Child stunting: A public health crisis fuelled by stray dogs, open defecation

Child stunting—the phenomenon of children not being able to grow to their potential heights—is an acute problem in India. India is ranked at 132 out of 152 countries, lagging behind neighbours like Nepal and Bangladesh. Over time, this means children in Nepal and Bangladesh will, on an average, gro taller than those in India. Open defecation and malnutrition are the primary causes of child stunting. 

A recent study spanning India, Indonesia, Mali, and Tanzania found that sanitisation programmes designed to eliminate open defecation significantly improved child health and height.  This is because open defecation leads to faecal contamination of water and food supplies
with parasitic worms and causes diarrhoea and parasitic infection among children under five years.

In this context, the prime minister’s initiative to eliminate open defecation and promote cleanliness is a welcome step. However, Indian laws promote mass open defecation and unhygienic conditions by encouraging stray dogs. Under current regulations, stray dogs can neither be euthanised nor displaced from their locations. Dog shelters are not an adequate solution. The stray dogs can breed quickly, and the only limiting factor is food availability. The apathy of municipal corporations towards garbage disposal ensures an uninterrupted food supply. In elite neighbourhoods like Lutyens Delhi—home to the political class—stray dogs are rare because municipal corporations are more efficient.

However, municipal corporations are less sympathetic to middle-class and economically poor neighbourhoods. Poor waste disposal mechanisms in these neighbourhoods lead to a higher stray population and more defecations—none of which gets removed. Children play in the same spaces where dogs defecate—thus exposing them to infections, dog bites, and reduced heights. The problem is acute in slums where waste disposal mechanisms are non-existent. In metropolitan cities, poor migrants and stray dogs occupy the same space on the roads, leading to several health and safety hazards. Such laws put middle-income and poor neighbourhoods at the greatest risk.

According to the World Health Organisation, India accounts for 36% of deaths due to rabies, which translates to 18,000 to 20,000 deaths a year. In several instances, stray dogs have attacked, injured, and even killed small children and older adults. People walking with sticks to ward off attacks from stray dogs are a common sight. 

Stray dogs create a problem of externalities in local communities. While dog lovers feed stray dogs, they do not allow them inside their homes like pets. This creates a positive externality for dog lovers who enjoy the company of dogs without taking responsibility for them. On the other hand, stray dogs create a negative externality for people who do not feed them and are vulnerable to dog attacks, particularly senior citizens and young children.

Developed countries have addressed the problem with massive public funding. However, developing countries such as India need to prioritise public spending towards malnutrition among children, among other issues. Therefore, we need innovative ways to address the matter. This can be done by incentivising the Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and panchayats to find solutions they find appropriate.

However, according to the Supreme Court of India, municipal authorities cannot be granted unbridled discretionary powers to address the issue of stray dogs. Such judgements are unfortunate because they further centralise the Indian governance structure. India’s political elites suffer from what the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek called the ‘fatal conceit’—the belief among the elites that ordinary people and local communities are inferior to them and, therefore, incapable of self-governance. Thus, the elites should enact laws. India’s over-centralised governance structure is based on the belief that local governments cannot self-govern, even on matters related to stray dogs. In India, the central and state governments make laws even on local homeless dog populations. When it comes to dealing with stray dogs, even the local MPs and MLAs are powerless.

India should move towards decentralisation and allow local authorities such as RWAs and other local residential groups jurisdiction over local matters because local authorities are more likely to reflect local preferences. Further, Section 291 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita provides six months of imprisonment and five thousand rupees in fines for the individual whose pet attacks another individual. Section 291 should be interpreted to consider stray dog feeders as dog owners and face penalties under the law if the stray dogs attack others. Such an interpretation will correct the incentives faced by dog lovers, and they will accept the full responsibility of dog ownership. 

(The writer is an associate professor at the School of Economics and Public Policy, RV University, Bengaluru)