Summary/Preface
For my English 100 class in Capilano, I was given a assignment to write a argument essay. The contents of the argument essay are about a article written by Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava called “This Is Not a Slum: What the world can learn from Dharavi”.
The article talks about a slum called Dharavi in Mumbai, India and it highlights the positive and negative aspects of the slum. The main question that concerns Dharavi in the article is the following:
“Despite Dharavi and it’s poor living standards as a slum the amount that the community contributes to Mumbai is unique and irreplaceable. However, the government wants to replace Dharavi and it’s community with modern visions of the city. What is the fate of Dharavi and it’s people?”.
Essay Question
I chose to disagree and argue the following question I was given for the argument essay.
Question: Echanove and Srivastava’s article “This is Not a Slum” suggests that Dharavi’s density, efficiency, and community integration should be viewed as a legitimate model of a “homegrown neighborhood” that cities worldwide would be wise to make space for. Based on what you read in the article, do you agree?
Revised Essay
“This is Not a Slum: What the World Can Learn from Dharavi”
Dharavi is defined as the textbook definition of a slum. Its features do not reflect what modern society would call a “successful” city due to its lack of infrastructure. However, in Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava’s article “This is Not a Slum What the World Can Learn from Dharavi”, the author highlights the positive aspects of Dharavi’s commerce and community, focusing on the homegrown community and economic expansion in Dharavi while antagonizing the government’s wishes to rebuild Dharavi into a modern metropolis that consists of stacked apartment buildings and malls. Echanove and Srivastava defend the slums by explicitly stating that Dharavi creates job opportunities for the poor and allows creative expansion of their homes while promoting a homegrown and interactive community. However, media portrays Dharavi in a negative light, stating that the slums are expanding with negative consequences as eventually Dharavi will become too big of a problem to fix. The problem then arises: “Taking into consideration the positive and negative aspects of Dharavi, should the entire world adopt Dharavi as an idealized model for cities”? Dharavi successfully promotes a tight-knit community that bonds together however cities should not adopt the unruly expansion of a market filled with sweatshops and the lack of solid infrastructure that is presented.
While Echanove states, “Unfortunately, this complicated and vibrant street life is often entrenched in a negative narrative—one in which these characteristics are presented as something shameful” (Echanove. 22), we must understand why the media chooses to portray it in these terms. Under the vibrant street life and bustling economy, Dharavi is fueled by a sweatshop style industry, meaning the people live and work in their homes under unsanitary and unhealthy conditions and are working for a minuscule amount. While the people turn their homes into shops and markets the reasoning behind this cause is not a lack of market space, but a means of finding ways to make money. Dharavi is a slum and because of this fact many residents struggle to make money individually in contrast to a whole. Although Dharavi has a vastly expanding job market, the market is mostly composed of these sweatshops, multiple work hazards, and underground markets which fuel a unethical method of making money. Often in these slums people can be overworked to the point of slavery as consumers are often ignorant in seeing the effort put into an item, and unethical work establishments are often hidden due to the constantly expanding homegrown communities.
Echanove overlooks this aspect of Dharavi and chooses to focus on the positives of homegrown markets. To further indicate such a possibility, the article also states, “In Mumbai, as in most cities, zoning laws make working and living in the same place illegal.” (22). This law is repeatedly enforced to prevent a sweatshop/slavery-based economy and to prevent underground working environments where money is made through illegal means; However, Dharavi breaks this law by combining working and living spaces. Although Dharavi contributes roughly five-hundred million US Dollars annually, the way Dharavi makes that profit is unethical and impractical for a model city.
The implementation of a home/work environment in Dharavi is unruly and unorganized, as the citizens often freely expand their housing without proper knowledge of housing reinforcement. Echanove defends the unruly expansion by stating “Dharavi residents’ ability to defy building codes and use space as intensively as possible has helped each family make the most of the available resources” (21). I disagree however, as building with available resources to create a home in the present time compared to investing in resources to build a long-lasting environment is resource-inefficient and will cause more complications in the future. Modern day societies hire architects to design homes that are stable, can withstand harsh weather conditions, and will last a long time. In Dharavi, homes are often made on the spot with no planning of long-lasting stability in the events of a natural disaster. The argument can be made that homes can be reinforced once a temporary house is built however, due to the unstable infrastructure in Dharavi’s complexes which is usually stacked three to four levels high, this is virtually impossible. The result of this poor planning of infrastructure is unnecessary resource consumption in the future.
Although the problems of sweatshop-styled work and inefficient urban infrastructure are present, Dharavi’s community structure is something that cities worldwide should adopt. The tight-knit community that helps neighbors out is something seen as rare in modern society.
“Groups from similar ethnic or economic backgrounds tend to live together and provide support systems; neighbors look after each other’s kids and provide cheap sub-rentals when other families need space. The efficient, hyper-dense, and complex neighborhood we know today grew through this process of interlocking lives and needs.”. (21)
This type of community that supports each other is something that all of us should strive to create and can result in a positive environment for everyone. Simply being able to support one another, being open to collaboration, and willingness to contribute to society will result in overall success throughout the community and lower the possibility of violence and crime.
The question remains though, should the world adopt Dharavi’s infrastructure as a model that cities should follow? I believe that the strong community values of sharing and providing support for one another present in Dharavi is something that all cities and communities should follow. However, the economic the sweatshop styled work/living environment and unruly expansion of housing and use of resources is something that should be avoided.
Leave a Reply