The ‘invisible’ homeless people

If Census 2001 figures are anything to go by, India has about two million homeless people. But that number in itself is under-reported, given the lacunae in enumeration procedures. Surveys by various non-government agencies and even certain autonomous branches of government bodies reveal that this figure is at odds with the ground situation.

Not only are there gaping holes in the procedures followed for gathering statistics concerning the homeless, but the official definition of the word also leaves much to be desired. Negative public perceptions about the homeless have also adversely impacted policy decisions about homelessness in this country.
Though the homeless exist in our country in large numbers, the society at large tries to render them invisible, and shockingly, attempts to blame the homeless for their situation.
According to the official definition, the word homeless is used for people who do not live in a “census house,” such a house being described as a “structure with a roof.” This description does not consider people, who live in makeshift arrangements, shelter homes, or deplorable housing conditions. Besides, the government’s official surveys are conducted in the day, when it’s difficult to trace the homeless. The quality of data suffers also because the homeless themselves are wary of persons in authority, or in this case, census enumerators. This should partly explain why various reports on homelessness in India present figures strikingly different from official ones.
A report of a non-government organization in 2003 estimated that the total homeless population in India is 78 million. Compounding the problem is the lack of proper analytical tools to identify and locate the homeless. In fact, lack of relevant information is the main reason behind perceptions about the homeless, which are largely false.
Most of the homeless people have migrated in search of livelihoods, but urban centers offer only irregular, uncertain employment. Besides, urban areas come with an attendant set of problems: The cost of living is much higher than in rural areas; there are no community support systems; and they have to pay for everything, including water and toilets, which are free in rural areas.
Under Indian laws, homeless beggars are treated as criminals and booked under various beggary laws. The Bombay Beggary Prevention (1959) Act defines beggars as anyone soliciting alms and who have “no visible means of subsistence,” including those who sell small articles at traffic lights and other public places. When penalized, beggars or homeless persons have to face hearings at a special court and may be sent to an institution, or can bail themselves out by paying money. Most homeless people are not beggars. A study found that just about 28 percent of the homeless live on mendicancy. Most beggars were old widows and persons with disabilities.
The study found that most homeless were working for long hours in difficult jobs to earn their daily food. About half of the sample population was working as casual wage laborers or in unstable occupations like rickshaw-pulling, construction labor, shoe polishing, performing on the roads, and rag-picking. These were largely the options available to men. Among women, about 10.5 percent worked as domestic helps, and 3 percent were home makers. Due to acute hardships, some homeless reported taking recourse to extreme ways of earning income, like “renting of body” (about 2 percent reported commercial sex work), and “sale of body parts” (6.57 percent).
A common though erroneous notion is that homeless people are extremely mobile and largely social isolates. Even if some percentage of the homeless moves frequently, a large number of them are stable, sleep in the same locations and have mutually supportive arrangements.
Most homeless migrants, who come to cities in groups, belong to the same village or caste groups. About 24 percent of them even have adopted relatives on the street. Street boys tend to live in gangs, sharing everything — food, clothes and intoxicants — and teach each other trades such as rag-picking and recycling drinking water bottles. They protect each other from street violence and the police, and feed each other in sickness.
Almost all migrants maintain regular contact with their families in the village, send money home and often go back in times of needs and festivals. This is true even for many widows and leprosy patients, who visit their families occasionally.
While many feel pity for those on the streets and consider them helpless and unfortunate, some street children provided for themselves better than their parents could. Remaining homeless was often an economic decision, a strategy to survive at a low expense in the city, so that some money could be saved to sent back home.
The homeless are considered to be a burden on civic infrastructure. Facilities such as toilets, bathrooms and water are not easily accessible to the homeless. Each such service that a homeless person needs has to be paid for, and in cash. Having to pay often means that they must relieve themselves in the open, bathe less frequently or in the open/behind plastic covers, and access unclean water through public taps, leaking pipelines, or from petty dhabas where they eat.
A study found that while 55 percent of homeless people use community toilets, over 20 percent relieve themselves in open spaces. A similar proportion bathes in community pay facilities, whereas around 24 percent bathe at public toilets. Due to the prices that are often prohibitive for them, only 35 percent bathed daily, says the study.
Night shelters, the only government scheme meant for the homeless, hardly offer any benefits. Moreover, the conditions of night shelters seem to be appalling.
More research is required to assess the impact of negative perceptions on the homeless, their social interactions and on public policy. However, some of these aspects have been investigated. The perception of the homeless as criminals makes their arrest and harassment official and justifiable. It devalues their contribution to the informal sector, and leads to lower payments and livelihood insecurities.