1

Harshit Aggarwal

CT-0001-1

08.11.2022

Word Count: 880

 2

Is Dirt a threat to public order?

The word 'dirt' is subjective in meaning and is seen differently depending upon the

“gazes” adopted. As elaborated upon by Chakraborty, India under a western gaze has

normally been seen as unhygienic, with dirt and dust, hot, crowded, diseases, and lack of

civic consciousness. A bazaar in India is imagined as a place full of noise, garbage, crowd,

filthy drains, and disgusting sellers. This piece studies the relationship between dirt, caste,

and development in India.

Dirt’s definition according to Douglas is “Anything matter out of place”. When

considering the definition of dirt, one thing might not be dirty in itself but the surroundings

can make it dirty. “Shoes are not dirty in themselves but when they are put on the dining

table, they become dirty.”

Dirt is seen as a threat to public order but that is just not about physical dirt. Physical

dirt and additional social dirt are the two categories of dirt that Milner discussed. The caste

system, untouchability, and caste discrimination—all of which are pervasive in India—are

referred to as "social dirt." In India, Dalits are regarded as untouchables and Brahmins as the

purest of all. A brahmin cannot live with a Dalit since it would be dirt for them and could

make them unclean. Douglas' use of the example of Havik (a brahmin) can be connected to

this social hierarchy of cleanliness. Caste inequality in India is demonstrated by Havik's fear

of being impure if they work alongside a Dalit.

Garbage picking, manual scavenging, road cleaning, and other low-paying jobs

related to dirt and waste are performed only by Dalits. As it was seen in Indian society that

these duties are only related to lower-class people. Due to this social order, they are forced to

live in slums and small huts that lack the resources and room to live cleanly and without
 3

waste, but elite or wealthy individuals believe that these people in slums disturb their public

order. Therefore, it might be claimed that cleanliness is expensive and only enjoyed by the

wealthy. They're considered dirty even when they perform roles outside of the caste system:

university students, doctors, teachers, etc who are of a lower caste or Dalits, etc are often

discriminated against despite not being "dirty", but simply because they are out of place (or

do not belong there). Here is the definition of Dirt by Douglas “anything matter out of place

is considered dirt” (Douglas, 111) which tells us that the “meaning of dirt is a relative

concept.” (Douglas, 111) Thus, I disagree with the definition of dirt by Douglas as Dalits

working as a doctor, teacher is considered dirt by high-caste people because they are out of

place (or do not belong there) for them. Are slum dwellers who are regarded like trash by the

wealthy and elite likewise a threat to public order? Social Inequality and untouchability can

be termed as social dirt is a threat to public order. but categorizing poor people or lower caste

people as “dirt” is not a threat as these people are also part of public order.

Therefore “Social dirt” is a real threat to public order but what about physical dirt?

Chakrabarty quotes Naipaul that “Indians defecate everywhere and they don’t look for

cover.” (Chakrabarty, 541) It shows how Indians are civic unconscious and don’t care for

hygiene by defecating in open public spaces. Activities like these can disturb the public order

of the country and is indeed a threat as well.

Someone who is having issues with their public order can assert that they are likewise

in danger. For some individuals, noisy bazaars may be a problem for maintaining public

order, but in my opinion, they are designed to be noisy. Even if the bazaar contains trash and

filth that interferes with public order, who does that filth harm the most? People who either

reside and/or work in the bazaars or visitors from outside. It had become a habit for the

residents of such bazaars and no longer poses a threat or disturbs their sense of order.
 4

Cleanliness, hygiene, and an unpolluted environment are always everyone's needs but that

doesn't mean that streets with garbage on the side are a “threat” to public order.

Milner discusses the connection between dirt and development. Development should

make dirty areas clean, but it has also historically given rise to new types of dirt. Given that

India is a developing nation and that urbanization and modernity are expanding quickly, it

should not be strange to find dirt at this time. In the middle of the 19th century, as

urbanization occurred in the west and Europe, it was also accompanied by dirt. People may

be treated fairly and social dirt can be remedied with the development of the educational

system, which will aid in nation-building.

I used Mary Douglas to describe dirt, and then I sought to address the problem by

giving examples of "social dirt" like caste prejudice in India. Then it is discussed how only

Dalits and people of lower castes are employed in manual scavenging and garbage collection,

and how wealthy people see the poor as trash and dirt. Thereafter discussed the connection

between dirt and development, and how it alters the picture and can aid in eradicating the real

threat of social dirt.

 5

Work Cited

Chakrabarty, D. (1992). Of garbage, modernity and the citizen's gaze. Economic and Political

Weekly, 541-547.

Douglas, M. (1985). Purity and danger. In Robert Bocock and Kenneth Thompson (Eds.),

Religion and ideology: A reader (pp.110-114). Manchester University Press.

Milner, M. (1987). Dirt and development in India. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 63(1), 54-

71.