Harsh
Sethi reviews of India Stinking
Seminar
February 2006
INDIA STINKING: Manual Scavengers
in Andhra Pradesh and Their Work
By Gita Ramaswamy. Navayana Publishing, Chennai,
2005.
EVEN those engaged with Dalit
questions rarely concern themselves with the fate
of manual scavengers, despite the fact that this
activity represents the worst expression of the
beliefs engendered by the caste system –
untouchability, purity-pollution, dharma and karma.
Few amongst us seem to be aware that despite ‘The
Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction
of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act’ in 1993,
over 1.3 million people continue to be employed
as manual scavengers – in private homes,
in community dry latrines (CDLs) and deep sewers
managed by the municipality, in the public sector
such as the railways and by the army. Nothing,
however, is more telling about our attitude than
the fact that this arrangement exists in many
district courts and worse, the judiciary at least
in one instance held the destruction of such latrines
as illegal. Clearly, even destruction of ‘illegal’
public property, more than a decade after the
passing of a central legislation, is deemed a
crime.
Nothing about this slim booklet
by publisher-activist Gita Ramaswamy makes for
a pleasant read, and not merely because of the
subject matter. Ramaswamy is suffused with rage
at the continuation of this degrading activity.
Even more that progressive radicals seem so unconcerned.
As she explains, both her husband and she, when
they first came into public contact with the scavenging
community, were only involved with matters of
education and wages. It was as if improvement
in material circumstances and knowledge would
be sufficient to eradicate this social evil, a
continuing Marxist fallacy. Today, she is wiser.
Based on an extensive survey
of the practice in Andhra Pradesh, and subsequently
a movement to destroy such ‘conveniences’,
Ramaswamy and her colleagues in the Safai Karmachari
Andolan hold out a mirror to our social attitudes.
Slowly we realize that an activity which can easily
be abolished through use of technology, resources
and training still continues primarily because
of our unconcern. Unfortunately, those stigmatised
as bhangis too develop a stake in the system,
seeing even these menial jobs as ‘reserved’
for them and thus a source of security. They,
one suspects, know only too well how difficult
it is to escape the clutches of untouchability.
And perchance we think that the scourge is confined
only to the Hindus, Ramaswamy introduces the reader
to Muslim-Dalit subcastes engaged in these tasks.
How did the system of manual
scavenging emerge? After all, excavations at Lothal
reveal that our ancestors had water-borne toilets
even in Harappan times. Even medieval townships
had more sophisticated sewerage systems. So why
did it continue? Is it, as Ramaswamy suggests,
that given our social prejudices we refused to
improve the technology of sanitation? This seems
a little too pat. Nevertheless, a proper explanation
is still awaited. Meanwhile, given the nature
of our habitations, both rural and urban and neglect
of toilets – the demand for manual scavengers
continues unabated. And as labour is cheap, there
is little impetus to either improve systems –
in railways and municipal sewerage – or
introduce technology.
Equally, I am not fully convinced
by Ramaswamy’s discussion of Gandhi and
Ambedkar with respect to eradication of untouchability.
Possibly she could profit from reading the tract
‘The Flaming Feet’ by the late D.R.
Nagaraj who perceived both leaders as complimentary
and subsequently highlights the grudging respect
that the two social reformers developed for each
other and their respective social projects to
eradicate untouchability – one seeking to
alter the self-perception of the twice-born Hindu,
the other to eradicate the caste system. As she
herself admits, Ambedkar’s movement, for
all its radical promise, failed to involve the
bhangis and effectively transcend his Mahar base.
And the communists too concentrated primarily
on forming unions and striking for higher wages,
neglecting issues of culture and identity. Various
government programmes to convert dry latrines
into water pour-flush systems languished. Interestingly,
even the Sulabh Shouchalaya programmes, though
representing a definite improvement in toilet
technology, continue to employ only the scavenging
castes in their various facilities, thus failing
to break through the untouchability barrier. Today,
Ramaswamy advocates a complete demolition of such
facilities, arguing that the state will move towards
alternatives only when faced with no-option.
The rest of this brief
booklet presents a menu of what we as concerned
citizens can do. The options may appear somewhat
utopian or insufficient; nevertheless they do
have the merit of forcing us to face ourselves
and our prejudices.
View
original article
|
