Hawker Evictions and the Role of Trade Unions: Three Interviews

(Translated into English from Original Bengali Text)

Since the eviction of hawkers began in Kolkata, its suburbs and other parts of West Bengal last June, Sawaal has interviewed three veteran leaders of the trade union movement in West Bengal: Anadi Sahu, West Bengal state president of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), and Ziaul Alam, CITU state secretary; and Atanu Chakraborty, state president of the All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU). Despite their individual and overall positions on the issue not always coinciding with Sawaal's editorial standpoint, we felt the experience and views of these three people who have spent years in the trade union movement should reach readers. We have therefore included the opinions of all the three trade union leaders in this supplement.

Although the public debate on the hawker eviction drive in Kolkata and other places cannot be limited to questions about ‘pavement encroachment’, traffic flow and congestion, and urban development or beautification, a vital, recurring question in the three trade union leaders’ opinions is: where do the working people’s lives and livelihoods fit into development and urban planning?

All three interviewees view the eviction of hawkers as part and parcel of economic and political changes, yet they differ in their emphasis, interpretation and political standpoint. They are equivocal, however, on one point: the real reason behind the crisis would disappear if the hawker eviction is treated only as a problem of 'illegal occupation' or urban beautification. The causes of the crisis include, but are not restricted to, shortage of jobs, the crisis of the informal economy, pressure on small, medium-sized and micro businesses and the growing insecurity among the self-employed.

Dialogue, the use of land, legal rights and rehabilitation, too, recur in the three leaders’ opinions. Pedestrians have the right to move freely, and hawkers have the right to livelihood. But should the two be seen as rival (contradictory) claims? Why cannot regulations on public space ensure both coexist? The interviews also focus on the correlation between eviction and corporate-centred development, the role of the state and its obligations towards the working people.

Together, the interviews raise a simple but fundamental question: how much of the city belongs to those whose hard labour built it and those who keep it running?

Anadi Sahu, State President, Centre of Indian Trade Unions, West Bengal

Sawaal: The new state government renewed the hawker eviction drive as soon as it assumed power. How do you see the recent developments?

Anadi Sahu: Look, employment has been shrinking across the country under the liberal economic system. New recruitments have declined in the public sector, the railways, banks and insurance sectors across both central and state governments. Consequently, unemployment has increased. During Partition, large numbers of uprooted people were not employed by the state; generations of them survived by hawking. Now, after coming to power, the new government is evicting (the ‘descendants’ of) those very people without rehabilitation. Yet the basic principle of the Street Vendors Act is that hawkers cannot be evicted until the state makes an alternative arrangement for them.

Without providing them with employment, the state cannot snatch their last means of survival from them. Using bulldozers to demolish hawkers’ stalls and destroy people's goods, or continuing eviction despite a court staying such an action is inhuman and authoritarian. The impact falls directly on the families (of hawkers) — on their food, education and medical care. CITU and other workers' unions have protested against the railway authorities, demanded that both the state and central governments to not deprive hawkers of their right to livelihood. Left political parties, workers' and employees' bodies, and civil society organisation, too, have joined the protests.

Our demand is straightforward: immediately stop the evictions, hold talks with the hawkers, and work out arrangements that would ensure their rehabilitation and protect their right to livelihood.

Sawaal: You mentioned the Street Vendors Act, 2014. The Act does protect hawkers in general but not railway hawkers. Has the present stand of the movement become a major weakness?

Anadi Sahu: Neither railway hawkers nor hawkers selling goods on central or state government land are specifically mentioned in the 2014 Act. But the spirit of the law is clear: you cannot evict hawkers without rehabilitation. If Parliament took into consideration that human aspect when discussing street vendors, why should it suddenly cease to apply to railway hawkers? Not every single situation is separately mentioned in a statute. Legislators are expected to understand the larger purpose and the human aspect involved.

A large part of India’s laws has drawn on the experience of other countries, but ultimately it has been shaped to suit our own reality. So if the state cannot provide people with jobs, where does it get the right to evict them and render them jobless? These families have children and elderly people. How are the hawkers supposed to provide food, medicine and everyday life support for them? Does not the state, or society, have any responsibility towards them?

Hawkers are being evicted today in a brutal, inhuman manner. No party contested the state election declaring that, once elected, it would render lakhs of people jobless. How, then, can the state evade the moral and social responsibility for these evictions?

Sawaal: An argument repeatedly used to justify the evictions is 'illegal encroachment'. People have the right to move freely in public space, but they also have the right to earn a living. Why are the two being projected in way to suggest they are conflicting? Is it not possible to protect pedestrians’ right to free movement while also protecting hawkers’ right to livelihood?

Anadi Sahu: We are not against development. People need roads; infrastructure has to improve. But all of that can be done through discussions, proper rehabilitation and alternative livelihood arrangements. These rights do not have to be antithetical. The problem is that the government does not want such discussions. Instead, public space is being handed over to corporations. Where a poor person once sold tea for Rs 10, Rs 15 or Rs 20 a cup, arrangements will now be made to sell tea that would cost Rs 100 or even Rs 200. Who benefits from that?

Every day, the poor, lower-income and middle-class people from rural Bengal use local and long-distance trains to commute and depend on the services and goods sold by hawkers. Will corporations or large shopping malls provide those services or goods at the same price? The policies of both the state and central governments are therefore doing more than just rendering hawkers jobless. They are denying the rights of ordinary people to live and absolving the state for not fulfilling its social responsibility. It is unjust and inhuman, and cannot be accepted.

Sawaal: That leads us to a larger question. Is the current model of 'development' trying to build a corporate-centred city from which the very working people who keep a city running are being gradually pushed out? How do you see such a model of urban development?

Anadi Sahu: Development for whom? Surely for the people, isn’t it? If people's incomes, jobs and livelihoods do not improve, glittering buildings and better roads by themselves do not amount to development. We reject a development model in which markets and commercial spaces are created for a handful of corporations while ordinary people's livelihoods are jeopardised.

The rapidly increasing economic inequality over the past decade is reflected in international indices and statistics. A small number of people have prospered, and their prosperity has not improved the lives of the majority of the people. If the government cannot create jobs or improve people's livelihoods, and instead uses bulldozers to demolish hawkers’ stalls, the damage will not stop with the hawkers. Hawkers are already in severe distress; a number of them have even committed suicides. This is inflicting a much graver social wound, with long-term consequences. No development that destroys people's lives and means of livelihood can be called social progress.

Sawaal: Alongside the struggle on the streets, there are also legal battles against evictions. Courts have granted stays in some places and provided temporary relief to the hawkers. During previous movements, the Supreme Court and High Courts has have passed judgments in favour of the people. But questions are now being raised about the courts' role as well. How much can the movement rely on them?

Anadi Sahu: On many occasions, people in West Bengal and other states have received justice from the courts. Important judgments following mass movements have gone in people's favour. There have also been court judgments we could not accept from the standpoint of public interest.

In cases related to hawkers, many of the directions and stays are temporary — two weeks, three weeks. They buy some time but do not solve the problem. The railway authorities have continued their eviction drives against most of the hawkers while exempting a few, despite a stay. In other words, governments often fail to respect court orders and the law itself.

We would like the courts to clearly remind the state and central governments of their responsibilities, and to ensure that the constitutional rights — to live, to work, and to earn a livelihood — are not violated. But the responsibility does not lie solely with the judiciary. It also lies with the administration, the government and society as a whole.

Sawaal: Left parties and Left trade unions are now playing a leading role in the hawkers’ movement. But one question keeps being raised: Are those that once launched Operation Sunshine belatedly trying to save their face by protesting against hawker eviction now? As a trade union leader, how do you see that? And do you see a fundamental difference between Operation Sunshine and today's 'bulldozer raj'?

Anadi Sahu: As a trade unionist, we have never wanted any action — by either the central or the state government — which destroys the livelihood of hawkers or the poor people without discussion. During Operation Sunshine, too, attempts were made to rehabilitate the hawkers and provide them with alternative employment before removing them. In Galiff Street, Shyambazar and several other areas, alternative arrangements were made. When the flyover near Sealdah was built, hawkers were shifted after alternative livelihood arrangements were made for them. Later, stalls were built for them under the flyover itself, where they were rehabilitated. Shishir Market still exists.

In other words, the Left Front government's approach was that development should proceed, but not at the expense of reducing people to destitution. Rehabilitation, discussions and protecting people's livelihoods had to be part of development planning. That remains our position today: people's development and the country's development must move together.

Atanu Chakraborty, State President, All India Central Council of Trade Unions (AICCTU), West Bengal

Sawaal: How do you view the recent hawker evictions?

Atanu Chakraborty: The defining feature of this government is bulldozer raj: demolish, evict and then build an ‘exclusive city’. One of the most remarkable features of our Constitution and society has been inclusiveness. That is precisely what is being dismantled. Almost as soon as the new government took power in the state, we saw hawkers, poor shopkeepers and other poor people being brutally evicted. Their voting rights are being shrunk, and at the same time they are being denied the rights to life and livelihood.

The question of urban land is also part of this problem. There has been talk of revisiting the Urban Land Ceiling Act, too. So the question is: in whose interest will urban land be used? These evictions cannot be separated from the process of reshaping the city in the interest of big capital.

Sawaal: The government argues that eviction is necessary for development and better civic services. The railways has been citing passenger safety as a concern. Do you find the argument reasonable?

Atanu Chakraborty: Excuses have always been cited to carry out evictions: beautification, passenger safety, urban development. But development doesn’t mean only roads, flyovers and smart cities. Protecting the lives and livelihoods of those who build cities every day is also part of development.

In the government's eyes, poor people seem to be urban waste, an obstacle to development. Remove them, and construct a particular kind of a city — for the affluent and upper-middle classes. We despise that idea. The city belongs to everyone; every resident has an equal claim on Kolkata.

Sawaal: Do you also see an attempt to divide hawkers along religious lines?

Atanu Chakraborty: Absolutely. Hawkers in Metiabruz, Rajabazar and Garden Reach are being singled out, while those in Burrabazar are not spoken about in the same way. In other words, an attempt is being made to create a religious divide among hawkers and project one particular community as the cause of the city's problem. This is part of a larger political project: first push the hawker, then the lower-middle class, and gradually the urban poor as a whole to the margins so the city can be reshaped for the benefit of a small minority.

Sawaal: How important are hawkers, the informal sector more generally, for the urban economy?

Atanu Chakraborty: A very large percentage of India's workers are employed in the informal sector, and many of them are self-employed. Hawkers and small traders are an important part of the economy. They do not merely support themselves; they keep local urban economies running.

According to a report of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector, led by Arjun Sengupta, a large proportion of hawkers in Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi and Ahmedabad comprise former factory workers whose factories had closed. In other words, when industries shut down, many skilled workers were forced to turn to hawking and other informal work. The government's responsibility was to create alternative employment. Instead of doing that, it is depriving them of their last means of survival.

Sawaal: The Street Vendors Act, 2014, recognises the rights of street hawkers, but not those of railway hawkers. Has that become a weak point for the anti-hawker eviction movement today?

Atanu Chakraborty: The lack of legal protection is certainly a problem. We demand a separate legal framework for railway hawkers, which would give them protection comparable to those available to street vendors.

But everything cannot depend on law alone. Humanity and constitutional morality should be the basic principles of a welfare state. If a government cannot provide hawkers with other means of livelihoods, it cannot deprive people of the livelihoods they already have.

Sawaal: So, as a matter of principle, do you support the 'no eviction without rehabilitation' demand?

Atanu Chakraborty: Absolutely. Courts have repeatedly said that development must take into account people's right to life and livelihood. Rehabilitation does not mean simply moving somebody from one place to another. People have to be relocated to a place where they can not only resume their trade but also earn a livelihood.

A local economy grows around hawkers. Ordinary people get affordable goods, small businesses survive, and local markets remain active. Evicting hawkers therefore does not only deprive them of their livelihoods; it also hurts the city's economy.

And our demand is not limited to rehabilitation. Alongside work, affordable housing has to be provided for working people.

Sawaal: The counter-argument is that pavements belong to pedestrians too. Can a balance be struck between people’s right to walk freely on pavements and hawker's right to livelihood?

Atanu Chakraborty: Of course it can if the government has the will. The Supreme Court has recognised the right of hawkers to sell their wares on pavements. Pedestrians, too, have the right to move freely on pavements. But why is the entire problem made to revolve around hawkers? Illegal parking occupies large parts of many Kolkata roads, yet one does not see the same focus on such problems. The question is to strike a fair balance, not to make one group the scapegoat.

Sawaal: Many hawkers say they are willing to apply for a licence and pay a fixed amount of fees to get it. Is the government making any effort to hold talks with them and find a solution?

Atanu Chakraborty: A solution is perfectly possible if the government has the political will. We have been repeatedly demanding that hawkers be issued licences. That would give the government a definite revenue stream and legally recognise hawkers’ occupation. Wherever necessary, new hawkers' markets or designated vending zones should e created. But for that, the government has to first discuss the issue with hawkers' organisations and trade unions. In fact, the government has shut down that path.

Sawaal: Are you thinking of building a larger united movement in the coming months? How far has that effort progressed?

Atanu Chakraborty: We are trying to bring civil society and other sections of working people into the struggle alongside trade unions. A citizens' convention was held at Bharat Sabha Hall in Kolkata. Initiatives have also been taken in the Jadavpur area to build mutual contact among hawkers, auto-rickshaw-drivers, rickshaw-pullers and other working people. The aim is to develop a united action front from below, along with joint trade-union action at the central level.

Sawaal: One part of this struggle is also being carried out in courts. How much can you rely on the judiciary to take the struggle forward?

Atanu Chakraborty: The movement cannot be suspended while we wait for court judgments. Rights are won through struggle. The stronger the struggle on the street, the more the courts will be compelled to take people's rights seriously.

Sawaal: One final question. Operation Sunshine in 1996 keeps coming up in discussions. Hawkers were evicted under the Left Front government as well. What, then, is the fundamental difference between Operation Sunshine and the evictions taking place now?

Atanu Chakraborty: First, CITU did not support Operation Sunshine. Trade unions opposed it at the time and held discussions with the then Chief Minister. Some assurances were given that evicted hawkers would be rehabilitated. Later, the Mamata Banerjee government too carried out hawker evictions at different times and failed to implement the law protecting hawkers' rights. We opposed those evictions as well.

But it would be wrong to treat the ongoing eviction drive as simply another Operation Sunshine. The ongoing evictions are tied to a much larger political-economic project involving urban land, big capital and the creation of a kind of exclusive city. For us, the central question is simple: who is the city for? The answer is equally simple — everyone.

Ziaul Alam, State Secretary, Centre of Indian Trade Unions, West Bengal

Sawaal: The eviction drive in the city and the rest of the state was launched about two months ago. In some places notices are being served; elsewhere bulldozers appear suddenly and begin destroying people's livelihoods, even their homes. How do you see the situation?

Ziaul Alam: The timing is extremely significant. The destruction began almost immediately after the new government was formed. A large number of people who wanted change and voted the BJP to power are now saying they made a terrible mistake, because they are being deprived of their livelihoods. Even the little roof they had over their heads is being destroyed. This is not merely eviction. It is an attack on people's lives and livelihoods.

Sawaal: There is a legal problem here as well. The Street Vendors Act, 2014, does not directly protect railway hawkers. How serious has that lack of legal protection become?

Ziaul Alam: Railway hawkers were excluded from the 2014 Act. We demand that they be brought within a framework of legal recognition and protection. This involves a larger economic issue. Railway land and other railway property are increasingly being commercialised and hawkers evicted from there. A service passengers actually need is being taken away while people are pushed towards online businesses and large corporate supply chains.

The same is happening to hawkers and small traders in the city. The small business sector was already weakened by demonetisation and GST. For a huge number of unemployed people, self-employment is often the only route to survival. Now that route is being closed too. Our position is clear: the livelihoods of the self-employed livelihoods must be recognised, respected and brought within a regulatory framework. People cannot be deprived of their livelihoods by issuing an eviction notice suddenly.

Sawaal: We are hearing many complaints about the way eviction notices are being issued. In some places, people say there is no signature on the notice; elsewhere, officials arrive and threaten eviction without any written notice at all. What are you seeing?

Ziaul Alam: In many cases, the notices don’t even carry the signature of a senior official. In several places, the officials simply appear on the scene, threaten people and leave. But people are resisting. Courts too have, in several cases, asked the railways to produce documents proving ownership of the land and have intervened in evictions. So the matter cannot be buried quite so easily.

Sawaal: Court orders have brought temporary relief in some places. But in the end, how much can this movement depend on the courts?

Ziaul Alam: The courts are important, but they cannot be the only source of hope. Railway hawkers' livelihoods are tied to services that passengers actually use and need. Crores of people travel by rail every day. On platforms, at stations and on trains, hawkers provide cheap and accessible goods and services. They can be issued identity cards; their details can be registered; health checks and training can be organised. This livelihood can be improved by bringing it under the rule of law and regulations. Throwing people out with bulldozers is not a solution. We want railway hawkers to be brought within the framework of the 2014 law, and we want the railways to frame a clear policy on the question.

Sawaal: So even while the court cases continue, should the main emphasis ultimately remain on the struggle in the street?

Ziaul Alam: Absolutely. Ultimately, the people's court is the highest court. When people, whose livelihood is at stake, and other working people and civil society stand together with them against injustice, the state and the courts have to take that reality into account.

Sawaal: Supporters of eviction repeatedly invoke pedestrians' rights. They say pavements are for walking. Hawkers, on the other hand, have the right to livelihood. Can the two rights be balanced in practice?

Ziaul Alam: Of course. The formal and informal economies are interconnected. The formal sector's supply chains cannot survive without the informal sector. Driving hawkers out and making packaged or branded goods the only option is not meaningful development. Whether someone wants tea in an earthen cup or prefers machine-made tea, or whether someone wants to buy a local or branded product, should be a matter of that person’s choice. Space for pedestrians must be ensured, but that cannot be the ground for destroying hawkers' livelihoods. Specific spaces, rules and timing can be worked out as needed to protect both rights.

Sawaal: That brings us to the city itself. Are we moving towards a model of urban development in which the working people who built the city and keep it functioning every day are gradually made to disappear from it?

Ziaul Alam: That is the biggest question. Who built the city? Working people who came from Murshidabad, Nadia, Ganjam and hundreds of other places. Their labour is embedded in the roads, railways, airports, houses, drainage systems, and virtually every everyday service the city depends on. If we now drive them away them as 'encroachers', how will the city function? In new residential areas, where will domestic workers, security guards, delivery workers, repair workers, small shopkeepers and service providers come from?

Urban planning therefore has to be comprehensive. Working people need housing, livelihoods and recognition. You cannot use them when you need them and discard them afterwards. That is not inclusive development; it is distorted development.

Sawaal: Can you clarify one point. We repeatedly hear the demand, 'No eviction without rehabilitation.' Is that enough? Or does your position go further — that hawkers should not be evicted at all?

Ziaul Alam: If a place is genuinely needed for development, some reorganisation may be necessary. The railways may need a third or fourth line, there may be a metro project, a road may have to be widened. But that cannot mean evicting people. Where relocation is genuinely required, the railways, the state government and the local administration must jointly arrange rehabilitation. Alternative sites must be provided, and they must allow people to continue earning a living.

There is another important question: ownership of the land. In many places, the railways claim a plot or plots of land as its own even though people possess pattas, dag-khatian records or other documents which grant them land possession. Those claims and documents have to be verified. And the more people are threatened with eviction, the more widely resistance will spread.

Sawaal: Is there a plan to take this movement beyond resistance and protests and turn it into a larger social movement?

Ziaul Alam: It is already, and quite naturally, moving in that direction. People are not unreasonable. They want discussions, workable solutions and proper rehabilitation for livelihood and housing. Different sections of civil society are already getting involved. Meetings have been held at Bharat Sabha Hall, Subarnabanik Hall (in Kolkata) and localities across the state. Alternative proposals are also coming from local levels. The government and railway authorities need to pay attention to those proposals. Problems are not solved by simply issuing eviction orders.

Sawaal: Many hawkers say they are willing to pay a fixed fee and legally vend their wares. They have been complaining that nobody is talking to them. If dialogue itself is closed, how can a solution be found?

Ziaul Alam: There can be no solution without dialogue. Taxis and app-cabs require designated spaces; similarly, hawkers can be given defined spaces outside and around railway stations. In places such as Sealdah station, small designated vending areas can be identified without hindering passenger movement. There can be regulation and fixed fees while maintaining the availability of the services passengers need. The government's job is not to strangle people's choices, but to strike a balance among different kinds of services.

Sawaal: Operation Sunshine is being invoked again. People who criticized and protested against Operation Sunshine are saying that, with what face are those who evicted hawkers in 1996 stand beside the hawkers today? As a trade union leader, how do you answer that? And what is the main difference between those evictions and the ongoing ones?

Ziaul Alam: Rehabilitation was part of the discussion during Operation Sunshine, as it was in many cases after that. The evictions were debated at the time, and the trade unions opposed them. The main difference today is that eviction orders are being issued without alternative plans and without any dialogue with the affected party. There have even been attempts to evict people from places that previous governments had rehabilitated them to.

If a site is genuinely needed for development, the government must put forward an alternative plan. People cannot be brutally evicted. The government is extraordinarily accommodating towards big corporations but exceptionally harsh towards poor, lower-income and small-capital people. Both the economy and the city will suffer because of that.

(Photo: Kushal Kar)