By Jenniefer Dkhar
Constitution is the right to life of every individual citizen of the country and the right to choose the profession of his/her choice. Why not, after all we are a democratic country! It must therefore be understood that no citizen can and should be allowed to put another citizen in any kind of inconvenience and hassle in any way and any form. Armed with rights, every individual is a rightful and law abiding citizen of the State. Therefore, in the case of vendors and hawkers in our state, if they do occupy public places like the sidewalks, footpaths, etc they very well have the right to do so. After all, the Meghalaya Street Vendors Act, 2014 permits them to do so.
The question is whether these street vendors and hawkers should be allowed to do so, only on the basis of the Act. Granted that the hawkers can spread their wares on any public place as per the Act but isn’t it also true that public space is meant for all citizens? Can convenience of one and inconvenience of the other be adjudged as sane, rightful and legitimate? However, legitimacy here comes with the clauses of the Meghalaya Street Vendors Act, 2014 which is flawed in its very definition of a street vendor. Thus what really needs to be done is to actually set right the wrongs. It must be realised that just as the hawkers and vendors have their rights on the lanes and footpaths, etc similarly the general public too have their claim over the same public spaces.
The state government must therefore re-examine and re-define the Act altogether because as of now the hawkers and vendors appear to be violating no law. If at all there is any form of violation it certainly has evolved due to the lack of open mindedness and bird’s eye view of the law makers towards serious matter and concerns. While providing support and solace to one, the law must not turn a blind eye to the other. As of today, the public spaces are being used mostly by vendors and hawkers in and around commercial areas of the town.
There have been a lot of views for and against the matter. While some are sympathetic towards them others have expressed distress and opposition. Mind you, the distress must not be read as being unsympathetic towards these hawkers. Instead the distress emerges due to the inconvenience caused by this section of the society. As for congestion, it must be understood not only in terms of vehicular movement but also the difficulty in smooth passage and movement of people sans vehicles. Take a walk at Iewduh and one can experience the kind of difficulty of walking in and out of the market. Yes, Iewduh falls within the purview of the Syiem of Hima Mylliem yet Iewduh is one fine example of congestion. Outside Iewduh just take a walk at Motphran and there one is sure to feel the pangs of congestion. Here the vendors and hawkers have actually not only spread their wares and set up shops on footpaths, lanes and pavements but right in the middle of the road. Here, one sees the convergence of hawkers, pedestrians and vehicles.
One complete picture of togetherness but certainly not a very happy and cheerful coexistence of the three! This rubbing of shoulders between three distinct entities becomes inconvenient as it poses a threat to the lives of the passers-by. They have to be watchful of the vehicles as well as the goods of the vendors lest they step into any of the goods lined up in the middle of the road. As experienced by many, if by any chance one happens to step on any of their wares then what follows are heaps of abuses. Another example is visible at the entrance and exit gates of the Civil Hospital. Prior to the visit of the Prime Minister, one part of the footpath was conveniently blocked and closed down by the vendors and hawkers thereby leaving pedestrians with no choice but to squeeze their way alongside the vehicles.
Granted that the footpaths in the city are narrow and that every building must have their parking space and granted that there are too many private vehicles and that the use of public transport must be encouraged but can we just turn a blind eye to the fact that the lanes, footpaths, pavements, etc are also meant for movement of people to and fro? Whose fault is it then? One is sensitive of the need to be supportive of the means of livelihood of one’s fellow human beings but at the same time one is also sensitive towards the need to be supportive of the convenience of all instead of just a section of the society. One is supportive of providing a common space for these vendors and hawkers so that they can do business without any disturbance but at the same time one is also supportive of a congestion free and a hassle free sidewalk and footpaths for pedestrians.
Encouraging rural products and economy through the hawkers and vendors is a wise and pragmatic thought. For this reason, to further strengthen it there has to be a proper, safe, secure and specific space assigned to the hawkers so as to enable them to carry on their business peacefully. Only then perhaps will we be working towards improving and sustaining the rural economy. The hawkers and vendors are not a problem provided they do not encroach on spaces meant for walking by all.
At this stage, the ball is in the state government’s court. Therefore, first and foremost a re-examination of the Meghalaya Street Vendors Act, 2014 is needed in order to arrive at a plausible solution while addressing this grave and serious matter. Secondly, a specific space must be allocated to the vendors and hawkers so that they have a space of their own and also so that pedestrians can use the footpaths and pavements freely no matter how narrow they may be.
