.

[6] WHO and UNICEF, Progress on household drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene 2000–2017: Special focus on

inequalities, Geneva, Switzerland (2019). [7] WHO and UNICEF, Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines.

Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children‟s Fund (UNICEF) (2017).

[8] O'Reilly, Kathleen, “From toilet insecurity to toilet security: creating safe sanitation for women and girls”, Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water. 3 (1): 19–24.

[9] “Nearly a Billion People Still Defecate Outdoors, Here's why”.

[10] “United Nations Deputy Secretary-General's Call to Action on Sanitation “, United Nations, 2013.

[11] Cavill; Chambers; Vernon (2015), Sustainability and CLTS: Taking Stock Frontiers of CLTS: Innovations and

Insights Issue 4. IDS. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-78118-222-2.

[12] “Guidelines for ODF Verification” (PDF), Indian Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation. 2015.

[13] “Definition of ODF – Open Defecation Free (an Indian government publication)”.

[14] Parimita Routray, et al., “Socio-cultural and behavioral factors constraining latrine adoption in rural coastal Odisha:

an exploratory qualitative study”, BMC Public Health. 15: 880. [15] “Public Bathrooms Become Ground Zero In The Opioid Epidemic”, www.wbur.org.

[16] Kevin Bardosh, “Achieving “Total Sanitation” in Rural African Geographies: Poverty, Participation and Pit Latrines

in Eastern Zambia”, Geoforum. 66(Supplement C): 53–63.

[17] "Understanding Gendered Sanitation Vulnerabilities: A Study in Uttar Pradesh - Resources, SuSanA",

www.susana.org.

[18] Kathryn O‟Connell,. “What Influences Open Defecation and Latrine Ownership in Rural Households? Findings

from a Global Review” (PDF).

[19] “Nowhere to go how a lack of safe toilets threatens to increase violence against women in slums” (PDF).

[20] Japheth Kwiringira, et al., “Descending the sanitation ladder in urban Uganda: evidence from Kampala Slums”,

BMC Public Health. 14: 624.

[21] “Document”, www.amnesty.org. [22] Aime Tsinda, “Challenges to Achieving Sustainable Sanitation in Informal Settlements of Kigali, Rwanda”,

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 10 (12): 6939–6954.

[23] O'Reilly, Kathleen, “Traditional” women, “modern” water: Linking gender and commodification in Rajasthan, India,

Geoforum. 37 (6): 958–972.

[24] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37799425.

javascript:;




[25] https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/ending-open-defecation.

[26] https://swachhbharatmission.gov.in/sbmcms/index.htm.

[27] https://riceinstitute.org/data/2014-and-2018-rural-sanitation-surveys/.

[28] https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/sites/default/files/National_Report_NARSS_2018_19.pdf.

[29] https://swachhbharatmission.gov.in/sbmcms/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/SBMG_Report_Card.pdf.

[30] https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/sites/default/files/ODF_Comprehensive_Report_Rev5.pdf. [31] https://jalshakti-ddws.gov.in/sites/default/files/NARSS_2017_18.pdf.

[32] https://swachhbharatmission.gov.in/sbmcms/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Safety-security-and-dignity-of-

women.pdf.

[33] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-46400678.

[34] http://www.mospi.gov.in/download-reports.

reviewing the status of open defecation free india...“open defecation free” (odf) is a term used...

Documents