Organising Street Vendors: An Indian Case Study

Bharath Bhushan Mamidi1 and Radha R.Chada2

Abstract
Street vending has become an integral part of urban economies and certainly has existed for
hundreds of years. Street vending has in more recent times become a matter of concern to civil
society and authorities in developing countries, especially in India, which has around ten
million street vendors with three million of them street food vendors. This chapter surveys
briefly different approaches to organising street vendors in India. A case study of Hyderabad
city with around 120,000 vendors and different community organisation initiatives with street
vendors offers a glimpse into varied possible approaches of organising street vendors. The
Aarogya project for organising street vendors in Hyderabad is comprised of organising
cooperatives of around 2000 street food vendors, offering thrift and credit, branding of street
food, capacity building in hygiene, collective action and collaboration with civil society and
authorities. The project approach to community work with street food vendors reflects the
needs of members and effective approaches when the sector is faced with the possibility of
legislation in the near future, reflecting the principles of social work and community
development.

Key words: community organisation, cooperative, hawkers, National Policy on Street

Vending, street food vendors

Introduction
Street vending, an integral part of urban economies, has existed for hundreds of years. It is a
rapidly growing phenomenon around the world (Bromley, 2000; Winarno & Allain, 1986).
Street vending grew substantially in South Asian cities after the financial crisis of 1998
(Bhowmik, 2005). Street vending is an important segment of the informal economy in Asian
countries (Kusakabe, 2006) and the size varies across the countries. Although street vendors
make a significant contribution to the economy in developing countries, it has been
underestimated and neglected (Winarno & Allain, 1986); Bhowmik, 2005; Kusakabe, 2006).
Even estimates of the people engaged in street vending are not available in many countries
and where it exists it is highly under-reported because street vending is not fully recognised
or legalised. The informal sector is so important to the urban economies that ‘it has continued
to flourish, even when illegal or state-oppressed’ (FAO, 2007).

Literature on street vending or particular trades within it is scant (Bhowmik, 2005; Kusakabe,
2006). Studies reveal that street vending is critical to the local economy, employment, food
security, social mobility and democratisation of social and economic resources in developing
countries (Bhowmik, 2005; FAO, 2007). Studies also reveal that problems faced by street
vendors in Asian cities are largely similar, owing to its status as informal sector or illegal
(FAO, 2007; Kumar & Singh, 2009; Kusakabe, 2006). The street vendors in India, according
to the National Policy on Urban Street Vending, 2009 (NPUSV), (Govt of India, 2009), face
harassment from public authorities, who often regard street vendors as a nuisance and as

1
Director, Centre for Action Research and People’s Development, 8-3-228/267, Rahmath Nagar, Hyderabad,
500045 India. mbbhushan@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Clinical Nutrition and Dietetics, Kasturba Gandhi Degree and PG College for Women,
West Marredpally, Secunderabad, 500029 India. chadaradha@yahoo.co.in
encroachers of sidewalks and pavements. Street vending in Asian cities is viewed as a highly
precarious and risky occupation and as such the vendors become a vulnerable community,
devoid of rights, lacking in state recognition, social security, and access to institutional credit.
They are also subject to constant threat of eviction or confiscation of their goods. Street
vending is illegal in many parts of Thailand, Cambodia and Mongolia (Kusakabe, 2006).
Around three fourths of street vendors operate in unauthorised sites in Bangkok (Thailand).
Bribes to police and market security officials are a sad reality, because street vending lacks
recognition in Phnom Penh (Cambodia). Harassment and threats of evictions are regular in
Manila (Philippines), although there is a licence system and payment of taxes to the
municipal authorities, as there are no areas demarcated yet for street vending. Harassment
and rent-seeking by corrupt officials is found in Dhaka (Bangladesh) because street vending
is not legal. The risks and threats faced by the street vendors are relatively fewer in
Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Colombo. In Kuala Lumpur there is a National Policy on
Hawkers, 1990 and Department of Hawkers & Petty Traders established in 1986 to ensure
effective implementation of the policy. While in Singapore all street vendors are licensed,
they are partly recognised in Colombo as they pay taxes to municipal authorities
(Bhowmik,2006). Street food vendors in India, Kuala Lumpur, and Bangkok constitute
around 30 to 35 per cent of total street vendors (Bhowmik, 2006). In the Asian continent the
street food industry is a vast business involving huge amounts of money and millions of
people (FAO, 1989). Studies reveal that 33 per cent of the customers in Kolkata purchase
street foods each day and Bangkok street food contributes up to 40 per cent of the total
energy intake of city residents. Collective total annual sales of street foods in Kolkata is
estimated at US $60 million (FAO, 2007), in Bangkok it exceeds US $98 million per year and
in Malaysia it is over $2 billion (FAO, 2007). Monthly food expenditure on food prepared at
home in Thailand declined from 76 percent to 50 percent between 1990 and1998 with
increased procurement of food eaten away from home (Nirathron, 2006). A similar trend of a
growing share of street food in urban residents’ food choices palette and changing dietary
trends due to increased consumption of street food have been observed in other Asian cities
(Draper, 1996; Kusakabe, 2006). Between 6 and 50 per cent of the food budget in Indian
urban households is spent on street foods (Seth, 1990; FAO, 1989).

When the street vendors are not organised as a community their vulnerability is greater as
their voice is weak to represent and negotiate with the state to ensure their rights to livelihood
and share in city space. Owing to the nature of their occupation and pressure to complete the
business in a few hours of the day, they are less motivated to devote spare time for meetings
or activities of the unions (Singh, 2000) and ‘most of the vendors in Asia are not unionised’
(Bhowmik, 2005, p. 2263). National level federations are seen in Korea and India; the
presence of women is very high in Hanoi (Vietnam) and women are more organised than
males in Manila. Women vendors in India are small in number compared to males and are
least organised. A street vendor, according to the National Policy on Urban Street Vendors,
2009, Government of India, is ‘a person who offers goods or services for sale to the public in
a street without having a permanent built-up structure’ (NPUSV- 2009, Sec. 2.1). Street
vendors may be stationary in the sense that they occupy space on the pavements or other
public/private spaces on a regular basis, or they may be mobile, moving from place to place
by carrying their food items on push carts or in baskets on their heads. In this paper, the term
‘street vendor’ or ‘hawker’ includes stationary as well as mobile vendors.

Street Vending in India

Although there are varied estimates of street vendors, they constitute a significant
population in India. It is estimated that street vendors in several cities count for about 2 per
cent of the national population of India (NPUSV- 2009 Sec. 1.1). Street vendors gained
wider acceptance in India from the mid-90s. The Bellagio International Declaration of
Street Vendors on November 23, 1995 stressed that the ‘proliferation of poor hawkers and
vendors’ in the urban sector, ‘are looked upon as a hindrance to the planned development of
cities both by the elite urbanities and the town planners alike’, despite the useful service
they render to society (National Association of Street Vendors of India, NASVI, n.d).
Greater attention to the problem also reflects growing debate on the right to city and public
space by different sections of urban India.

Policy on Street Vending

Taking the lessons drawn from the policy of 2004 as well as the successes achieved in a few
cities, the NPUSV- 2009 was formulated which clearly recognises street vendors’ role in
urban economies and declares the government’s commitment to give them recognition and
offering them scope for their mainstreaming. The NPUSV- 2009 has recognised street
vendors as ‘micro-entrepreneurs’ and an ‘important occupational group of the urban
population’ assisting the Government in combating unemployment and poverty necessitating
state recognition at all levels of government support’ (NPUSV- 2009, Sec. 1.7). Important
elements of the policy include: legal status through recognition and registration along with
social security for the vendors, spatial planning, demarcation of vending zones, provision of
infrastructural facilities, social security measures, promotion of health and hygiene, roles and
responsibilities of various bodies for participatory planning, etc. The policy also refers to
promoting ‘organizations of street vendors e.g. unions / co-operatives / associations and other
forms of organizations to facilitate their collective empowerment’ (NPUSV- 2009, Sec.
3.2.d).

The national policy has been adopted in seven of India’s 28 states since 2005. The Andhra
Pradesh Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Bill,
2010 reflects the spirit of the national policy, but is yet to be passed in the legislative
assembly. Several states also initiated measures as part of urban renewal missions in
regulation and recognition, even without adopting a policy on street vending. Progress on the
national policy is not uniform across the country, despite varied experiments by state
governments or municipal authorities locally.

Concerns of the street vendors

Delay in finalising the policy into a law and ongoing acts of eviction of vendors, or
registration of some vendors, or supporting vending zones by the local authorities in a few
cities make it difficult for vendors to understand what the authorities intend to do and what
their role in it is. Negotiation and dialogue with the stakeholders is not seen for want of a
consistent policy for the city as a whole and a participatory process to address the challenges
in regulation and protection of street vending is not in place. Vendors’ unions and forums at
the local level lack information about the growing debate. Licensing of street vending
activity, an important component of the proposed new policy initiative, could become an
additional tool of exclusion as those who are not licensed are branded ‘illegal’.

The process of demarcation of the urban area into ‘restriction-free vending’ (green vending
zone), ‘restricted vending’ (amber vending zone) and ‘no vending’ (red vending zone)
according to the NPUSV- 2009 has potential for severe conflict with the possibility of some
vendors being displaced. Implementation of vending zones is not received well as it lacks
informed participation of the street vendors in the process. For instance, declaration of twelve
no-vending zones in Bhubaneswar city, which has already implemented 55 vending zones
successfully, to the appreciation of several government and civil society agencies and local
vendors, is faced with resistance from the vendors’ unions. Vendors’ unions allege the
demarcation of no-vending zones is arbitrary because there is no Town Vending Committee
formed in Bhubaneswar city (Mohapatra, 2012). The current national bill on street vending
suggests at least 40 per cent representation of street vendors in Town Vendors Committees
which, properly implemented, gives a fair chance to the vendors to have a say in all
regulatory activities like zoning. The vendors are forced to pay bribes to representatives of
several government agencies to carry out their business (Bhowmik, 2006; FAO, 2007).

Street Food Vending in India

Street foods, also referred as the informal food sector (IFS), comprise a wide variety of ready–to-eat food that
include meals, beverages, and snacks prepared and/or sold by vendors in streets (FAO, 1989).
They are typically sold on the street from ‘pushcarts or baskets or balance poles, or from
stalls or shops having fewer than four permanent walls’ (Tinker, 1987). It is critical to the
production and use of a variety of food products in the region. Street food, often self-
financed by the vendor and self-regulated, is a well-established institution of the food
culture of a city (Hoffman & Dittrich, 2009; Kusakabe, 2006; Nischalke, 2011) and a
‘cherished part of local culture’ that is also an attraction for tourists in many cities
(FAO, 2007, p.2). In some cities eating street food is so popular that many street
foods form an important share of the city resident’s food requirements. Gisele
Yasmeen (1996) referred to the popularity of street food in Thai cities as ‘public
eating’. Kolkata in India is also popular for street food with around 130,000 street
food-vending stalls (FAO, 2007), and Malaysia has approximately 100,000 vendors (Dawson
& Canet, 1991). It has been a fast-growing food distribution system since the 1940s
(Bhat & Waghray, 2000).

It is observed that street food vending survives not merely because it is an important source
of employment, but also because it provides cost-effective food to the urban population.
Available literature indicates the potential of street food for food security, especially of the
urban poor, and its contribution to the uniqueness and cultural identity of the cities and
livelihoods of a large number of the urban poor (Rani & Dittrich, 2010; Bergmann &
Dittrich, 2012).

However, there are concerns. The perishable nature of their preparations forces them to sell
the food items at the earliest. Not only are they ignored by the state and denied benefits from
welfare programs, but also by labour unions (FAO, 2007). Studies reveal that street food
vendors do not form a homogeneous group (Draper, 1996) owing to the specialisation of their
food items, location of their operations, size of the unit, and gender of the vendor.

Street food is also subject to stigma and misconceptions about the street foods and the nature
of street food trade. Misconceptions about street food are related to stigma, according to
Tinker (1988), that the street food trade is a hangover from traditional market activities; is
characteristic of and dominated by women; is focused in the main commercial areas of urban
centres; street foods are ‘dirty’ and ‘dangerous’ to eat; that only the poor eat them; that they
do not make an important contribution to dietary intake. The predominant misconception of
street food is that it is eaten by the poor and that it is unhygienic or unsafe compared to
mainstream restaurants and eateries. Customers or patrons of street food are not only urban
poor but from all walks of life (FAO, 2007; Kusakabe, 2006). Yet, street foodsreceived little
official attention and more notice has been paid to the potential dangers arising from the
consumption of street foods than to any benefits they might offer. Much of the bias against
street foods, however, is unfounded and based more on prejudice than empirical data (Draper,
1996).

Studies in India also reveal that the stigma of street food as unhygienic has no basis with
regard to most of the street food units (Neeraja, 2006). Changing social demography and food
culture makes street food no longer synonymous with cheap food (Chada & Mamidi, 2012).

Organising Indian Street Vendors

Research suggests that promotion of certain conditions is critical to the growth and
organisation of street vendors. Important elements to foster pro-vendor policy require
building a positive image of vendors, a holistic approach engaging all stakeholders: vendors
and authorities and civil society; networking among vendors’ organisations at different levels
to enable the struggle to acquire a larger perspective and identify spaces for intervention in
policy-making; and political will (Kumar, 2012). Studies also suggest the need for capacity
building for food safety improvements (Draper, 1996; Bergmann & Dittrich, 2012) in line
with ‘local social and cultural contexts’ in bringing the sector towards standardisation (FAO,
2007, p. 28), supportive policy environment linking street food with poverty alleviation
strategies (FAO, 2007) and long-term plans for city development. These different and varied
areas provide space for different organisations to address one or more of the activities best
suited to them, and come together at times for advocacy and extending solidarity with other
organisations as part of the larger goal of ensuring protection, social security and
infrastructural support to the vendors in participatory governance structure. Street vendors’
needs also shape the types of community organisation. Their needs include security of tenure,
recognition, access to infrastructure facilities, capacity building to improve food safety and
hygiene, participation in decision making processes affecting them and conflict resolution
with local forces or with fellow vendors or other stakeholders with claims to the use of space
in the street.

Organising the street food vendors is faced with several challenges owing to the unique
nature of their activity. Several factors, revealed by studies highlighting one or more factors
in specific contexts across the country, explain the low level of street vendors’ participation
in the organisations, viz., individual vendors have little hope of forcing the state to change in
their favour, little or no space for participation in the governance of market and use of city
space, possible continuity of their operations by keeping local authorities satisfied through
bribes or other means, absence of a threat from the state to stop their business, heterogeneity
of the street vendors, and immediate concern of the self-employed to recover their investment
and make some surplus for the next day. Organising street vendors is a difficult task as they
are self-employed (Singh, 2000). They need to make the best of every minute of their time on
the street and join groups for collective action only when they are faced with problems of
eviction. Short-term collective action is also seen in the face of threats of eviction.

There is constant conflict characterised by distrust and an ongoing tug-of-war between the
town authorities and the street vendors wherein town authorities follow anti-encroachment
drives and the vendors uphold their right to livelihood and to organise struggles (Kumar,
2012). ‘Fire-fighting’ or stop-gap strategies employing protests and struggles offer temporary
relief to the vendors to continue their business (Bhowmik, 2001). Hawkers treated as ‘illegal’
are subject to stigma that perpetuates exploitation and extortion by several agencies. There
are multiple government agencies and norms the street vendors have to interact/ comply with
in order to continue their operations. Street vending is subject to municipal authorities, police,
traffic police, regional development authorities, district administration, etc. (Bhowmik &
Saha, 2012; Kumar & Singh, 2009). While the municipal laws regulate the use of pavements,
the traffic police regulate the use of roads. Hawkers are often evicted for obstructing free
flow of traffic. About 77 per cent of the street food vendors complained of frequent
harassment from local traffic police, or municipal authorities, or the food inspectors (Chada
& Mamidi, 2012).

Community organisation among street food vendors in Hyderabad has elements of

Rothman’s community development model: locality development, social planning, and social
action (Rothman & Tropman, 1987). Mobilisation and organisation of street food vendors is
broadly characteristic of people of a geographic area (like a slum, market area, city) sharing
common interest rooted in street food vending. Strategies and approaches adopted by varied
agencies engaged in community organisation with the vendors for identifying the problems,
priorities and defining the goals reflect their extent of outreach, both in terms of geographic
area and number of vendors. It also reflects degree of trust enjoyed with regard to the vendors
and available resources to accomplish the common goals reflecting the essential process of
community organisation outlined by Murray G. Ross (Murray & Ben, 1967). Organisation of
vendors includes mobilisation by political groups, as well as civil society and the self-help
approach promoted by the government for the purpose of financial inclusion.

Diverse concerns of the street vendors have acquired different forms of organisation in regard
to the nature of their mobilisation, interaction with the policy makers (agitation to dialogue),
scale of activity (local/regional/national), negotiating strategies with state and non-state
forces, cooperation among the street vendors, membership-based groups for regular support,
training and capacity building in food safety, etc. Diverse needs and priorities of the
particular vendors or of vendors of particular locations or nature of activity also make
community organisation efforts attract the attention of policy makers and scholars.

There are broadly four main types of community organisation among street vendors in India
(Singh, 2000). These are not exclusive types of community mobilisation in the context of
street vendors. The role of different agencies in the Hyderabad context is as follows:

Advocacy: Street vendors are organised by several organisations into collective action
to defend their rights and build negotiating capacities with the administration. These
organisations acting as catalysts in the formation of vendors’ organisations are
engaged in policy critiquing and advocating for street vendors’ rights and entitlements
in general at a national level. They have a presence in some states and are active in
national debate on alternative national policy and law. They are quite vocal and have
relatively high visibility. NASVI organised nationwide protests challenging Foreign
Direct Investment (FDI) on 30 November, 2011. The National Hawker Federation and
other groups also opposed FDI in retail as they perceived it as a threat to the survival
of the informal sector. These organisations are recognised for research and advocacy
(Bhowmik, 2005).
 Capacity building approach: Dr Reddy’s Foundation and Sustainable Hyderabad
Project (SHP) of the University of Göttingen in collaboration with local NGOs and
government agencies are focused on capacity building of the vendors for collective
action along with organisation building. These organisations are involved in vendor
education aimed at leadership development, awareness of legal rights, procedures of
municipal authorities, food safety and hygiene, negotiating skills, dealing with police,
accounting procedures, etc. They are also engaged in acquiring identity cards and
recognition for the vendors. Both these agencies are city-based and working in
collaboration with local authorities. Policy advocacy supported by evidence-based
research is one of the strategies of these agencies.

Critical path agencies: Dr Reddy’s Foundation and NASVI critique the policy at the
macro level and also actively engage in addressing practical issues of community
mobilisation. These agencies are engaged in intense mobilisation and regular contact
and mobilisation of vendors into self-help groups (SHGs), along with involvement in
national level debates. SHGs of street food vendors are seen as the best agencies to
negotiate for their interests and also operate sustainably, even after the withdrawal of
support from outside agencies. They are engaged in forming a federation of unions in
the city and in elevating the issue to a higher level and pitch. They organise
membership-based mobilisation and lobby on various issues affecting street vendors.
These agencies blend radical policy formulations in line with national and regional
federations on the policy on street vendors and immediate concerns of street vendors
at the local level.

Government initiatives of public–private participation: Government initiatives in

accordance with the progressive spirit of national policies on urban renewal, inclusive
growth, street vending etc. are active in some states of the country in introducing a
bill in respective state legislatures along the lines of the national policy to regulate and
recognise street vending. Such state government initiatives are particularly significant
for their willingness to work in collaboration with NGOs in addressing the issues
confronting the street vendors. In Andhra Pradesh, the Mission for Elimination of
Poverty in Municipal Areas (MEPMA) has started a survey of street vendors on a
small scale to design appropriate interventions to assist SHGs access financial
assistance and Institute of Preventive Medicine (IPM) giving certificates to street food
vendors. These government agencies, in collaboration with NGOs, are supporting
mobilising the street vendors into collectives and capacity building. MEPMA views
organising the street vendors into SHGs as essential since it is not possible to extend
any financial assistance through banks if the street vendors remain as individual
entrepreneurs of the informal sector in such large numbers.

The Aaroygya Case study from Hyderabad

Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh state in India, has large number of street food
vendors and enjoys the attention of scholars, policy makers and tourists (Bergmann &
Dittrich, 2012; Hoffman & Dittrich 2009; Chada & Mamidi, 2012; Rani & Dittrich, 2010).
Hyderabad has about 15,000 to 18,000 vendors along with employees – altogether about
100,000 people – who make their living out of street food eateries. The street food sector in
the city has experienced phenomenal growth in the last 15 years and more particularly during
last five years. Changing lifestyles, time constraints, cost effectiveness, access and
availability explain why many residents of Hyderabad procure street food at least once a day.
Profiling of street foods in Hyderabad has received attention since 1990 (Seth, 1990; Radha,
1994; Bharati, 1995; Chada & Mamidi, 2012). The vendors vary by size of the unit, mobility
and activity. The street food vending units represent three categories by the process of food
preparation involved, viz., foods prepared in small enterprises and brought to street food
stalls for sale, foods prepared at the vendor’s home and brought to the stall, and foods
prepared and sold at the stall (Chada & Mamidi, 2012). Of them 77.46 per cent are mobile
and 22.54 per cent are on the pavements or roadside stalls (MEPMA, 2009). Street food
vendors are engaged in the preparation and sale of ’tiffins’ (snacks), Chinese food, fast-food
items, chaat bhandar3, fried meat/fish items, boiled peanuts, chai (tea), etc. Around 150 types
of eatables are sold by the hawkers of Hyderabad (Chada & Mamidi, 2012).

The middle and lower class consumer specifically prefers to purchase from them, as well as
well-off city residents purchasing many commodities owing to taste and unique culinary
preferences. The recent growth of the IT sector and the accompanying outsourcing of
business have also opened up the opportunity of vending of readymade foods at odd times,
especially during the night and early hours during the day. These vendors carry cooked food
on bicycles and motorcycles and serve the customers along the roadside. Some of these food
vendors come in converted kiosks and prepare and sell these items.

Street food vending is often a family enterprise, where women help in pre-preparation of the
food items like cleaning, cutting, boiling, mixing and grinding, while male members do the
final cooking and sell the food items in the streets most often. It is a full-time enterprise for
most of the vendors and about 78 per cent of them work for about 15 hours a day, although
they sell the food in the street for only five to seven hours (Chada & Mamidi, 2012). Street
food is mostly a self-employment activity, 93.04% vendors are owners while the remainder
operate street food stalls as employees for others or on rent from others (MEPMA, 2009).

Profile of Street Food Vendors

Around 62 per cent of vendors had 5 to 9 years in street food while 15 per
cent of the vendors had 15 to 19 years’ experience.
Around 96 per cent of the vendors were engaged in street food as their
exclusive source of livelihood.
Most of the vendors are in the age group 16 to 35 years.
About 82 per cent of the customers, both males and females, were in the
age group of 17 to 49 years.
Each vendor caters daily to approximately 100-400 customers
Source: Chada & Mamidi, 2012

Street food vending addresses food and nutritional security of the city residents as it
facilitates physical, economical and social access to a balanced diet characterised by three
‘As’ – Access, Affordability and Availability. Customer intake of nutrients through street
foods varies across the city. Freshly cooked street foods are a source of various nutrients
along with unique flavours and often essential for maintaining the nutritional status of the
customers. Many of the food items are nutritious, providing around 300-800 kcal and

3
Chaat bhandar – a mobile vending unit which sells chaat. Chaat is a snack item of chickpea/ Bengal gram
boiled and cooked with spices, potatoes and tomatoes.
reasonable amounts of vitamins, minerals, fat and protein. Customers receive an average of
27 per cent of the calories of a 2000 kcal diet, and 20 per cent of protein from street foods
(Radha, 1994).

Since 2008, with several NGOs addressing the issue, greater attention has been paid to
different dimensions of street food and organising these vendors. A training program offered
by the National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) in food safety for vendors in 1989-90 was much
appreciated for a short while and subsequently ignored for want of a clear policy and political
will of the government. Eviction of used or second-hand book sellers in Kothi, with little
consultation with the hawkers, highlighted conflicts on claims to public spaces. Sustained
efforts from the civil society and government has gained momentum since 2008. Sustainable
Street Food Plan, an action research intervention of SHP, also contributed to better
appreciation of the problem by bringing together government and NGOs into dialogue.
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and IPM have been issuing identity
cards and food safety certification to the vendors respectively (2012-13), and MEPMA
initiated designing strategies for promoting livelihoods.

Visibility and momentum have gained significantly with the entry of several NGOs; Dr
Reddy’s Foundation organising street food vendors into cooperatives and federations, SHP
organising capacity building in food safety through Training of Trainers (TOT) and
facilitated dialogue with different stakeholders through action research and consultations,
Sannihita, a local NGO in collaboration with SHP, organised women street food vendors,
Centre for Environment Education and Centre for Action Research and People’s
Development engagement in building visibility of street food. Dr. Reddy's Foundation, the
Corporate Social Responsibility wing of Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd., has piloted the
project named ‘Aarogya’ for empowering street food vendors through Micro
Entrepreneurship Development Centre (MEDC). The MEDC started working with vendors in
2006, initially in Karimnagar town, and is currently engaged with the 3,000 street food
vendors in ten Circles of the GHMC area (New Horizons, 2011).

The Aarogya project identified street food vendors’ major problems and important needs:
recognition from Government bodies, security to run their business, convenient
vehicle/pushcart for their business, access to purified drinking water for consumption and
food preparation, awareness of food hygiene standards, brand identity, and access to
institutional financial and infrastructural facilities for affordable cooking fuel and electricity,
and waste disposal (Aarogya, 2008).

The project was initiated to:

1. Organise the street food vendors.
2. Build visibility by bringing the vendors under a single brand, viz., Aarogya or health
3. Providing a legal identity, with identity cards from GHMC and registration cards from
IPM supervising food safety standards.
4. Build an institution among the vendors by providing training on food safety and
hygiene practices as per the Safety and Standards, India.
5. Ensure safe drinking water for the pushcarts.

The Aarogya project adopted a Self-help Group (SHG) approach in a multi-layer structure to
reach out to a large number of the vendors. The project’s community mobilisation strategy
includes the following objectives:
 1. Organising the vendors into multi-layer groups from Common Interest Groups (CIGs)
to Mutually Aided Cooperative Society (MACS) and federations.
2. Building institutional structure for self-help and collective action among the vendors
based on membership.
3. Provide social security (pension, insurance, etc.) and access to credit for street
vendors through co-operatives/Federation.
4. Capacity building to upgrade the business development skills.
5. Assistance to MACS and federations to address issues of vendors’ security.

Formation of Common Interest Groups

Community organisation with street food vendors is based on mobilisation and motivation of
the members belonging to common interest groups at different levels through self-help
approach. The Aarogya approach has the combined advantage of activity-based common
interest and location-specific concerns through collective action of the street food vendors.
Aarogya is working in 10 out of 18 Circles of GHMC. There are altogether 3,000 vendors
mobilised into the Aarogya project.

Community work with food vendors is based on common interest or shared interest based on
similar activity the vendors are engaged in. Vendors are formed into compatible groups of
around 20 members known as Common Interest Groups (CIG). Concerns and problems are
common to vendors of a particular type, like vegetable or fruit sellers, chaat food sellers or
breakfast food etc.

CIGs are the local level groups and unregistered agencies, although they have elected
members and meet regularly to discuss problems of the members. A sense of solidarity and
regular interaction helps them feel that they belong to a group with shared interests. Some of
the CIGs also have savings to provide loans to the members and meet emergencies. CIGs as a
collective unit address problems of vulnerability, constraints or harassment from local forces,
etc. Orientation and training as well as other forms of support to vendors are effective when
they are formed into CIGs. The CIGs are brought together into cooperatives.

Ten CIGs of a Circle are brought under a cooperative known as MACS which has
autonomous legal entity to meet the needs of its members including conflict resolution and
insurance coverage. MACS are the centre of action where most of the activities benefiting the
vendors take place. Forming MACS at Circle level also allows them to address issues specific
to the location, as problems of urban policy on land use, threats of evictions, road widening
or harassment, extortion and other problems vary across Circles with varying response from
authorities. Capacity building is central to social work and community organisation principles
as it covers the needs of the client groups, in this context the street vendors. Such a
framework that calls for collective action, organises the group from an entitlements
perspective, at the same time taking into consideration the group dynamics, food safety and
hygiene, organisational development, institution building, leadership training, conflict
resolution, advocacy strategies, book-keeping, business plan development, etc.

MACS also engage in savings and loans as well as capacity building of the vendors in food
safety and organisational matters. MACS are in a better position to negotiate with formal
institutions of credit, owing to the strength of the CIGS and their savings. MACS help the
CIGS of vendors overcome the constraints and vulnerabilities common to vendors from the
unorganised sector. MACS also engage in business enhancement opportunities, branding, etc.
which is critical to the successful operation of their business. Currently in one area,
Qutbullapur, MACS have substantial savings and continue to avail loans from the banks on
the basis of collateral securities. Members make use of the credit for upgrading their business.
Phase I of Training of Trainers (TOT) program on food safety and hygiene, which started in
Qutbullapur MACS in November-December 2012, covered 80 street food vendors. The TOT
is organised in collaboration with SHP and experts from the College of Home Science and
Kasturba College. The trainees received certificates by the IPM, the agency responsible for
monitoring food safety norms.

The Federation of MACS at the city level is the apex body for organising the vendors into a
collective force to safeguard their interests and address collective concerns. Hyderabad
federation, formed in 2012, is not yet a registered body. The Federation, comprising members
representing each MACS, has been effective in addressing issues of evictions resulting from
the revised Town Plan. The Federation leaders of the MACS stood up for vendors’ rights.
The future plans of the MACS and federations include:
Mainstreaming the best practices in other Circles;
Bulk purchase of raw materials required by the vendors;
Business development activities;
Collaboration with government and civil society organisations to build self-help
models of vendors’ organisations.

Aarogya’s experience in organising the street food vendors has earned them recognition from
government and civil society as well. Dr. Reddy’s Foundation was also part of the drafting
committee for the bill on street vendors in Andhra Pradesh. Aarogya is also known for brand
building through Aarogya name and dress code for the vendors.

Conclusions
The street food system is likely to be affected significantly with the national policy on street
vendors, which is planned to become a law in the near future. Street food vendors as a
community reflect diversity owing to their activity or nature of business on one hand and the
issues they are confronted with owing to their legal status on the other. Community
organisation among street vendors provides learnings for effective blending of multiple
approaches towards organising them for policy advocacy and building structures for self-
help. A survey of strategies adopted by several agencies engaged in organising street vendors
suggests that immediate needs and long-term goals need to be harmonised to build
sustainable institutions of self-help for the community. Situations of the changing policy
environment require pragmatic blending, linking local struggles with macro protests for
policy change and addressing specific local needs of the members to sustain their engagement
in processes for changes in the long term.

Current approaches of organising street vendors in Hyderabad as well as in wider India, with
the policy waiting to be translated into legislation, reveal interesting blending of unionisation,
non-violent protest, struggle and cooperatives for self-help in influencing state policy in
favour of the street vendors. Mapping the experiences of community organisation of street
vendors across the country reveals pragmatic approaches to meeting the challenge of
organising street food vendors to enjoy their entitlements through participatory processes and
involving the vendors in designing and implementing the national policy that aims at
harmonising the interests of the vendors and urban population needs in a sustainable manner.
The street food sector, an essential component for urban food security and cultural identity,
demands greater attention to understand how the vendors operate as a community.
Community mobilisation in the street food sector also needs to press for the policy and norms
of regulation to be in harmony with local social and cultural contexts and social security as
well as infrastructural support required by the sector.

References
Aarogya. (2008). Arogya Project. Retrieved from http://medc-
arogya.blogspot.in/2008_06_01_archive.html

Bergmann, F., & Dittrich, C. (2012). Does hunger return back to urban India? Food security
and health in the context of rising prices in low-income groups in the emerging mega city of
Hyderabad/ India. Research Reports for Analysis and Action for Sustainable Development of
Hyderabad. Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/209108.html

Bharati, S. (1995).Consumption of street foods by urban population and their safety.

Unpublished MSc Thesis, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University.

Bhat, R.V., & Waghray, K. (2000). Profile of street foods sold in Asian Countries. In A.P.
Simopoulos,& R.V. Bhat (Eds.), Street foods. World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics,
86,53-99. Basel: Krager.

Bhowmik, S.K. (2001). Hawkers and the urban informal sector: A study of street vending in
seven cities. Delhi, NASVI.
http://wiego.org/sites/wiego.org/files/publications/files/Bhowmik-Hawkers-URBAN-
INFORMAL-SECTOR.pdf

Bhowmik, S.K. (2005, May 28-June 4). Street vendors in Asia: A review. Economic and
Political Weekly, pp. 2256-2264.

Bhowmik, S.K. (2006). Social security for street vendors. Seminar. Retrieved from
http://www.india-seminar.com/2006/568/568_sharit_k_bhowmik.htm

Bhowmik, S.K., & Saha, D. (2012). Street vending in ten cities in India. Delhi: NASVI.
Retrieved from http://www.streetnet.org.za/docs/research/2012/en/NASVIReport-Survey.pdf

Bromley, R. (2000). Street vending and public policy: A global review. International Journal
of Sociology and Social Policy, 20(1/2), 1-28.

Chada, R.R, & Mamidi, B. B. (2012). Street food system in India in the context of global
change: Lessons for policy. Paper presented at The International Conference on Strength
Based Practice in Social Work and Human Services, organised by Brisbane Institute of
Strengths based Practice (Inc.), Kathmandu, Nepal, 22- 24 November, 2012.

Dawson, R. J.,& Canet, C. (1991). International activities in street foods. Food Control, 2,
135-139.
Draper, A. (1996). Street foods in developing countries: The potential for micronutrient
fortification. Washington: USAID. Retrieved from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnacj872.pdf

FAO. (1989). Street foods. A summary of FAO studies and other activities relating to street
foods. Rome: FAO.

FAO. (2007). Promises and challenges of the informal food sector in developing countries.
Rome: FAO.

Hoffman, R., & Dittrich, C. (2009). Changing food culture in globalizing Hyderabad.
Research reports for analysis for sustainable development of Hyderabad. Berlin. Retrieved
from http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/209108.html

Kumar, R., & Singh, A. (2009). Empowering the street vendors in changing Indian Cities. A
case study of Bhubaneswar (Orissa). Retrieved from
http://nasvinet.org/userfiles/file/case%20study%20-empowering.pdf

Kumar, R. (2012). The regularization of street vending in Bhubaneshwar, India: A policy

model. WIEGO Policy Brief (Urban Policies), No. 7.

Kusakabe, K. (2006). Policy Issues on Street Vending: An Overview of Studies in Thailand,

Cambodia and Mongolia. Bangkok, International Labour Office.

MEPMA. (2009). Mission for Elimination of Poverty in Municipal Areas, Hyderabad.

Retrieved from http://apmaud.gov.in/

Mohapatra, D. (2012, February 6). City civic body identifies 12 no-vending zones. The Times
of India – Bhubaneswar. Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-
06/bhubaneswar/31029738_1_vending-zones-pratap-sahoo-vishal-kumar-dev

Murray, G. R., & Ben, W.L. (1967). Community organization: Theory, principles, and
practice (2nded.). New York: Harper & Row.

National Association of Street Vendors of India (NASVI). (n.d.).

http://www.nasvinet.org/userfiles/file/BELLAGIO%20INTERNATIONAL%20DECLARAT
ION%20OF%20STREET%20VENDORS.pdf

Neeraja, T. (2006). Capacity building project on street food services. Phase III. Action
research on street food safety and quality with special reference to mobile food vendors in
Hyderabad. World Bank assisted CBP on Food and Drug Safety. Unpublished project report.
Hyderabad.

Nirathron, N. (2006). Fighting poverty from the street: A survey of street food vendors in
Bangkok. Bangkok: International Labour Office.

Nischalke, S. (2011). In-depth analysis of changes in Hyderabad’s food system and food
culture: Consumption patterns, food supply chains and impacts on sustainability and climate
change. Research Reports for Analysis and Action for Sustainable Development of
Hyderabad. Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/209108.html

Radha, R. C. (1994). A profile of street foods in Coimbatore and Hyderabad. Unpublished

MSc thesis, Avinashilingam Institute for Home Science and Higher Education for Women,
Coimbatore.

Rani, U., & Dittrich, C. (2010). Options to improve food safety in the street food sector of
Hyderabad. Research Reports for Analysis and Action for Sustainable Development of
Hyderabad. Berlin. Retrieved from http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/209108.html

Rothman, J., & Tropman J.E. (1987). Models of community organisation and macro practice
perspectives: Their mixing and phasing.In F. M.Cox,J.L. Erlich, J. Rothman, &J.E. Tropman,
(Eds.), Strategies of community organisation: Macro practice(pp. 3-26). Itasca, IL: F.E.
Peacock.

Seth, R. (1990). A profile on street foods in Secunderabad. Unpublished MSc dissertation,

Andhra Pradesh NTR University of Health Sciences.

Singh, A. (2000). Organizing street vendors. Seminar, No. 491. http://www.india-

seminar.com/2000/491/491%20arbind%20singh.htm

Tinker, I. (1987). Street foods. Current Sociology, 35, 1-110.

Tinker, I. (1988). The case for legalizing street foods. Dossier, 110, 72-74.

Winarno, F.G. & Allain, A. (1986). Street foods in developing countries: Lessons from Asia.
Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/u3550t/u3550t08.htm

Yasmeen, G. (1996). Bangkok’s foodscape: Public eating, gender relations and urban
change. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of British
Columbia.