Danielle Levy

A new World Bank study, Economic Impact of Inadequate Sanitation in India says it costs the country $54 billion a year not to have toilets and better hygiene. The cost entails not only premature deaths, especially of children, extra treatment for those who fall ill, wasted time and productivity but also lost tourism. In quantifying the losses of poor sanitation, the report shows that children and poor households bear the brunt of the problem. In rural areas, the report says, 50% have access to some improved sanitation and close to 575 million people defecate in the open. Urban areas fare somewhat better, 60 to 70% of households have access to some sanitation and 54 million people defecate in the open, but 60% of the waste water is discharged without being treated.
No doubt, quantifying the problem is a step in solving it, and surely it is an incentive for the government to address it. Yet, an observer such as myself can’t avoid noticing that we live in an era where the suffering no doubt associated with and resulting from a problem like poor sanitation is secondary to its economic impact.

Everyday I read about miseries, old and new in all parts of the globe. It’s Haiti and the Sudan, human trafficking and money laundering, the ravages of malaria and HIV/AIDS, the impact of budget crises. It’s therefore easy for me to loose sight of the way things really are, that there are signs of hope and goodness, little and not so little successes in so many places. And then I hear Roma’s laughter. She’s still a baby and when she sees her mother make faces or looks at a balloon, or responds to playing horsey, she laughs. It’s so clear, so real, so full, so pure, so unfettered by any restraints, constraints, fear, or any other artifice. I hear it and think it is one of the world’s most beautiful sounds. I remember Robert Browning’s Pippa Scott that god’s in his heaven and all’s right with the world, and I know once again that as long as Roma can laugh, as long as any baby can, humanity will somehow triumph.

For whatever reason I’ve taken to reading the online comments after certain key articles, and I’m so dismayed. I realize people are knee jerking, reacting without taking time to think. Is that the reason for superficial, biased, thoughtless, sometimes inane comments? It’s not a right or left thing. And since most of these writers do not identify themselves, it is across the board, not belonging to any demographic group. I often read letters to the editors in the NYT or the L.A. Times, and find them thoughtful, often making valuable points that given writers or pundits might have missed. But those letters are edited and chosen for publication. While that makes a difference it does not undo the reality of online comments, just better highlights a budding problem with our democracy. It does seem that a democracy cannot long remain viable if its participants aren’t able to demonstrate at least bits of an intelligent understanding of the issues.