Evicting a city

The heritage and culture of Pakistan’s cities do not begin and end with the colonial era. In Karachi, the food stalls of Burns Road, the bookshops at Urdu Bazaar and the merchants of Empress Market are as large a part of our identity as Frere Hall and St Patrick’s Cathedral. The anti-encroachment drive in Karachi, ordered by the Supreme Court and being pursued with undue vigour by the authorities, takes a myopic view of how best to preserve the historical character of the city and shows little regard for the lives of the working class. The destruction of shops and restaurants that have been around for decades destroys a part of Karachi’s soul. What’s more, almost all of those who have seen their livelihoods razed on a moment’s notice were not doing anything illegal. They paid rent regularly to the Karachi Metropolitan Authority and yet were evicted suddenly and without any alternate provisions made for them to open up elsewhere.

In the name of preserving heritage, tens of thousands of people have been left without the means to earn a living. The anti-encroachment drive has been marked by a rigidity that does not take into consideration the lives affected. The Supreme Court had said it was the job of the Sindh government to provide those who have lost their places of business with space elsewhere but enough time should have been given to first place them elsewhere before any action was taken.

There are certainly some important urban planning issues that have been considered by the apex court. The prevalence of commercial enterprises in residential areas has been a persistent problem. These businesses pay lower residential rates of utilities and their presence contributes to traffic and noise pollution problems. This was the justification the Supreme Court gave for the razing of wedding halls, commercial plazas and shopping malls on residential land but once again there needs to be an understanding of the reality of the situation. These businesses have been operating quasi-legally after paying fines to have their use of land regularised. For years, the Sindh government has used land regularisation as a shortcut to avoid enforcing the law on land use. While it is certainly past time to start following the letter of the law, untangling the thicket that has been caused by decades of land regularisation policies needs a more careful approach. It is the fault of the state that businesses were allowed to operate for so long and to capriciously tear them down no will do more harm than good.