Patricia Mukhim
Sartre once said, “If the intellectual wishes to understand the society in which he lives, he has only one course open to him and that is to adopt the point of view of its most underprivileged members (Sartre, 1974). The academicians cum public intellectuals in this state seem to have taken this statement very seriously and unleashed something like a class war over the media which might soon spill over to the streets of Shillong. Those who have taken up cudgels on behalf of the hawkers have assumed rather smugly that all those who walk on footpaths belong to the upper middle class or have joined the league of the non-bourgeoisie “capitalists. That’s a perfect lie because it is the large majority who do not own private vehicles and a few health conscious citizens who tend to use footpaths and walkways the most. The protagonists for hawkers are therefore trying to create social tensions through this warped debate.
And who wants a smart city anyway? Why is it presumed that those of us who demand more walkways and pathways are proponents for a smart city and that we are ‘class’ enemies and have joined the league of the soulless, brute state? Well, if we come to brass tacks it is actually the people in academia who have the luxury of taking up social causes since they are paid for thinking beyond the ivory tower and yes, they take home a fat pay package, under the UGC pay scale. This presumptuousness of the academics is in equal proportion to their angst to test their research theories on our streets and perhaps come up with another poser for a research paper considering that we seem to be running out of research topics from our backyards. With the proliferation of PhD wannabes we will soon run out of research themes. Hence every issue that has the propensity to demonise the state, (read socialism) is quickly picked up because that is what academia still thrives on.
But those who have read and seen socialism transformed into Perestroika and later abandoned in its cradle the USSR and China would agree with what FA Hayek in his book, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism,” writes. Hayek says, “Morals, including especially our institutions of property, freedom and justice are not a creation of man’s reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution – runs counter to the main intellectual outlook of the 20th century. The influence of rationalism has been so profound and pervasive that in general, the more intelligent an educated person is, the more likely he or she now is not only to be a rationalist, but also to hold socialist views (regardless of whether he/she is sufficiently doctrinal to attach to his or her views any label including ‘socialist’). The higher we climb up the ladder of intelligence, the more we talk with intellectuals, the more likely we are to encounter socialist convictions. Rationalists tend to be intelligent; intelligent intellectuals tend to be socialists.”
What are required to be brought into the debate are the rule of law and the role of regulatory authorities of a city. The Shillong Municipality has failed both in its regulatory role and in civic management. The perpetual gripe about fund inadequacy just goes to show that states like Meghalaya which are permanently dependent on central doles will not lift a finger to generate internal revenue to ensure that this institution is able to carry out its work as mandated by the Constitution. Of course we also must blame successive governments since 1965 for being so politically supine that they could not garner enough courage to conduct elections to the Municipal Boards. The policy of appeasing a few paranoid souls who are afraid that they would have to cede space to a constitutionally elected Board as opposed to the showing of hands in a Dorbar election has brought us to the present crises. Without Ward Commissioners the Municipal Board remains in the hands of one Government official who is hamstrung by politics and perpetual funds crunch.
The Municipal Board should have ensured that more walkways/footpaths are constructed because these are community spaces. How else do we meet and greet each other but when we run into each other while walking to and fro in the city? But the kind of footpaths that this and other governments have constructed where walkers have to walk single file is not of much help. Now did we hear anyone even squeak? No because it is not in the culture of the genteel society to protest. When this writer first raised the issue of hawkers occupying the footpaths there were many who told me I had spoken for them too but except for a few brave souls no one stood up for their right to the footpath. It is curious that whereas the group that is standing up for hawkers includes the academically savvy, those who are deprived of the footpaths dare not raise even a murmur! Is this how democracy should function?
Protestors as we know them in Meghalaya are always anti-government. But what is wrong in raising a protest to demand that Government do something radical about dealing with Marten; that it get its act together to acquire a proper landfill and manage the conversion of garbage into bio-fertilizers etc., in the most scientific manner and without the stench we are used to? What is wrong in demanding that we have more footpaths in areas where there is hardly any space for pedestrians to walk on? Why can’t we raise a bogey of revolt against the quality of roads that we have today?
That hawkers need a space to vend their wares is not the point of contestation here. Hawkers across the world are entitled to their space and those who support their cause need to engage with the Government rather than fire on all cylinders at those who claim their right to the footpath. And since hawkers serve a public good they must be allowed to peddle their wares in a decent and dignified manner. They cannot be looking behind their backs every few hours to see if some authority is going to drive them away from the footpath or the road because they will be obstructing pedestrians and/or vehicles. But for their protagonists to suggest that we all give up driving so that Shillong roads are un-crowded is utopian. Many among the protestors also drive themselves around the city. So let’s not preach what we don’t practice.
There will always be contradictions in our accepted views of the world that can be exploited for ideological challenge and resistance. But when it comes to civic utilities, why should we cede these in the interests of a growing population of people whose livelihoods now depend on occupying not just the footpath but also part of the road. Somebody has rightly stated that private troubles are converted into public issues because today personal is political. It is a fact that the number of poor people in Meghalaya has grown exponentially. This is on account not just of state policies that are not designed to deliver equity but also the much touted traditional-cultural patterns of land holding which has transformed community resources into privately owned, revenue yielding entities. What do you call an individual who buys up a water source and sells water to all of us? A tribal capitalist? Are the protagonists for hawkers willing to take up these are other issues that lie at the root of what turns people from the peri-urban areas into hawkers whose lives are economically imperiled and who do not matter to their community as a social group?