Food for thought

It is yet another comment "" again, not a happy one "" on the working of Delhi's civic authorities that the Supreme Court has stepped in to set up a system for the hawkers in the country's capital. Just as in the switchover to compressed natural gas (CNG) and relocation of factories, the judiciary intervened because the authorities were taking interminably long to do it themselves. Still, in spite of all the work that must have gone into the exercise, the Court's approval of the new regulatory framework for hawking and vending has evoked strong protests from the hawkers' associations and several non-government organisations (NGOs).

The bone of contention is the ban on roadside cooking, except for making tea and coffee. Sale of pre-cooked and packaged food by the roadside vendors has been permitted, but cooking on the spot and serving will violate the new norms.

Those discomfited by the new regime cite several arguments against the ban. Delhi, they say, is a historical city proud of its street food. Without roadside cooking, it will lose some of its charm. There are more concrete arguments as well. In a city where every third person is a migrant, roadside cooking offers relatively inexpensive food to a large number of people who do not have the luxury of cooking for themselves or going to restaurants.

Some NGOs have even argued how pre-cooked food can be less hygienic than that cooked by the roadside. In the heat and dust of Delhi's streets, jalebis deep fried in an open environment will be less harmful than when served in packets.

However, Delhi's rich tradition of street food can be better preserved by ensuring that the civic authorities create the necessary infrastructure that allows roadside food vendors an environment conducive to serving hygienic food.

If the streets in Bangkok or Singapore have become famous for the food they serve, it is because the civic authorities there have chosen to fix the infrastructure issues in the first place. Every street food stall there has mandatory access to piped water, safe and potable. There are also other regulatory requirements that enforce the disposal of waste in properly designated bins. Pedestrians' right to walk on the streets is rarely compromised. There is a host of other such rules that ensure that roadside eating in Bangkok and Singapore can be both pleasurable and without health risks.

If there are any flaws in the new regulatory framework for hawking and vending in Delhi, it is the authorities' reluctance to insist on basic infrastructure requirements. Worse, the insistence that vendors can sell food only on those pavements where at least five feet of space is kept free for pedestrians will ensure that large parts of the city do not have any roadside hawkers.

The way forward will be to first recognise the reality of street vendors not only in Delhi but also in other cities in the country. And then, instead of imposing conditions of sale of packaged food (which very often would lead to use of more non-biodegradable polythene bags), the civic authorities may well be asked to designate pavements that are large enough to accommodate food stalls and provide them piped water and waste disposal facilities. This exercise should ideally be undertaken in phases.