Government-owned places such as roads, ghats, and bridges are collective resources, and the country’s natural assets, including forests, mountains, canals, and rivers, belong to all citizens. These resources cannot be reserved for the exclusive use of any single individual or group.
A roadside small shop, a cart, or a costermonger is a small business provides livelihood of a family, and a dream of building future of their children. The eviction of roadside shops is tantamount to demolishing the dream of a family, and the consequences of it is ever lasting traverse the violation of fundamental rights of citizens. We all know that food, clothing, safe abodes and education are the fundamental rights of every citizen that the state must ensure and these are protected by the Constitution. The Article 15 of the Constitution says: “States that it shall be a fundamental responsibility of the State to secure the provision of basic necessities of life, including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for its citizens”.
Despite the Constitutional framework, ensuring food security for all remains a challenge in our country due to the factors like poverty, income inequality, and insufficient resources for effective implementation of laws and policies. The government has no adequate resources to taking the responsibility of those who do not get jobs. Therefore, people are forced to become hawkers or open up a small venture on streets to become self-reliant and provides food to his or her family. Unfortunately, every year the local administration is taking stern action to evict the self-employed hawkers without settling them in a permanent place where people with low purchasing power can buy cheaply from those shops.
Before evicting a person from the business, he is doing using roadside or pavements, land or place used for livelihood, we think, the local administration should rethink whether it is offensive and punishable? A hawker occupies a part of the road. The by-standers are the buyers of his goods at very competitive rates, therefore – both street hawkers and the general citizens are the beneficiaries of the roadside shops. In this circumstance, the question is very pertinent to why the sidewalk shops are being demolished and evicted by the law enforcing agencies, for whom interest?
We expect street vendors should be treated with more respect by unions, paurashaba or city authorities, especially by the police. Vendors should also be recognised as a class of worker that requires less rather than more regulation. Examples of other countries may be cited here; public markets or outdoor street markets in Hong Kong has played an integral part in shaping the landscape for population growth and urban development. Not only do they serve as localised and more cost-effective alternatives to supermarkets for fresh produce, but they also provide their local customers with the chance to interact directly with producers and distributors. In New York, Local Community Organisations recommended “push cart markets” and set up those in specially designated parts of the city. A budget was drawn up for the markets and architects were assigned to design the markets. In this sense, markets are spaces of social inclusion. The government takes an active role in controlling street markets and ensures public health and the development of modern and more hygienic urban spaces.
However, the reality is different in Bangladesh, instead of settling the hawkers in a particular place, local administration demolishes their makeshifts with a bulldozer, putting them under the definition of ‘illegal occupants’. After a few days of being declared illegal, they are forced to pay a high fee and brought back to their previous place. For whom interest they are evicted? This question naturally arises. Is ‘illegal’ actually the hawker or is ‘illegal’ actually the system through which the hawker is forced to pay bribes or extortions or extra fees? No one has the exclusive right to prevent them from their business. Only the government can realistically determine the area through negotiations and issue permits.
The United Nations’ UN Habitat has been working on the crisis and rights of hawkers in Asian countries for many years. The rights of hawkers should be legally recognised and urban planning should be done through their participation. Has Bangladesh done urban planning as per the advice of the United Nations? Made a specific plan for hawkers? Has it allocated any space in the city for them to live? The rights of hawkers are not recognised in our cities. So, if street vendors go for a practical solution in the absence of alternatives, for sake of life and livelihood, without causing irreparable harm to anyone; so, it is their right to do business.
(The views expressed in this article are of those of the author’s own)
