By Phrangsngi Pyrtuh
The street hawkers and vendors are part of the city’s landscape for a very long time but at the same time the most marginalized. Trade and commerce in the state have traditionally been run on informal lines and hawking and vending is part of this tradition still widely practiced in rural areas. This group of people have persevered through thick and thin. These are people who have no other opportunities in life. There are hawkers/vendors who manage their household, children’s education etc through this profession. They have persevered through the most inhuman and cruel brutalities inflicted by none other than their own Government, the Police, the Municipality, the Dorbar not to mention being degraded as sub-humans by pro-capitalist individuals/columnists/organizations which have been going on for far too long. Some hawkers have tried in their own individual capacity to resist the harassment of the authorities by going to court, mediating with the authorities etc but to no avail. Thankfully they have awakened up to their rights. Without caring for the hate campaign and concocted lies by individuals and groups and ignoring a section of the population (the elite, the classist and the racists ) who subscribe to these lies and bigotry, the hawkers have come together for the first time under the Meghalaya and Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Vendors Association (MGSPHVA) formed a few weeks ago for the assertion of their rights.
It was not easy to bring these groups of (scattered) people to organize themselves. They hail from different background, areas, ethnicity and circumstances. But to have suffered years of humiliation made it pragmatically possible to bring them together primarily for securing their rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the law of the land. The formation of MGSPHVA must therefore be appreciated as past efforts of organization have failed. However their coming together is causing anxiety to a lot of people who are unable to fathom the emergence of a social consciousness among the hawkers and vendors of Shillong
The politics over the vendors began with the issue of use/misuse of (public) space. This debate has now veered towards an ideological battle between those who support and oppose the vendors. The pro-capitalists and neo-liberal cronies have labeled the hawker led movement (and those who support them) as socialistic. These arguments personify all that is wrong with capitalism today which (typically) blames socialism ( to protect its turf) for anything which is anti-government or/and anti-establishment. Another fancy word is anarchy. So TUR and the MGSPHVA have been labeled as anarchic for challenging the status quo. But as much as I want the hawkers issue to be a socialistic led movement; unfortunately it is not, period.
The hawkers have issues that are basic to their survival as citizens of Shillong city. These hawkers are least bothered about the ideological divide that is at play provoked as usual by those who consider that socialism as an ideology has failed. On the other, the provocation by a section of racist, classist individuals will only intensify the movement creating opportunities for an alternative ideology to emerge, something which capitalism can ill afford at this point when its ideology is being rebutted and resisted all over the world.
Maybe it is time for an alternate political ideology where the perspective of the hawkers, the landless, the farmers, the workers etc reinforce themselves to such an ideology. And what if these hawkers, workers, labourers etc harbour a different ideology? Is it criminal to have an ideology which is anti-capitalist and anti-establishment? And is it wrong if such an ideology finds favour with the lowest section of the society who have been victimized and castigated all along just because they (allegedly) congest the walkways/pedestrians?
Interestingly the hawkers were compared to cowdung and colorful plastics (Shillong times, 24th June). The author seems to forget that cowdung is used in school and church compounds/yards to fertilize the flowers/plants and make the church/school pretty. As for plastic bags the author should know that he himself is equally responsible since I fail to see how he can get on without a plastic bag. The author went a step further to condemn the hawkers on moral grounds. I shudder to think about his views on domestic workers, mine labourers, bar dancing girls etc whose occupation falls outside his moral compass.
This incoherence of these arguments reveal a sinister and well orchestrated “demolishing” plan (by the district administration) to cleanse the city’s streets and markets in the race to secure a spot in the smart city plan of the central government. Those supporting the smart city concept have used punctured and ill conceived analogies to insult, criminalize and blame the hawkers for the dirt and congestion. The next time round they may even blame the hawkers for rising crime graph in the state. These anti-hawkers lobby group have failed to understand the complexity of the problem.
Smart city will not solve the agrarian crisis which compelled farmers to migrate to Shillong and take up vending and hawking. Smart city will fail if the Government refuses to tackle the flow of private cars and check the mushrooming of parking lots to suit only those citizens with cars. Smart city will fail if rampant construction and illegal encroachments on footpaths/walkways continues in violation of Meghalaya bye-laws. Clean Shillong campaign will not succeed in the absence of proper waste and garbage disposal mechanism since the Shillong municipal has clearly failed in its task of keeping it clean.
The Government should think of an alternative framework of partnering with the Hawkers and Vendors to decongest Shillong by empowering them. There is no legal obstruction for doing so. In fact the government will have full legal backing if it chose to review its stance towards the hawkers. A synergy between the Municipal and the Hawkers/ vendors could do wonders for the state’s economy, generate resources, ensure livelihood and make Shillong more humane. Corporatization of Shillong and the concretization of its space is transforming Shillong into a living hell. And the vendors/ hawkers have no role in conjuring the unfolding nightmare.
In Meghalaya the poor and the downtrodden have always been caught on the wrong side of the law while those with money power and political connections remain above it. Individuals/organizations/media and enlightened individuals known for their allegiance to protect and secure human rights have turned a blind eye to the issue on hawkers rights by asking them about their duties instead. This is hypocritical. It’s like asking those who live in AFSPA controlled areas (where human rights do not exist) to be more responsible lest they got caught in between the security agencies and militants. They indirectly support the harassment of the hawkers and vendors by arguing that the law of the land is weak in its execution and enforcement. While they oppose biased laws they support the same legal machinery which is used to suppress the hawkers.
The essence of the struggle for human rights is to challenge these defective laws irrespective of the ideology one professes which is not the case in the state at this point. The meeting of June 23rd where TUR and the MGSPHVA collaborated opposes these partisan laws and demands strict compliance of the stay order of the Meghalaya high court on evictions. The ball is now in the Government’s court. The debate on the hawkers is already spilling over to be a tribal versus non-tribal issue. The xenophobic elements are out to exacerbate the problem that the community faces. A few vernacular newspaper have refused/delay to publish clarifications on the vending/hawking community. They are either intimidated or have already condemned the hawkers and feel it unworthy to hear what they have to say lest it changes the society‘s perception on them.
The Government should immediately recognize that hawking and vending is a profession and a gainful economic activity. Any delay in doing so would only succeed in segregating this group in the society with adverse consequences.