Saturday, 11 October 2025

When Sanitation Fails, Minds Suffer Too: The Invisible Link Between Cleanliness and Mental Health

By Nazmin Saikia

Sanitation is commonly discussed in terms of diarrhoea, child stunting and infectious disease control. But an expanding body of evidence shows that inadequate sanitation—the lack of a private, safe, usable toilet and reliable water—also has profound, measurable effects on mental health. In India, where national sanitation drives have dramatically reshaped infrastructure over the last decade, gaps remain. Those gaps are not just physical; they are psychological. This article summarises the data on India’s mental-health burden, the trajectory and limits of the Swachh Bharat Mission, and peer-reviewed evidence connecting poor sanitation and WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) insecurity to anxiety, depression, fear of violence, and reduced well-being. All statements below are drawn from published reports and peer-reviewed research.

The scale of the mental-health burden in India

Mental health conditions are common and costly. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that India’s burden of mental-health problems amounts to 2,443 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 population, and estimates that the economic loss from mental-health conditions in India between 2012–2030 will total roughly US$1.03 trillion. WHO also highlights high suicide rates in the country and emphasises that nearly 15% of Indian adults require active intervention for one or more mental-health issues. These figures show mental illness is a major public-health and economic challenge for India. (World Health Organization)

The National Mental Health Survey (NMHS, 2015–16) — the largest national epidemiological study of psychiatric morbidity — estimated that a substantial portion of the population experiences mental disorders, with a large treatment gap. Later analyses and surveys point to ongoing high prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders, and a growing recognition of student and youth mental-health crises in urban India. (PMC)

India’s sanitation revolution — progress, scale, and unanswered questions

The Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), launched in 2014, is one of the world’s largest sanitation campaigns. Government reporting and independent reviews note enormous output: over 100 million household toilets were constructed between 2014–2020, and open defecation (OD) rates fell sharply in many parts of the country. Analysts credit SBM with rapidly expanding toilet coverage and altering social norms around latrine use. (siwi.org)

Yet assessments also show uneven progress and persistent challenges. Peer-reviewed analyses and development-economics reviews point to remaining sanitation gaps—particularly around sustained toilet use, public and institutional sanitation (schools, markets, transit hubs), maintenance of facilities, water supply reliability, and inequalities across states and marginalised groups. Researchers caution that counts of “toilets built” do not automatically equate to safe, private, consistently usable sanitation for all. (Frontiers)

How poor sanitation translates into mental-health harm: the evidence

Multiple peer-reviewed studies, across India and comparable contexts, identify plausible and measurable pathways by which sanitation insecurity damages psychological well-being:

  1. Shame, stigma and social anxiety. Lack of a private toilet can induce shame—especially for women—when forced to defecate in the open. Repeated exposure to shaming or fear of being seen increases stress and undermines dignity. A cross-sectional study in rural Odisha found women with inadequate sanitation reported higher levels of perceived stress and symptoms consistent with poor mental health. (PMC)

  2. Fear of physical or sexual violence. Going out early or late to open-defecate exposes women and girls to the risk or fear of assault. Studies linking WASH-related violence to depressive symptoms show that both the experience and the constant worry about violence are associated with worse mental-health outcomes. This mechanism is documented in cross-national WASH studies and India-specific research. (BMJ Open)

  3. Chronic stress from water and sanitation insecurity. When households limit water or food intake to avoid the need for sanitation during the day, or delay defecation because facilities are unsafe or unsuitable, these coping behaviours create chronic stress. Large surveys and qualitative work demonstrate how daily uncertainty and constrained bodily autonomy contribute to anxiety and reduced quality of life. (PLOS)

  4. Loss of dignity and social participation. Inadequate sanitation affects social life, schooling and work—factors that are protective for mental health. For older adults, recent research has even linked inadequate toilet access with higher rates of depressive symptoms in ageing populations. (PMC)

Collectively, these studies show that sanitation deficits operate not only through disease pathways but also through social, safety and dignity channels that raise the population burden of anxiety, depression and distress.

Who is most affected?

Evidence consistently points to women, girls, the elderly and poorest households as bearing the brunt of sanitation-linked psychological harms. Women face compounded risks—sexual violence, social stigma and the mental load of managing household water and sanitation. Marginalised communities, including Scheduled Castes and Tribes, often live in environments with fewer functional facilities and social support, increasing exposure and reducing coping options. Elderly people with mobility constraints report particular vulnerability to both physical and mental harms when toilets are inaccessible or unsafe. (PMC)

What the data imply for policy and programming

The intersection of sanitation and mental health requires integrated, evidence-driven policy. Key policy implications are:

  • Measure use and safety, not just toilets built. Monitoring systems should capture whether toilets are private, functional, supplied with water, and perceived as safe—particularly at night and by women. SBM’s construction figures are impressive, but follow-up on sustained, safe use remains essential. (IFPRI)

  • Prioritise gender-sensitive WASH interventions. Designing facilities with privacy, lighting, locks and secure approaches reduces fear and can directly lower anxiety and PTSD-related symptoms among women and girls. Complementary community work must address norms, gender-based violence prevention and psychosocial support. (PMC)

  • Integrate mental-health screening in WASH programs. On World Mental Health Day and beyond, health outreach associated with sanitation campaigns should include screening for anxiety and depression and clear referral links to local mental-health services (tele-counselling, community mental-health workers, district hospitals). Given the NMHS documented a large treatment gap for mental disorders, co-located services would leverage contact points created by sanitation outreach. (PMC)

  • Protect institutional sanitation (schools, healthcare facilities, transit hubs). Children and students face learning disruptions and shame when school toilets are absent or unusable. Ensuring reliable school sanitation supports attendance and mental well-being. (Frontiers)

  • Address water reliability and maintenance. Toilets without water supplies remain unusable; investments must include supply chains, desludging and operation/maintenance financing. Long-term functionality reduces chronic stress linked to intermittent access. (Carolina Digital Repository)

Promising programmatic approaches and evidence gaps

Some interventions combine hardware with community engagement and show stronger outcomes than infrastructure alone. Behaviour-change communication, women’s sanitation committees, and rapid grievance redressal have improved sustained use in several pilots. Yet more rigorous evaluations are needed on whether these combinations measurably reduce anxiety, depression or other mental-health endpoints at scale.

Research gaps remain: longitudinal studies are scarce (to demonstrate causality rather than correlation), and mental-health outcomes are often secondary measures in WASH studies. India’s research agenda should prioritise prospective evaluations and include mental-health metrics in national WASH monitoring. (PMC)

Conclusion: sanitation is a health and dignity issue—and a mental-health issue

India’s Swachh Bharat Mission transformed the sanitation landscape in a relatively short period, and millions benefited from access to household toilets. But building toilets is only the first step. Where sanitation systems fail—through lack of privacy, unsafe approaches, poor maintenance, water shortages or continued social exclusion—the cost is not only infectious disease but psychological harm: shame, fear, chronic stress and depression.

Addressing this invisible burden requires integrated policy: better metrics (use and safety), gender-sensitive design, mental-health links in WASH programs, and long-term funding for maintenance and behaviour change. If India is to deliver on the promise of dignity, cleaner environments and healthier lives, policymakers and practitioners must recognise that cleanliness without safety and dignity will leave minds unwell.

References (selected)

  • WHO — Mental health: India. World Health Organization. (WHO India page summarising DALYs, suicide rate, economic cost). (World Health Organization)

  • WHO — Depression (WHO India fact summary). (World Health Organization)

  • National Mental Health Survey (NMHS) India 2015–16, NIMHANS. Report and analyses on prevalence and treatment gap. (indianmhs.nimhans.ac.in)

  • Caruso BA, et al., “A cross-sectional study of sanitation access and mental health among women in rural Odisha, India,” BMC Public Health / PMC (2018). (PMC)

  • Jayaweera RT, et al., “Associations between WASH-related violence and depressive symptoms,” BMJ Open (2022). (BMJ Open)

  • Kimutai JJ, et al., “Evidence on the links between water insecurity, inadequate sanitation and mental health risk,” PLOS ONE (2023). (PLOS)

  • Recent Indian study linking toilet access to depression among older adults (2025). (PMC)

  • SIWI — “Revisiting the Clean India Mission for World Toilet Day 2022”: overview of SBM scale and achievements. (siwi.org)

IFPRI / development analyses and Frontiers reviews assessing SBM effectiveness and limitations (coverage, use, behaviour change). (IFPRI)

Non-Violence in the Age of Online Outrage

By Nazmin Saikia

In an era where online platforms amplify every voice in milliseconds, the Gandhian ideal of ahimsa (non-violence) faces new tests. When insults, misinformation, and divisive rhetoric dominate social media feeds, what does non-violence mean in practice? How can Gandhi’s vision of truth, compassion, and respectful dialogue guide India’s public discourse online? This article explores the scale of the problem, legal frameworks, effects of non-violent communication, and what can be done.

The Online Crisis in India: Hate Speech, Misinformation & Abusive Content

Rising Incidents of Hate Speech

  • In 2024, India recorded 1,165 verified incidents of in-person hate speech events, up 74.4% from 2023, according to the India Hate Lab (IHL) report. (SabrangIndia)

  • Of those, 995 events were first shared or live-streamed via social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and X. Facebook alone accounted for 495 videos. (India Hate Lab (IHL))

  • Anti-minority hate speech, especially targeting Muslims, was the majority of these incidents. (India Hate Lab (IHL))

Increased Online Abuse & Discrimination

  • A Microsoft study found that over recent years, hate speech online in India has roughly doubled; discrimination and abusive content have also increased. (The News Minute)

  • According to a Statista/Ipsos survey between August 2022 and September 2023, about 85% of Indians reported that they often encountered hate speech online—the highest among 16 countries surveyed. (Statista)

Legal & Regulatory Framework

  • Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 153A penalises promotion of enmity between groups on grounds of religion, race, etc. Section 295A deals with “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings.” Section 505 prohibits statements promoting hatred or ill will between classes. (IASbaba)

  • The Information Technology (IT) Act & Intermediary Guidelines require social media platforms to remove illegal content once notified, and have rules about offending content under certain sections. (IASbaba)

  • The landmark Supreme Court case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which had been misused to curb speech, emphasising constitutional protections under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and provisions under 19(2) allowing reasonable restrictions. (Wikipedia)

Gandhi’s Ahimsa & Non-Violent Communication: What Do They Mean Today?

Gandhi’s non-violence was not merely the absence of violence—it was a positive force: truthfulness, mutual respect, compassion, self-restraint. In the digital world:

  • Non-violent communication (NVC) emphasises observing without judgment, expressing feelings and needs, and making requests instead of demands. It aims to reduce conflict and misunderstanding. While Indian research specific to social media NVC is still limited, studies in other settings show benefits:
    A study among nursing students in South Korea found that an NVC training program significantly reduced anger levels and improved empathy and communication effectiveness. (SAGE Journals)

  • The concept of fear speech (closely related to hate speech but more subtle) shows how content that incites fear of a community—even without overt insults—can be particularly dangerous. These messages may appear “reasonable” and attract larger followings. (arXiv)

Effects of Online Outrage & Why Non-Violent Discourse Matters

  • Polarisation & Social Division: When online discourse is filled with hate, misinformation, or abusive language, it inflames divisions along religion, caste, and region. Over time, trust breaks down.

  • Psychological Harm & Self-Censorship: Targets of hate speech (minorities, vulnerable individuals) may suffer anxiety, depression, and fear of speaking up. Many users self-censor to avoid harassment.

  • Erosion of Public Trust: When misinformation spreads unchecked, institutions (media, government, judiciary) lose credibility. People become susceptible to radicalisation and conspiracy theories.

  • Impact on Democracy: Hate speech and misinformation can affect elections, policy debates, and public order. They distort public opinion, mislead the electorate, and foster animosity.

Non-violence and non-violent communication offer remedies by encouraging respect, fact-based discourse, empathy, and restraint.

Legal, Institutional & Platform Responses

Indian Legal Framework

  • IPC Sections: As mentioned, Sections 153A, 295A, and 505 impose penalties for hate speech, religious insults, etc. These provisions are sometimes critiqued for vagueness. (IASbaba)

  • IT Act & Intermediary Guidelines: Platforms are required to take down content violating legal norms within given time windows after being notified. Rules also require grievance redressal mechanisms. (IASbaba)

  • Judicial Precedents: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ensures that speech cannot be curbed unless it violates reasonable restrictions (public order, defamation, etc.). (Wikipedia)

Role of Platforms & Content Moderation

  • According to the IHL report, of nearly 1,165 hate speech incidents in 2024, only a very small number of videos were removed. Facebook reportedly removed only three of those reported videos by a certain date; over 98% remained accessible as of the last checks. (India Hate Lab (IHL))

  • Platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X have community standards, but in practice, enforcement is patchy, especially when political speech is involved. (India Hate Lab (IHL))

Toward Non-Violent Online Discourse: What Can Be Done?

Drawing on Gandhi’s vision and modern research, here are steps/strategies that India (society, institutions, platforms, individuals) can adopt.

  1. Digital Literacy & Empathy Education
    Teach media literacy—how to verify sources, understand bias, and recognise hate/fear speech. Incorporate non-violence and respectful communication in school curricula and youth programs.

  2. Non-Violent Communication Training
    Offer workshops (online & offline) especially for youth, teachers, and community leaders that teach NVC skills: expressing needs without blame, active listening, and conflict resolution.

  3. Platform Accountability & Better Moderation

    • Platforms must invest in tools & human moderators proficient in Indian languages and contexts.

    • Transparent policies about which content gets flagged, removed, or demonetised.

    • Appeal & grievance mechanisms for content creators/targets.

  4. Strengthening Legal Clarity & Enforcement

    • Refine the definitions of hate speech, fear speech, defamation, etc., so laws are not vague.

    • Fast-track cases involving online hate speech/dangerous speech.

    • Ensure FIRs & investigations are possible even suo motu (on their own motion) when public order is threatened.

  5. Cultural Change & Role of Influencers

    • Public figures, social media influencers, and celebrities should lead by example—promoting kindness, truth, and respectful disagreement.

    • Encourage content that builds connection rather than divides—storytelling, shared values.

  6. Tools for Individuals

    • Users can adopt digital hygiene: pause before posting, check veracity, and avoid forwarding unverified messages.

    • Use platform reporting tools.

    • Support initiatives that promote civil discourse (online forums, community groups).

Challenges and Tensions

  • Balancing free speech with regulation is delicate. Overbroad laws risk chilling legitimate dissent. Courts, like in Shreya Singhal, have emphasised reasonable restriction. (Wikipedia)

  • Enforcement disparities: marginalised communities often find less protection and more targeting. Power dynamics (political, social) affect who gets heard and who gets penalised.

  • Cultural norms: online behaviour often reflects offline norms—existing prejudice, impunity, and social hierarchies. Digital platforms are new, but old biases persist.

  • Technological limits: automated moderation struggles with context, irony, dialects, and multilingual speech. Misclassification or over-censoring can result.

Gandhi’s Ahimsa Reinterpreted: A New Framework for Online Conduct

To bring Gandhi’s non-violence into the digital age, certain principles can guide both policy and behaviour:

  • Satya (Truth): Insist on sharing only verified information. Resist sensationalism.

  • Asteya (Non-stealing): Do not steal others’ dignity, reputation, or peace through trolling, insults, or rumours.

  • Ahimsa (Non-violence): Avoid language or actions that harm psychologically or socially; recognise the invisible violence of words.

  • Brahmacharya (Self-restraint): Pause before posting; ask if what is said is necessary, kind, and true.

  • Swaraj (Self-rule): Collective responsibility. It’s not just about regulation by law, but internal self-governance by citizens.

Conclusion

India’s digital evolution has brought both stunning connectivity and acute challenges in public discourse. The rise in hate speech, misinformation, and online abuse is not merely an issue of content—it’s a matter of how society sees itself and treats difference. Gandhi’s teachings offer much more than nostalgia; they provide actionable values in crisis: respect, truth, self-restraint, compassion.

Non-violence in speech is not weak—it is profoundly strong. It demands courage to speak truth, restraint to avoid insults, empathy to listen, and wisdom to recognise our shared humanity.

For India to fulfil its democratic promise, online spaces must not become battlegrounds of hatred. Instead, they must reflect non-violent communication, where every voice has dignity.

References

  1. India Hate Lab (IHL). Social Media and Hate Speech in India, 2025. Key findings on hate speech events- in person and online, video-sharing platforms. (India Hate Lab (IHL))

  2. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Crime in India 2022 report: 45% rise in hate speech and acts promoting enmity between groups under IPC Section 153A. (The Times of India)

  3. Statista / Ipsos Survey (Aug 2022-Sep 2023): ~85% of Indians report often encountering hate speech online. (Statista)

  4. Microsoft Report: Doubling of hate speech among Indian online users in recent years; increases in hoaxes, discrimination. (The News Minute)

  5. “Effects of a Nonviolent Communication Program on Nursing Students,” Kim & Jo, 2022. The program reduced anger, increased empathy and communication efficacy. (SAGE Journals)

  6. Legal statutes: IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505; IT Act & Intermediary Guidelines. (IASbaba)

  7. Supreme Court case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) on online speech and constitutional freedoms. (Wikipedia)