Editor,
The debate on the issue of street hawkers/vendors is getting serious as well as merrier. It is understandable that any ordinary person with inadequate knowledge of the English language might misread and misinterpret my letter (ST. 24th June, 2016), but learned persons with intellectual stature as Phrangsngi Pyrtuh could have clearly discerned the logic of truth in the letter unless their perception is clouded with prejudice.
I had spoken of the resourceful cow dung and colourful plastic bags only as examples and compared them to every good thing and every human person, including myself, not only to the street hawkers. I had said that the street hawkers are ordinary and respectable citizens, but just happened to be in the wrong place. I agree that the street hawkers/vendors are recognized by law such as ‘The Meghalaya Street Vendors’ Act, 2014’. But I am sure that there is nothing in the law to specify or prescribe that any particular hawker/vendor would have the right to permanently occupy a plot of land in a public place however small the area is. The provision that the hawkers can sell goods of everyday use or offer services to general public in a street, lane, sidewalk, footpath, pavement, public park etc., is of general nature, and does not amount to granting and registering them as legitimate occupiers of particular locations in the public places. Hawkers of various descriptions are permitted to sell articles and food items in the rural areas even in private places such as school playgrounds, or in the Church compounds, whenever there is ‘ka jingïaseng’ (Church gathering/celebration). But what would happen if particular hawkers start claiming permanent occupational right of space in such grounds to the exclusion of others?
The hawkers who occupy the public roads at Motphran area are not ordinary street hawkers, but they are a spill over of ‘Ïewduh’ (Bara Bazar). They might also be paying unaccountable taxes to the Syiem and Myntris of Hima Mylliem or to some other organizations of questionable nature to extend the operation of Ïewduh right into the PWD roads which are not part of the natural market. The phenomenon might signify a spill over of the Sixth Schedule into the jurisdiction of the State Government. Regardless of any existing legal provisions, the PWD roads, even in rural areas fall under the jurisdiction of the State Government.
Hawkers cannot be driven away from the roads or public places in general, but for the sake of general convenience, peace and order, they can be evicted from the particular spots in the public places where they had established permanent private businesses to the exclusion of others. That is the rational and legal ground for the WHY of their eviction, and I presume that Patricia Mukhim’s article which initiated this discussion is concerned with this rational and legal ground.
I had not said in my letter that the hawkers should be evicted on moral ground. In fact, I had said that the HOW of their eviction invokes a moral question. Whether in the present circumstance it is morally justifiable to evict them straight away, or whether they should be provided with alternative locations, or be economically empowered through other non-objectionable enterprises is a joint responsibility of the society and the State. My letter referred to above is there in the paper and in the net for everyone to read, and it is not a rare document available only to selected persons to interpret as they will.
Street hawkers are part of our society compelled by circumstances to be hawkers, and they have the general right to trade their wares in public places as specified by law, but not to the extent of claiming permanent private occupational right to any spot in such places. The hawkers in the streets of Shillong constitute only a very small portion of the poor in our society. I presume that if for the sake of more income, the rest of the vast majority of the poor discard their present occupations in their legitimate localities and rush to Motphran for business, then a replica of ‘ka Thma Phran’ (World War I) would ensue when wares meant for sale are used as weapons of bloodshed to assault one another in the fight for free vending zones. The society and the State must come together to solve this problem rationally and calmly, as fanciful ideas and fleeting emotions and sentiments would only worsen the matter when the issue gets transformed from a real social problem into a dirty forum for party politics.
Yours etc.,
Fabian Lyngdoh,
Via email