Thought
For Food
By Atreyee Majumder
17 February, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The urban economy of a country
such as India runs only partially from inside banks, government offices,
or corporations. A large part of this economy creates opportunities
out of nowhere in a desperate attempt at survival. This very visible
street economy routinely faces harassment from rent-seekers, police,
muscle-powered businessmen. And it seems our governing authorities and
our judges are also unhappy with the thriving economy on our streets,
which survives simply on desperation.
These fringe-economies cannot
but be a roadblock on the road to the creation of planned, efficient,
Singapore-like cities. Quite simply because they block roads and pavements
and clutter cannot be the picture of modern efficiency. The other perspective
of clutter is that of activity, productivity- the sensation of multiple,
simultaneous, cris-crossed existences.
The big city in India is
increasingly being of as a systematized apparatus of production, or
a hotchpotch of noises, colours and smells, of conflicting narratives
clashing, colliding, coexisting. The narrative of street vendors is
one among the innumerable conflicting urban narratives. Mostly migrants
from rural areas, moving to the city in the hope of a better attempt
at a livelihood, theirs is a narrative that is lively, productive, and
adds another dash to the pandemonium of the cityscape. Because the 'big
city' is the Promised Land, with no point of saturation; an enormous
opening that yields opportunities for everyone.
The sealing and planning
drives initiated by urban planning agencies like NDMC, MCD, along with
the intervention of the judiciary, are surely derivatives of the imagination
of the city as a planned ordered entity geared towards efficiency. Whereas
the streets of Delhi turn richer with the excitement of golgappas and
chhola-kulchas and moongphalis and fake Gap T-shirts and bangles and
earrings for one and all. Some on carts, some squatting on the pavement,
some in makeshifts sheds. They may be an impediment to the middle-class
pedestrian, but they occupy the public space because the middle-class
public forms their clientele as active participants in this fringe economy.
The food that they sell cannot
possibly be healthy and hygienic, because they produce and sell with
minimal resources. If one has to ensure safety standards, one can't
possibly operate entirely on the street. The reason they can operate
viably is simply that there are takers for such products. If not for
the street-carts selling chhole-bature for as little as five rupees,
large numbers working as casual labourers, construction workers, class
four staff in offices, etc. would go without food. The product is unsafe
by middle-class standards, but is indispensable to some sections, whose
voices are unlikely to reach the policy or judicial circles. The Food
Safety Act, 2006 banning street food robs Delhi streets not just of
their quirky subcultures, and school-kids of the thrills of the forbidden,
but large numbers of cheap access to food and other utilities, which
they are ready to eat despite safety risks, because it is the only food
that they can afford. It's like the governing agencies and courts are
telling them "…if you have to eat, you must eat safely cooked
food, or else don't eat". This legislation is completely oblivious
to the implication on the lower economic rungs, as it equates McDonalds
and the thhela-burger-wala, both of which are within the reach of some
circles, whereas the latter also caters to sections whose access to
food to very limited.
It is strange that the concern
has simultaneously arisen in the courts as well as in the governing
circles (with the license-spewing Food Safety and Standards Act having
recently been passed by the Parliament), whereas the concerns of widespread
malnutrition amongst the urban poor never gets as much attention in
the policy-making/implementing or adjudicating circles. The recent Food
Safety and Standards Act envisages an elaborate procedures for procuring
licenses, clean potable water, having samples tested- by all who fit
the category of 'food manufacturer', be it a multinational company,
a restaurant chain, or the guy that roasts moongphali on the pavement
in winters. Not to mention the resource-strength and musclepower required
to wriggle one's way out of any bureaucratic process successfully, it
also ignores that world of difference between the unorganized sector
food-seller and a powerful corporation. That for the moongphali fellow,
taking a day off and traveling to the government office to procure a
form to apply for license is the cost of a day's bread, that when the
government office decides they do not want to accept the form a minute
beyond office hours, requiring him to come back the next day costs him
another day's bread, and that if a concerned officer is on leave, his
license will have to wait for a month, will cost him and his family
a month's existence- is not within the parameters of Concern for 'Food
Safety'. It translates into a concern for 'food' for the moongphali
fellow and his folks only and hence, doesn't concern our food-safety
lawmakers.
The lower economic rungs
that do not avail of any benefits of modernization, from the government,
the mainstream economy or the middle-class, educated, unmarginalised
society. Ours is not a democracy that provides social security, childcare
or such welfare benefits. Those that are left out of the run for the
'modern' and the 'efficient' have only the street as their playing field,
and the governing authorities are out to strip them of their only claim-
the street.
The emphatic concern for
'public health' looks almost laughable in the face of glaring disparities
in the definitions of an existence, that are abuzz in the city. Where
'health' itself is a luxury for large numbers, the middle-classy perception
of 'public health' seems like an oppressive imposition of the concerns
of higher classes, forcibly on poorer sections, who simply cannot afford
concerns of 'safety' and 'health'. In the hallowed terms 'public interest'
and 'public health', it seems that 'public' means essentially the middle
or upper classes.
-Atreyee, lawyer and researcher
based in Delhi. He can be reached at [email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights