From:����������������������������� paadam pm
[[email protected]]
Sent:������������������������������ Saturday, 02 July, 2011
5:59 PM
To:���������������������������������� Harsh Mander; Narendra
Jadhav; aruna roy; Martin Macwan; Henri Tiphagne; Vidya Bhushan Rawat; ska;
NHRC; K.Anuradha; [email protected]; [email protected]; gita
ramaswamy; Mari Marcel Thekaekara; justice V.R.Krishna Iyer;
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Shiva Shankar; Mangesh Dahiwale; Priyadarshi Telang; D.Leena; S.Anand; Benjamin
Kaila; NANDINI; [email protected]
Subject:������������������������� the possibility of
replacing the toothless Manaul Scavenging(prohibition)1993 act.
Attachments:���������������� HC on manual scavenging
amendment.pdf; manual_scavenging-NAC note may 11thminutes.pdf
LATEST MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER & CRITIQUE OF NAC NOTE ON MANUAL SCAVENGING
Dear Sirs/Madam,
Greetings.
1. Attached pl find the pdf file of the latest MHC order strongly indicting the
Union Govt for delay in reforming the 1993 act and setting a deadline of August
22 for bringing the neccessary amendment, going beyond which the High Court may
be constrained to direct personal appearance of Dignitaries be it Home, Law
& Justice or even the PMO.
2. The Govt of Tamilnadu has also agreed to move a resolution in the TN
assembly in favour of an amendment and forward to the Union Govt for taking up
in the parliament. We need one more state to move such a resolution., because
atleast 2 states' backing is required for a bill to be placed for amendment, it
seems.
3. In the meantime, there is second thought about amending the existing 1993
act and there are discussions for an altogether new, comprehensive act on this
subject matter.
4. Even though NAC was originally in favour of an amendment to the 1993 act
earlier, now they feel it may be pointless to amend the old act and it is
better to move a new bill. Reason being, the old (Prohibition)
Act, 1993 was
enacted under Entry 6 of the State List and the states took their own sweat
time to even notify the act in their states and many did not even frame the
rules.
5.When the old act was drafted, it was under the subject of
'Public health' whereas the intend should have been to eliminate centuries
old historical wrongs, according to NAC note. Hence, it will be prudent
not to draft amendments under the same 1993 act.
6. There is another fear in the Housing Ministry circles is that
if such strong amendment is carried out under the same act with Housing
Ministry as the nodal agency, then all states need huge funds to modernise the
sanitation mechanism and there will be clamour by the states for more funds
from the centre under JNNURM or other schemes. This is because most of the
municipalities in the country are already bakrupt with very little scope for
raising their own funds through the state and will depend on contributions from
the Centre. The centre is already overburdened with so many committments such
as loan waivers, RTE, RTF such as PDS, MGNREGA, etc etc. The Total Sanitation
Mission had been a mixed bag. So, the financial angle is a deterrant to
enacting the new amendment. Moroever, by making the amendment stronger, there
will be instances of proceeding against even Municipal commissioners under the
act, which no minicipal administration offcialswill agree to. So there will be
stiff resistance to the same.
7. There was a suggestion to bring the subject under Labour welfare (concurrent
list) so as to improve the working conditions of those employed as Manual
Scavengers. But, this will not be acceptable as Manual scavenging is not any
other labour work such as construction, mining etc and there is a caste angle.
So, bringing the subject under 'Labour' has been ruled out.
8.The PM recently spoke of bringing the scope of employing someone for Manual
scavenging as an offence under SC/ST atrocities prevention act, but there are
constraints., namely a)there are certain muslim communities engaged in manual
scavenging and they cannot be covered under this SC/ST act., b)SC/ST atrocities
prevention act is far more dangerous for municipal offcials and they will not
agree to the same, c)there is this problem of foisting false cases against
municipal officials, supervisers etc under this act by bad-scheming workers etc
etc.
9. So,NAC now believes that a new strong seperate act either under concurrent
list entry 23, List III (Social Security) or preferably under Union's residual
powers deriving under Article 248 read with Entry 97 List I under scope of
'Social Welfare" (instead of Public health or labour welfare) may be the
solution instead of amending the old 1993 act. (Please go through the attached
'Follow up note of NAC dt 11th May). In this note, NAC defines manual
scavengers as two seperate entities a)traditional manual scavenging such as
manually removing human excreta from dry latrines and b)those employed in
Septic tanks and sewerages to remove blocks and railway cleaning workers.
10.Under the new definition according to NAC,work under traditional catagory
such as removing excreta from Dry latrines should be banned forth with and they
should be rehabilitated. Those employed under the second definition
of sewer work and railway work should be liberated within 5 years through
technical changes but their livelihood itself should not be abolished. The onus
of enforcing the technical and administrative changes is with the hiring
authority (i.e., unscrupulous railway contractors employed by the railways
through corrupt tendering process with built-in kickbacks).
While, I mostly agree with the various arguments advanced by NAC in their
follow up note of May11th on the limitation of amending the existing law, I am
perplexed by the lack of comprehension of the issue in its full measure by the
learned members of NAC, some of whom are revered social scientists such as
Harsh Mander and others.
I express my critique of NAC suggestions on the following counts:
1.While those involved in cleaning of dry latrines should be liberated
forthwith by demolision of dry latines, what is the alternative, the new law
will offer is not clear from the NAC's arguments. We know that most of those
who are using dry latrines, either individual or community dry latrines are
themselves poor backward communities living in slums or colonies and are
socio-economically worse off. Two things flow from this. The demolished dry
latrines will be replaced by Pour Flush Toilets or large scale open
defecation(which is the stark reality in India today) on streets, road margins,
platforms, near waterbodies, railway tracks etc. So, many municipal civic
workers (who in any case are from born as scavenging communities) are made to
handle those human extreta on account of open defecation albeit as part of
their routine civic cleaning work.
2.When dry latrines are demolished and modern community pour flush toilets are
built, due to shortage of water, indequate number of toilets, lack of education
in civics, overpopulation, poor qualtity of construction and plumbing etc, etc,
these so-called modern toilet complexes end up in reality as virtual dry
toilets. The civic workers who in any case are from the same scavenging
communities end up cleaning these complexes with bare hands or
broomsticks amounting to manual scaveging. In effect, we end up replacing
manual scavenging in dry toilets with manual scavenging in wet toilets.
3.Now comes the second type of manual scavengers, those working to clean septic
tanks, sewers and railway workers. The NAC talks about a 5 year period for
liberating(???) them from direct manual scavenging through technical changes
.'Technical Change or Technology Change' is a tinkering option, an improvement
in an existing devise or equipment. What India needs is a Technology revolution
in the science of Sanitation, in the science of disposal or preferably use of
Human excreta as a resource and to remove the caste stigma in it by making
excreta processing 'Fashionable' and an 'in-thing' and not something designed
or resigned for a specific community at the bottom most of our caste system.
So, NAC or anyone with a stake in this subject should talk of a 'paradigm shift
to a Technology of Sustainable Sanitation and Innovation'. I have my own doubts
on the sustainablity of the ongoing TSC on which crores have been spent without
quantifiable outcomes.
4. India is urbanising fast, more and more the middle class and the rural
migrants are moving into the urban areas and the population density is high and
growing. Our sewer lines are highly polluting monsters, unscientifically
concieved, pathetically executed and horribly maintained and therefore totally
unsustainable. Instead of pollution through open defecation, we are polluting
our waterbodies and groundwater through our sewerlines. We install sewer
treatment plants, but these are not optimally designed and scientifically
operated, thereby letting out semi-treated sewage along with raw sewage back
into waterbodies. Yamuna is DYING GODDESS. Ganga has become IMPURE GODDESS.
Same with scores of rivers with Goddess names, waterbodies across India as well
as ground water getting irreversably polluted, not just due to open defecation
but due to relentless pollution by monster sewers.
The erstwhile manual scavengers of dry latrines now become the neo-manual
scavengers of wet sewers and railway lines. The issue is likely to become more
and more complex in the near future. Technical changes as envisaged by the NAC
may be inadequate. There is need for technology development, a sound national
and local solid waste management policy and sanitation policy which should lay
emphasis on scientific collection, processing, disposal or recyling methods and
local innovative solutions. It will not out of place to point out that there is
no sanitation or solidwaste management policy in any state in India. More
research needs to be carried out on designing and developing eco-friendly
sanitation systems assurance for human dignity rather than on launching
satellites or sending an Indian to the moon. Sadly these are really lacking in
our priorities.
If we are talking about abolishing Manual scavenging and liberating them and
dignifying sanitation work without having a Sound, Sustainable and Scientific
Policy Framework on Salidwaste and Sanitation Management in place in this
country, we are far removed from reality. Many will concur that as long as
there is need for scavenging in this county, scavengers will be perpetuated in
one form or other.
5. Another thing that is surprising in NAC's argument is that the sewer
cleaning and railway cleaning should be improved through technical changes, but
the livelihood of those imployed in sewer /septic tank cleaning or railway
cleaning should not be abolished. NAC argues that the occupation should not be
abolished but only the 'humiliating and unsafe aspects' should be eliminated
within 5 years. We need to deliberate on the import of this line of argument.
Because, through this argument, we seek to perpetuate less hazardous manual
scavenging on exactly the same communites. Where is the question of liberation
from caste inequity in this? NAC proposes that through 'technical changes',
manual scavenging be made less humiliating and but not liberating. When
technical changes fail, they are back to 'humiliating and unsafe'manual
scavenging. This line of NAC thinking is ok for China or Africa because there
is no caste system there. By advocating technical changes but simultaneously
proposing preservatiion of livelihood, what are we proposing to achieve? Because,
for a typical middleclassman or for any other caste hindu, even the very idea
of cleaning a sewer or a railway track or a septic tank even with 'safe
&modern gadgets' and 'handsome salary' may be extremely humiliating and
revolting. So in reality, humiliation is relative to caste and not absolute.
So, what are we talking when we say 'manual scavenging without humiliating and
unsafe aspects'.?
These are some of the critique points that I am raising, not with an intention
to belittle NAC or any other wellmeaning thinktank groups but to throw up the
issue for a healthy discussion.
Last, but not the least, dont we think this subject is tricky and needs serious
but urgent broad-based discussions across the country with stakeholders. In an
earlier mail, I suggested a proposal for a seminar on this subject in Chennai.
If some of the public spirited persons, legal experts and activists respond
positively, we may do something in this regard. Regional public consultations
are key to drafting a sound bill on this vital subject matter.
Please feel free to express your views.
With warm regards
Regards
A.Narayanan (98403 93581)
Editor
Paadam, Monthly Magazine in Tamil for Development Politics
2/628, Rapid Nagar,
Gerugambakkam
Chennai - 602 101.