By Gervasius Nongkseh
We are yet to come to term with the tragic accident where Hudderfield Rymbui succumbed to injury, after a VIP escort vehicle, as alleged, hit his motorcycle. The accident has sparked broader discussions on pertinent pressing issues affecting the city, including privileges verses fundamental rights, personal verses civic rights and the like.
In every city, balancing civic rights with personal rights and privileges in shared spaces has become an ongoing challenge. This issue becomes especially pronounced in crowded, narrow streets, where limited space must serve pedestrians, vehicles, vendors, and sometimes VIPs with special privileges. In Shillong, where roads are narrow and footpaths limited, the intersection of civic rights, privileges, and personal rights is visible daily, creating complications that echo across many densely populated areas worldwide. Understanding these challenges—and the innovative solutions that other cities have adopted—can provide a pathway towards more inclusive, accessible, and equitable urban spaces. At its core, the concept of civic rights implies that public resources and spaces—such as roads, sidewalks, and parks—are accessible to all. Civic rights ensure that everyone, regardless of status, can navigate the city freely and safely. However, these spaces are often shared by various groups with unique needs and challenges, including street vendors who rely on footpaths for their livelihoods, and VIPs who receive special privileges that inconvenience the public.
While civic rights are theoretically equal for all, the reality often differs. Some groups face restrictions on their right to access public spaces, while others enjoy certain privileges that can compromise this shared access. The street vendor’s right to work, for example, sometimes conflicts with a pedestrian’s right to a safe and unobstructed footpath. Similarly, VIP privileges, such as road closures or priority access, can disrupt the flow of everyday life, inconveniencing the public at large.
VIP privileges often mean certain people, particularly government officials and dignitaries, have exclusive access to certain routes, parking spaces, or buildings. This is often justified on the grounds of security or operational efficiency. However, in a city like Shillong with narrow streets such privileges can result in severe congestion, delays, and inconvenience to the public. The frustration of commuters stuck in traffic due to VIP motorcades or road closures is a common complaint in many cities, where the lines between necessary security measures and excessive privileges blur.
Globally, this issue has spurred various responses. In major cities across Europe, VIPs are encouraged to use public transport where feasible, reducing their impact on traffic flow. In London, even the Prime Minister can be seen using public transit, a practice that not only minimizes disruption but also demonstrates solidarity with citizens. In Singapore, traffic policies are designed to allow minimal disruption by prioritizing quick and efficient VIP routes without extensive closures. These practices offer insights for cities like Shillong, suggesting that a balanced approach could help mitigate the impact of VIP privileges on civic access.
Recently, I walked through Police Bazaar, Ïewduh, and Laitumkhrah, and navigating the pathways felt nearly impossible due to the overwhelming presence of vendors. Sidewalks have essentially turned into makeshift shops, leaving pedestrians with little space to walk safely. The issue seems to be escalating quickly; just a few months ago, it wasn’t this chaotic. Meanwhile, the government, syiem, durbars and village headmen appears to be standing by passively, observing the problem without taking visible action. This unchecked spread of vendors not only clogs pathways but also poses risks to pedestrian safety, highlighting the urgent need for balanced, effective regulation. In many urban areas, street vendors are a lifeline, offering affordable goods and services to residents, often in the very places where people live and work. However, the presence of street vendors on sidewalks and narrow streets presents significant challenges. Can the right to livelihood override the right to safety? The stalls obstruct pedestrian flow, force people onto the roads, and create hazards. Street vending is a crucial means of livelihood for millions, but it must be balanced with pedestrian access and safety, especially in crowded areas.
Worldwide, cities have implemented varied approaches to address this balance. In Bangkok, the government introduced “regulated vending zones” where vendors can set up stalls without obstructing footpaths. These designated zones help sustain vendors’ livelihoods while ensuring pedestrian pathways are clear. Similarly, Mumbai has organized specific time slots and locations for vending, allowing footpaths to be used freely during peak hours and reducing congestion. Such solutions highlight a middle path that can be applied in Shillong, where vendors might be allotted specific zones or times that respect both their needs and those of pedestrians.
Here are some possible solutions that could be adapted for cities like Shillong:
Walking on left side: One practical suggestion for balancing public spaces is to encourage pedestrians to walk on the left side of pathways, as is customary in many countries. This simple guideline can improve the flow of foot traffic, allowing people to move smoothly while leaving space for faster walkers. Adopting this approach could help reduce congestion and enhance safety, particularly in crowded urban areas with limited sidewalk space.
Time-Restricted Vending: Street vendors could be allowed to operate only during non-peak hours, freeing up footpaths during rush hours. This approach has seen success in Mumbai, where vendors operate during designated times, providing pedestrian access during busy periods.
Pedestrian-Only Zones: Certain streets, particularly those with high foot traffic, can be designated as pedestrian-only zones. Many cities around the world have implemented car-free streets, especially in market areas, to reduce congestion and improve safety. In Shillong, this could be implemented in popular areas during weekends or on specific days, creating a safe and accessible space for pedestrians.
Designated Vendor Zones: Assigning specific, limited areas for street vending would allow vendors to continue their work without obstructing pedestrian pathways. By creating such zones, Shillong could emulate Bangkok’s success with regulated vending areas that protect both vendors’ rights to work and pedestrians’ rights to safe pathways.
Public Transportation Incentives: VIPs or elites, like ordinary citizens, could be incentivized to use public transportation, where feasible. In cities like Copenhagen and Zurich, prominent officials are encouraged to use trains or buses, which reduces road congestion and demonstrates solidarity with the general public.
Improved Traffic Flow Management: Introducing one-way streets, synchronizing traffic signals, non-stoppage area and improving signage can help reduce congestion. Shillong could adopt this approach for certain roads, directing traffic in a manner that eases congestion and allows for better movement.
Promoting Walking and Cycling: Encouraging alternative modes of transport, like walking or cycling, can significantly reduce traffic congestion. In cities like Amsterdam, bike lanes are integral to urban planning, offering a space-efficient, eco-friendly alternative to cars. Shillong could consider adding cycling paths or pedestrian zones that encourage walking and cycling within its narrow streets.
A truly balanced approach to civic rights and urban access requires input from all stakeholders. Vendors, pedestrians, local authorities, and citizens should have a say in creating policies that impact shared spaces. Citizen advisory councils, public surveys, and regular consultations can provide valuable insights that lead to practical, fair solutions.
Urban spaces reflect the values of the societies that create them. By prioritizing fair access, safety, and shared responsibility, Shillong and similar cities can ensure that civic rights are respected and that public spaces serve as inclusive places for all. The path forward involves a thoughtful approach to urban planning that considers the needs of both individuals and the community as a whole. Only then will Shillong be termed a smart city. But do we have the vision? Do we have the will to act?