Comments on: India, Also Full of Contradictions

By: Yuxiang Gao

Yuxiang Gao — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:26:05 +0000

In my opinion, the whole world is full of Contradictions.
Dharavi is just a little epitome of the all the developing country.
Even India is developing so fast, but the truth that a huge group of people still live below poverty line.
I was surpired by the fact that so many entrepreneurs, so little unemployment, and so many people in Dharavi. it looks like pretty prosperous.
From what I read, Dharavi has the quality that can become a new economic growth point for the government. And all these depending on how powerful the goverment is.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:25:09 +0000

India has a problem. How can they incentivize the small business owners in Dharavi to change or allow redevelopment? They could just bulldoze it down and rebuild, but that will put the powerhouse out of commission for quite a while, as well as causing riots that will probably get the politicians thrown out of a job.

Maybe they could follow Las Vegas’ lead and not charge a property tax for some period. It’s working to bring business into Las Vegas.

The appearance of the slum is a blight, and it is unsafe. They need to find something that will satisfy the majority of the Dharavi population, even if it’s not all of them.

By: Leslie Mann

Leslie Mann — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:23:12 +0000

I don’t know if I would call it a good thing what Dharavi has but it is something that works and I’m sure the people living there, at least the ones who oppose the redevelopment project would agree, ‘if it ain’t broke, why fix it?’ I would have to argue though that lack of clean water and sanitary conditions seems a bit ‘broken’ to me. The $800 million a year of economic output suggests that things are working fine for Dharavi’s residents but I do agree with many that the government redevelopment program can be very beneficial for the residents, so long as it is done with the residents in mind. Often though, corruption will wield its ugly head and I can’t help but think that the residents will be the ones to suffer after they are relocated.

With Mumbai’s population doubling over the next 10 years, a plan needs to be in place for the area and its residents. Housing should be a top priority. The small businesses are thriving and the government should take the necessary steps to see that they can continue to survive. Though, according to the government’s redevelopment plan, these small businesses will be relocated only if they are not “polluting.” Loopholes and corruption abound by statements such as these. If the government cannot relocate those businesses they see as polluting, then the residents would be better off living the way they do now. It is up to government, to take the moral high-road and avoid the corruption that the neighboring city-planning Chinese have engaged in.

Yes, the residents and government need to communicate to find ways to improve the area for the city and also improve the lives of its residents. John mentioned a public relations campaign to solve issues with resistance to relocating and at least communication is happening. It’s a step in the right direction.

Check out the website for more: http://www.Dharavi.org

By: Michael Harroch

Michael Harroch — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:48:49 +0000

It seems like the current status-quo has many negatives but also some positives. Perhaps the solution here is to find a way to eliminate the negatives (terrible living conditions, poverty etc.) while keeping the positives (economic opportunities, sense of independence for the residents etc.). Needless to say, it is easier said then done.
I also very much agree with what Danielle said about communicating with the current residents. In light of the negotiation class we have just taken, the Indian government should try to identify the people’s interests and make sure that whatever plan of action is decided upon falls in line with them.

By: Michael Minasian

Michael Minasian — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:36:01 +0000

This is interesting. This reminds me indirectly of one of the “special economic zones” that are used in China. The difference is that the slum isn’t officially sanctioned by the government. The only thing keeping them from some form of eminent domain where the government forces the people to accept the normal tax rate of the country and the upgraded housing is that there is a democratically elected government.

The most interesting part of this article to me is that it provides a perfect example of how business, especially small business can thrive without taxation. High taxes are obviously stifling business and growth worldwide. This shows a large amount of micro transactions that could be occurring if tax rates didn’t stifle the opportunities, in India, and beyond.

By: Danielle Steussy

Danielle Steussy — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:57:45 +0000

I believe that a successful organization is one that listens and collaborates with its employees. I think that the same success occurs when the government listens and collaborates with its citizens. Although the residents may say that they are fine with the current living conditions, have they been spoken to about how different and more sanitary their living conditions could be? Have they survived in this environment long enough to not be able see the potential of something different? Has the government communicated with them? Have the citizens been given ample opportunities to express their concerns?

I think the key to this dilemma lies in communication. The government should speak with the residents and find out what they want. They should also express what change would be like and give the residents a plan of action. It’s a starting point to figure out a compromise that not only improves living now but also gives Dharavi some longevity and sustainability.

By: Jay Ponto

Jay Ponto — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:01:48 +0000

Robyn Meredith discusses Indian slums in “The Elephant and the Dragon,” and focuses her discussion on Dharavi. She notes that visitors who land at Mumbai’s airport must drive past Dharavi to get to the city.

In her words, “Shacks defy gravity to stand on top of other rickety shacks until slum neighborhoods reach several stories tall.” Half of the residents of Dharavi are children, and Meredith compares it to the devastation seen in the United States after Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on New Orleans.

It is very surprising that Dharavi is such a prosperous slum. With so many entrepreneurs, so little unemployment, and so many people, Dharavi can be a treasure chest or nightmare for a politician, depending on whether or not its residents support the lawmaker. Many politicians court the slums residents by promising to not tear down the slum, despite the valuable land and close proximity to downtown Mumbai that could arguably be allocated for a better purpose than shacks.

Mumbai residents would rather the slum exist though, because this prevents the slum’s residents from living on the streets of Mumbai. In 2008, 25,000 FAMILIES lived illegally along Mumbai’s streets, many claiming that they were too poor to live in an “up-scale” place like Dharavi.

By: John Barry

John Barry — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:23:58 +0000

The best thing to do here would probably build something that’s going to last. These slums sound a tremendous amount like those in my native Rio de Janeiro so I can think of a plethora of problems with this plan in the short-run, but in the long-run it would probably be the best thing to do.

One concern would be the potential backlash caused by the temporary relocation of the residents. The next problem would be finding them temporary housing. Will they get apartments in the new high-rises? My guess is no. And while I believe wholeheartedly in the attachment the residents feel to their slums, I believe that a public relations campaign would solve any issues with initial resistance to a move or change of lifestyle. The biggest concern I foresee in the minds of residents, is how they will make their living outside of the slum. While industrious and enterprising, their micro-businesses mostly revolve around the slums and the needs of its residents. In a more developed and modern living situation, the need for such services may infact vanish.

By: Jason Silver

Jason Silver — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:09:46 +0000

It must be the job of government to listen to the people. The citizens living in this humongous slum are generally opposed to new developments being built in place of their current dwellings. If this part of the population produces close to $1 billion of economic value, their opinions should be taken into account. If they want to keep their standard of living the same, they should have the freedom to do so. Until there is a fundamental shift in psychology that people cannot live in such conditions, this type of poverty will persist. And with so many people living such poor conditions, it will take quite a while to see that change.

By: Lindsay Leaver

Lindsay Leaver — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 01:10:27 +0000

There is obviously no easy answer to this conundrum. The city planners want to get rid of Dharavi and replace it with the new direction that the city is moving in. The people in the slum feel proud of their home and fear for what will happen if it is taken away. Both sides are right from their perspectives.

That being said, I don’t think people should go one living at this level of poverty if it can be avoided. Sure, they fiercely attached to the slum, that is their home! I wouldn’t want someone to bash my house down, no matter how small it is. But, if there was away to improve the lives of the people living there and involve them in the process, maybe they will be up for it. The solution might not be a high rise condo, it might be an expansion or renovation. I don’t know how building and infrastructure works, but I do know that people generally respond better to things when you include them in the decision process.