Hawkers' eviction in West Bengal: Politics, public space and the challenge of urban governance

By Harasankar Adhikari 

In a letter to Dr. Patrick Geddes dated January 19, 1905, Sister Nivedita wrote about six interconnected ideas—"place, work, family, ideals, thought and action"—as the foundation for nation-building. She argued that Indians were united by a shared civilizational identity and that national reconstruction required collective effort rather than political divisions.

More than a century later, India's democratic system has evolved into a competitive multi-party framework in which political parties often mobilize support around competing ideological and electoral interests. While this has strengthened democratic participation, critics argue that electoral competition has sometimes encouraged political polarization and identity-based mobilization. Supporters, however, view it as an inevitable feature of representative democracy.

West Bengal has experienced prolonged periods of rule by different political formations, most notably the Left Front and later the Trinamool Congress (TMC). Each government has pursued distinct political and economic priorities and has faced criticism from its opponents. Debates over industrial policy, labour rights, welfare measures and relations with the Union government have remained central to the state's political discourse.

The Left Front's long tenure is viewed differently by different observers. Supporters credit it with implementing land reforms, strengthening local governance and expanding workers' rights. Critics argue that its industrial and labour policies discouraged investment, contributed to the closure or relocation of industries and limited employment opportunities in the organised sector. The extent to which trade union activity alone contributed to industrial decline continues to be debated by economists and historians.

One consequence of industrial stagnation and limited formal employment was the growth of the informal economy, including street vending and hawking. Over the years, large numbers of people came to depend on informal trading in markets, railway premises, footpaths and other public spaces for their livelihoods. While these activities have provided employment to many families, they have also generated concerns regarding pedestrian movement, public safety, sanitation and compliance with municipal and railway regulations.

The legal framework governing public spaces has existed for decades. Laws such as the Railway Act, 1989, and municipal regulations restrict unauthorised occupation of railway land, footpaths and other public property. Successive governments, however, have often faced criticism for inconsistent enforcement of these laws. Political parties across the spectrum have been accused by their opponents of tolerating unauthorised occupations because of their electoral significance.

The current eviction drives against unauthorised hawkers and vendors have once again brought these competing concerns into focus. The government maintains that reclaiming public land is necessary for improving urban infrastructure, ensuring pedestrian safety and enforcing the law. Opposition parties, including the Left, argue that large-scale evictions should not take place without adequate rehabilitation, alternative livelihood arrangements and due process. Civil society groups have similarly emphasised the need to balance urban planning with the protection of vulnerable livelihoods.

The situation around Jadavpur has become one example in this wider debate. The area has witnessed decades of informal commercial activity around railway premises and public spaces. According to local accounts, many vendors belong to families that entered informal occupations after the decline of nearby industries. Whether the responsibility for this transition lies primarily with industrial policies, broader economic changes or other factors remains a matter of public debate. Questions have also been raised about the uneven enforcement of regulations, including against larger commercial operators occupying public land.

The broader challenge is not merely one of eviction or protest, but of creating sustainable employment while ensuring orderly urban development. Governments have a responsibility to enforce the law fairly, while also providing rehabilitation and alternative livelihood opportunities where appropriate. Opposition parties have a legitimate role in scrutinising government actions, but public confidence depends on whether their positions are perceived as consistent and guided by broader public interest rather than electoral considerations.

West Bengal's long-term development will require a balance between economic growth, employment generation, lawful use of public spaces and social justice. Achieving these objectives will demand cooperation among governments, political parties, civil society and citizens rather than confrontation alone. The state's future depends not only on resolving disputes over hawkers and public land but also on creating conditions that reduce dependence on informal employment and expand opportunities in the formal economy.