By Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh
The 24 August 2022 marks the end of the six years long legal and political battles of the most marginalized section of society, namely the Street Vendors and hawkers. It was in the year 2016 that the street vendors and hawkers of greater Shillong and Meghalaya organized themselves under the collective platform, the Meghalaya & Greater Shillong Progressive Hawkers and Street Vendors Association (MGSPHSVA). Since, then the collective was engaged in the protracted legal battle until the Honourable Meghalaya High Court disposes all the cases/matters related to street vending and hawking.
In the final order issued on 24 August 2022 the Meghalaya High Court observed that the State was contemplating to adopt the Central Statute. Further the State has formally done so and has also made rules or in the process of completing the making of the rules for implementing the Central Statute on the protection of livelihood and regulating of street vending and asked the State Government to complete the drafting of rules in a time bound manner, while the court laid open for any party/stakeholder to approach it against any grievance as per law and procedure. It can be said that one part of the battle may have ended as the longstanding demand of the MGSPHSVA to implement the central Law will soon see the light of the day, but the new chapter is opening up and it is challenging. It is important for every stake holder to collectively work together and thus the debates and soliciting of idea become imperative.
Firstly, we must understand that street vending and hawking is as old as civilizations. In ancient Greece the agora was a central public space which was also used as marketplace, where traders kept stalls or shops to sell their goods amid colonnades. In Shillong the practise of street vending and hawking is older than the State itself. Oral history tells us that more than hundred years ago when Їewduh was moved to the present location nearly half of it was reserved for hawking and street vending and it is called the їewmadan or street market.
Secondly, in 2009 the Supreme Court of India gave detailed guidelines for the implementation of the policy on street vending. Subsequently, the Bill was passed in both houses of Parliament between February-March and became the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. This Act was drafted with the legislative intent of protecting the livelihood rights of street vendors under Article 19 of the Constitution, as well as regulating street vending.
Thirdly, even prior to the establishment of the MGSPHSVA, the street vendors and hawkers of Shillong and Meghalaya had been engrossed in the cat and mouse game with the District and Municipal authorities for so long in order to protect their livelihoods. This has resulted in frictions and confrontation which were painful and caused losses especially to the individuals and also the State in terms of licensing fees and GDP. It is estimated that the daily turnover in street vending amounts to Rs 20 lakhs a day. Similarly, after the Street Vendors and Hawkers had organized themselves in 2016, they were dragged to six years of legal battle by the State. The State did not show even an iota of concern when it comes to the protection of livelihoods of the weakest and the marginalized section. However, the street vendors and their front leaders had shown their tenacity and consistency during their protracted battle. Thus, I appeal to one and all to also listen to the street vendors as they know the law on street vending like the back of their hands and especially, I appeal to all street vendors to ask their own leaders if there are any doubts and confusion and not to believe any rumours.
Fourthly, majority of the street vendors and hawkers are an unlettered lot. With due respect to the media fraternity, one sensational or unfounded news about them and their profession is enough to send them and their children into days of sleepless nights which can be traumatic and may cause psychological harm on the entire family. Imagine there are more than a thousand street vendors in the State and thus tens/hundred families and their children are affected mentally by sensationalism and this will further lead to other related societal problems harmful to society.
Fifthly, there are other critical and vital issues connected with street vending and hawking which need to be addressed earnestly. These are cleanliness, congestion, pedestrian zones and beautification etc. Now that the Central Statute is in place it will certainly address all these issues as per the provisions in the statute and its annexed rules. Therefore, it is important for the State to consult various stake holders in drafting the rules. The MGSPHSVA had submitted its proposed draft rules to at-least three Chief Secretaries to the Government of Meghalaya in a row.
Immediately the State should as per Law (i) constitute the Town Vending Committee with 40% membership from the street vendors (ii) conduct an in-setu survey (iii) identification of vending, no vending zones, timing/hours of vending, decide on holding capacity etc (iv) begin the process licensing and plan schemes for street vendors. However, no area which is adjacent to or located around the heritage/ traditional markets will be declared as no vending zone and also development, cleanliness etc., will not be the grounds for relocation or eviction of street vendors and hawkers.
Sixthly, Shillong as an urban space is collapsing for want of robust Urban Governance. The traditional Dorbars have limited powers and at present cannot function as full-fledged Urban governments as there are no laws to empower them to be so. Excepting the Appointment of Chiefs and several other Legislations on Hima (s) no Law was passed by the District Council to enable the traditional Dorbars to act as urban governance institutions. The last Municipal elections was held in 1966 and after the end of its term the Shillong Municipality is being run by the Chief Executive Officer appointed by the Government sans democratically elected Municipal Council. Well, this issue of Municipality was in the Court of Law for the longest period.
There are many who are allergic to the word Municipality for reasons best known to them, but we need to find a solution as Shillong can no longer run without a democratically elected Urban Council. If a democratically elected Urban Council (it can be called by any name) is not in place the capital of Shillong will crumble under its own weight. The New Shillong Township too will not be able to function as planned.
Lastly, Shillong should remain inclusive and is for everyone – rich and poor etc. The old Shillong has to solve its own menace of traffic jams to waste management to rampant concretization of the space, to lack of public squares, public toilets, public transport system etc. I believe that the general and ordinary citizens of the city have better ideas but there are a few individuals who are interested only in capturing urban spaces and in building shopping malls and car parks.