The Sha fu of Calcutta: the past, the present, and the future of the hand-rickshaw pullers of Calcutta. Is a civilized and progressive transition possible?

Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 37-49

  Sen, Jai ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEMOCRACY; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; SOCIAL CHANGE; URBAN TRANSPORT;

CALCUTTA; INDIA; WEST BENGAL;

EID: 0344609297     PISSN: 00074810     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14672715.1998.10411052     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Babu means "sir"; lungi means a cloth wrapped around the waist, as commonly worn by laboring class men in different sections in South Asia across to Burma (Myanmar); and phatua means a particular style of vest, or light T-shirt, worn especially by laboring class men from Bihar. The word for the vehicle itself is spelled and was and is pronounced by the British and by the English-speaking as "rickshaw" in English. The word is pronounced "riksha" by the pullers and in Hindi and Bengali.
2. The word sarkar today means "government" and it means this also, here; but in the rural-feudal tradition of much of Bihar, from where this man comes, it also means "he who rules," the lord.
3. Rickshaws and rickshaws: To avoid confusion, it is perhaps important to make the differentiation from here on in, between hand-rickshaws, which are manually pulled by a man running in front of the carriage, and cycle-rickshaws, which are also powered by men but riding a bicycle. This article is about the hand-rickshaws and their pullers. The cycle-rickshaw, which appeared on the scene much after the hand-form, is now seen in one form or another all over South and Southeast Asia. Some are driven from the front, some from the back. The vehicles feature an assortment of carriages and are known by different names in different countries. Because of social norms and also sheer economics, the cycle-rickshaw has now replaced the hand-rickshaw everywhere in India except in Calcutta. (See Unnayan, "Cycle-Rickshaws in India: A Survey of Designs and Design Factors," unpublished study report, January 1992). In Calcutta hand-rickshaws "ply" only in the center of the city. The entire surrounding suburbs - the more recently developed parts of the city - are the territory of the cycle-rickshaw (See Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta [Calcutta: Unnayan, February 1981]). As this article will explain, the hand-rickshaw has remained in Calcutta only because of a combination of feudal vestiges in the polity and civil administration - factors not unrelated to sheer administrative neglect
4. Rickshaws and rickshaws: To avoid confusion, it is perhaps important to make the differentiation from here on in, between hand-rickshaws, which are manually pulled by a man running in front of the carriage, and cycle-rickshaws, which are also powered by men but riding a bicycle. This article is about the hand-rickshaws and their pullers. The cycle-rickshaw, which appeared on the scene much after the hand-form, is now seen in one form or another all over South and Southeast Asia. Some are driven from the front, some from the back. The vehicles feature an assortment of carriages and are known by different names in different countries. Because of social norms and also sheer economics, the cycle-rickshaw has now replaced the hand-rickshaw everywhere in India except in Calcutta. (See Unnayan, "Cycle-Rickshaws in India: A Survey of Designs and Design Factors," unpublished study report, January 1992). In Calcutta hand-rickshaws "ply" only in the center of the city. The entire surrounding suburbs - the more recently developed parts of the city - are the territory of the cycle-rickshaw (See Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta [Calcutta: Unnayan, February 1981]). As this article will explain, the hand-rickshaw has remained in Calcutta only because of a combination of feudal vestiges in the polity and civil administration - factors not unrelated to sheer administrative neglect
5. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Facts and Issues." Reprinted in Mainstream, 27 March 1982, and in The Other Side, November 1982.
6. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Facts and Issues." Reprinted in Mainstream, 27 March 1982, and in The Other Side, November 1982.
7. Rickshaws, which were introduced to India by the British in the 1870s, had provided a range of services in many cities and towns in India till independence in 1947. During the decades after independence the rickshaws were put out of operation and existence in one city after another - from Shimla, the hill-town and capital of the state of Himachel Pradesh in the north (and in colonial times, the "summer seat of the British raj, when the entire state apparatus travelled "up" to escape the heat of the plains), in the 1960s, to Chennai (earlier Madras) in the south of the country, in the early 1970s. And their pullers were put out of work. The design of the hand-rickshaw was more or less the same throughout the plains of India - a light vehicle with large wheels, following the prototype invented in Japan. This vehicle was quite similar to those recorded in photographs from Japan, China, Singapore, Sri Lanka, and also South Africa. But to suit the hilly terrain in Shimla, as well as the rough and dangerous roads of the then-still-new town, the vehicles were far heavier, with the carriage, wheels, and yoke made of solid wood. (The more recent versions have leaf suspension springs of heavy steel.) These vehicles required four men, two pulling and guiding from in front, and the other two pushing from behind. Contemporary reports indicate that despite the extra weight and the three extra men the rickshaws frequently toppled over, spilling their passengers. There are well-known photographs of Gandhiji and other political personalities arriving in Shimla rickshaws at the Viceregal Lodge in Simla (now Shimla) for a meeting with the British in the 1930s. But this must be seen as something of an awkward historical anomaly because in Gandhiji's home state of Gujarat, the abolition of the hand-rickshaw is widely associated with Gandhiji and Gandhi-ism. I recently learned in Simla, that after his first ride Gandhiji refused to ride the vehicle anymore; from then on he walked beside an empty rickshaw. I have found photographs of this in the meantime.
8. Electric trams in Calcutta are also under assault by a policy of neglect. The state's wise transport minister insists that diesel-powered buses are far more efficient; so trams must be phased out.
9. The opposition Congress-I called a bandh (literally "closed" or "closure" of areas or of a town) in 1996 in protest against the clearances. But the call coincided with a popular cricket "test match" that was to open on that very day in Eden Gardens, the city's famous stadium. Thus, the bandh was a miserable flop. Aside from the loss of face that the party experienced, the political blunder also had the subconscious effect of reinforcing "public" (read "middle-class") support for the government's actions. It was only to be expected that those in authority, who wanted precisely this kind of populist support, would cash in on the windfall credit they gained.
10. This is important for me to emphasize because when I was more actively involved in campaigning for the rights of the rickshaw-pullers of Calcutta in the early-to mid-1980s letters to newspapers frequently alleged that Unnayan, the organization I then worked with and represented, was in fact only a front for the owners of the rickshaws. Whether the letters were planted in order to discredit us is not important; in any feudal situation, the line between a position in defense of the rights of the workers and a position that is in fact arguing for the status quo is thin, especially to those in pursuit of their own vested interests. Readers of Unnayan's articles could be forgiven for thinking that our positions were remarkably similar to the ones taken by associations of rickshaw owners. But our position was clear at all times: From the beginning, we called for a radical restructuring of the trade and of the rights of pullers to a livelihood and social justice, not in favor of what they were then doing. (See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta"; Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?" Mainstream, 10 July 1982, pp. 26-27; Unnayan, "Rickshaw-Pullers in Calcutta: A Continuing Struggle and the Emerging Situation since 1982," September-October 1983; and Jai Sen, "Technology Choice," Economic and Political Weekly, 9 July 1983, pp. 124-28.
11. This is important for me to emphasize because when I was more actively involved in campaigning for the rights of the rickshaw-pullers of Calcutta in the early-to mid-1980s letters to newspapers frequently alleged that Unnayan, the organization I then worked with and represented, was in fact only a front for the owners of the rickshaws. Whether the letters were planted in order to discredit us is not important; in any feudal situation, the line between a position in defense of the rights of the workers and a position that is in fact arguing for the status quo is thin, especially to those in pursuit of their own vested interests. Readers of Unnayan's articles could be forgiven for thinking that our positions were remarkably similar to the ones taken by associations of rickshaw owners. But our position was clear at all times: From the beginning, we called for a radical restructuring of the trade and of the rights of pullers to a livelihood and social justice, not in favor of what they were then doing. (See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta"; Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?" Mainstream, 10 July 1982, pp. 26-27; Unnayan, "Rickshaw-Pullers in Calcutta: A Continuing Struggle and the Emerging Situation since 1982," September-October 1983; and Jai Sen, "Technology Choice," Economic and Political Weekly, 9 July 1983, pp. 124-28.
12. This is important for me to emphasize because when I was more actively involved in campaigning for the rights of the rickshaw-pullers of Calcutta in the early-to mid-1980s letters to newspapers frequently alleged that Unnayan, the organization I then worked with and represented, was in fact only a front for the owners of the rickshaws. Whether the letters were planted in order to discredit us is not important; in any feudal situation, the line between a position in defense of the rights of the workers and a position that is in fact arguing for the status quo is thin, especially to those in pursuit of their own vested interests. Readers of Unnayan's articles could be forgiven for thinking that our positions were remarkably similar to the ones taken by associations of rickshaw owners. But our position was clear at all times: From the beginning, we called for a radical restructuring of the trade and of the rights of pullers to a livelihood and social justice, not in favor of what they were then doing. (See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta"; Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?" Mainstream, 10 July 1982, pp. 26-27; Unnayan, "Rickshaw-Pullers in Calcutta: A Continuing Struggle and the Emerging Situation since 1982," September-October 1983; and Jai Sen, "Technology Choice," Economic and Political Weekly, 9 July 1983, pp. 124-28.
13. This is important for me to emphasize because when I was more actively involved in campaigning for the rights of the rickshaw-pullers of Calcutta in the early-to mid-1980s letters to newspapers frequently alleged that Unnayan, the organization I then worked with and represented, was in fact only a front for the owners of the rickshaws. Whether the letters were planted in order to discredit us is not important; in any feudal situation, the line between a position in defense of the rights of the workers and a position that is in fact arguing for the status quo is thin, especially to those in pursuit of their own vested interests. Readers of Unnayan's articles could be forgiven for thinking that our positions were remarkably similar to the ones taken by associations of rickshaw owners. But our position was clear at all times: From the beginning, we called for a radical restructuring of the trade and of the rights of pullers to a livelihood and social justice, not in favor of what they were then doing. (See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta"; Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?" Mainstream, 10 July 1982, pp. 26-27; Unnayan, "Rickshaw-Pullers in Calcutta: A Continuing Struggle and the Emerging Situation since 1982," September-October 1983; and Jai Sen, "Technology Choice," Economic and Political Weekly, 9 July 1983, pp. 124-28.
14. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
15. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
16. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
17. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
18. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
19. In a situation in which the destruction and plunder of our countries and our environment by state organs acting usually in hidden concert with private interests - all in the name of "development" and the "public interest," and whether in the form of large dams or of urban development - has now been witnessed, documented, and denounced the world over, including in India, it is surely necessary to ask the question of whether it is not time for change - to the very rules themselves. (See Jai Sen, "Beyond Mere Rehabilitation: Some Points towards a National Displacement Policy." Paper prepared for meetings in Calcutta, January 1995, and for the National Workshop on the National Rehabilitation Policy, held in New Delhi, 17-19 February 1995, complemented by "Displacement and Rehabilitation: Some Points towards Changing the Course of Current Thinking," Economic and Political Weekly, 29 April 1995, pp. 963-64. (Published also in Vikalp [Bombay] 4, no. 2 [October 1995]: 65-68 . Published in edited form in Economic and Political Weekly, 4 February 1995; Unnayan, "Planners or People: Who Should Be Evicted?" Unpublished paper, September 1981; and Unnayan, "Hand-Rickshaws in Calcutta: Who Decides?")
20. For social and economic details of the hand-rickshaw trade in Calcutta in 1980, and for an initial set of public policy proposals, see Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta, especially chapters 3 and 6; and the four-part series of articles produced by Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, and published in Business Standard (Calcutta): "Rickshaws in Calcutta." Part 1: "The Pros and Cons," 21 February 1981; part2: "The Economy of the Trade," 25 February 1981; part3: "Regulating the Trade," 26 February 1981; part 4: "Should They Be Banned?" 27 February 1981.
21. For social and economic details of the hand-rickshaw trade in Calcutta in 1980, and for an initial set of public policy proposals, see Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta, especially chapters 3 and 6; and the four-part series of articles produced by Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, and published in Business Standard (Calcutta): "Rickshaws in Calcutta." Part 1: "The Pros and Cons," 21 February 1981; part2: "The Economy of the Trade," 25 February 1981; part3: "Regulating the Trade," 26 February 1981; part 4: "Should They Be Banned?" 27 February 1981.
22. For social and economic details of the hand-rickshaw trade in Calcutta in 1980, and for an initial set of public policy proposals, see Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta, especially chapters 3 and 6; and the four-part series of articles produced by Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, and published in Business Standard (Calcutta): "Rickshaws in Calcutta." Part 1: "The Pros and Cons," 21 February 1981; part2: "The Economy of the Trade," 25 February 1981; part3: "Regulating the Trade," 26 February 1981; part 4: "Should They Be Banned?" 27 February 1981.
23. For social and economic details of the hand-rickshaw trade in Calcutta in 1980, and for an initial set of public policy proposals, see Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta, especially chapters 3 and 6; and the four-part series of articles produced by Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, and published in Business Standard (Calcutta): "Rickshaws in Calcutta." Part 1: "The Pros and Cons," 21 February 1981; part2: "The Economy of the Trade," 25 February 1981; part3: "Regulating the Trade," 26 February 1981; part 4: "Should They Be Banned?" 27 February 1981.
24. For social and economic details of the hand-rickshaw trade in Calcutta in 1980, and for an initial set of public policy proposals, see Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta, especially chapters 3 and 6; and the four-part series of articles produced by Unnayan, in association with T. H. Thomas, and published in Business Standard (Calcutta): "Rickshaws in Calcutta." Part 1: "The Pros and Cons," 21 February 1981; part2: "The Economy of the Trade," 25 February 1981; part3: "Regulating the Trade," 26 February 1981; part 4: "Should They Be Banned?" 27 February 1981.
25. For a comprehensive summary of the situation prevailing in a number of cities and towns in the country, see the report by Unnayan, "Cycle-rickshaws in India: Designs and Design Factors," January 1992.
26. Discussed in Part III of this essay.
27. Though not formally ever linked, the "clearing the streets" program followed the announcement of the state's new foreign-investment-oriented Industrial Policy in 1995.
28. To my knowledge, no comprehensive survey of hawkers or hawking in Calcutta has ever been published. For an analysis of hawking in some cities of Southeast Asia, see T. C. McGee and Y. M. Yeung, Hawking in South-East Asian Cities: Planningfor the Bazaar Economy (Ottawa: IDRC, 1978), and for a review and critique of this report in relation to the scene in Calcutta, see Jai Sen, "The Pavement Economy," Business Standard, July 1979. For an overview of hawking in Calcutta, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta," March 1982. Reading prepared for a seminar entitled "Banning the Unlicensed: Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector?" called by Unnayan in Calcutta on 20-21 March 1982. For details of the structure of the trade in the city in the mid-1970s, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta: Patterns of Organisation," June 1976. Published by Unnayan in 1980 as Unnayan Reprint no. 4.
29. To my knowledge, no comprehensive survey of hawkers or hawking in Calcutta has ever been published. For an analysis of hawking in some cities of Southeast Asia, see T. C. McGee and Y. M. Yeung, Hawking in South-East Asian Cities: Planningfor the Bazaar Economy (Ottawa: IDRC, 1978), and for a review and critique of this report in relation to the scene in Calcutta, see Jai Sen, "The Pavement Economy," Business Standard, July 1979. For an overview of hawking in Calcutta, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta," March 1982. Reading prepared for a seminar entitled "Banning the Unlicensed: Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector?" called by Unnayan in Calcutta on 20-21 March 1982. For details of the structure of the trade in the city in the mid-1970s, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta: Patterns of Organisation," June 1976. Published by Unnayan in 1980 as Unnayan Reprint no. 4.
30. To my knowledge, no comprehensive survey of hawkers or hawking in Calcutta has ever been published. For an analysis of hawking in some cities of Southeast Asia, see T. C. McGee and Y. M. Yeung, Hawking in South-East Asian Cities: Planningfor the Bazaar Economy (Ottawa: IDRC, 1978), and for a review and critique of this report in relation to the scene in Calcutta, see Jai Sen, "The Pavement Economy," Business Standard, July 1979. For an overview of hawking in Calcutta, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta," March 1982. Reading prepared for a seminar entitled "Banning the Unlicensed: Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector?" called by Unnayan in Calcutta on 20-21 March 1982. For details of the structure of the trade in the city in the mid-1970s, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta: Patterns of Organisation," June 1976. Published by Unnayan in 1980 as Unnayan Reprint no. 4.
31. To my knowledge, no comprehensive survey of hawkers or hawking in Calcutta has ever been published. For an analysis of hawking in some cities of Southeast Asia, see T. C. McGee and Y. M. Yeung, Hawking in South-East Asian Cities: Planningfor the Bazaar Economy (Ottawa: IDRC, 1978), and for a review and critique of this report in relation to the scene in Calcutta, see Jai Sen, "The Pavement Economy," Business Standard, July 1979. For an overview of hawking in Calcutta, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta," March 1982. Reading prepared for a seminar entitled "Banning the Unlicensed: Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector?" called by Unnayan in Calcutta on 20-21 March 1982. For details of the structure of the trade in the city in the mid-1970s, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta: Patterns of Organisation," June 1976. Published by Unnayan in 1980 as Unnayan Reprint no. 4.
32. To my knowledge, no comprehensive survey of hawkers or hawking in Calcutta has ever been published. For an analysis of hawking in some cities of Southeast Asia, see T. C. McGee and Y. M. Yeung, Hawking in South-East Asian Cities: Planningfor the Bazaar Economy (Ottawa: IDRC, 1978), and for a review and critique of this report in relation to the scene in Calcutta, see Jai Sen, "The Pavement Economy," Business Standard, July 1979. For an overview of hawking in Calcutta, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta," March 1982. Reading prepared for a seminar entitled "Banning the Unlicensed: Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector?" called by Unnayan in Calcutta on 20-21 March 1982. For details of the structure of the trade in the city in the mid-1970s, see Jai Sen and Hirak Biswas, "Hawking in Calcutta: Patterns of Organisation," June 1976. Published by Unnayan in 1980 as Unnayan Reprint no. 4.
33. In a spate of public announcements during September 1996, the minister repeatedly stated his determination to rid the city of these vehicles, since - in his perception - they clog the streets of this fair city.
34. The Telegraph, 8 August 1996. Emphasis supplied.
35. Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta. The 200,000 figure was also quoted in an article on this question that appeared in the journal Auto Free Times: "Rickshaws Banned in Calcutta," by John Whitelegg, summer 1997.
36. Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta. The 200,000 figure was also quoted in an article on this question that appeared in the journal Auto Free Times: "Rickshaws Banned in Calcutta," by John Whitelegg, summer 1997.
37. It is important to also realize that the anti-rickshaw drive did not materialize over night. There are clearly people and sections within government who are determined to remove rickshaws, whatever it takes. As far back as October 1995, an article on precisely this subject appeared in The Guardian (London), headlined "End of the Road for Rickshaws: Plans to Modernise Calcutta Will Rob 60,000 Human Engines of Their Jobs." The article quoted Ashim Burman, Commissioner of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (who was said to be "shaking things up since taking over last year as Calcutta's city commissioner"), as saying: "Man-pulled rickshaws have to be dispensed with....They add to congestion, and they are humiliating" (5 October 1995, emphasis supplied). There is probably something more than coincidence in the fact that this policy statement was made in the same year as the enunciation of the state government's new industrial policy - and that a person with these views was made commissioner of the state's showpiece, the metropolis of Calcutta.
38. Ibid.
39. The evidence that is now before us makes clear that even if we allow that the Left Front government may have wanted to do so, it has not in fact been able to avoid this path, and that, significantly, the grand plan has thus evidently been deliberately pieced together over a long time. This particular part of the plan, to rid the city of rickshaws, evidently took at least ten months to prepare and mature, before it was publicly announced by the Secretary and then the Minister for Transport.
40. For a preliminary analysis of announcements made till then, see Jai Sen, "The Left Front and the 'Unintended City' : Is a Civilised Transition Possible?" Economic and Political Weekly, 9-16 November 1996, pp. 2977-2982.
41. What is taking place in Calcutta, is merely superficial change, a cosmetic disguise - as it was in 1981-82. (See Unnayan, "Some Broad Conclusions on Planning for the 'Unorganised' Sector, from the March 1982 Seminar." Unpublished paper, April-May 1982.) Another way of looking at this is that the measures are also likely to be quite short-lived. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of families are suffering, to satisfy the demands of foreign-direct-investment public relations.
42. For a discussion of the process of criminalization, see Jai Sen, "Criminalisation of the Poor" and "Rules with Alternatives," Indian Express (New Delhi), 10-11 August 1984. When the bubble bursts, as it did so dramatically in Indonesia recently, then it is precisely these trades to which the exalted "planners" and rulers turn for relief - as much for themselves as for those made unemployed and brutalized by the economic policies of "modernization." See Associated Press, "Rickshaws Back in Jakarta," in The Statesman (Calcutta), 2 July 1998: "Once a fixture in Jakarta's maze of neighbourhood alleys, the bicycle rickshaw was banned a decade ago as a traffic nuisance. Now, thanks to Indonesia's economic crisis, it's making a comeback. Anxious to lay on jobs in a city swamped with tens of thousands of unemployed, the governor of the sprawling capital has temporarily lifted the ban on the traditional mode of transport. Now, on many street corners, drivers puffing on cigarettes loiter by three-wheeled pedicabs with canopies, painted in bright red, blue or yellow, often with floral designs. They are a throwback to a time when the gritty metropolis, now crammed with growling buses and motorcycles that cough up clouds of smog, was a quieter, less polluted spot."
43. For a discussion of the process of criminalization, see Jai Sen, "Criminalisation of the Poor" and "Rules with Alternatives," Indian Express (New Delhi), 10-11 August 1984. When the bubble bursts, as it did so dramatically in Indonesia recently, then it is precisely these trades to which the exalted "planners" and rulers turn for relief - as much for themselves as for those made unemployed and brutalized by the economic policies of "modernization." See Associated Press, "Rickshaws Back in Jakarta," in The Statesman (Calcutta), 2 July 1998: "Once a fixture in Jakarta's maze of neighbourhood alleys, the bicycle rickshaw was banned a decade ago as a traffic nuisance. Now, thanks to Indonesia's economic crisis, it's making a comeback. Anxious to lay on jobs in a city swamped with tens of thousands of unemployed, the governor of the sprawling capital has temporarily lifted the ban on the traditional mode of transport. Now, on many street corners, drivers puffing on cigarettes loiter by three-wheeled pedicabs with canopies, painted in bright red, blue or yellow, often with floral designs. They are a throwback to a time when the gritty metropolis, now crammed with growling buses and motorcycles that cough up clouds of smog, was a quieter, less polluted spot."
44. That this is a long-standing reality - and not something passing - is substantiated by specific statements to this effect that were made by ministers in the state government about fifteen years ago. This streak of chauvinism and ethnic discrimination is fairly widespread in middle-class (read middle and upper caste) Hindu Bengali society. That this situation is not restricted to Calcutta or Bengal alone makes it no less troubling. (Personal experience of the author, documented in Sen, "The Left Front and the 'Unintended' City.")
45. Debasish Bhattacharya, "The Throttling of a Transportation System: Calcutta Tramways," World Transport Policy and Practice 1, no. 3 (1995): 23-27
46. Whitelegg, "Rickshaws Banned in Calcutta."
47. See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Facts and Issues," and also the formal "Objection" to the introduction of auto-rickshaws in Calcutta that Unnayan placed before the Regional Transport Authority for a hearing on 23 April 1982: Unnayan, "Unnayan's Objection to the Proposed Plan to Introduce Auto-Rickshaws in Calcutta."
48. See Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta: Facts and Issues," and also the formal "Objection" to the introduction of auto-rickshaws in Calcutta that Unnayan placed before the Regional Transport Authority for a hearing on 23 April 1982: Unnayan, "Unnayan's Objection to the Proposed Plan to Introduce Auto-Rickshaws in Calcutta."
49. Bhattacharya, "The Throttling of a Transportation System."
50. The last major wave of measures of this nature was as far back as 1983-84, when an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 people were evicted from their homes, from the marginal land on which they lived (beside canals, rail lines, large roads, under bridges) in various parts of the city - again, in the name of "city beautification"; and before that in 1979. The measures, moreover, are discriminatory, where the bulk of the people being hit are the unintended and laboring poor in a city which has functioned on their backs for decades (indeed, for centuries), and whose current leaders have - till recently - passionately argued that "Calcutta is the one city in the country which provides space for the poor - and not just the poor of Bengal but of the entire surrounding hinterland - Bihar, Orissa, and eastern Uttar Pradesh." The 1983 evictions ceased after a wave of protests in the city, primarily by independent civil organizations, and with the government's assurance (and even a policy statement) that any further eviction would be accompanied by resettlement. Evictions have taken place since then (in 1988 and 1989, for example), but these have tended to be sporadic and also in some (but not all) cases, accompanied by resettlement See Jai Sen, "Anniversaries of Another Kind," published as "Ugly Life, Uglier Evictions" and "Who Cares for Those Who Need Care the Most?" in Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine (Calcutta), 13 and 27 July 1986.
51. For a summary, see Sen, "The Left Front and the 'Unintended City'."
52. British Prime Minister John Major visited Calcutta in January 1997, heading a major British trade delegation. Not only was this the first visit by a Prime Minister to a city whose rulers often complain it is "neglected" - and then, too, by a British Prime Minister - but it was a visit to a city that had been almost cut off the international air map following Naxalite action in the late 1960s. That Major and his delegation arrived in nothing less than a Concorde was almost too good to be true.
53. Jai Sen, "The Unintended City: An Essay on the City of the Poor," paper published by Cathedral Relief Services, Calcutta, April 1975.
54. As I indicated in my 1975 essay (ibid.), I first heard the term "unintended city" used by Professor Glean Chase, a planner (I believe) from Washington, D.C., at a seminar in Oxford in May 1974. He used the term in his context to refer to the large section that he said mainstream society regarded as "deviants" - unemployed youth, out-of-work workers, those on drugs, and especially blacks, or African-Americans: the "others." Intrigued by the idea, I then realized how appropriate the term was in the Indian context and in the "Third World" more generally to those "others" who are the oppressed and poor and to describing the inter-relationship with dominant society.
55. This becomes only more true as workers in the organized sector in Bengal, such as the jute and steel industries, are put out of work and forced to enter the unorganized sector to try to earn something (Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta").
56. Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta.
57. The research that produced these figures was done in 1979-80 by Unnayan. The research revealed some interesting background: 1. The ceiling of 6,000 licenses had been set as far back as 1939 - fully forty years from when the study was done, and fifty-nine years ago now (when the ceiling is still in force!). This figure has not been revised upwards since then, despite the tremendous growth in the city's population and the tremendous increase in demand for services; despite official reports recommending increases; and, no less important, despite the evident reality of a huge number of "unlicensed" vehicles - which were nearly 90 percent of the total on the streets by the early 1980s. 2. This situation was far from being one of benign neglect. The standard and mandatory rule for all "unlicensed" rickshaws and their equally unlicensed pullers was (and remains) regular bribes to both Corporation officials and the police, adding up to a dirty grey economy running into crores (tens of millions) of rupees, each year. 3. Large numbers of these unlicensed vehicles were in fact owned by members of the police force (Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta). In this situation, it is quite likely that many of these "unlicensed" vehicles on the streets were ones that had earlier been seized by the police on the grounds of illegality and were then being "recycled." So it was a neatly tied-up economy, where the pullers were exploited by both the owners of the vehicles and by the administrators of the city. (This is not to suggest that only police officers owned fleets of rickshaws. Unnayan's research showed that the majority of rickshaws - both licensed and unlicensed, but especially the unlicensed - were owned in small and medium fleets [of between 2 and 20 vehicles, with anaverageof 3 to 5] by individual owners, i.e.,by "small owners." There were only a few "large owners" who owned fleets of hundreds of vehicles. Unlike the cycle-rickshaw trade, where this was at least partly the case, a negligible proportion of hand-rickshaw pullers owned the vehicles they pulled, let alone fleets. In short, it was a highly exploitative and feudal trade right up to the early 1980s. A glimpse of this feudal reality is seen in the well-known book and film "City of Joy," which, incidentally, there is much reason to believe took a lot from the Unnayan study without acknowledging the source.)
58. In 1986, an informal follow-up survey done by Unnayan revealed that the rickshaw licensing department in the city estimated earlier that something like 12,000 "unlicensed" vehicles had been seized by the police, out of an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 in the city as a whole. (Arun Deb, member of Unnayan, to the author, 18 May 1998).
59. See the BCAS Website (http://csf.colorado.edu/bcas/) for more information on the Left Front and on the "Bihar-Calcutta connection."
60. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta." The rickshaw owners had evident interest in opposing the drive. At that time, the rickshaw trade brought in a lucrative average return for the owners of between 100 and 150 percent per annum, depending on the fleet size ( Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta), which constituted a not-inconsiderable income for the majority of owners who were small businessmen and a substantial income for those who owned large fleets. The owners had in fact had a running struggle with the police since the 1950s over the question of harassment and periodic seizures, since the police constantly preyed on the obvious vulnerability of the pullers of unlicensed vehicles and thereby spoiled the owners' free run. This was also largely the reason why the owners established the ABRU in the first place, to collectively defend their interests. In March and September 1979, for instance, the owners called total strikes by rickshaw-pullers in the city, in protest against "excessive" harassment by the police. ( Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine, 11 March 1979, and Ananda Bazar Patrika, 11 September 1979). The conflict intensified from April 1980 onwards, when the first formal steps were taken by the state government to remove "unlicensed rickshaws" from the city (in the form of the passage of an amendment to a standing law), but - possibly as a result of further resistance - no concrete enforcement actions were taken until March 1982. For a summary of news in this area during the period from 1979 until March 1982, see Unnayan, "The Public Experience of Planning for Rickshaws and Transport: A Selection of Newsclippings, 1979-82." March 1982. 12 pp. Publication no. BTU R1/6.
61. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta." The rickshaw owners had evident interest in opposing the drive. At that time, the rickshaw trade brought in a lucrative average return for the owners of between 100 and 150 percent per annum, depending on the fleet size ( Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta), which constituted a not-inconsiderable income for the majority of owners who were small businessmen and a substantial income for those who owned large fleets. The owners had in fact had a running struggle with the police since the 1950s over the question of harassment and periodic seizures, since the police constantly preyed on the obvious vulnerability of the pullers of unlicensed vehicles and thereby spoiled the owners' free run. This was also largely the reason why the owners established the ABRU in the first place, to collectively defend their interests. In March and September 1979, for instance, the owners called total strikes by rickshaw-pullers in the city, in protest against "excessive" harassment by the police. ( Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine, 11 March 1979, and Ananda Bazar Patrika, 11 September 1979). The conflict intensified from April 1980 onwards, when the first formal steps were taken by the state government to remove "unlicensed rickshaws" from the city (in the form of the passage of an amendment to a standing law), but - possibly as a result of further resistance - no concrete enforcement actions were taken until March 1982. For a summary of news in this area during the period from 1979 until March 1982, see Unnayan, "The Public Experience of Planning for Rickshaws and Transport: A Selection of Newsclippings, 1979-82." March 1982. 12 pp. Publication no. BTU R1/6.
62. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta." The rickshaw owners had evident interest in opposing the drive. At that time, the rickshaw trade brought in a lucrative average return for the owners of between 100 and 150 percent per annum, depending on the fleet size ( Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta), which constituted a not-inconsiderable income for the majority of owners who were small businessmen and a substantial income for those who owned large fleets. The owners had in fact had a running struggle with the police since the 1950s over the question of harassment and periodic seizures, since the police constantly preyed on the obvious vulnerability of the pullers of unlicensed vehicles and thereby spoiled the owners' free run. This was also largely the reason why the owners established the ABRU in the first place, to collectively defend their interests. In March and September 1979, for instance, the owners called total strikes by rickshaw-pullers in the city, in protest against "excessive" harassment by the police. ( Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine, 11 March 1979, and Ananda Bazar Patrika, 11 September 1979). The conflict intensified from April 1980 onwards, when the first formal steps were taken by the state government to remove "unlicensed rickshaws" from the city (in the form of the passage of an amendment to a standing law), but - possibly as a result of further resistance - no concrete enforcement actions were taken until March 1982. For a summary of news in this area during the period from 1979 until March 1982, see Unnayan, "The Public Experience of Planning for Rickshaws and Transport: A Selection of Newsclippings, 1979-82." March 1982. 12 pp. Publication no. BTU R1/6.
63. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta." The rickshaw owners had evident interest in opposing the drive. At that time, the rickshaw trade brought in a lucrative average return for the owners of between 100 and 150 percent per annum, depending on the fleet size ( Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta), which constituted a not-inconsiderable income for the majority of owners who were small businessmen and a substantial income for those who owned large fleets. The owners had in fact had a running struggle with the police since the 1950s over the question of harassment and periodic seizures, since the police constantly preyed on the obvious vulnerability of the pullers of unlicensed vehicles and thereby spoiled the owners' free run. This was also largely the reason why the owners established the ABRU in the first place, to collectively defend their interests. In March and September 1979, for instance, the owners called total strikes by rickshaw-pullers in the city, in protest against "excessive" harassment by the police. ( Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine, 11 March 1979, and Ananda Bazar Patrika, 11 September 1979). The conflict intensified from April 1980 onwards, when the first formal steps were taken by the state government to remove "unlicensed rickshaws" from the city (in the form of the passage of an amendment to a standing law), but - possibly as a result of further resistance - no concrete enforcement actions were taken until March 1982. For a summary of news in this area during the period from 1979 until March 1982, see Unnayan, "The Public Experience of Planning for Rickshaws and Transport: A Selection of Newsclippings, 1979-82." March 1982. 12 pp. Publication no. BTU R1/6.
64. Unnayan, "Hand-rickshaws in Calcutta." The rickshaw owners had evident interest in opposing the drive. At that time, the rickshaw trade brought in a lucrative average return for the owners of between 100 and 150 percent per annum, depending on the fleet size ( Unnayan, with Thomas, Rickshaws in Calcutta), which constituted a not-inconsiderable income for the majority of owners who were small businessmen and a substantial income for those who owned large fleets. The owners had in fact had a running struggle with the police since the 1950s over the question of harassment and periodic seizures, since the police constantly preyed on the obvious vulnerability of the pullers of unlicensed vehicles and thereby spoiled the owners' free run. This was also largely the reason why the owners established the ABRU in the first place, to collectively defend their interests. In March and September 1979, for instance, the owners called total strikes by rickshaw-pullers in the city, in protest against "excessive" harassment by the police. ( Amrita Bazar Patrika Sunday Magazine, 11 March 1979, and Ananda Bazar Patrika, 11 September 1979). The conflict intensified from April 1980 onwards, when the first formal steps were taken by the state government to remove "unlicensed rickshaws" from the city (in the form of the passage of an amendment to a standing law), but - possibly as a result of further resistance - no concrete enforcement actions were taken until March 1982. For a summary of news in this area during the period from 1979 until March 1982, see Unnayan, "The Public Experience of Planning for Rickshaws and Transport: A Selection of Newsclippings, 1979-82." March 1982. 12 pp. Publication no. BTU R1/6.
65. Unnayan failed to win support from either of the state's two main civil liberty organizations, one of which decided that the matter was "a trade union matter, not a question of human rights" - a sign of those times. But this soon changed, and Unnayan and the two organizations started acting jointly, including the sending of a joint letter to the Chief Minister in September 1982.
66. A substantial proportion of the city's pullers are from Muzaffarpur in Bihar, which was then George Fernandes's parliamentary constituency.
67. Unfortunately, despite the good start it made, Unnayan never managed to get its city-rickshaw introduced to the larger world of rickshaw-assembly and production in the city, which perhaps would have given it a better chance of official acceptance. Entrepreneurial ability was never Unnayan's strong suit. After successfully rejecting the strong overtures and offers from a multinational company, we did not have what it took to simultaneously sustain a campaign and do "practical" work of this kind. At this time (1984-85), the organization was also seriously engaged in struggle against a much wider process of assault on the unintended city that had opened up, not only in Calcutta but in urban areas all over the country. This struggle led to Unnayan's contributing to the building of a mass organization in the city - the Chhinnamul Sramajibi Adhikar Samiti (Organisation for the Rights of the Uprooted Labouring Poor) - and to its supporting the growth of resistance in other cities and helping to build an all-India platform, the National Campaign for Housing Rights (NCHR). (For an overview, see Jai Sen, "Criminalisation of the Poor" and "Rules with Alternatives," Indian Express [New Delhi], 10-11 August 1984; "Towards a Housing Rights Movement?" Background paper for a seminar of that title, organized by the Committee for the Right to Housing, Bombay, July 1988; and "Foundations of Our Lives," New Internationalist, February 1996, pp. 20-22.) This sapped any plans it had for marketing and popularizing the idea of the city-rickshaw, and the vehicle remained at the level of a somewhat refined prototype.
68. Unfortunately, despite the good start it made, Unnayan never managed to get its city-rickshaw introduced to the larger world of rickshaw-assembly and production in the city, which perhaps would have given it a better chance of official acceptance. Entrepreneurial ability was never Unnayan's strong suit. After successfully rejecting the strong overtures and offers from a multinational company, we did not have what it took to simultaneously sustain a campaign and do "practical" work of this kind. At this time (1984-85), the organization was also seriously engaged in struggle against a much wider process of assault on the unintended city that had opened up, not only in Calcutta but in urban areas all over the country. This struggle led to Unnayan's contributing to the building of a mass organization in the city - the Chhinnamul Sramajibi Adhikar Samiti (Organisation for the Rights of the Uprooted Labouring Poor) - and to its supporting the growth of resistance in other cities and helping to build an all-India platform, the National Campaign for Housing Rights (NCHR). (For an overview, see Jai Sen, "Criminalisation of the Poor" and "Rules with Alternatives," Indian Express [New Delhi], 10-11 August 1984; "Towards a Housing Rights Movement?" Background paper for a seminar of that title, organized by the Committee for the Right to Housing, Bombay, July 1988; and "Foundations of Our Lives," New Internationalist, February 1996, pp. 20-22.) This sapped any plans it had for marketing and popularizing the idea of the city-rickshaw, and the vehicle remained at the level of a somewhat refined prototype.
69. Unfortunately, despite the good start it made, Unnayan never managed to get its city-rickshaw introduced to the larger world of rickshaw-assembly and production in the city, which perhaps would have given it a better chance of official acceptance. Entrepreneurial ability was never Unnayan's strong suit. After successfully rejecting the strong overtures and offers from a multinational company, we did not have what it took to simultaneously sustain a campaign and do "practical" work of this kind. At this time (1984-85), the organization was also seriously engaged in struggle against a much wider process of assault on the unintended city that had opened up, not only in Calcutta but in urban areas all over the country. This struggle led to Unnayan's contributing to the building of a mass organization in the city - the Chhinnamul Sramajibi Adhikar Samiti (Organisation for the Rights of the Uprooted Labouring Poor) - and to its supporting the growth of resistance in other cities and helping to build an all-India platform, the National Campaign for Housing Rights (NCHR). (For an overview, see Jai Sen, "Criminalisation of the Poor" and "Rules with Alternatives," Indian Express [New Delhi], 10-11 August 1984; "Towards a Housing Rights Movement?" Background paper for a seminar of that title, organized by the Committee for the Right to Housing, Bombay, July 1988; and "Foundations of Our Lives," New Internationalist, February 1996, pp. 20-22.) This sapped any plans it had for marketing and popularizing the idea of the city-rickshaw, and the vehicle remained at the level of a somewhat refined prototype.
70. "Auto-rickshaws" - largely particular to South Asian towns and cities - are three-wheeled pods motored by small, scooter-sized engines, and operate as a kind of lower-middle-income person's taxi. These often fast-moving and noisy small capsules - painted black-and-yellow like regular taxis in India - tend to work together on the streets, weaving their way through traffic, and the residual impression is that they seem to buzz around the streets like a swarm of bees gone berserk. Till fairly recent technical improvements, they were also among the highest contributors in cities to noise and air pollution and to accidents; even very recently, all older two-stroke "autos" - as they are commonly referred to - were banned from Delhi, on account of their contribution to pollution. For an early study of their effects and hazards in Indian cities, see NIOH (National Institute of Occupational Health), March 1982; and for arguments on what their likely effects would be in Calcutta, see
71. The dangerous history of auto-rickshaw service in the city over the subsequent years has shown how ironic, weak, and misleading the Chief Minister's claim was (regarding the likely impact of the banning of hand-rickshaws) and how much he had been misled by his own people. In Calcutta, auto-rickshaws carrying "kiddies to school" is completely out of the question; quite the opposite, and unlike any other city or town in the country, auto-rickshaw drivers usually refuse to carry passengers on an individual basis, to their point of destination, and instead generally operate on a point-to-point basis, carrying five, six, or even seven passengers in a cab designed to carry three. It is also impossible to avoid the fact that those who were subsidized in 1982-84 were Bengali, and those who were rendered unemployed were largely non-Bengali. This communal reality was only reflected in the response of the state Minister of Transport at that time, when Unnayan approached him in 1982 about the problems being created by the drive: "But the rickshaw-pullers are only Biharis! And after all, the government is only seizing rickshaws in order to protect law and order...." (Meeting between Minister Rabin Mukhyopadhyay and the author and other Unnayan co-workers, at Writers Buildings, Calcutta, March 1982.)
72. During August and September 1996, an unusual but important public debate that took place in the city - within the state government, within the ruling Left Front, and in the media - about the future of hand-rickshaws and of hand-rickshaw pullers in Calcutta. In many ways, this was interesting, instructive, and good to see. As is evident from the above, however, this was not a new debate. Nevertheless, it was good to see that this time people in leading positions seemed willing to examine the problem seriously. For a summary of the debate, see Jai Sen, "The Left Front and the 'Unintended City'."
73. In the 1970s, I myself had also seen and placed all "hawkers" within what I had termed the "unintended city," and as mentioned above, I had separately studied and written about planning for hawkers and hawking from this viewpoint. See note 14 above. Although this article does not attempt to analyze or address this very different question, it is important to note that there is a world of difference between rickshaw-pullers and hawkers, that the two organizing drives should be viewed separately, and that they are not two parts of the same thing - as related as they might at first seem. The drive for the removal of hawkers that we have seen in Calcutta - or more accurately, of what Minister Chakraborty distinguished as "encroachers" (saying that "hawkers" are those who move around hawking their wares, and where those commonly called "hawkers" are usually in fact simple encroachers on public land such as footpaths) (The Statesman, 18 August 1996) - was announced at almost the same time as the drive against rickshaws. After much hesitation, the CPM's own trade union front, CITU, and some other unions affiliated to the Forward Bloc and other left parties came out in defense of the rights of "poor hawkers" to hawk, but not what it called "businessmen" ( The Telegraph, 2 October 1996). This is an important point, and constituted the one important contribution made by the unions to the situation; it is important and necessary to recognize that established hawkers, though also part of what liberal planners and academics like to call the "informal sector," constitute a different class and section from rickshaw pullers. Although in simple physical planning terms, their occupation of public space may seem to be equally related to road and traffic congestion, in economic, political, and ideological terms this is a very different question. The distinction also reveals the difference in the way the government is looking at the two groups. It is no accident that elaborate plans such as the commercial development of "Vivekananda Park" in south Calcutta ( The Telegraph, 27-28 September 1996), ostensibly in the name of "rehabilitating hawkers who will be removed," materialized within a month of the announcement of the drive, and a committee was set up immediately by the government to identify more such land. On the other hand, plans for the rehabilitation of rickshaw-pullers have remained at the level of conjecture and "meetings." It was only too. typical of officialdom to club the two questions together - under the bureaucratic rubric of "law and order," "traffic congestion," etc. Despite his otherwise quite useful public distinction in relation to hawking, the fact that Minister Chakraborty himself also seemed quite happy to lump pavement encroachers and rickshaw-pullers together suggests that in terms of political realities he saw no difference - and that the distinction he drew was only for popular consumption.
74. In the 1970s, I myself had also seen and placed all "hawkers" within what I had termed the "unintended city," and as mentioned above, I had separately studied and written about planning for hawkers and hawking from this viewpoint. See note 14 above. Although this article does not attempt to analyze or address this very different question, it is important to note that there is a world of difference between rickshaw-pullers and hawkers, that the two organizing drives should be viewed separately, and that they are not two parts of the same thing - as related as they might at first seem. The drive for the removal of hawkers that we have seen in Calcutta - or more accurately, of what Minister Chakraborty distinguished as "encroachers" (saying that "hawkers" are those who move around hawking their wares, and where those commonly called "hawkers" are usually in fact simple encroachers on public land such as footpaths) (The Statesman, 18 August 1996) - was announced at almost the same time as the drive against rickshaws. After much hesitation, the CPM's own trade union front, CITU, and some other unions affiliated to the Forward Bloc and other left parties came out in defense of the rights of "poor hawkers" to hawk, but not what it called "businessmen" ( The Telegraph, 2 October 1996). This is an important point, and constituted the one important contribution made by the unions to the situation; it is important and necessary to recognize that established hawkers, though also part of what liberal planners and academics like to call the "informal sector," constitute a different class and section from rickshaw pullers. Although in simple physical planning terms, their occupation of public space may seem to be equally related to road and traffic congestion, in economic, political, and ideological terms this is a very different question. The distinction also reveals the difference in the way the government is looking at the two groups. It is no accident that elaborate plans such as the commercial development of "Vivekananda Park" in south Calcutta ( The Telegraph, 27-28 September 1996), ostensibly in the name of "rehabilitating hawkers who will be removed," materialized within a month of the announcement of the drive, and a committee was set up immediately by the government to identify more such land. On the other hand, plans for the rehabilitation of rickshaw-pullers have remained at the level of conjecture and "meetings." It was only too. typical of officialdom to club the two questions together - under the bureaucratic rubric of "law and order," "traffic congestion," etc. Despite his otherwise quite useful public distinction in relation to hawking, the fact that Minister Chakraborty himself also seemed quite happy to lump pavement encroachers and rickshaw-pullers together suggests that in terms of political realities he saw no difference - and that the distinction he drew was only for popular consumption.
75. In the 1970s, I myself had also seen and placed all "hawkers" within what I had termed the "unintended city," and as mentioned above, I had separately studied and written about planning for hawkers and hawking from this viewpoint. See note 14 above. Although this article does not attempt to analyze or address this very different question, it is important to note that there is a world of difference between rickshaw-pullers and hawkers, that the two organizing drives should be viewed separately, and that they are not two parts of the same thing - as related as they might at first seem. The drive for the removal of hawkers that we have seen in Calcutta - or more accurately, of what Minister Chakraborty distinguished as "encroachers" (saying that "hawkers" are those who move around hawking their wares, and where those commonly called "hawkers" are usually in fact simple encroachers on public land such as footpaths) (The Statesman, 18 August 1996) - was announced at almost the same time as the drive against rickshaws. After much hesitation, the CPM's own trade union front, CITU, and some other unions affiliated to the Forward Bloc and other left parties came out in defense of the rights of "poor hawkers" to hawk, but not what it called "businessmen" ( The Telegraph, 2 October 1996). This is an important point, and constituted the one important contribution made by the unions to the situation; it is important and necessary to recognize that established hawkers, though also part of what liberal planners and academics like to call the "informal sector," constitute a different class and section from rickshaw pullers. Although in simple physical planning terms, their occupation of public space may seem to be equally related to road and traffic congestion, in economic, political, and ideological terms this is a very different question. The distinction also reveals the difference in the way the government is looking at the two groups. It is no accident that elaborate plans such as the commercial development of "Vivekananda Park" in south Calcutta ( The Telegraph, 27-28 September 1996), ostensibly in the name of "rehabilitating hawkers who will be removed," materialized within a month of the announcement of the drive, and a committee was set up immediately by the government to identify more such land. On the other hand, plans for the rehabilitation of rickshaw-pullers have remained at the level of conjecture and "meetings." It was only too. typical of officialdom to club the two questions together - under the bureaucratic rubric of "law and order," "traffic congestion," etc. Despite his otherwise quite useful public distinction in relation to hawking, the fact that Minister Chakraborty himself also seemed quite happy to lump pavement encroachers and rickshaw-pullers together suggests that in terms of political realities he saw no difference - and that the distinction he drew was only for popular consumption.
76. Bhattacharya's dissenting voice died down soon after being raised in 1996, but it rose again - if only mildly - in late 1997, this time in support of hawkers being allowed to return to the footpaths for at least the prime commercial period of the Pujas (Hindu festivals), as a humanistic concession. Since there were no other apparent changes in the situation, the only conclusion would seem to be that the shifts in Minister Bhattacharya's position came about because the government has wanted to present a unified face to the public, at any cost. What this article has tried to show is that it is of considerable importance - for a civilized society, and for the left - that dissenting voices be raised and that they be supported loudly and clearly by civil society and by all democratically minded political parties. The leaders of the Congress-I in West Bengal could also in fact do well to recall that one of the first points in their 1994 Election Manifesto was: "In the first 100 days...replace hand-pulled rickshaws by driver-owned cycle-rickshaws" (The Pioneer [New Delhi], 27 March 1994). How and why this point was included in the party's manifesto is not known, but since Calcutta is today the only city in the country to still have hand-rickshaws, almost certainly it must have originated from here. Those 1OO days are now well past. But the political reality in West Bengal today is that after a split in the Congress at the state level in 1997, there is at least a semblance of political opposition to the Left Front in the state. Can this voice not also speak up?
77. The Telegraph, 24 September 1996.
78. Ibid.
79. There is indeed a conflict between slow and fast-moving vehicles, but the solution is not necessarily to remove the slow-moving vehicles. In some areas, and on some roads, faster-moving vehicles should be restricted. Zone and route separation (of fast- and slow-moving vehicles) are possible and should be tried on an experimental basis in different areas until the right balance is achieved. If it can work in other cities in the world, there is no reason why it should not work in Calcutta. Political vision and political will are all that are needed.
80. Jan Nederveen Pieterse, "Multiculturalism and Museums: Discourse about Others in the Age of Globalization," Theory, Culture and Society 14, no. 4 (1997): 123-46.