Research Note

Quality of Drinking Water and Indian Journal of Human Development

15(1) 138–150, 2021
Sanitation in India © 2021 Institute for
Human Development
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/09737030211003658
journals.sagepub.com/home/jhd

Aneesh M. R.1

Abstract
Wide disparity exists in access to drinking water across social groups in rural and urban India. This
article shows that the economically weaker sections or the lower quintile class does not have access
to water within the premises both in rural and urban areas. This indicates that low income or wealth
would mean poor access to basic amenities for households. Similarly, access to toilets and incidence of
open defaecation reflect social disparities. The regression results show that an increase in the house-
hold income increases the predicted probability of maintaining an exclusive latrine. Further, compared
to the ‘General Category’, the ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Other Backward Classes’ have a lower prob-
ability of constructing an exclusive latrine facility, in the rural and urban areas.

Keywords
Drinking water, sanitation, hygiene, unequal distribution, disparity in income

Introduction
Water supply and sanitation facilities are essential for human development. They result in various health
and nutritional benefits which in turn have a positive impact on child mortality and morbidity. Bartram
and Cairncross (2010) found that adequate sanitation and safe drinking water could avoid 2.4 million
deaths (4.2% of all deaths) every year globally. Children from developing countries account for the
majority of these deaths mainly due to diarrhoea and subsequent malnutrition. The key to controlling
diarrhoea deaths is to focus on three interdependent core issues: water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH).
WASH is one of the strategic programmes of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to achieve
‘sustainable water, sanitation services, and the promotion of hygiene, with a focus on reducing inequalities
especially for the most vulnerable children’ (UNICEF, 2016). The present article focuses on the first two
aspects and tries to review the progress in India.
The water and sanitation studies conducted in India can be broadly classified into two categories.
First, some studies used the census data, the Central Pollution Control Board data, the National Sample

1
Department of Economics, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Corresponding author:
Aneesh M. R., Department of Economics, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore, Karnataka 500029, India.
E-mail: mraneesh1@gmail.com
Aneesh M. R. 139

Survey data, the National Family Health Survey data and the data accessed from international agencies
like the WHO and the World Bank to present the macro picture of the existing situation (Kumar, 2019;
Kumar & Managi, 2010; McKenzie & Ray, 2009; Murty & Kumar, 2011; Reddy, 2001). The near-
consensus in these studies is that the management of basic amenities plays a crucial role in improving the
health of the people in urban and rural areas. The second category of studies has used the primary data
collected through small sample surveys in various parts of the country to depict the seriousness of the
problem. A large majority of these studies has used randomised or non-randomised controlled experiments
to emphasise the need for better sanitation facilities for improving the health status of the country. The
studies by Clasen et al. (2014), Hammer and Spears (2016) and Augsburg and Rodríguez-Lesmes (2018)
fall under this category. The broader focus of these studies was to analyse the impact of the increased
disease environment due to poor sanitation on the growth trajectory of children. They contended that
various interventions such as the ownership of basic amenities and awareness have a positive correlation
with child health. However, inadequate sanitation coverage can lead to stunting. Using a household
survey conducted in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, Hammer and Spears (2016) showed that overpopulated
or crowded conditions may lead to sanitation externalities with worse access to the services, a point
highlighted in the first category of studies. The study further reports that ‘a 10-percentage point increase
in sanitation coverage translates into an approximately 0.7 centimetres increase in height at age 4’. Most
studies argued that girl children would get more benefits than boys from the improved sanitation
environment. However, Caruso et al. (2018) pointed out the effects of sanitation on the mental health of
women in a cross-sectional study conducted in rural Odisha. The study identifies a positive correlation
between access to sanitation and sanitation experiences and their impact on selected mental health
outcomes, which includes mental well-being, depression, distress and various forms of anxiety.
A majority of the studies reviewed here focus on the impact of inadequate drinking water and
sanitation facilities on health, whereas the present study examines the existing drinking water and
sanitation situation and its determinants at the household level. The studies discussed here raise questions
that deal with the probable impact of sanitation on health. They help in understanding a wide range of
issues associated with drinking water and sanitation in India, but the progress achieved in this area is
relatively bleak. To understand this gap, there is a need to review the existing status using the available
data and that is the focus of the present study.
The present study has used the National Sample Survey data (NSS) and the WHO/UNICEF database
to examine the various aspects of drinking water and sanitation facilities in the country. The rest of the
article has been divided into three sections. The first section discusses various problems associated with
drinking water, while the second section analyses different aspects regarding sanitation and the
determinants of latrine facilities in the households in rural and urban India. The last section provides a
concluding evaluation based on the results obtained in the previous sections.

A Review of India’s Approach to Water and Sanitation

Water and sanitation were given due importance in post-independent India, but the progress achieved in
both fronts was dismal. The situation changed for the better in the 1990s with the implementation of the
Total Sanitation Programme. It was at this time that the country saw tremendous progress in various
fields including water development and infrastructure, food grain production, urbanisation and
industrialisation. However, it occurred at the cost of various aspects linked to water such as depletion of
groundwater level, waterlogging, pollution and increased use of natural resources. The Twelfth Five-
Year Plan had pointed out that rural areas would be adversely affected by these changes, which in turn
140 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

would have an impact on the quality of water. To a great extent, our development strategies have focused
more on the benefits rather than the cost which in turn resulted in further environmental degradation.
However, after evaluating the progress achieved in the various sectors, Indian planners modified their
approach to development, which was inclusive in nature. This was incorporated in the planning process
from the 10th plan onwards, and it aimed at being pro-poor. The new approach widened the debate on
development where a large majority argued that the redistribution of resources would reduce economic
inequality thereby ensuring high economic growth. However, inclusiveness is not restricted to the mere
redistribution of resources. It has a wider implication. ‘Clean water is a key factor for economic growth.
Deteriorating water quality is stalling economic growth, worsening health conditions, reducing food
production and exacerbating poverty in many countries’. This further strengthens the need to achieve the
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6, which is about ensuring adequate water supply and sanitation
for all by the year 2030.
Since Independence, India has always followed a top-down approach in managing its water resources
and sanitation facilities. However, the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments entrusted the Panchayati
Raj institutions and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) with more responsibilities. Given this, the state
governments had to design, plan and execute programmes on water and sanitation through the respective
ministry. However, the institutional framework to provide these services varies from state to state. In
some states, the services are delivered by the ministry and ‘State Public Health Engineering Departments’,
while in other states, certain specialised departments such as ‘Water Supply and Sewerage Boards’
(WSSB), grama panchayats, municipal corporations and ULBs carry out the work.
The central government, however, took the lead in coordinating various programmes and allocating
funds to harmonise the standards across the country. It also devised strategies through various Five-Year
Plans to further help the state governments in streamlining their investments to achieve the desired
objectives. Additionally, several central institutions have also been involved in planning and monitoring
water supply and sanitation either directly or indirectly. For instance, the ‘Central Water Commission’
(CWC) has the responsibility of regulating surface water for drinking, irrigation and industrial purposes.
Similarly, the ‘Central Ground Water Board’ (CGWB) monitors the groundwater level and the rate of
depletion as well as the production of water resource inventories in the country. Both the agencies are
under the Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India. There are various other agencies, including
research organisations, that are functioning in the areas of water and sanitation to set standards and
provide technical assistance to the central as well as the state governments.

The Question of Quality of Water in India: A Survey

According to the United Nations (UN), globally, the progress in providing safely-managed drinking
water has improved significantly in the last two decades. It is reported that the growth rate has increased
from 61% to 71% between 2001 and 2017. The UN has estimated that around 785 million people in the
world do not have access to even basic drinking water. However, in India, the NSS survey has considered
‘improved sources of drinking water’1 as a criterion instead of ‘safely-managed drinking water’ as set by
the UN. Moreover, comparing different NSS survey data is challenging owing to the different
methodologies adopted in the process of data collection. For example, the 69th round of the survey used
13 principal sources which increased to 17 in the 76th round survey. Figure 1 shows that in 2012, 88.5%
of households in rural India had improved sources of drinking water, while it was 95.3% in urban India.
It increased to 94.6% and 97.4%, respectively, in rural and urban India in 2018. However, ensuring the
quality of water has remained a great challenge for the country and so has the issue of sanitation and
Aneesh M. R. 141

Figure 1. Percentage of Households with Improved Source of Drinking Water in India

Source: NSS report number 556 and 584.

hygiene. A total of 91.2% of households in the urban areas have access to toilets whereas the figure
stands at 56.6% in the rural areas. The results further show that the improved source of drinking water
has been primarily due to piped water supply, which is estimated at 65% in 2018. Similarly, non-piped
drinking water services have increased in both the survey years. The Twelfth Five-Year Plan aimed to
providing at least 55% of rural households with a piped water connection at the end of the plan period,
but the actual figure stood at 32.9%. This signifies an improvement in our efforts on the various aspects
of providing improved drinking water at all times to households in the rural areas of the country.
Despite the country achieving almost 100% improved drinking water supply in rural and urban areas,
its availability within the premises of a household remains a major challenge. In several instances, people
must travel 200 m to 1.5 km to collect water. Such households account for 34.1% of total households in
2018 (see Figure 2). It may seem worrisome, but the country has made tremendous progress in this
regard over the last few years. Rural India performs poorly in this respect as 54% of the households in
2012 did not have access to water within their premises, and the figure remained high at 41.8% in 2018.
However, the situation is different in urban India where 56% of the households in 2018 had access to
drinking water within the premises. The survey results show that piped drinking water and water from
hand pumps accounts for more than 40% of the share in providing water within the dwellings in urban
and rural areas. The other major sources include bottled water, public taps, tube wells and protected
wells. In most cases, these sources are far away from the dwellings and people must travel a long distance
to collect water. This has its impact on human development as women and children are the ones who are
worst-affected.
142 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

Figure 2. Availability of Drinking Water to Rural and Urban Households in India in 2012 and 2018
Source: Unit record data of the 69th round of NSSO and NSS report number 584.

Unequal Distribution and the Availability of Water

Many studies have observed that the availability of freshwater is unevenly distributed across the country,
and a huge disparity exists from region to region, state to state and in many cases, within the state as well.
However, different survey results show that a majority of households in rural and urban areas have
sufficient drinking water available throughout the year, but the distribution is skewed. The WHO
prescribes 25 L of water per person per day to meet basic hygiene and other requirements, including
food. In general, the NSS surveys do not collect information on the per capita availability of water, but
the results given in Table 1 can be used to illustrate the problem in a different way. It explains the wide
differences in the availability of drinking water within the premises of different social groups and income
classes. The economically-weaker sections such as the scheduled tribes (ST) and scheduled castes (SC)
have poor water availability within the premises, which is far below the national average of 25.8%. Table
1 shows that only 2.8% ST and 11.5% of SC households have access to water within the premises.
The widening disparity in access to drinking water could be understood by analysing income
inequalities in the country. The results point to three major aspects. First, the economically-weaker
sections or the lower quintile class does not have access to water within the premises of their houses in
rural and urban India. This indicates that low income or wealth means a poor access to basic amenities.
Second, there exists a wide disparity in the availability of water in the rural and urban areas and our
results show this trend. The social groups that belong to the OBC community have more access to water
in rural areas (49.5%) than their urban counterparts (34.9%). Further, 52.6% of those belonging to other
Aneesh M. R. 143

Table 1. Availability of Principal Source of Drinking Water within Premises by Social Group and Income Class
in 2012 (in %)

Social Group Rural Urban Total

ST 2.8 2.7 2.8
SC 13.8 9.8 11.5
OBC 49.5 34.9 41.3
Others 33.9 52.6 44.5
Quintile class of MPCE
0–20 12.2 5.8 8.6
20–40 19.0 5.3 11.3
40–60 25.3 11.9 17.8
60–80 22.1 20.2 21.0
80–100 21.4 56.8 41.3
Source: Calculated by the author using unit record data of the 69th round of NSSO.
Note: Monthly per capita consumption expenditure (MPCE).

groups (general category) have water available within their premises in the urban areas, as compared to
their rural counterparts, which was only 33.9% in 2012. Third, when it comes to the quintile class, a
systematic pattern can be observed where the availability of water, to a large extent, depends on the
income of a family. A worrisome fact is that even for the top 20% households with access to water, the
availability of water is only 21.4% in rural and 56.8% in urban areas. It shows that income is not a major
determinant of access to water in India. Therefore, we need an inclusive approach in achieving various
goals of safe drinking water and sanitation in the country.
The results presented in Table 1 indicate structural barriers that exist in India against access to basic
amenities. Evidence from across the world suggests that people’s participation in the development
process could make a significant change in how we access the resources, which in turn would help in
improving our living standards. Further, it has been observed that for a healthy life, water rights should
be available and affordable for all without discrimination.

Sanitation in India
Sanitation is considered one of the important aspects of improved health standards. However, it was not
given due importance in the initial decades of Indian development planning. Though many initiatives
were taken in various Five-Year Plans, most of them failed to yield the desired results owing to lack of
health education, lack of awareness and poor community participation. The available data shows that
only 0.1% of the rural population in India had access to sanitation facilities in the 1970s, which marginally
increased to 2.45% in the 1990s. However, the 1991 census provided a clear picture. It reported that
9.5% of rural households and 63.9% of urban families had toilet facilities. It certainly shows an
improvement, but there is a lot left to be desired when it comes to achieving a 100% sanitation coverage
in rural India. The changes in basic sanitation facilities in rural and urban India since 2000 are given in
Figure 3. It uses results from various data sets adopted from the WHO and UNICEF database, and shows
an improvement in basic sanitation facilities over the years. It is not only the result of various government
initiatives, but also of community-led and people-centred awareness programmes undertaken as part of
those initiatives.2 The approach of the Tenth Five-Year plan is noteworthy in this regard. It made an effort
144 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

Figure 3. Basic Sanitation Level in India from 2000–2019

Source: Taken from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2019.

to provide toilet facilities in all primary and upper primary schools and facilitated integrated sanitary
complexes for women. Similarly, the Tenth Finance Commission also recommended sanitation facilities
in higher secondary schools. The School Sanitation and Hygiene Education (SSHE) was one of the
components of the Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) that aimed at providing sanitation facilities in all
schools across the country. All these programmes helped in promoting a behavioural change in the
society through community participation. It led to an improvement in the basic sanitation facilities and a
decline in open defaecation that the country witnessed (Figures 3 and 4).
However, the Swachh Bharath mission proved to be a shot in the arm for the government initiatives.
It helped India achieve almost a 100% basic sanitation coverage by the end of 2019 (Figure 3). According
to the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, India witnessed a significant increase in the construction
of toilets, about 9 crores since 2014, and saw a substantial reduction in open defaecation during this
period (Figure 4). The WHO, in 2019, reported that the global open defaecation trend has been halved
from 1.3 billion in 2001 to 673 million. In 2012, the organisation had noted that about 626 million people
defaecate openly in India, which is more than twice the figure of the next 18 countries combined.
However, since 2014, India, in association with the UNICEF, has made remarkable progress in achieving
open defaecation-free targets and in January 2020, the country achieved the goal. Nonetheless, about
7.6% of people in the rural areas and 2% in the urban areas continue to practice open defaecation as their

Figure 4 Open Defaecation Trends in India from 2000–2019

Source: Taken from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water supply, Sanitation and Hygiene 2019.
Aneesh M. R. 145

Figure 5. Percentage Distribution of Households with No Latrine in India in 2018

Source: NSS Report No. 584 (2018)
Note: States and union territories like Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Sikkim, Chandigarh and Lakshadweep have no record of ‘no
latrine’. Similarly, Delhi (Union Territory), Kerala, Tripura and Daman & Diu (Union Territory) have less than 1% of households
with no latrine facilities. Hence, these states and union territories are excluded from the graph.

personal preference (Figure 5). This classification done by the NSSO (2010) seems problematic because,
if people have access to a latrine facility in their houses, they would prefer not to defaecate in the open.
It implies that there may be problems associated with the latrine facility and hence the open-defaecation
‘preference’ is forced upon them. If so, it means that we have not achieved the goal of open defaecation-
free India. This calls for an integrated approach to improve the sanitation situation in India, as it has a
direct impact on the development of human capital. The WHO, in 2013, reported that over 760,000
children die every year due to diarrhoea, where 88% of the cases are linked to unsafe water, poor
sanitation, or insufficient hygiene.
Figure 5 explains that there is wide variation in the distribution of households with no latrine facilities
across different states in India. It shows that certain states such as Odisha (45.1%), Uttar Pradesh (37.7%),
Jharkhand (33.6%) and Bihar (32.8%) are at the top in the distribution. These are considered poor states
in India, which require immediate attention from the government. However, as part of the Swachh Bharat
Mission, since 2014, the government has constructed a total of 10.28 crore toilets in the country. However,
Figure 6 suggests that having access to latrine facilities does not always translate into its use. There may
be several reasons for not using the latrine facilities, and a few among them are malfunctioning due to
construction failures, insufficient water and lack of superstructure.

Determinants of Sanitation
The previous section provided the details of the status of drinking water and sanitation in India using
different data sources. This section attempts to understand the determinants of access to latrine in rural
and urban areas. I have used a binary model to this end and the details of the variables used in the model
146 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

Figure 6. Reported Reason for Not Using Latrine in India in 2018 (in %)
Source: NSS Report No. 584.

are given in Table 2. The logic behind using a binary probit model is derived from the descriptive results
given in the previous section, which shows that sanitation facilities have improved in India over the
years. This improvement is brought about by certain factors that must be identified as the prime motives
behind the modelling exercise. Hence, the dependent variable used in the model takes the value of 1 if
the households have access to latrine exclusively for their use, and 0 otherwise. The explanatory variables
have been grouped into five categories.
First, we assume that income is a major determinant of having a good latrine in the households.
Hence, we expect a positive sign of the coefficient. However, a major drawback in the NSS survey is the
lack of variables representing income while collecting the socio-economic data. Therefore, we have used
the monthly consumption expenditure of a household as a proxy for income. Second, more members in
the family require exclusive latrine facilities in households, and hence, we expect a positive sign for the
variable household size. The third aspect is related to access to water, which is a dummy variable. We
assume that the exclusive availability of water is positively associated with the latrine facility and hence,
we expect a positive sign of the coefficient. The fourth groupings include the incorporation of a social
group into our model. This is also a dummy classification where the general category of households is
taken as the base against which the others are compared. The general category is commonly known as
the upper caste, whose standard of living is comparatively better than the other social classes. Therefore,
a positive sign for the comparison group would indicate an improvement in sanitation and hygiene. The
last categorisation of variables consists of the awareness level of the households, which is captured
through the extent of education. This is also a dummy variable where we expect a positive sign of
the coefficient. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the variables used in the model are given in
Table 3.
Aneesh M. R. 147

Table 2. Description of the Variables Used in the Model

Variable Name Description of the Variable

Latrine Access to latrine: exclusive use = 1, otherwise = 0 (dep. var.)
Lnexp log of monthly per capita expenditure of the household
Hhldsize Size of the household
ST Scheduled tribe = 1, otherwise = 0
SC Scheduled caste = 1, otherwise = 0
OBC Other backward class = 1, otherwise = 0
Others Other households = 1, otherwise = 0
Edufemale Female educated secondary and above = 1, otherwise = 0
Edumale Male educated secondary and above = 1, otherwise = 0
Source: The author.

Table 3. Summary Statistics of the Model

Rural Urban
Mean SD Mean SD
Latrine 0.32 0.47 0.64 0.48
Lnexp 8.40 0.60 8.92 0.71
Hhldsize 4.75 2.39 4.08 2.25
ST 0.11 0.32 0.04 0.19
SC 0.21 0.41 0.14 0.35
OBC 0.44 0.50 0.41 0.49
Others 0.24 0.43 0.42 0.49
Edufemale 0.41 0.49 0.67 0.47
Edumale 0.26 0.44 0.58 0.49
Source: Calculated by the author using unit record data of the 69th round of NSSO.

The Impact of Income, Size of the Households and Access to Water on

Latrine
The probit model results given in Table 4 shows that income is one of the major determinants of having
basic amenities in a household. As we expected, the income of a family has a positive sign for the
coefficient, which indicates that an increase in the household income increases the predicted probability
of maintaining an exclusive latrine. However, the result shows that there are substantial differences in
maintaining the basic amenities in rural and urban households, which is evident in the marginal effects
presented in the model. About 31% of the households in rural areas and 26% of the families in urban
areas are likely to maintain exclusive latrine facilities as their income increases. This indicates that
households with the highest per capita income3 have a high probability of maintaining exclusive latrine
facilities. Similarly, exclusive access to water in the households would also increase the probability of
setting up sanitation and latrine amenities. In the previous paragraph, we assumed a positive relationship
for the variable household size as well, but the model estimated a negative relation for the coefficient. It
shows that maintaining exclusive amenities for the households is expensive in both rural and urban areas
and hence they may resort to common latrine facilities. India being a patriarchal society, women are the
ones who suffer the most in the absence of sufficient drinking water and sanitation facilities.
148 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

Table 4. Determinants of Access to Latrine Facility in Rural and Urban India in 2012

Rural Urban
Coef. Std. Err. ME Coef. Std. Err. ME
Latrine Dependent variable
Lnconexp 0.860*** 0.016 0.246 0.648*** 0.016 0.159
Water access 0.787*** 0.014 0.225 1.081*** 0.017 0.265
Household size -0.099*** 0.003 -0.028 -0.055*** 0.004 -0.013
ST 0.191*** 0.020 0.061 0.065** 0.032 0.016
SC -0.535*** 0.020 -0.156 -0.325*** 0.024 -0.083
OBC -0.427*** 0.017 -0.127 -0.002 0.019 -0.001
Others base base
Educated female 0.262*** 0.014 0.075 0.348*** 0.018 0.085
Educated male 0.361*** 0.016 0.103 0.375*** 0.018 0.092
Intercept -7.432*** 0.126 -5.797*** 0.136
N 49,761 37,038
Pseudo R2 0.2274 0.3153
LR |2 14833.1 14937.87
Log likelihood -25201.5 -16223
Percentage correctly 75.57% 79.13
classified
Source: Calculated by the author using unit record data of the 69th round of NSSO.
Note: *** 1%, ** 5% and * 10% level of significance, respectively.

The Social Group and Education

The Indian society is not only patriarchal but is caste-centred. The incorporation of the dummy variable
such as a social group helps us in comparing the amenities available to different groups of people.
However, before explaining the social hierarchy and the question of sanitation, a brief insight into the
caste system will help in explaining the results. Historically, scheduled tribes (ST) and scheduled castes
(SC) are the most backward and downtrodden sections in the society. After Independence, a series of
measures taken by the government helped them improve their social status. The other backward classes
(OBCs) also have similar social stratification, but they are comparatively better than the STs and SCs.
Therefore, the model has taken the general category, which is popularly known as the upper caste, as the
base against which the rest of the social groups are compared. As mentioned earlier, a change would
indicate an improvement in the standard of living of the compared groups. The result shows that when
compared to the base category, the OBCs and SCs have a lower probability of constructing an exclusive
latrine facility in rural as well as urban areas. The STs, on the other hand, have a higher predicted
probability of maintaining a latrine facility exclusively for a household in rural and urban India. This can
be attributed to the success of the special programmes and policies meant for the upliftment of STs in
India. However, in various other development indicators, they are yet to show progress and that casts
serious doubts over the results. Therefore, we need further investigation to validate this argument.
The last aspect is related to awareness about the usefulness of better sanitation and hygiene in
households. The model presented in Table 4 has used education as a proxy for awareness and it predicts
well, yielding the expected sign of the coefficient in both the models. It indicates that the probability of
setting up a latrine increases with more members in the households being aware of its benefits. In general,
Aneesh M. R. 149

it is the awareness among women that brings about an improvement in sanitation and hygiene, as its lack
may make their life miserable.

Conclusion
The study found that India has made tremendous progress in terms of providing drinking water to its
citizens and improving sanitation facilities. However, its quality is still a major concern. Despite the
central and the state governments launching various initiatives, wide disparities exist in the availability
of drinking water within the premises of different social groups in rural and urban India. It proves to be
a serious concern as unequal access to basic amenities retards inclusive development. The recent
announcement of country’s open defaecation-free status might be an outcome of a combined effort by
the government as well as various stakeholders. However, our results show that a large majority in India
does not utilise latrine facilities owing to their malfunctioning and insufficient water supply. In this case,
the study suggests a correction within the system to improve the functioning of the administrative
mechanism in the country. Moreover, the effort requires more public expenditure to provide basic
amenities to all citizens.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. The improved source of drinking water includes (a) bottled water, (b) piped water into dwelling, (c) piped water
into yard/plot, (d) piped water from a neighbour, (e) public tap/standpipe, (f) tube well, (g)hand pump, (h) pro-
tected well, (i) public tanker truck, (j) private tanker truck, (k) protected spring and (l) rainwater collection.
2. Total sanitation programme launched in 1999; Swachh Bharat Mission started in 2014.
3. Monthly per capita consumption expenditure is taken as a proxy for income.

References
Augsburg, B., & Rodríguez-Lesmes, P. A. (2018). Sanitation and child health in India. World Development, 107,
22–39.
Bartram, J., & Cairncross, S. (2010). Hygiene, sanitation, and water: Forgotten foundations of health. PLoS
Medicine, 7(11), e1000367.
Caruso, B. A., Cooper, H. L. F., Haardörfer, R., Yount, K. M., Routray, P., Torondel, B., Clasen, T. (2018). The
association between women’s sanitation experiences and mental health: A cross-sectional study in Rural, Odisha
India. SSM—Population Health, 5, 257–266.
Clasen, T., Boisson, S., Routray, P., Torondel, B., Bell, M., Cumming, O., Ensink, J., Freeman, M., Jenkins, M.,
Odagiri, M., Ray, S., Sinha, A., Suar, M., & Schmidt, W.-P. (2014). Effectiveness of a rural sanitation programme
on diarrhoea, soil-transmitted helminth infection, and child malnutrition in Odisha, India: A cluster-randomised
trial. Lancet Global Health, 2, e645–e653.
Hammer, J., & Spears, D. (2016). Village sanitation and child health: Effects and external validity in a randomized
field experiment in rural India. Journal of Health Economics, 48, 135–148.
150 Indian Journal of Human Development 15(1)

Kumar, S., & Managi, S. (2010). Service Quality and Performance Measurement: Evidence from Indian Water
Sector. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 26(2), 173–191.
Kumar, S. (2019). Urbanization, water supply, and sanitation in India. In G. Wan, & M. Lu (Eds.), Cities of dragons
and elephants: Urbanization and urban development in China and India (p. 579). Oxford University Press.
McKenzie, D., & Ray, I. (2009). Urban water supply in India: Status, reform options and possible lessons. Water
Policy, 11(4), 442–460.
Murty, M. N., & Kumar, S. (2011). Water pollution in India: An economic appraisal, india infrastructure report.
India Infrastructure Report, 19, 285–298.
National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). (2010). Some Characteristics of Urban Slums 2008–09 (NSS
65th Round [July 2008–June 2009], Report No. 534). National Sample Survey Office, National Statistical
Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India.
Reddy, V. R. (2001). Declining social consumption in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(29), 2750–2751.
UNICEF. (2016). Strategy for water, sanitation and hygiene, program Division. UNICEF.