describes a real-life situation faced, a decision or ... · The Report also pointed out ......

VIKALPA • VOLUME 34 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2009 89

M A N A G E M E N TC A S E Sulabh International – Social

Transformation through SanitationSonu Goyal and Vikas Gupta

describes a real-life situationfaced, a decision or action

taken by an individualmanager or by an

organization at the strategic,functional or operational level

KEY WORDS

Sanitation

Untouchability

Women Empowerment

Leadership

Community Upliftment

Environment Sustainability

Much defecation in India still occurs in open spaces. But pioneering work by SulabhInternational, a non-governmental organization (NGO), has shown that human wastecan be disposed of affordably and in a socially acceptable way. Sulabh’s approach isbased on partnerships with local governments, backed by community participation,and has substantially improved environmental quality in rural and urban slums in-habited by poor people.

Human Development Report 2003

The 2002 Millennium Development Goal (MDG) aimed to reduce the number ofpeople without access to basic sanitation to half by 2015, which stood at 2.6 billion atthe start of the 21st century. Inspired by the MDG, Sulabh was actively addressingthe problems of insanitation and poverty by actively engaging community at largeas a key stakeholder in the system. It stated its vision as, “A healthy and hygienicIndia, free of practice of defecation in the open and faecal pollution of environment.A society free of untouchability, social discrimination, and prevalence of the sub-human practice of manual cleaning of human excreta (scavenging1).” Sulabh hadbeen actively pursuing its mission of educating and motivating the people, sensitiz-ing policy makers and functionaries and promoting activities and programmes ofthe Government as well as the people, to achieve its vision in the foreseeable future.

“The importance of improving water supply and waste disposal, speciallyfor the poor and the less privileged, has been repeatedly recognized by theassembled governments of the world in recent years; first at the Habitat Con-ference in Vancouver in 1976, then at the U N Water Conference of PrimaryHealthCare in Alma Ata in 1978. The 1980s have now been declared as the‘International Drinking Water and Sanitation Decade’ by a resolution of theUN General assembly. The purpose of the decade is to encourage efforts toprovide all people with adequate water supply and sanitation in so far as it ispossible.”

This observation was made, way back, in a World Bank Report in 1980, highlightingthe importance that problems of health and sanitation had gained in the modern

90 SULABH INTERNATIONAL – SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION THROUGH SANITATION

times and the critical role played by international agen-cies in addressing the issue. The Report also pointed outthat among the fundamental problems of increasingsanitation services were: the high cost of conventionalsolution for the disposal of human waste, and the largenumber of people without such service. Around 1¼ bil-lion people in developing countries lacked seweragefacility and an almost equal number did not have anyaccess to safe drinking water. If to this number the pre-dicted growth in population up to 1990 was added, overtwo billion people would need to be provided with wa-ter and sewerage. A general estimate based on the thenexisting per capita cost indicated that up to $500 billionwas needed for conventional water supply and sewer-age. The per capita investment cost for sewerage aloneranged from $150-$250, which was totally beyond thecapacity of the beneficiaries in developing countries topay. The high costs involved in the sewerage systemstood in the way of its adoption on a large scale, espe-cially in the developing and the underdeveloped nations.

THE MAKING OF SULABH

It was in this backdrop that ‘Sulabh Shauchalaya San-sthan’ (now known as Sulabh International Social Serv-ice Organization – SISSO) originated in 1970, and grewto become a well-known NGO working in the sanita-tion sector, both nationally and internationally. The be-ginning of ‘Sulabh’ can be traced to Dr. BindeshwarPathak’s experience with the Balmiki Mukti Cell of Gan-dhi Centenary Celebration Committee, Patna, as aPracharak in 1968-70. The job exposed and sensitized himto the problems of scavengers. Inspired by MahatmaGandhi’s ideas, he decided to fight against the stigmaof untouchability attached to this class of people. It wasin a WHO publication, “Excreta Disposal for Rural Ar-eas and Small Communities” by Edmund Wagner and JN Lanoix, that Dr. Pathak came across the revolution-ary two-pit-pour-flush sanitation technology, which waslater adopted by Sulabh. Pathak was a Post-Graduate inSociology and English. His doctoral work was on lib-eration of scavengers through low cost sanitation.

The issue was not only to discourage open defecationand use of dry latrines which turned residential areas intowns and cities into stinking slums, but also to find away to do away with the practice of scavenging, whichmade people engaged in this service “untouchable.” Ifthe sanitation scenario in the country was depressing, it

was partly due to the fact that the Indian society andculture, valued personal hygiene, but gave little impor-tance to a clean and healthy community environment.There was insufficient motivation and awareness and aclear lack of affordable sanitation technology.

Post-Independence, the Central and State Governmentsappointed committees to analyse the working and liv-ing conditions of scavengers and thereon suggestedways for improving them. Out of many recommenda-tions, ‘Bhangi Mukti’ found favour with many of thestate governments. In 1968, a circular issued by the Min-istry of Works and Housing, GOI, directed all the stategovernments to get the bucket privies converted intowater-borne latrines and to connect them to sewerswherever available. This was considered to be the besttribute to the Rashtrapita, during the Gandhi Centenaryperiod. Bihar was one of the states that took up the pro-grammes in the right earnest. The ministry gave loansto small and medium towns for conversion of dry la-trines into hand flush water seal ones. The NationalBuilding Organization under the Central Ministry ofWorks and Housing experimented on low cost sanita-tion.

Despite the multiple schemes to promote the conver-sion of dry latrines, the local bodies did not show muchenthusiasm for the programme. A few houseownersimpressed by the concept of sanitary latrines were un-able to obtain financial assistance from the local bodies.Those who got the loan spent it on other requirements.Even the time taken to process the loan deterred the in-terested people from applying for it. The Gandhi Cente-nary Celebration Committee was strongly of the opinionthat voluntary organizations should keep themselvesconfined to demonstration and propagation only and tonot get involved in the actual implementation. Furtherto that they should not earn money for carrying out theiractivities; rather there should be complete dependenceon public donations or grants from the government.Realizing that government alone could not face the chal-lenge of carrying out community-centred social devel-opment programmes, Bindeshwar Pathak stepped in towork towards creating awareness regarding sanitationas a collective obligation of the community. He was con-vinced that institutions that depended on grants wereunable to discharge their responsibilities efficiently forwant of resources of their own. He soon left the BiharState Gandhi Centenary Celebration Committee to set


up Sulabh Shauchalya Sansthan in 1970, registered un-der the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860 in Patna.

THE EARLY YEARS

In October 1970, The Bihar State Gandhi Centenary Cel-ebration Committee was dissolved and Sulabh remainedthe only organization having the expertise in the leach-pit-type latrines in Bihar. Between 1968 and 1974, BiharGovernment allotted Rs 30 lakh to various local bodiesfor the programme, which got diverted to other works.After much persuasion, the Ara Municipality of Biharallowed Sulabh to put up two public toilets as a demon-stration project in the municipal compound of Ara. Thisgave the local people the opportunity to see the viabil-ity of the Sulabh Shauchalyas as against the bucket toi-lets in their houses. Slowly the acceptance of low-costsanitation gained momentum. Soon the Buxar Munici-pality came forward, and finally, in 1974, the Govern-ment of Bihar adopted the two-pit-pour-flush systemfor the entire state. The same year, Dr. Pathak formallylaid the foundation of Sulabh Shauchalaya Sansthan, avoluntary, non-profit organization.

The Government of India launched several schemes toimprove the sanitation standards in rural and urban In-dia and to liberate the scavengers. Some of the schemeswere as follows:

• Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) reintroducedin 1977-78

• Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme (ILCS) star-ted in 1980-81

• Centrally-sponsored Rural Sanitation Programme(CRSP)2 launched in 1986

• Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) initiated in 1999• Sanitation projects funded by Multilateral agencies,

viz., World Bank, UNICEF• Specific rural and urban sanitation projects funded

by the government

The provision of toilets in the rural and urban house-holds was being done under the above-mentionedschemes of the government. Under these schemes, thegovernment funded a specific fraction of the total costof building a toilet in the urban and rural households. Itdecided a notional cost of the toilet separately in urbanand rural areas for the households below a thresholdincome level. The government contribution was com-puted on that notional cost. Generally, these schemes

involved central and state governments and both con-tributed a specific proportion of the total governmentcontribution. Rest of the cost was to be borne by thehouseowner. Sulabh, by virtue of its experience withlocal population and low-cost sanitation solution likethe two-pit-pour-flush toilet, got the contract to buildthe household toilets. It charged for the construction andmaterial cost which was usually within the notionalcosts.

PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

In 1974, the State Government formally recognizedSulabh as an agency to work between the beneficiaries,local bodies, and the government for the implementa-tion of low-cost sanitation. Sulabh workers moved fromhouse to house to convince the owners, of the healthhazards of bucket privies. Subsequently, they got theagreements and applications filled up for obtaining theloans and grants for the purpose of conversion to sani-tary latrines; and deposited them in offices of the localbodies. After verification, the amount for the conver-sion was given to Sulabh rather than the beneficiary.Sulabh workers conducted the actual construction workon a turnkey basis. The houseowners were requested tosupervise the work so that it was up to their satisfac-tion. A copy of a directory was handed over to thebeneficiary before the construction, which providedguidelines on how the work would be done. Thehouseowners could get in touch with the local bodies orSulabh in case of a query. A utilization card was filled inby the houseowner, which certified whether the workwas done in time and satisfactorily. The monitoring cellof Sulabh also checked the construction personally. Areply paid postcard was posted to the owners to con-firm the statement recorded by the Sulabh workers.Thereafter, a guarantee card, along with five postcards,were given to the beneficiary to be used in case of anydefects that developed post-construction. In case of acomplaint, a card was issued with the date of complaintand a number, which was taken care of within sevendays of the complaint. Sulabh’s implementation of theprogramme gradually created confidence among thelocal bodies, state governments, and the houseowners.

The initial works of Sulabh involved designing of eco-friendly twin-pit compost pour flush system, whicheliminated the need for human intervention in wastedisposal. The flushing required 1.5 to 2.00 litres of wa-

92

ter as compared to 10 to 15 litres in the conventionaltoilets. The system was never out of commission, be-cause of the two pits; one was kept as a standby. In twoyears time, the waste got digested with the help of theleach pits. The toilet could be built using the locally avail-able materials and was easy to maintain (see Exhibit 1for constructional details). These could even be up-graded by connecting to the sewerage system as andwhen it was introduced in the area.

While the low-cost sanitation system replaced the tradi-tional service latrines, it also liberated the scavengersfrom the demeaning work of having to carry night soilon their heads. In fact, the twin programmes of intro-duction of low-cost sanitation and liberation of the scav-engers were concomitant.

Prior to Sulabh, a few voluntary agencies such as HarijanSevak Sangh, Maharashtra Gandhi Smarak Nidhi, andSafai Vidyalaya, were working towards liberation of thescavengers and adoption of low-cost-pour-flush latrines.But none could create the awareness and the trust thegeneral public needed to have in the programme, for itssuccessful adoption.

In 1977, the Public Health Engineering Department ofthe Government of Bihar, raised concerns regardingpollution of groundwater from the pits and issued in-structions to stop the conversion work. The matter wasreferred to the National Environmental EngineeringResearch Institute (NEERI), Nagpur. After much debatein various public health forums, the issue was resolvedand most bodies reached the conclusion that the pits didnot contaminate underground water.

The cost of Sulabh flush composting toilets varied widelyto suit people of every economic stratum. The costranged from US$10 to US$ 500 per unit. It dependedupon the materials of construction of pits and seats aswell as of superstructure. The superstructure rangedfrom gunny bag sheets, thatched to well-finished tileswith RCC roof, doors, wash basin, etc.

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT

International agencies like WHO, UNICEF, and UNDPplayed an important role in sanitation programmes. In1978, WHO, with the help of Ministry of Works andHousing, Government of India, and UNICEF, organizeda national seminar in Patna, with participation fromUrban Development Departments, All India institute of

Hygiene and Public Health, Environmental Engineer-ing Research Institute, Planning Commission, DirectorGeneral of Health Services, World Bank and UNICEF.These seminars motivated the state governments to takeup the programme of conversion of dry latrines into two-pit hand flush water seal latrines and the liberation ofscavengers. It was emphasized that low-cost sanitationwas directly related to healthcare. UNICEF sponsoredthe programme for imparting training to masons andengineers in low-cost sanitary toilets.

The Ministry of Works and Housing, GOI, started giv-ing loans to small and medium towns under its Inte-grated Development of Small and Medium TownsProject for the conversion of dry latrines into hand flushwater seal ones. The Ministry of Home Affairs (nowMinistry of Welfare), GOI, also took up the programmeunder the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 in 1980-81on the Whole-Town-Approach basis. This meant that theentire town should be freed from scavenging. The min-istry started giving assistance to the State Governmenton 50:50 basis. Fifty per cent of the expenditure had tobe met by the state governments. Nineteen states ben-efited from this scheme. Rs 43 crore was released up toMarch 1989. In all, 32 towns out of 166 were selectedunder the programme and were actually freed from scav-enging by March 1989. By 1988, 1.86 lakh latrines hadbeen converted into Sulabh Shauchalyas in Bihar alone.But this was still far behind the actual number of 4 lakhdry latrines which could have been converted but forthe lack of funds.

The Housing and Urban Development Corporation(HUDCO), set up by GOI in 1970, started financing ba-sic sanitation schemes in 1983. It promoted the adop-tion of a two-pit leaching system for low-cost sanitation.It extended financial assistance to the extent of 50 percent of the total cost, at 6 per cent interest repayable in12 years and the balance 50 per cent was arranged bythe borrowing agency from its own resources. The loansand subsidies were based on the income of the benefici-aries. HUDCO received and considered applicationsfrom agencies authorized by the government to carryout programmes for basic sanitation facilities. The bor-rowers submitted detailed project reports with specifica-tions, drawings, cost estimates, implementation period,and the system of post-implementation maintenance.The proposed system had to fall in line with the guide-lines prepared by the GOI.

SULABH INTERNATIONAL – SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION THROUGH SANITATION


THE NEXT STEP: COMMUNITY COMPLEXES

Maintaining public toilets on a pay-and-use basis was anatural extension of Sulabh’s mission. The idea was toovercome the constraints in scaling up the sanitation andhygiene. The public toilets or community complexes tar-geted the sanitary needs at public places, otherwisemarked by filthy and poorly built municipality toilets.Sulabh also created awareness regarding the crucial roleof sanitation as a basic need amongst the various com-munities, viz., slum dwellers, rural population, pilgrims,etc., by building community complexes operating on thepay-and-use basis.

Under the public-private partnership model, govern-ment provided funds through the local authority forbuilding the community complex and transferred thecomplex to private organizations for operations andmaintenance. These organizations charged a nominal feefrom the users for the usage of toilet and utilized thismoney to operate and maintain the complex.

With a lot of apprehension, Sulabh established a publictoilet complex at Patna with the help of Patna Munici-pal Corporation (PMC). While the land and cost of con-struction was provided by the PMC, Sulabh undertookthe construction and maintenance. The multi-utility toi-let complex was well received by people from the lowerincome group constituting rickshaw pullers, pavementdwellers and others, on payment of a paltry sum of 10paise. The Sulabh community complexes provided toi-lets and baths in busy and commercial areas, looked af-ter by the liberated scavengers who worked as care-takers. Specific sections of population like women, chil-dren, and disabled were exempted from the user fee.Trained attendants managed the entire operation, main-tenance, and collection, night and day. The volunteerswere not paid salary; rather they got to keep the amountover and above a minimum level of collection. The mini-mum collection for a particular complex was decidedby a team from Sulabh keeping in mind the locality,period for which the complex had been in operation,capacity, and observations by the team at the complex.By and large, all the community complexes operated bySulabh were profitable except for the few which wereeither new or were built to serve small but critical popu-lation. Sulabh toilet complexes were located in publicplaces such as bus stands, hospitals, markets, and slums.Sulabh budgeted 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the totalproject cost towards communication, education, design-

ing, maintenance, and follow-up of the projects.

Sulabh had built the world’s biggest toilet-cum-bathcomplex at Shirdi, Maharashtra. It was spread over anarea of two acres and was capable of serving 30,000 us-ers everyday. The complex was self-sustaining and hadelectricity generating biogas plant and water recyclingsystem. Complexes like this were big money earners forSulabh enabling it to sustain other complexes. The com-plex at Shirdi also served as an example of a big poten-tial market for sanitation services at all places of congre-gation where people thronged in large numbers forworship and meditation.

The growth of community complexes and householdtoilets was dependent upon the government policy, thestatus of sanitation in the priority list, and initiatives ofimplementation authorities in the local areas. If sanita-tion was a part of health policy then sanitation automati-cally captured the high status in the priority list and morefunding was made available for sanitation purpose. Iflocal authority/administration was sensitive about thesanitation in the area, they raised the issues with thestate/central governments. This created positive pres-sure on the governments to implement the schemes andrelease funding. The varying intensity of initiatives bylocal authorities broadly explained the difference in per-formance of various states in the sanitation sector (Ex-hibit 2). Sulabh had successfully demonstrated partner-ship between local authorities, NGOs, and the commu-nity.

While the importance of sensitizing the Indians towardssanitation practices through proper toilet facilities wasone aspect of Sulabh’s movement, creating social accept-ance for the scavengers and allowing them to lead a lifeof dignity was the other challenge the organization wastrying to meet. Dr. Pathak, in a study of the life that scav-engers led, revealed that illiteracy and poverty were thetwo major factors behind their misery. Discriminationon the basis of birth was unjust. Even if they tried tochange their occupation they could not succeed. Theyounger generation was eager to give up scavenging andtake up other jobs.

REHABILITATION AND WOMEN EMPOWERMENT

While Sulabh started out as an organization providingsanitation solutions to the individual households andcommunities, the technological adaptation of two-pit-

94

pour-flush toilet for the rural and urban poor areas gaveSulabh something which was beyond hollow promisesand concerns. Two-pit-pour-flush toilet was a viable al-ternative to scavenging which could be implemented ata large scale due to its affordability, suitability to usagein Indian condition, requirement of less water and space,and easy maintenance. With this toilet design, Sulabhcould dream of creating awareness about hygiene andcommunity health among the masses.

Despite the long cultural legacy of caste system, Sulabhattempted to provide a model in which scavengers couldbe spared of the inhuman work of scavenging (whileengaging in less inhuman activities related to sanitation).In 1986, Sulabh initiated training and rehabilitation pro-grammes for scavengers’ children. In 1988, Pathak ledHarijans to Nathdwara temple in Udaipur to defy inhu-man orthodoxy and promote social integration. He evenorganized common puja and community meals togetherfor high caste Brahmins and scavengers. In 1992, an Eng-lish medium school was opened in Delhi for the scaven-gers’ children extending Sulabh’s philosophy of overallsocio-economic development of scavengers. In 1995, aprogramme on women empowerment was launched incollaboration with USAID, educating them on environ-ment sanitation and community health.

Thirty women clad in blue uniform, gathered every dayin the morning at the Nai Disha office. They had learntto write their names and sign in less than a year’s time.Sulabh launched Nai Disha in April 2003, a vocationaltraining centre at Alwar, a district town in Rajasthan,170 km away from Delhi, to rehabilitate scavengers to alife of dignity. These women started being trained invarious vocational skills – food processing, tailoring, andbeauty care, as an alternative source of employment.They received a stipend of Rs. 1,500 (which itself was athree-fold increase in their income from their previousprofession of scavenging) from Sulabh, directly in theirlocal bank accounts, compelling them to learn bank op-erations. This stipend continued till they became self-sufficient. The training centre shop sold pickles, ready-made clothes, etc. After the first batch of 30, anotherbatch of 40 women joined in 2005.

GROWTH OF OTHER ACTIVITIES AT SISSO

Since the first toilet built in 1973, Sulabh had made itspresence felt across India by building more than 1.2 mil-lion toilets for private households (at the cost of Rs. 2,000-

Rs. 2,500 per facility, half of which was subsidized bythe State and the rest could be financed) and approxi-mately 7,500 pay-and-use community complexes by2007. Sulabh’s growth had a direct bearing on the pub-lic consciousness; it had changed, albeit partially, theway sanitation was perceived, the way scavengers weretreated, and the level of attention sanitation received inthe health policy. Having started out with a mission tochange the sanitation conditions and incidental socialstructure in which sanitation workers (scavengers) weresubject to inhuman conditions and the status of untou-chables in the society, Sulabh had gradually expandedto include environment, water management, waste man-agement, research and consultancy, etc.

In 1979, Sulabh started experimenting with the idea ofgenerating biogas from human excreta. Sulabh devel-oped sustainable technology for safe and hygienic hu-man waste disposal, suitable for households and alsofor public places like railway stations, bus stands, placesfor tourism, and religious congregations. The Sulabhbiogas technology coupled with effluent treatment plant,aimed at onsite treatment of human waste from hous-ing colonies, high rise buildings, and public toilets.Anaerobic digestion, complete recycling, and reuse ofhuman excreta helped produce biogas, which could befurther used for electricity generation and even ignit-ing. Biogas generation boosted the financial sustaina-bility of the community complexes. Sulabh alsodeveloped indigenous technology for producing manurefrom human excreta. With the backing of the Ministryof Non-Conventional Energy Sources, Sulabh had in-stalled 180 biogas plants of 35 to 60 cum capacity acrossthe country by 2007 (See Exhibit 3)

In 1984, Sulabh established the Sulabh International In-stitute of Technical Research and Training (SIITRAT) toprovide technological support to the Sulabh sanitationmovement. Ten years later in 1994, it established theSulabh International Institute of Rural Development,Research and Training with an objective of taking sci-entific benefits to the common people. In 1997, Sulabhdeveloped a new technology for composting biodegrad-able wastes and, in 1999, they developed a technologyof Duckweed-based waste water treatment and pisci-culture. This was directly relevant in India, where tillyear 2000, out of 4,700 towns, only 232 towns had a sew-erage system. In 2000, Sulabh started a special campaignto improve rural sanitation and began efforts towards



establishing the Sulabh University of Sanitation. In 2002,it developed a technology to make biogas plant effluentfree of colour, odour, and pathogen. Sulabh also devel-oped Thermophilic Aerobic Composter which could con-vert the biodegradable waste to compost in 8 to 10 dayswithout any manual handling. The Sulabh InternationalAcademy of Environmental Sanitation (earlier calledSIITRAT)] engaged in the development of new and sus-tainable technologies, demonstration and dissemination,training and consultancy in the fields of low-cost sani-tation, low-cost waste water treatment, solid waste man-agement, environment and pollution study, etc.

The Sulabh movement rehabilitated more than sixtythousand scavengers, making 240 towns scavenging-free. This to some extent was instrumental in the adop-tion of twin-pit-pour-flush system or the regular flushtoilets by households.

RECOGNITION AND REACH OF SULABH

Sulabh was the pioneering private initiative in the areaof sanitation. The technology-based solutions and finan-cial model of community toilet complexes had lent im-mense credibility to Sulabh as a social service organiza-tion. The consequences of its work on the scavenger com-munity in particular and on social structure in the In-dian society in general could not be underestimated. Dr.Pathak got national recognition with the award of PadmaBhushan in 1991 and international recognition given bythe Pope with the award of Saint Francis Prize for Envi-ronment in 1992.

Over the years, Sulabh had gained tremendous amountof recognition from various agencies and governmentsall over the world. The Human Development Report2003 (HDR), published by the United Nations Develop-ment Programme (UNDP), praised the efforts made bySulabh in providing affordable sanitation. It also laudedSulabh’s work in community upliftment, environmentsustainability, and technological innovation in the sani-tation sector. HDR suggested the Sulabh model as theway forward for developing nations dealing with sani-tation problem.

Sulabh had also been awarded several environmentalsanitation projects by World Bank, WHO, UNDP, WSSCC,UNICEF and various government agencies in develop-ing countries3. It has imparted training to various NGOsand also provided consultancy to various agencies be-

longing to other developing countries seeking its exper-tise in sanitation and environment sector. AlthoughSulabh never took grants or donations, it undertookprojects funded by different agencies. The Sulabh Inter-national Institute of Health and Hygiene was activelyengaged in the implementation of various projects incollaboration with various national and internationalorganizations and funding agencies and also govern-ments at the states and the Centre (Exhibit 4). In 2005,the UN habitat sponsored a training programme for 20students from six African countries conducted by Sulabh.Sulabh has also started sanitation projects in Bhutan withan aid from the World Bank. Having established its op-erations across India, Sulabh is gradually expanding toNepal, Algeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, etc., with anobjective of opening branches in 20 developing coun-tries by 2025.

SISSO had an Executive Committee which took majordecisions ratified by the Board. It was led by the Chair-man, Vice-Chairman, General Secretary, Secretary, andthe Treasurer (Exhibit 5). Sulabh had branches in all thestates and union territories led by the respective Chair-man, Accountant, Cashier, Engineers, and Architects.Each state had a number of town branches. There were1,075 branches in 29 states and 3 union territories by 2005.There were 19,830 full-time associate members who werebeing paid honorarium. These members comprised ofsocial workers, administrators, planners, engineers, sci-entists, architects, medical doctors, sociologists, andeconomists. There were 65 retired officers including IASand chief engineers, 148 M. Tech and Graduate Civil andPublic Health engineers, 341 post-graduates, 2,328graduates, 7,438 intermediates, and 9,510 with educa-tion up to tenth class and below. In addition, there wereapproximately 10,000 field workers.

Sulabh aimed to diffuse innovations, education, moti-vation, and awareness through mass communication. Itlaunched a national campaign to propagate the SulabhSanitation Movement in villages; popularized commu-nity dining programmes in villages to remove untoucha-blity and social discrimination; published and distribu-ted literature in all 18 recognized languages on sanita-tion, health and hygiene; published an encyclopedia ofsanitation, and established the Sulabh University of Sani-tation. SulabhENVIS Centre was the environmental in-formation system wing of Sulabh, set up under theEMCBTA (Environmental Management Capacity Build-

96

ing Technical Assistance) Project of the Ministry of En-vironment and Forests, GOI, started in March 2003. Themission of the Centre was to gather and disseminateenvironmental information related to the topics of hy-giene, sanitation, sewage treatment systems, and tech-nology for the benefit of policy makers, students, resear-chers, industry, and academicians.

SANITATION IN INDIA

Sanitation facilities in India were dismal as reflected inthe findings of the National Sample Survey of house-holds not having latrines, conducted in 1998. In ruralareas, 82.5 per cent of the households and in urban ar-eas, 25.5 per cent of the households did not have a la-trine. There was a lot of state-wise variation in thesenumbers (Exhibit 2). Despite sanitation being the mostbasic need of the society, as per HDR 2001, there werealmost 120 million households in India or 700 millionIndians without having access to ‘adequate sanitationsystem4’ (Exhibit 6). Only 1 per cent of the rural house-holds and 22.5 per cent of the urban households reportedhaving toilets connected to sewerage systems (GOI,1996b). This was a deplorable situation in a countrywhose 5,000-year old Indus Valley civilization wasknown for its urban planning and sewer systems. Giventhe growth trajectory of the Indian economy in the last20 years and comparing it with similarly promisingeconomies of Russia and Brazil, India was nowhere inproviding sanitation facilities to its citizens. India failedmiserably on the sanitation front even when comparedwith its much less publicized neighbour, Sri Lanka, anda group of countries with low income or low and mid-dle income. Since India constituted majority of the popu-lation of the South Asian region, the South Asian sani-tation numbers mirrored Indian statistics. Even hereIndia played a major role in pulling down the overallperformance of South Asian countries. (Exhibit 7)

Another issue concerning sanitation system was theavailability of water. Adequate amount of water wasrequired to maintain sufficient sanitation standard in ahousehold. The acute water shortage in Indian townsand cities, let alone the villages, raised a questionwhether the population having pour-flush latrine or aconnection to a sewer or a septic tank system really en-joyed good and healthy sanitation facility. Although 88per cent of the Indians were quoted to have access towater supply, a careful look at the definition of accessi-

bility and quality of water supply in the Indian cities5,revealed that sufficient sanitation and water system wasavailable to very few (Exhibit 6).

The reality of sewerage system in urban areas: Sanita-tion facilities in urban areas were better than rural areasbut were far from ideal. Large populations in urban ar-eas still did not have access to latrines and went for opendefecation. A survey of seven major cities in India foundthat only two of them had fully covered undergroundsewerage systems and high sewage network densities.The other five had inadequate sewage network cover-age. More importantly, of the seven cities, three did nothave any functional sewage treatment plant. The remain-ing four cities treated only 48–59 per cent of the wastewater generated. The untreated waste water was dis-posed into tanks/lakes or rivers, thus polluting themand creating severe environmental hazards for thepopulations downstream (Exhibit 8).

The government had taken up projects to clean up onlya few major rivers like the Ganga (under Ganga ActionPlan) and the Yamuna and, that too, with little positiveimpact. Many rivers like the Sabarmati in Ahmedabadand the Gomti in Lucknow were dumping grounds forlarge amounts of untreated sewage. This was similar tothe situation in London around the 1850s when majorcholera epidemics had occurred after the Thames Riverbecame the dump for the city’s sewers6. With situa-tionin major cities in India regarding the sewerage systemso pathetic, one could well imagine what it was like inthe thousands of medium and small towns in the coun-try.

Development in sanitation: Improvement in sanitationhad been very slow. NSS data showed that between1988–98, the households with no latrine declined from89 to 82.5 per cent in rural areas and from 31.8 to 25.5per cent in urban areas, that was, a mere 6.5 per centpoints improvement in rural areas and 6.3 per cent pointsimprovement in urban areas in 10 years (Ghosh, 2002).Sanitary latrines constructed under the government-sponsored rural sanitation programmes such as theMinimum Needs Programme (MNP) and centrally-sponsored Rural Sanitation Programme (CRSP) wereway below the targets (Exhibit 8). At the given rate ofimprovement of sanitation facilities in rural areas, it wasestimated to take about 75-85 years to reach 100 per centcoverage of sanitation in rural areas.



Sanitation and public health: Sanitation was a criticalfactor in public health. Research had proven that hu-man excreta were the main source of diarrhoeal patho-gens7. Lack of adequate sanitation facilities for disposalof excreta and poor hygiene practices resulted indiarrhoeal disease pathogens being carried throughoutthe human environment8. As per an estimate, 660,000Indian children died of diarrhea every year9. This factalone underscored the crying need for providing ad-equate sanitation facilities universally. The above-men-tioned estimated figure did not include those childrenwho survived the diarrhoeal diseases but were left asunderweight, mentally and physically handicapped, andbecame vulnerable to other diseases. Poor sanitation wasbroadly responsible for schistosomiasis, typhoid, intes-tinal worms, etc.

In the 1990s, the number of children killed by diarr-hoea—the result of unsafe water and sanitation —ex-ceeded the number of people killed in armed conflictssince the Second World War. Moreover, half the world’shospital beds were occupied by patients with water-borne diseases, meaning that expensive curative serv-ices were being used to treat diseases that could easilyhave been prevented.

The irony was that sanitation was considered to be asubject separate from public health in the Indian publicpolicy domain. Further to that, quality sanitation wascompletely dependent upon adequacy of water supply.Despite these facts, planning for sanitation was still notintegrated with water planning and management in In-dia.

Environment sustainability: It was simply not possibleto have a universal sanitation system in India in whicheveryone was connected to a sewerage system. The rea-son was unavailability of water and prohibitive cost ofwaste water treatment. Hence, the solution while onhand could not be water-intensive, the excreta disposalneeded to be as near the source as possible so as to avoidunnecessary disposal and treatment costs. At the sametime, it also needed to result in the same cleanlinessstandard. On this count, Sulabh’s two-pit-pour-flushtoilet was excellent as it did not require large quantityof water while preserving the cleanliness. Though thedisposal system was similar to septic tank, yet it decom-posed the excreta into soil, warranting no pollution ofenvironment by dumping the waste.

THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

One-sixth (1.1 billion) of the people in the world had noaccess to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people hadno sanitation facilities (of which nearly one in three livedin the South-East Asia region). And, 600,000 childrendied of the diseases associated with lack of safe drink-ing water and poor hygiene. Of them, around 77 percent could be saved if they were provided with cleanwater and toilets10. Burgeoning population, rapid urbanmigration, uncontrolled use of natural resources, con-gregation of urban poor in slums without safe water sup-ply and sanitation facilities had led to a gradualimbalance in the ecosystem and rapid deterioration ofcommunity health. World spending had to double inorder to meet the Millennium Development Goals,which called for universal coverage of water supply andsanitation services by the year 2025. Low-cost interven-tions could accelerate this process. Sulabh could play avery significant role here but for the numerous chal-lenges it faced.

Scaling up to meet arduous target: Despite providing abetter standard of living to 1.2 million households, thefact that 120 million household lacked a toilet, remained.The major challenge for Sulabh was to scale up its modelto reach a much larger number of households. Giventhat Sulabh had been able to serve 1.2 million house-hold in more than 30 years of its existence, it requiredmuch more than noble intentions and genuine concernsto make any significant impact considering the muchlarger target of 120 million households yet to be cov-ered for basic sanitation facility. Sulabh required an un-precedented scaling up in its operations to fulfill itsvision of clean India. At the global level, the task waseven more daunting.

Garnering resources through extensive collaboration:Agencies like World Bank, UNICEF, UNDP, WSCC,USAID as well as national and international govern-ments were treating the issues dealing with water, sani-tation, and environment with a lot more urgency thanever before. The rapid growth of developing countriescreated a growing pressure on their water resources andsanitation provisions thus bringing the problem intosharper focus for rest of the world to recognize it. Un-der these circumstances, Sulabh needed to make surethat it was at the forefront to capitalize upon the urgencyshown by these agencies. Sulabh needed to push for itstoilet system and market its track record internationally.

98

The purpose was two-fold; one, that there would begreater attention on the sanitation situation in India(which happened to be one of the worst performer onthis front), two, that Sulabh would be able to achieve ascale at which universal sanitation in India could trans-form from being a dream to reality. This called for anenormous effort from the leader of the organization.

Creating sanitation infrastructure and provisioning foruniversal sanitation warranted users/beneficiaries tobear the economic cost of such infrastructure/provision.Financial sustainability could be ensured only if the sys-tem was able to meet capital expenditure, and opera-tions and maintenance costs. Summarily, the provision-ing for universal sanitation could not be done entirelyat the government end. In order to bring in sustainabilityin the system, communities, local governing institutionslike Panchayats, NGOs, funding agencies, and privateenterprises needed to work in tandem. Investment madein the construction of public and household toilets werenot going to yield proportionate results due to the in-herent requirement of operations and maintenance(O&M) expenses on a continual basis. For example, in-creased provision of water supply without providingand accounting for the removal of waste water wasbound to backfire as waste water would create evengreater health hazards and worse living conditions whencompared to lesser water supply. Hence there neededto be proper provisioning for O&M expenses or the toi-let operations needed to be made cost neutral throughuser charges. Sanitation was not a high profile or sensa-tional issue which could bring in huge funds for theNGOs engaged in this area or bestow fame on research-ers generating new knowledge for a better and univer-sal sanitation. It did not attract the same level of attentionas other serious issues such as AIDS, SARS or pesticidein cola drinks did.

Scaling up required extensive collaboration with a widevariety of institutions including businesses, industryassociations, multilateral agencies, local communities,local authorities, NGOs, citizen right groups, etc., apartfrom the government. Given the credibility that Sulabhhad already achieved, it could utilize it to rope in wor-thy partners in its endeavours by collaborating withprivate players. For example, HLL started ‘SwasthayaChetna Programme’ sensitizing the public about theneed to wash hands and it also made them aware aboutthe disadvantages of poor sanitation. HLL did it prima-

rily to market its soap ‘Lifebuoy’. This kind of campaignwas also very germane to Sulabh’s objectives. If suchkind of initiatives could be launched jointly, their effec-tiveness as well as pay-offs would be much more.

Influencing the public policy framework: Given thestrong inter-linkages between sanitation and publichealth, between water availability and sanitation stand-ards, the public policy needed to incorporate all threeunder its fold. Lack of coherent public policy frameworkgoverning public health, sanitation, and water policies,was one of the key reasons underlying poor perform-ance by the Indian Government on the sanitation front.Health and sanitation were considered to be separateissues which affected the priority given to sanitation bythe government in policy formulation and implementa-tion. Fewer funds were allocated; lesser attention andurgency was shown on sanitation projects (Exhibit 9)compared to other health policy issues. Since better sani-tation could work as a preventive force for many dis-eases, the dysfunctional policy allowed more money tobe spent on curing than preventing the disease. By vir-tue of its experience and domain knowledge, Sulabh heldthe prime position (among the private parties) to influ-ence the government policy and help the governmentin weeding out the anomalies in policy framework andmake water and sanitation an integral part of healthpolicy. Sulabh needed to closely involve itself with publichealth policy formulation. To accomplish this, it wasnecessary to commit more resources on knowledge gen-eration and research. Many state governments were re-luctant to invest in basic sanitation without addressingthe broader challenges of drainage and solid waste dis-posal. Sanitation involved waste disposal systems, wa-ter supply, sewerage networks, and preserving ecology.In Europe and North America, improved householdsanitation initially came at the cost of polluting riversand waterways. Thus, while on one hand, further re-search was needed on feasible affordable approaches tofull range of sanitation services, Sulabh needed to pro-mote its low-cost solution of pour flush water seat toiletwith leach pits for onsite disposal of human waste, con-sidered to be very relevant in the current context.

Creating awareness and recognition of the importanceof sanitation: Educating the common man about theimportance of sanitation and encouraging him to payfor sanitation services was a key challenge Sulabh faced.If mobilized properly and offered long-term financial



affordability, local communities and private associationssuch as shopping complexes in cities and towns werepotential buyers of Sulabh’s community toilets. The chal-lenge was to market the concept and create convictionamongst the potential users. Similarly, the social struc-ture in rural India continued to accept the job of scaven-gers for granted and associated it with the conventionaloccupation of socially backward castes. Which meantthat most people were not willing to invest in any alter-nate facility or mechanism for clean sanitation. Opendefecation in fields, near the railway tracks, on the sidesof roads or other such public places, was considered tobe a normal behaviour. In this situation, it was surpris-ing to find more of Indian households having televisioncompared to a functional toilet. Educating people aboutthe importance of sanitation and making them awareabout its role in preventing disease and building healthyliving standards were crucial for the success of any plan.

Creating corporate advantage: Sulabh had ventured intovarious related areas starting from solid waste and wa-ter management to social and women empowermentthrough education and rehabilitation of scavengers, toresearch and consultancy in sanitation sector. Thoughmost of these activities started out as an extension tosanitation movement but with given organizational lim-its, it was difficult to harness the synergies betweenmany of these activities. Sulabh needed to prepare thestrategic blueprint for future which would call uponrecalibrating its priority areas and ascertaining the fo-cus of the organization. It needed to choose betweenbecoming an organization dealing in ideas and an or-ganization doing more of bricks and mortars of sanita-tion sector.

Leadership challenges: Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak was thecharismatic leader and the key source of inspiration forthe organization. His dedication and commitment to thesanitation sector had been synonymous with brand eq-uity and goodwill of Sulabh. However, the scaling up ofmodel required greater decentralization and leadershipbuilding across the organization. The resolution of abovechallenges would also warrant a sea change in decision-making architecture of the organization. This challengewould be the most crucial one determining the effec-tiveness of responses to the existing and other challenges

that future society and environment would pose beforeSulabh.

The twelfth session of the Commission for SustainableDevelopment, also known as CSD-12, held in April 2004at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, fo-cused on the key issues of water, sanitation, and humansettlements. Dr. Pathak who was invited by Mr. BorgeBrende, the Chair of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment, to give his views on creating a demandfor sanitation and promoting hygiene through aware-ness raising and marketing strategies, highlighted theneed for creating appropriate, affordable, indigenous,and culturally acceptable technologies for sanitation. Heemphasized that:

• Conventional solutions like sewers and septic tankswere not the only answers.

• Sanitation needed to be linked with employment.• Close cooperation amongst International agencies,

governments, local bodies, NGOs, and people wasneeded to achieve the MDG goals.

• Encouraging financial institutions to provide finance,considering fund constraints of governments, wascritical.

Of the total population of 1,027 million in India, about738 million people still lacked basic sanitation facilitiesas per the last Human Development Report estimatesof 2001. According to WHO, about 2.6 billion people hadno access to toilets and more than half of them livedeither in India or China. The Indian government quoteda figure of more than five lakh scavengers who werestill engaged in the demeaning practice in the country.From a humble beginning in 1970, although Sulabh hadgrown into a big organization and had installed morethan 1.2 million household toilets and was maintainingaround 7,500 community complexes in 1,100 townsacross India, it was still a long way before it couldachieve its vision of, “A healthy and hygienic India, freeof the practice of defecation in the open and faecal pol-lution of environment. A society free of untouchability,social discrimination, and prevalence of the subhumanpractice of manual cleaning of human excreta (scaveng-ing).”

100

Exhibit 1: Constructional Details of a Twin-pit Compost Pour Flush System



Exhibit 2: Percentage of Households not having Latrine as per National Sample Survey of 1998

States Rural Urban

Andhra Pradesh 88.5 30.8

Assam 24.7 2.0

Bihar 89.4 45.3

Gujarat 79.9 21.1

Haryana 84.5 32.9

Karnataka 88.9 30.0

Kerala 23.1 5.1

Madhya Pradesh 94.5 45.2

Maharashtra 85.8 15.8

Orissa 96.1 35.8

Punjab 67.9 14.8

Rajasthan 87.0 25.5

Tamil Nadu 88.5 32.5

Uttar Pradesh 90.6 28.2

West Bengal 76.1 15.2

India 82.5 25.5

Source: Ghosh, DK (2002). “Sanitation: The Unfinished Agenda,” Yojana, 46(10), 34.

Exhibit 3: Sulabh Recycling and Reuse of Excreta

102

Exhibit 4: Professional Expertise and Projects Undertaken

No Name of Project In Joint Collaboration/ Working Area OutcomeFunding Agency

1. Women & Sanitation USAID Urban Slums Training of women volunteer from urban slum

2. Women & Sanitation USAID 15 Slums Published manual and guideline

3. Women & Sanitation USAID 23 Slums Publication of manual for women volunteersfrom urban slum

4. First Aid & Primary SULABH Urban Slums Training of women volunteers from urban slumHealth Care

5. Women & Sanitation UNICEF 80 Slums Tested water & iodine in salt

6. STD/HIV & AIDS FHI/AIDS CAP 40 Slums Developed & distributed posters on STD/AIDS

7. Reproductive Child PFI 8 Slums Safe motherhood survival programmeHealth Care

8. Condom Distribution Delhi state AIDS 100 Slums Population stabilization & HIV/AIDS preventionin 100 Toilet Complexes Control Society/at Delhi NACO

9. Awareness Generation Central Social 100 Urban Slums Awareness of environmental sanitation health,Programme(AGP), at Welfare Board, hygiene, women empowermentsix state (Delhi, UP, MP, New DelhiRaj, Chandigarh)

10. Condom Distribution West Bengal State Population stabilization & HIV/AIDS preventionin 50 Sulabh Toilet AIDS ControlComplexes Society Calcutta

11. In ProcessIntegrated Health Care UNICEF & 210 Urban Slums Development of 100 mini health homein West Delhi Slums Delhi Govt.

12. Hospital Sanitation in Ministry of Health DDU Hospital Sanitation & Hospital waste managementDDU Hospital, Govt. of NCT,DelhiHari Nagar, New Delhi

13. Safe Water Systems WHO & PSI, 1,50,000 • To develop hygiene practices in household.in India, A pilot SIIHH Population • Information regarding disifection & use ofintervention for the safe water system.reduction of Diarrheal • Health information to prevent diarrhoea.Diseases in UrbanSlums

Source:http://sulabhenvis.nic.in/project.htm



Executive CommitteeChairman/Vice Chairman

General Secretary/SecretaryTreasurer

President

Advisors

Executive President

Sr. Vice Presidents/Vice Presidents

STATE BRANCHES - 29 States and 3 Union Territories

Chairman Chairman Chairman ChairmanVice Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .SecretaryAccountantTechnical Officers Advisors• Planners States/UTs• Administrators• Engineers• Architects• Doctors• Scientists• Social ScientistsAssociate Members andSocial Workers

TOWN BRANCHES - 1075

Exhibit 5: Organization Structure of Sulabh

ORGANOGRAM

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Population of Select Countries having Access to Improved Water Supply and Sanitation

Country HDI Rank Access to Sanitation11 Access to Water Supply12 GDP Per Capita (PPP US$)

Saudi Arabia 68 100 95 10,815

Philippines 70 83 87 3805

Sri Lanka 81 83 83 3279

China 87 38 75 3617

India 115 31 88 2248

Pakistan 127 61 88 1834

Bangladesh 132 53 97 1483

Malawi 151 77 57 586

Source: Human Development Report (2001).

Population not having access to sanitation in India - 69%Total population in India - 1,020 millionNumber of people devoid of sanitation facility in India - 703 million

Vice Chairman and otherstaff as stated above

104

Exhibit 7: Access to Improved Sanitation Facilities

% of Urban Population % of Rural Population

Country 1990 2001 1990 2001

Brazil 82 83 37 35

India 43 58 1 18

Russia 93 93 70 70

Sri Lanka 89 98 64 89

Low Income 49 61 10 24

South Asia 50 64 5 23

Low and Middle Income 71 75 18 32

* Source: World Development Indicators, 2005.

Exhibit 8: Comparative Data on Sewerage Systems in Major Cities of India (c. 2002)

Unit BangaloreAhmedabad Surat Lucknow Nagpur Indore Chandigarh

Population of the city lakh 50 35.2 24.3 22.1 20.5 16 8.1

Total Municipal Budget (Expenditure) Rs cr 665.5 789.3 561.1 137.8 371.8 223 135.1

Wastewater (WW) collection % 60 100 75 46 40 41 100(through sewers)

Wastewater collection (through % 40 0 25 54 60 59 0surface drains)

Sewerage network (network density) km/sq km * 6.5 3.3 1.5 2 4.7 6.9

Sewerage network (ratio to – * 1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.2road length)

Treatment (operational capacity as % 56 59 81 0 0 0 58proportion of WW generated)

Treatment (quantity treated as % 56 59 48 0 0 0 58proportion of WW generated)

Source: Pangotra, Prem (2003). City Monitor, 2002, Ahmedabad Management Association, Ahmedabad.

Exhibit 9: Sanitary Latrines Constructed Under Rural Sanitation Programme

Year / Plan CRSP MNP

Target Achievement Target Achievement

VIII PLAN (1992-97) 96,179 1,791 90,410 3,115

1997-98 29,886 0 29,886 31

1998-99(9/98) 29,886 0 29,886 12

1999-2000 2,225 348 2,225 1,465

2000-01 17,651 0 5,880 1,101

2001-02 2,000 0 2,000 426

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05 (up to..)

Source: http://aphe.nic.in/sch_and_prog.htm



ENDNOTES

1 Scavenging involved disposing of human excreta by thescavengers in the buckets. Scavenging is required in case ofdry latrines where the excreta cannot be flushed by water.The work of scavenging is despicable as this work is un-dertaken by a particular caste, designated by the social hi-erarchy in place for thousands of years in India. Thisinhuman practice involves one human being carrying headload excreta of another human being.

2 http://aphe.nic.in/sch_and_prog.htm3 http://sulabhenvis.nic.in/project.htm4 Proper sanitation means the toilets linked to sewerage or

any other excreta disposal system5 The numbers shown in the above table for water are some-

what misleading as simple access (88 per cent) does not nec-essarily translate into good quality potable water supplyfor 24 hours across the year. Most water supply is for a fewhours per day. It can even be just for few minutes every 3or 4 days in a week in certain urban areas. In many ruralareas some people have to walk long distances to get wa-ter. The situation becomes worse in summer and in yearsof drought. When there is shortage of water the chances ofwater contamination increases manifold. For example, in-termittent water supply creates negative pressure in thepipes when there is no water supply and thus dirty wateris sucked in from sites of leakages in the pipe system. Whenwater supply resumes, this dirty water is supplied first.

6 Mavalankar, Dileep and Shankar, Manjunath (2004). Sani-tation and Panchayats in Infrastructure, India InfrastructureReport 2004.

7 Curtis, Valerie. Op.cit. adapted from the The Fortune At TheBottom Of Pyramid; Prahalad, C K (2006).

8 Prahalad, C K (2006). “Selling Health: Hindustand LeverLimited and the Soap Market,” The Fortune At The BottomOf Pyramid, Wharton School Publishing, pp 273. .

9 Water and Sanitation Programme. Op.cit.; the number ofdeaths (660,000) was derived by multiplying 2.2 million di-arrhea deaths annually by India’s percentage contributionof 30% as estimated by UNICEF.

10 Cited by Dr. Jan P Pronk, Chairman, Water Supply & Sani-tation Collaborative Council, while addressing a gatheringat Sulabh Gram, New Delhi, on February 8, 2004

11 Access to sanitation is defined as the percentage of the popu-lation using adequate sanitation facilities, such as a con-nection to a sewer or septic tank system, a pour-flush latrine,a simple pit latrine, or a ventilated improved latrine. Anexcreta disposal system is considered adequate if it is pri-vate or shared (but not public) and if it hygienically sepa-rates excreta from human contact.

12 Access to water is defined as the percentage of the popula-tion with reasonable access to an adequate amount of drink-ing water from improved sources. ‘Reasonable’ access isdefined as the availability of at least 20 litres per person perday from a source within 1 km of the user’s dwelling. Im-proved sources include household connections, publicstandpipes, boreholes with handpumps, protected dugwells, protected springs, and rainwater collection (not in-cluded are vendor, tanker trucks, and unprotected wellsand springs).

Acknowledgment. The authors are grateful to Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak and the management team at Sulabh International fortheir support and cooperation in developing this case. This case was developed solely as a basis for class discussion. It is notintended to serve as an endorsement, source of primary data or an illustration of either effective or ineffective management.

Sonu Goyal is a Faculty in the area of Business and CorporateStrategy at the International Management Institute, New Delhi.Her research and teaching interests are in the area of Industryand Competitive Dynamics, Strategy Implementation, Man-aging Innovations, Entrepreneurship Management, CSR, Man-aging Change and Behavioural Context of firms. She has a richexperience of writing cases, having covered companies fromdiverse industries, addressing a variety of managerial chal-lenges.

e-mail: [email protected]

Vikas Gupta is a management graduate from IIM-Ahmedabadand the CEO of Compark E-Services (www.compark.in).Compark is working in spreading e-commerce access forpeople in rural and semi-urban areas. The organization has anetwork of 1,000 online services centres spread across India.Over the last two years, Compark has evolved the nascentonline travel services domain into more tangible and influen-tial services like online education and e-commerce.

e-mail: [email protected]

describes a real-life situation faced, a decision or ... · The Report also pointed out ......

Documents

Transcript of describes a real-life situation faced, a decision or ... · The Report also pointed out ......