If people can afford a toilet, and get access to sanitation and plumbing, they will use them.

In fact, the government has massive toilet-subsidy programs, and it's the government's responsibility to provide plumbing. Everybody here knows these programs and responsibilities are a joke, because of corruption (officials pocket the money for those toilet subsidies) and bureaucracy (getting the subsidies probably requires paperwork that the target citizens don't have, though that's just a guess on my part).

So, yes, an ineffective government (in large part due to corruption) may well be a huge part of the problem, if not the entire problem.

> A new household survey of nearly 23,000 north Indians offers more evidence, especially from Hindu households. Led by Diane Coffey, an economist at Princeton, it found that even among households with a working latrine, more than 40% reported that at least one family member preferred to defecate in the open.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21607837-fixing-dreadful-...

People prefer to defecate in the open only because belive it is or not, open is 'cleaner' than inside. Most toilets require a subtantial amount of water to keep clean after every use and water is in short supply in north india. Without adequate flushing the toilet quickly becomes a stinkhole and outside offers a much better experience.

The princeton economist who wrote this intelligent study should have included talking to atleast one guy who stays in north india as part of her research.

Heck, even within India itself, the vastly different open defecation rates between Hindus and Muslims point to the fact that the main factor is cultural, not just logistical.

EDIT: All cultural change is just slow. Give a European toilet to someone who's been using squat latrines all 40 years of their life and they'll perch. Give it to a younger person, and they'll learn the new way.

Also, it looks like the cited statistic is a bit dramatic; only 21% of individuals who live in a household with a latrine practice open defecation. 80% efficacy is pretty good in social interventions. The household stat basically just says to me, "most Indian households include elderly members, who don't want to change their ways".

EDIT 2: Link to paper: http://riceinstitute.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/0... the graphs of age by defecation rate on page 6 support my age-related guesses.

Or may be it is. At least for our population scale. How and why do you think rules and regulations get flouted? Plus I don't tend to restrict corruption to what government officials do. The business(of all sizes) who don't pay a penny in taxes, Common public who break every single law knowing that they can buy their way out, people/managers in private companies blatantly indulging in linguistic, regional and religious politics quelling whatever little is left of meritocracy are all equally guilty.

>>I mean, come on, we should stop taking the cover of corruption and colonialism for every problem that persists.

Colonialism probably damaged India in ways which can't even be repaired now. To tell that it doesn't have any impact on how things are running now is very naive.

I'd be interested to find out why you think this is the case? I'm not an expert by any means on the history of either colonial era but the little I do know shows some striking similarities in how the natives were treated by the British as far as rapacious barbarity in multiple cases.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943:

"starvation of anyhow underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks" ~ Churchill 1943

I think this quote captures the ethos of British colonial rule quite nicely.

While the British ruled many of their colonies by a identifiable play-book (i.e. a superiority complex that lead to brutal governance), cultural preference, as it always seems to, lead to favorable treatment of those demographics closest to anglo-saxon / protestant / etc, characteristics.

So I assert while famines were induced by the British in both Ireland and India, the Indians would have been seen as lowlier then the Irish, by a debatable amount.

The Indian population would thus have suffered harsher under colonial rulers.

This is coming from someone who has traced his ancestry back to a British lord, which in all likelihood means a family member (likely 3-4 generations) was raped as a direct result of British colonialism.

History is brutal and everybody likes to call foul. However treatment of different, far off, peoples by colonial powers will never seek to amaze in its vicious and sickening nature.

Like this incident committed by American troops in 1901: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangiga_massacre

Remember also that the English didn't conquer India just with their own armies. They used allies and puppets; England didn't have the sheer manpower it'd take to conquer India alone. Basically their tactic was find a small power and give them advanced weapons. The small power then enjoys becoming a big power... but is then dependent on England for the arms supply, and so becomes a puppet. The English were very good at politics, playing people off each other.

That's not what's happening here, people are saying that we should stop using colonialism as an excuse to shirk responsibility.

It's been more than half a century. Sure, colonialism damaged us, but 50 years is also a lot of time in which change could have been made to help undo that damage. That change is ... largely absent.

First, I would disagree very strongly that this change is largely absent. India has made great strides in the last 50 years; it is undeniably a much stronger country in almost every way than it was 50+ years ago.

Secondly, it's been more than half a century since India's official independence from British rule, but it's certainly not been half a century since it was subject to immensely damaging influence from colonial powers. Just looking at Partition alone, the actions that the British took during Partition (and afterwards) are still being felt today, and there are many, many other ways in which India is still subject to external, colonial hegemony, just in a less overt and visible form.

There's lots of literature on postcolonial studies in India specifically, which explain it in far more detail than I could in this comment, but the fact is that colonialism has continued long after outright legal rule; it just exists in a different form.

To use 1947 as a benchmark is misleading, because that was only one stage of India gaining freedom from colonial rule. It's like saying that in the US the civil rights movement happened 50 years ago and slavery ended 150 years ago[0]. Yes, on paper, Black people are supposed to be treated equally under the law, but that undeniably is not the case in practice.

[0] Postcolonial pedants may point out that the relationship between Black people in the US is not strictly one of colonial subject-ruler in the exact same sense, but it's the closest analogy that non-pedants are likely to be familiar with.

Besides, I find it a bit disingenuous to put the full blame of a modern problem like pollution on colonialism, even when you account for continued influence way past 1947.

I completely agree that colonialism didn't stop at 1947. I'm just saying that it seems like a cop-out to just use it as an excuse for all our problems.

> Black people are supposed to be treated equally under the law, but that undeniably is not the case in practice.

Great example. Do you see any Americans blaming slavery or legal discrimination for the current situation, or are they blaming the modern times? Again, the past has a huge part to play here, but it's something that you should focus on trying to fix.

I don't see anyone go "meh, slavery" when the problems of the African American community are brought up. I do see people going "meh, colonialism" when India's problems are brought up, quite often. This is what I'm against. I'm not saying we should have fixed the problems by now, I'm saying we should have fixed them more than what our current state is, and we shouldn't just shovel all blame onto colonialism.

I hardly, if ever, see people using it as a "cop out for all our problems", or people "shoveling all blame on colonialism". What I do see, though, is that this criticism is almost always made anytime someone makes mention of the actual continued effects of colonialism in the present day. It happens both on this thread and any other HN thread where the topic is brought up (though it's not limited to HN). In the aggregate, it becomes a way to dismiss these very real effects and ignore them altogether.

> Besides, I find it a bit disingenuous to put the full blame of a modern problem like pollution on colonialism, even when you account for continued influence way past 1947.

I don't (and neither would most postcolonial scholars), because the economic impact of 200+ years of outright exploitation takes more than 50 years to recover from. This aftermath of this economic destruction fundamentally changes the sorts of political and legal actions that are actually feasible (in practice). Even the US, the wealthiest country in the world[0], has outright refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol because of its effects on the economy[1]. In India, not only do you have to trade that off against the importance of economic growth in a developing economy, but also against the feasibility of actually implementing and enforcing policy changes[2].

> Do you see any Americans blaming slavery or legal discrimination for the current situation, or are they blaming the modern times?

Slavery and legal discrimination are responsible for the current state of the Black community in the US - that's the whole point. It's been 200 years and we still haven't been able to completely reverse its effects.

Incidentally, I do oftentimes see this same misguided criticism levied at the Black community, which essentially amounts to "you've had equal rights for 50 years now; it's up to you now to achieve success and end racial discrimination and inequality". While the situations are different (slavery vs. colonialism), this criticism is as misguided when applied to Black people in the US as it is when applied

[0] by raw GDP, and the wealthiest "large" country by GDP per capita

[1] ignore the political posturing in the rhetoric; this is very clearly the bottom-line reason

[2] Yes, inequality begets corruption and corruption begets inequality; it's a vicious cycle. This is why exploitative imperialism is so dangerous and exactly why fixing it is such a slow process.

I have. Mostly amongst fellow students. Perhaps it's just different experiences then.

> it becomes a way to dismiss these very real effects and ignore them altogether.

Meh. I am okay with dismissing past issues when discussing present problems. Past issues cannot be fixed. I am less okay with dismissing present issues as a sole result of past problems.

Of course, I don't want to dismiss the effects of colonialism, but when it is used as an excuse (which I have seen often), I'd prefer to dismiss the past effects in an effort to avoid having present effects be dismissed.

> because the economic impact of 200+ years of outright exploitation takes more than 50 years to recover from.

You're talking in absolutes. I never said that we should have recovered by now. I'm asserting we ought to have made more progress than we have. This is a matter of opinion so I guess we should agree to disagree.

> Slavery and legal discrimination are responsible for the current state of the Black community in the US - that's the whole point.

Sure, but it's not used as an excuse either.

> Incidentally, I do oftentimes see this same misguided criticism levied at the Black community, which essentially amounts to "you've had equal rights for 50 years now; it's up to you now to achieve success and end racial discrimination and inequality".

Oh, this is not what I'm saying either. Perhaps I'm not being so clear; but I'm merely against the usage of colonialism as a cop-out. You're clearly not doing that here, so never mind :)

The definition of colonialism, according to Google: "noun: colonialism --- the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically." http://i.imgur.com/3wQbW11.png

A blessing you say? Until now I didn't even know anyone considered colonialism much different from an invasion. The definition that I just posted seems to fit "invasion" pretty well imho. And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that. Please tell me there's some other definition of colonialism being used in this thread.

Type 1 is where is the colonizers set up new outposts in more-or-less unoccupied land. This happened in Hong Kong and Calcutta. This is usually benign for the host country.

Type 2 is where the colonizers steal the land from the natives and occupy it themselves. This happened in the United States and to some extent in Ireland. This type of colonialism is usually terrible for the natives.

Type 3 is where the colonizers install themselves as a ruling caste, but otherwise let the natives be. They extract taxes and provide governance in return. This was the case in India. It was also the case when the Normans invaded England, the Spanish invaded Mexico, or the British took over India.

Type 3 often works out better for the natives, because the existing regime had to be pretty backward and corrupt in order to fall to a small band of foreigners. The foreigners install themselves as competent stationary bandits and the country at least enjoys some stability and rule of law.

And how do you even move a culture forward? It sounds like you're implying that some cultures are better than others. Please tell me you're not saying that.

So you're saying Aztec culture wasn't worse than 19th century British culture? Cultures that had human sacrifice are equal to cultures that perfected the steam engine and flush toilets? Please tell me you are not that willfully ignorant.

It should be blindingly obvious that certain elements of culture are worse than others, unless you are willing to argue that religions with human sacrifice are just as good as religions without human sacrifice, or that funerals with Sati are just as good as funerals without Sati. If certain elements of culture are better or worse, than it would be a miracle if all cultures exactly balanced out so that the positive elements and negative elements were equal, thus making all cultures equal to each other.

Type 5 is where you start enumerating during your rant to make it seem as you have a point beyond "never mind mass murders, famines.. colonialism sure did a lot for culture"

Yes, Nazis are bad, and war is bad.

But if you put the German government in charge of France and look at the long-term effects that would have? Not a terrible thing.

Also you're ignoring "small band". France could not have fallen to a small number of troops. An area without a strong government could.

Occupying a country is actually making them a favour!

Assuming you believe the word culture actually has objectively true meaning, do you believe that while cultures are different, all differences everywhere somehow all balance out to a precisely equal level of "good"? And furthermore, are they all also equal with respect to any individual topic (sanitation, environment, honestly, etc)?

None of these arguments are 100% proof of course, but they should at least weigh in on one's priors, I think.

[1] http://www.people.hbs.edu/liyer/iyer_colonial_oct2004.pdf

If you are lucky, you get a stationary bandit that extracts, but does not want to kill the golden goose. The stationary bandit wants to act as a gardener and grow production.

If you are unlucky, you get a roving bandit that will pillage as much as possible in the short term, not caring about long-term growth.

It strikes me that the corruption of the Indian government is much more akin to a roving bandit. Each official wants his share, no matter the impact on growth for the nation as a whole.

First, this presumes a linear progression and objective ranking of "quality" or "utility" of cultures, which any serious sociologist or anthropologist would reject.

Really, what you're saying is "colonialism turned Indian culture into something which more closely resembles present-day British (or perhaps Western European) culture". Phrased that way, it's easier to see that this argument is not particularly interesting. It's pretty obvious that colonialism will have that impact; that's basically the definition of hegemony.

Secondly, this ignores the immense impact that Indian culture (and other colonial cultures) have had on Britain (or their respective colonial powers). One of the well-known effects of colonialism (both in India and elsewhere) is the erasure of this influence. That is, cultural elements of the colonial subjects are appropriated by the colonial power as a "new" invention of that culture, rather than viewed (by the contemporary discourse) as an adoption of some aspect of the colonial culture. The reverse is not true; aspects of the colonial power's culture that are adopted by the colonial subjects are not viewed by either culture as being native to the colonial subjects[0].

Finally, this also overlooks the many ways that colonial rule appears to be a 'regression' even from the fallacious lens of a linear progression of culture. For example, the current criminialization of homosexuality in India is a due to a law imposed by the British during colonial rule. Before colonial rule, the concept of a nation-state didn't exist and enforcement of law was very different in practice, so we can't compare directly by looking for national legal codes. But it's very clear that homosexuality was not only not universally criminal in India, but was in fact an established and accepted cultural phenomenon in certain pockets of society. After the decriminalization of those practices, they disappeared entirely (in their then-current form; homosexuality itself obviously did not end).

[0] If anyone is interested in reading more about this, this principle is most famously explicated by Foucault. (No, the irony of referencing Foucault on cultural appropriation is not lost on me.)

Mathematics, Jewellery, Ideas on Governance, A strong work ethic, Missiles & Weaponry (yup)... There are loads of other things. I think the tone of your question suggests one shouldn't bother to bring this out too much as it will not change your ideas.

Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups. Asian culture emphasizes a strong work ethic. It's not just Indians with this one.

If the actual Indian families have higher income, it sounds like you're saying the answer is no...

The Indians part seems irrelevant from what you're saying. It seems you think British people are lazy?

>The Indians part seems irrelevant from what you're saying. It seems you think British people are lazy?

What? Not at all. I have no idea how lazy British people are. I was reacting to your statement that I should "Please have a look at the income of Indian families in the UK/US relative to other ethnic groups." That implies that there is a significant difference between mainstream culture and Indian immigrant culture.

/s

Fair point. But I think it still nullifies the argument that countries can't modernize without 'civilized' colonial rulers.

Thankfully the British kept a meticulous record of the beautiful civilization they destroyed with utmost cruelty.

India was much more advanced than Britain at the time. Now the thief claims to be a civilizer ? Irony has known no bounds.

https://archive.org/details/DharampalCollectedWritingsIn5Vol...

If I were a fish, I'd want not to be eaten. I don't care two bits whether I'm fried in margarine or in butter (to paraphrase Nehru).

Enough said.

I'm glad you said that. Indian culture and civilization still lives strong, it's just not only in India anymore.

You can thank the British for that (though I guess you hate them).

EDIT: elsewhere on this thread, @sremani mentioned they are an Indian living in the US, so readers should not read my comment in favor of theirs.

That, and also being conditioned not to thing so and blame themselves. Works wonder for keeping them at bay.

From the people that lovingly prepared the best conflict zones for after they leave, such as India-Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Iran-Iraq, Nothern-Southern Cyprus etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31831559

Open defecation doesn't happen when people have access to (ideally free) toilets. Nobody likes doing that and I can't imagine shaming them will help anyone.

And also worth mentioning that the available latrines have to be welcome, clean, and comfortable; at least, better to use than the open-air alternative. Many public latrines are rather less pleasant than a patch of dirt behind a bush.

Yeah, because obviously shitting outside is a lifestyle choice. They'd also not rather have clean air or decent houses too.

Well, if you didn't have the money, connections or chance to be able to migrate to the US, you'd probably be living in such conditions too. It's not like you can't do much about it when you're poor.

And it's not like the US is all roses either. I've been to places in Mississippi, Alabama etc that look like the third world. Or South Dakota, were the life expectancy among Native Americans rivals the third world. And of course the same is more or less true for the well (and not so well) hidden homeless, urban poor, latinos, "white trash" etc communities.

I confirm a lot of this, especially how impressive India and Indians are. In Bangalore, the sparks of brilliance are a crackling fire.

It's also worth noting that many of the problems noted in the article (air, water, food, flies) are far better in Bangalore. Frankly, there's a lot less cow manure, and the air isn't great but feels inestimably better than Delhi. "The Garden City" may have lost some of its greenery to the technology boom, but it's still in the top echelon in terms of tree cover of all cities I've visited (probably two dozen in the past year).

Your point is worth keeping in mind, of course; I chose my words carefully when I said "the air... feels inestimably better than Delhi". I still get a headache whenever I spend longer than 15m in a rick.

Why is that so? Life in the U.S doesn't come for free either. Account for all your taxes, expenses and cost of living and you will see this is simply trading one thing for the other.

Curious. By who?