Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to
Informally urban
WE like to think of cities in the image of our aspirations: neat, clean and organised. The reality, however, is that our cities are far from top-down constructs planned to perfection. They have grown organically, and in this time, most formal planning has served middle- and upper-class interests. Our state faces capacity constraints, moneyed interests are strong, and we have steadily reduced public roles in welfare and service provision — all in line with neoliberal principles of governance.
This politico-economic context necessarily leads to a cycle of accumulation through dispossession, evidence of which is readily available from around the world. As the poor are priced out of housing markets, they resort to informal settlements and squatters. As they are forced out of commercial spaces, they have no choice but to set up informal businesses. Those who cannot set up businesses work informally for others, including other informal businesses, domestic help for the elite, and formal or semi-formal sectors like construction and manufacturing. This is the creation of urban informality, both in private and public spaces, most economic activity of which is undocumented.
Drives against encroachment seem to target the worst-off in society.
We never think of the poor and their constraints in devising policy responses to informal activities. To sanitise spaces, we engage in ‘anti-encroachment’ that snatches livelihood from thousands at a time. To formalise and record the economy, we impose bans on transactions without thinking about the lives of poor labourers associated with those sectors. Law enforcement like police officers routinely harass informal actors to extract bribes or issue fines. All of these steps, it seems, are taken against and affect those least able to resist.
We should shift the discussion on informality to what it is: an issue of rights, to the city, to public space, and to livelihood for the subaltern. Informal activities are not good because they allow sustenance and reproduction of middle- and upper-class lifestyles. That is a fringe benefit; in a situation where the state is unable to provide viable safety nets, living spaces, and alternative livelihood to large chunks of its population, informality is a right in and of itself.
Such a shift is possible if we re-describe informality. Only this time, instead of calling it ‘encroachment’ or ‘illegal’, we must view informal activity as the sole means of survival for millions of Pakistan’s poor citizens. The act of occupying public space for commerce or even squatter is an act of defiance; it is a way for the poor to engage in social reproduction of life within the constraints that they face. In many ways, the public space they ‘illegally’ occupy is the occupiers’ only asset, and an indispensable one at that. Leftist sociologists call this ‘survival by repossession’.
After all, is there no difference between a posh restaurant that collects but does not deposit sales tax, and a small vegetable seller whose business is undocumented and takes place on the street? Was a business owner operating on KMC land as likely to have acquired illegitimate wealth as legislators who pay nothing in taxes but drive around in expensive, gifted vehicles? Do federal ministers whose estates illegally occupy adjacent public land, or luxury hotels that have fenced public land to use for parking, or state institutions that have blocked off entire roads in the name of security, share the same responsibility as a slum built on public land?
It is clear that code enforcement and anti-encroachment drives are simply tools for the elite to restart the cycle of dispossession when they become too uncomfortable with the coexistence of poor people in their surroundings. Bigger, more powerful actors either become too big to be charged, or buy and influence their way out of enforcement. Socially, we tend to accept such occupation by the elite and admonish the poor for the same.
There is no doubt that duly formalising the economy, and enforcing laws across the board, will lead to long-term benefits for the country. But why do we fail to think about the survival of those who are dispossessed in the time that it will take for those benefits to accrue?
It is apparent that our policies suffer from some form of tunnel vision — we fail to think beyond how life in a car will be more convenient on multi-lane roads and bridges, or how illegitimate capital will be forced to come under the tax net. Such policies are inherently unjust under both liberal and critical paradigms. A just policy must not further disadvantage the worst-off in society. Dispossessed, displaced and oppressed already, human beings who survive in informal settlements and on daily incomes are not non-perishable commodities that we can put in cold storage while we wait for benefits of code enforcement and formalisation to materialise.
The writer is a PhD student in urban/regional planning at the University of Illinois.
Twitter: @faizaanq
Published in Dawn, November 15th, 2018
Comments (17) Closed
Exactly, at last a advocate for the silent poor.
Very well written
Excellent article
This piece of writing is more worth than the reading whole newspaper, this article sets out the stark and hard realities of our society.After all , elitist have surrounded us how can even we think of any striking change?
I thought you wrote on urban planning or any other aspect related to your field. All above written is trying to justify the illegal encroachment by the poors.. two bad does not make good.. sorry
"The act of occupying public space for commerce or even squatter is an act of defiance" You cannot occupy public space if you do not pay the custodians of this public place. Just try to install a shop in Sadar area without negotiations, you will be removed within no time. How come only the same people "defy" in Sadar everyday? Everyone knows Sadar is a place where you earn more profit. Why every "poor" in the city doesn't come to "defy"? Someone is regulating this "defiance" and earning a lot. It is an act of corruption not of defiance. Both the custodian and the occupier are the beneficiaries of this corruption and the losers are the public at large whose space was sold out. Just another attempt to justify corrupting invoking the "right of the poor". It is not the right of the poor that is being crushed, but the ability of corrupt rulers.
Because it is the worst-off that dont give a damn along with elite class. They are no different in nature but large in numbers. if one happens to go through old localities of Lahore you will understand how these people do encroachment. I live in those areas. A street would start and it will be 40 feet wide and at the end it is hardly 5-6 feet wide. How is it happening because these people will encroach 5 feet and the next door neighbour will add 2 more. I have friends who live in DHAs, Bahrias or other societies and they cannot do that. I am not talking about commercial building I am talking about domestic localities. On every bazar on every street someone is doing encroachment
poor doesn't mean have access to every thing for free. It is a drive which was need and should not be stopped at any cost however Gov need to assured that the effected personals are compensated. Gov also need to ensure that this will not happen again.
Well written. But the reality is explicit is the quote: Might is right. Laws are Spiders' webs and they catch only poor and weak and are torn apart by the rich ones.
I agree with you but at the same time our country is a developing country. The policies will be weak since every sector of this country is weak and will take decades to be fixed. Yes, this drive is displacing the oppress but this drive is getting back the land that can be used for future projects. These projects will offer jobs. The structure and system will be lift up gradually as the place starts developing. On the other hand, as these displaced people increase, this will grab government's attention and they will try sort it out more seriously than before. These people will have a voice. They will help the country to make effective policies regarding such issues in the future.
Thoughtful article. The comparison between the two entities is well described. What is your recommendation to resolve this organic development within the economic centres?one recommendation would be to invest in more Mass subsidies transit system for the city outskirts to allow economic growth, livelihood and manpower issues. Secondly, our zoning bylaws should find ways to accommodate such livelihood and controlled organic development because that drives the business in the urban centres.
Brilliant piece.
Karachi a poor friendly city against hurt at heart by draconian action by so called anti encroachment authorities. Most of the crowd selling fruits, or misc items belonged to extremely poor classes, who are unemployed and earns lively hood in few rush hours. Such temporary make shifts can be seen in Singapore, Shanghai,Kolkata, every Metropolitan in world.The instant action being taken to shun the real big land grabbers who encroached acres of public land. The alternate is already there the KMC has multistory parking building vacant in front of Empress Market, that building may be offered in small stalls to the affected, so that their children may not sleep without food.
The Director Encroachments, for the Empress Market Karachi should also look to several co-operative societies which are occupied by gangsters for decades for justice and action. Suggest if some action is taken in this aspect, to maintain the sanctity.
Well articulation but you know no one can justify an illegal act by propagaying his poverty or bankruptcy. Yes, ways and means could be identified to look for a viable solution to this issue..
This reminds me of a Manto story. The saddar will go wherever these hawkers will go. These hawkers provide cheap goods middle income people come to buy - none of them will be able to afford things in big shiny shops and hence won't come here anymore!
Who are the most affected parties to this recent encroachment campaign?? I mean, are we sure that the target is to push back the marginalized to the extreme brinks or is the law same for everyone? Is provision of alternative space to the informal economy that difficult to effect as it's made out to be? Beware your pity to the poor might not end up showering more charity on the rich..