Search the Internet           Tips

I encroach, but I still am

The other evening, the man who owns the corner convenience shop, a Keralite called Altaf, showed me various papers he had with him. Back in 1977, the municipality granted Altaf permission to set up and operate his little stall. They did not grant him the size of establishment he had requested, "as the footpath is not wide enough to accommodate the size". But for slightly smaller dimensions, it's down in fading black and white in a letter from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay to Altaf: "you are hereby permit [sic] to put up a stall".

So Altaf has been there on our corner for nearly a quarter-century. There for us in several surrounding buildings whenever we have needed some milk or bread or biscuits or a stick of Dubble-Bubble gum.

Until one morning a couple of months ago, when all Bombay's hero, Mr G R Khairnar, turned up with his municipal demolition squad. Apparently Altaf had added a few square feet to his shop in the intervening years, and this the municipality could not abide. He had been warned twice earlier. In a letter he wrote last May, he informed the municipality that the "infringements mentioned... have been rectified by me". Khairnar and gang ignored Altaf's 1977 permission, his May letter pointing out his rectification, and his pleas. They tore down the shop.

The deed prompted yet another letter, from Altaf to Khairnar himself. He states that this action will put him to "great loss" (about Rs 200,000, Altaf told me). For much of his stock was perishable and since the municipality confiscated his small freezer on demolition day, the perishables... well, they perished.

"I immediately met you [when the squad arrived] and showed you all the papers," wrote Altaf in that letter. "You were pleased to tell me to make this application with all the documents and that you would order for reconstruction.... Kindly therefore grant permission for reconstruction... at the earliest as [the stall] is the only source of income for my family who are solely dependent on it."

Since that day, Altaf has continued to operate, though now from a much smaller, temporary shelter and with a much reduced choice of items on sale. He is waiting for a decision from the municipality on this reconstruction: Khairnar has instructed the local ward officer to "please examine and decide on merits".

Numerous questions cross my mind as I listen to Altaf and read his correspondence. One, if Altaf had been making those "infringements", what was the municipality doing for 23 years? Two, if he "rectified" them after being warned, why was his shop demolished? Three, once his shop was demolished, why did Khairnar tell Altaf that if he (Altaf) made a mere "application", he [Khairnar] would issue an "order for reconstruction"? Four, if Altaf is carrying on his [admittedly diminished] business anyway and has also been promised permission to reconstruct his shop, why was it demolished in the first place?

Five, if for 23 years the municipality is unwilling to quickly penalise and stop infringements; if it suddenly decides to smash this shop; if it then promises that the owner can reconstruct it -- at his expense, of course; if it takes its own time deciding when this reconstruction can start, meanwhile winking at his continued business; if all this is true, what happened on my corner was but harassment, plain and simple?

Really, why was the shop demolished at all? Why has Altaf been made to suffer a huge loss?

But of course, few of us stop to ask these questions. For demolitions by the municipality and other government agencies are very frequent and popular events in Bombay these days. To much grateful applause, there are demolitions of huts in Bombay's Borivli National Park, along railway tracks and roadsides in Chembur and Santacruz and Mahim; there are drives to remove hawkers from pavements between Churchgate and Fountain; there are regular operations like the one that turned Altaf's little corner shop into matchsticks.

It is efforts like these that have turned Khairnar into a great hero for the Bombay middle-class. For there is this impression out there that yes, somebody is acting against the lawbreakers. Somebody is making the city safe and livable and walkable -- and maybe even prettier -- for us citizens. (I'll be the first to admit: it is a pleasure to walk that stretch between Churchgate and Fountain these days, without having to dodge the hawkers.)

The press and the courts only reinforce that impression. Take just the language they use, the attitudes they project. On October 31, The Times of India told me that the Central Railway demolished 200 huts near Wadala. But naturally, CR was really just "clearing encroachers". The Central Railway spokesman said, "We are not required to give the encroachers any prior notice for demolishing their huts." Besides, the Bombay high court has told Central Railway that this clearing "could not be linked to" rehabilitation of the people losing homes.

On October 13, I learned from the Times that in Chembur, "illegal hutments" of "squatters" were demolished to "fence off" and "beautify" the place. This was at the initiative of middle-class residents of the area, who described themselves as "respectable citizens" who were "motivated to take active interest in civic affairs".

The same issue of the Times tells me that the Bombay high court directed that the authorities should immediately "clear" 3900 huts in Santa Cruz. The judges were upset that the government, in trying to rehabilitate residents on nearby reserved plots, was "rewarding encroachers at the cost of law-abiding citizens".

Interesting choice of words and phrases there, wouldn't you say? The huts are "illegal". Those who live in them are "squatters" and "encroachers" (sounds a lot like "cockroaches", right?), never just people. The huts must be "cleared" to "beautify" the city. If that's the aim, there's no need to tell mere "encroachers" that they will lose their homes. And for whom is this beautification happening? For "respectable" and "law-abiding citizens". Yes, always "citizens" -- as if the "squatters" are somehow not. And these "citizens", by insisting on demolitions, are just taking an "active interest in civic affairs".

Finally, there's the legitimisation of the unwritten policy we have followed for decades in India anyway. Whether with slum demolitions or with building dams, it's the same: rehabilitating Indians who lose their homes to these imperatives is no kind of priority. In fact, it need not even be "linked" to their loss.

Yet, give these questions some thought: What would you think if your home was torn down one October morning? What would you think if you were not given any warning? What would you think if you were told it was pulled down to pretty up your neighborhood?

And some other random thoughts: If "citizens" did indeed take an "active interest in civic affairs", we might have had cleaner streets, better schools, less dingy municipal hospitals and generally better governance than we do today. Men like Altaf and the hawkers near Churchgate, whatever the infringements and inconveniences they cause, exist because we "citizens" buy their stuff. Nearly every single building we "respectable" sorts occupy has been built by flouting numerous regulations. I don't recall the municipality tearing down even one such building with the dispatch Altaf saw used on his shop. Nearly every flat in such buildings has been bought with unaccounted income. Going by that, and by the number of Indians who pay their income taxes, it's an excellent bet that most of us "law-abiding" citizens are not quite so law-abiding after all.

Which is just why we like Khairnar so much. Because while he goes after "encroachers" in their huts, "citizens" can pretend that they are abiding by the law. Never mind that other citizens are tormented on the nearest street corner.

Dilip D'Souza