UNIVERSITEIT GENT
FACULTEIT POLITIEKE EN SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN
From Poverty Tourism to Pro-poor Tourism:
Opportunities and Difficulties of Slum Tourism in
Mumbai with regard to Poverty Reduction.
Wetenschappelijke verhandeling
aantal woorden: 22723
De Geest Glenn
MASTERPROEF POLITIEKE WETENSCHAPPEN
afstudeerrichting INTERNATIONALE POLITIEK
PROMOTOR: PROF. DR. Anne Walraet
COMMISSARIS: Tomas Van Acker
COMMISSARIS: Marieke Krijnen
ACADEMIEJAAR 2013 – 2014
Abstract
Arguably the most controversial recent development in international tourism is the rise of socalled slum tourism. This paper aims to contribute to the growing academic debate on this
subject. It is a case study of the tourism sector in the Dharavi slum of Mumbai, India. All data
was collected during a period of empirical field work in Dharavi spanning October and
November of 2013. The research is embedded in the broader debate on pro-poor tourism
(PPT) and aims at exploring if tourism in this particular case offers opportunities for poverty
reduction. In analyzing how the sector is organized, the focus is mainly on the activities of the
two main slum tour providers in the area, Reality Tours and Travel and Be The Local Tours
and Travels. It is examined to which extent both companies implement and contribute to propoor strategies. Further, ample attention is paid to the findings and experiences of slum
residents themselves, an aspect of the debate which has often been neglected. Their opinions
were gathered through a series of interviews, which I conducted with the help of local
student-translators. It will be shown that, although tourism in Dharavi has undeniably
produced some pro-poor benefits, there are still significant challenges to address and obstacles
to overcome if PPT is to be implemented effectively.
Samenvatting
De laatste decennia hebben zich grote ontwikkelingen in het internationaal toerisme voor
gedaan. Eén van de meest opvallende en controversiële trends is slum toerisme, bestaande uit
begeleide excursies door achtergestelde buurten, voornamelijk in steden van het Globale
Zuiden. De ethische kwesties rond deze vorm van toerisme worden heftig bediscussieerd. De
meest interessante vraag is misschien wel of dit soort toerisme economische en andere
voordelen kan bieden voor de lokale armen. Deze masterscriptie wil een bijdrage leveren aan
het academische debat rond slum toerisme, met name door dit in verband te brengen met het
idee van pro-poor tourism (PPT). PPT focust op het verschaffen van netto voordelen uit
toerisme aan de lokale armen. Concreet wordt dus onderzocht of slumtoerisme mogelijkheden
biedt voor armoedebestrijding.
Dit gebeurd aan de hand van een case studie over slum toerisme in de sloppenwijk Dharavi
van Mumbai, India. Hiervoor voerde ik eigen veldonderzoek in de periode van oktober tot
november 2013. Op basis van participatieve observatie en interviews met alle belangrijke
actoren wordt eerst een overzicht gegeven van de organisatie van de toeristische sector in
Dharavi. Hierbij is aandacht voor de verschillende spelers en hun relatieve bijdragen en
tekortkomingen voor pro-poor ontwikkeling. Daarna wordt veel aandacht besteed aan de
ervaringen en opinies van de lokale bevolking zelf, een onderdeel dat in veel studies tot
dusver nog wel eens werd genegeerd. Om deze gegevens te verzamelen, voerde ik een reeks
van meer dan 60 interviews met lokale bewoners, met de ondersteuning van plaatselijke
tolken.
De conclusie luidt dat toerisme zeker enkele pro-poor voordelen biedt, maar dat er vooralsnog
belangrijke uitdagingen en belemmeringen zijn die een effectieve implementatie van PPT in
de weg staan. Directe, financiële baten zijn vooral weggelegd voor een select groepje van
werknemers. Indirecte baten, zoals verbeterde toegang tot onderwijs en gezondheidszorg, zijn
wijder verspreid. Er moet echter ook gewezen worden op enkele negatieve gevolgen van
toerisme.
Table of contents
Introduction
Study design
1
Research questions and structure
2
Method
4
Background and theoretical framework
1. The problem of the slums and the need to address it
5
2. Slum tourism: origins and current appearances
7
3. Research on slum tourism: the state of the academic debate
9
4. Pro-poor tourism
14
4.1. The case for PPT
14
4.2. Pro-poor tourism strategies
16
4.3. Key factors and stakeholders of PPT
17
4.4. Measuring actual impact on the poor
19
Case study: slum tourism in Dharavi
1. Dharavi
20
2. The Dharavi tours
23
2.1. Slum tour providers
23
2.1.1. Reality Tours and Travel
23
2.1.2. Be The Local Tours and Travels
25
2.1.3. Mohammed’s Dharavi Slum Tours
26
2.1.4. Maverick tours
27
2.2. Opportunities and constraints for pro-poor development
28
2.2.1. Employment in the tourism sector
28
2.2.2. Other earning opportunities
30
2.2.3. Non-economic and indirect benefits of tourism
32
2.2.4. Addressing social and cultural impacts
34
2.3. Escalating competition? The ‘80%-controversy’
36
2.4. The role of the public sector
38
3. Analysis of interviews with Dharavi residents
40
3.1. Method and position of the researcher
40
3.2. General feelings about slum tourism: a ‘trouble spot’
42
3.3. Understanding of tourism motives
45
3.4. The benefits of tourism
50
Conclusions
Economic benefits of tourism
52
Non-economic benefits and impact
54
Final conclusion: measuring actual impact on the poor
56
References
1. Literature
58
2. Internet sources
60
From Poverty Tourism to Pro-poor Tourism: Opportunities and
Difficulties of Slum Tourism in Mumbai with regard to Poverty
Reduction.
Introduction
Study design
The last decades have seen major developments in international tourism. As a counter to more
traditional, mainstream forms of tourism, some tourists have expressed a desire for new ways
to experience a foreign country. This has given rise to alternative forms of tourism such as
ecotourism, dark tourism and volunteer travel. One of the most remarkable trends is the
growing market for so-called poverty tourism or ‘poorism’. This manifests itself mainly in the
form of slum tours, which are now being offered in a number of major cities across the globe,
primarily in countries of the Global South. These tours are organized excursions to urban
slums or other deprived areas, where mostly Western tourists are introduced to the daily life
of the poor. These trips are supposed to offer visitors the opportunity to experience a foreign
country in a more ‘realistic’ and ‘meaningful’ way.
Freire-Medeiros (2009; 2011) has called this phenomenon the commodification of poverty.
Karl Marx once wrote that within capitalism everything can be reduced to commodities,
except for poverty, which has no exchange value. Nonetheless, it appears that poverty has
now become a consumer product (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). This development has
predictably sparked a debate. Despite the growing popularity of the slum tours, they have
been met with criticism and controversy. Opponents reject them as voyeuristic and
exploitative, making money out of the display of poverty while visited communities gain little
in return. Critics see slum tourism as an obscene form of entertainment (Weiner 2008; SaintUpéry 2010). Proponents in turn point to positive aspects of slum tourism: They argue that it
improves the image of impoverished areas and their residents, and provides tourists with a
better understanding of the world. As such, slum tourism would increase empathy and social
awareness. Furthermore, supporters argue that slum tourism aids the local economy and might
even be a legitimate way to fight poverty (Tourism Concern, n.d.).
1
This discussion was first conducted in a growing number of press articles before finding its
way to the academic world. Much attention has gone to the question if this kind of tourism is
morally justifiable. Apart from this philosophical issue, slum tourism raises numerous other
questions: How is the sector organized and who are the stakeholders? How do tour operators
present the slums to their customers? How do both tourists and the local population
experience the tours? And who actually benefits from this new development in tourism?
Arguably the most interesting aspect of the discussion is if this kind of tourism could, in
particular cases, be a force for positive change. To the point, the question is if slum tourism
could, directly or indirectly, contribute to poverty reduction. If so, this would alleviate some
of the ethical concerns on the slum tours. In this respect, a link can be established with the
debate on pro-poor tourism (PPT), whose core idea is to use tourism as a tool for pro-poor
development and poverty alleviation. PPT is tourism that results in net benefits for the local
poor. This includes both economic benefits, such as employment and business opportunities,
and other gains, like strengthened livelihood capacities and collective benefits.
In short, the aim of this dissertation is to examine if poverty tourism can also be pro-poor
tourism, that is to say: if it can bring real and lasting benefits to the visited areas. This will be
done by means of a specific case study, namely on slum tourism in the Dharavi area of
Mumbai, India.
Research questions and structure
First, I will briefly discuss ‘the slum’ and the historical roots and contemporary forms of slum
tourism. Next, the current state of academic research on slum tourism will be explored,
focusing on major trends and identifying some gaps in the literature. It will be indicated how
this study positions itself within this discussion and how it aims to address those gaps.
Subsequently, I will take up the debate on pro-poor tourism. The case will be made in favor of
PPT, but there will also be room for some critical reflections. Next, common PPT strategies,
stakeholders and impacts will be identified. These will be considered as benchmarks, which
will give us the means to properly evaluate the pro-poor aspects and potential of the case
study. Once the theoretical framework is established, I will turn to the actual case study on
slum tourism in Dharavi.
2
India is one of the emerging economies in the world and is starting to assert itself on a global
scale. Long a recipient of foreign aid, India has in the last decade been increasingly dismissive
towards Western donors and has even started to grant foreign assistance itself. At the same
time, India is still home to tens of millions of poor, and the government has as of yet not been
capable of bringing about drastic domestic change. The contrast and widening gap between
rich and poor is arguably nowhere as glaring as in Mumbai. In the financial capital of India,
more than half of the population struggles with substandard living conditions. Since 2006,
guided tours have been conducted through the most famous of Mumbai’s slums: Dharavi. In
2012, Reality Tours and Travel (RTT) – Mumbai’s dominant slum tour operator – was the
overall winner of the Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards and won the category
‘Best for poverty reduction’. RTT seems to be considered an example of responsible tourism
and is thus an ideal starting point for my research. However, literature on slum tourism in
Mumbai has up to this point focused almost exclusively on RTT. My intent is to expand the
scope and pay equal attention to other ways in which tourists visit Dharavi. I will provide an
analysis of the slum tours and compare the business structures, activities and methods of the
different tour providers: Who are the major competitors, what are their main differences and
how do they compete? How are the slum tours organized, what is shown on the tours and
why? Thus, the first part of the case study will provide a thorough analysis of the tourism
sector in Dharavi, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor therein. Employment and
other earning opportunities will be discussed, as well as the impact of existing development
programs funded with tourism profits. There must also be attention for the ways in which tour
operators prevent or address negative impacts of tourism on the area, which is connected to
the ethical concerns on slum tourism. Finally, I will comment on the role of the public sector
in slum tourism.
The second part of the case study will focus entirely on the experiences of slum residents with
tourism. This has been identified as a weakness of slum tourism research: Up to this point, the
voices of local residents have often been ignored. As a result, important questions remain
unanswered. In this study, the intention was to make the input of slum residents an integral
part of the analysis. Their overall opinions on tourism, their knowledge of the tourism sector
and their views on (possible) benefits from tourism, will all be assessed. Ultimately, all
accumulated findings will be compared systematically to the previously established
theoretical benchmarks. Based on this, a final conclusion can be drawn on the pro-poor
possibilities and deficits of slum tourism in Dharavi, while offering options for PPT in the
3
future. This study does not make ethical evaluations on the question if slum tours should exist,
but instead hopes to provide an objective analysis of the way in which these tours are
currently conducted, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor and the difficulties they
encounter to reap the benefits of tourism. Rather than outright reject the slum tours on moral
grounds, I would explore if these are or could be conducted in a responsible manner and offer
suggestions in that direction.
Method
To accomplish the research objectives, I first conducted a review of the relevant literature on
slum tourism and on pro-poor tourism. With the latter, I focused on identifying indicators
which could be used to evaluate the case study. For that case study, I collected all data during
a period of empirical field work in Dharavi spanning October and November of 2013. The
first technique used was participatory observation: Initially posing as an average tourist, I
took part in Dharavi tours with as many different providers, both formal and informal, as I
could find. Thereafter, I informed the slum tour providers of my research intentions and
conducted interviews with all key players within the sector. With some of them, I later
maintained contact via e-mail to answer some additional questions. Next, I conducted a series
of short, semi-structured interviews with over 60 local residents who were not directly
affiliated with the tourism sector. Their views and opinions on a number of aspects of tourism
were polled. To account for language barriers with the slum residents I received the support of
local student-guides who acted as my translators. In order to get an overall image, the
collected responses were later grouped according to similarity and will be presented in charts.
The different methods will be discussed in greater detail at the appropriate times within this
study.
4
Background and theoretical framework
1. The problem of the slums and the need to address it
There is no general, widely recognized definition of a slum. The term can refer to highly
diverse living areas in different parts of the world, each with their own unique history and
political, economic and social background. ‘The slum’ can thus take on multiple forms. What
is considered a slum depends at least partially on the context: What is regarded as a slum in
one country or city, may be quite ordinary living conditions in another. Even at the local level,
within a metropolitan area, slum areas may differ sharply in terms of appearance and living
conditions. Therefore, slums are simply too complex, varied and volatile to be encompassed
by one conclusive definition. Various national and local governments, statistics offices and
other institutions use different definitions, depending on specific contexts (UN-Habitat 2003:
10-11).
Although it is near impossible to find a comprehensive definition, one can distinguish a
number of characteristics of slum areas. According to the United Nations Human Settlement
Programme (2003: 11-12), features that are generally associated with slums include a lack of
basic amenities (water, electricity, sanitation, etc.), substandard and illegal lodging,
overpopulation and lack of living space, unsanitary living conditions and unsafe
environments, and uncertain tenure (illegal and informal settlements). To be considered a
slum, a settlement also needs to have a certain magnitude, largely depending on criteria used
by local and national governments. Although poverty and the slum are closely tied and
mutually reinforcing, poverty is more correctly seen as cause and effect of bad living
conditions, rather than an inherent feature of the slums. The relation between the two is not
exclusive: There are relatively wealthy people living in slum areas, while conversely in most
cities many poor people are living outside of the slums. To be classified as a slum area, a
settlement must possess multiple, but not necessarily all of these features. Not all slum
dwellers thus suffer from the same degree of deprivation.
Following these criteria, nearly one billion people worldwide live in slums, mainly in – but
certainly not limited to – countries of the so-called Third World. Asia and Africa dominate the
picture, with 80% of all slum dwellers between them. Moreover, it is forecasted that without
effective action, the global number of slum dwellers will continue to grow exponentially, up
5
to two billion people by 2030. Globally, poverty is shifting from rural to urban areas, largely
due to the influx of migrants who escape the countryside and settle on the edge of major cities
in search of more opportunities – a process referred to as urbanization of poverty (UNHabitat, v, 13-16).
The slum issue is therefore cause for concern in the international community. One of the
Millennium Development Goals (2000) is “to have achieved a significant improvement in the
lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020”. This by taking measures with regard to
housing, urban poverty and unemployment, and access to basic provisions. In the past,
governments and donors too often reasoned that the provision of improved lodging and
services, through so-called slum upgrading, would solve the problem of the slums. The
underlying causes of the living conditions, in particular poverty, were not (directly) addressed.
UN-Habitat therefore now focuses on direct poverty alleviation and livelihood support for the
urban poor, including informal economic activities. They want to improve the efficiency of
policy measures by directly involving the poor themselves (UN-Habitat 2003). The United
Nations has called this strategy a success, with the target being met well in advance of the
2020 deadline (UN 2012). However, while the overall share of urban slum residents as a
percentage of world population has decreased, their absolute number has in fact continued to
rise. Thus, many challenges remain.
In light of this renewed strategy, tourism has been cited as a potential platform for poverty
reduction. This was reflected as early as 2002 in the ST-EP initiative launched by the World
Tourism Organization (UNTWO). ST-EP (Sustainable Tourism Eliminating Poverty) strives
to unlock opportunities in tourism for the local poor (http://step.unwto.org/). This fits in
seamlessly with the ideas of pro-poor tourism, which will be discussed in greater detail further
on.
6
2. Slum tourism: origins and current appearances
Although it has developed rapidly over the last years and has only quite recently been brought
to attention in mainstream media and the academic world, slum tourism is not a new
phenomenon. The curiosity for and interest in the slum is as old as the slum itself (Steinbrink
2012: 6). In nineteenth century England, members of the upper class went ‘slumming’ in the
backstreets of London, either as a pastime or out of philanthropic considerations. This form of
entertainment spilled over to the United States, where underprivileged neighbourhoods of
New York and Chicago were visited and exposed to the city’s upper and middle classes.
However, around the turn of the century the practice went out of style.
Although slum tourism originated in the West, the more recent manifestations have appeared
primarily in countries of the Global South. Slum tourism re-emerged first in South Africa. As
early as the 1980s, NGO’s and local residents organized township tours to make white policy
makers aware of the poor living conditions of black people in the segregated and marginalized
neighbourhoods. These tours soon became popular with what Dondolo (2002) called “struggle
junkies”, political tourists who were interested in the fight against Apartheid. Since the end of
Apartheid, with South Africa no longer isolated and mainstream tourism growing
exponentially, so too has township tourism grown dramatically in all its major cities, up to an
estimated 800,000 visitors annually (Frenzel, Koens & Steinbrink 2012: 4). Nowadays a visit
to the townships is one of the main attractions offered by several of South Africa’s major tour
operators. The sector receives government support and is seen by policy makers as an
important potential source of economic income (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 208-209). The
second important destination of slum tourism are the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.
Tourism emerged here after the 1992 Earth Summit, when due to the massive interest of UNdelegates tour operators began offering favela tours. Estimates now speak of more than
50,000 tourists per annum, most of which visit the Rocinha district. More recently slum
tourism has spread through various local initiatives to other locations in the Global South:
Mumbai in India, Nairobi in Kenya, Cairo in Egypt (Ashwa’iyyatt tourism), Mazatlán in
Mexico, Jakarta in Indonesia, Kingston in Jamaica, Bangkok in Thailand, multiple Chinese
cities (urban villages) and some ghettos in the United States (Frenzel et al. 2012: 5-8).
7
From a particular niche in a few specific locations, slum tourism has evolved into a global
phenomenon that now appears on five different continents. Just like the slums themselves,
slum tourism takes on many different shapes and forms. Steinbrink (2012: 19) links the
current manifestations of slum tourism and the global spread of the phenomenon to the
globalization of the world in general and tourism in particular, and thus calls this a period of
“global slumming”. Slum tourism mainly takes place in major cities, in locations where other,
more traditional tourism activities are also being offered. Noteworthy is that it primarily
appears in so-called emerging economies, such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa
(BRICS).
In many of those locations, pioneers of renewed slum tourism were who Frenzel et al. (2012:
4) have called “professional and altruistic slummers”: journalists, academics, social reformers
and political activists. They form the image of the slums that is spread in the West, through
pictures, film and reports. In that way, they contribute to the production of the slum as a
tourist sight. Slum tour operators benefit from the globalization of tourism and the growing
concern with issues of the Global South in the world press. Popular culture also heavily
influenced the influx of tourists in the last decade: films such as Cidade de Deus (Rio’s
favelas), The Constant Gardener (Nairobi’s Kibera slum) and Slumdog Millionaire
(Mumbai’s Dharavi slum) romanticise slum life and tickle the imagination. The decisive
move towards offering slum tours was made by enterprising individuals and small-scale local
companies or NGOs. Only at a later stage do major, internationally orientated travel agencies
enter the market. This has been especially the case in South-Africa and Brazil; in other
locations, slum tourism started more recently and is still at an earlier phase.1
1
Bangkok (Thailand) is the exception to this rule: here the reputed tour operator Asian Trail
dominated the market from the outset and was not preceded by smaller-scale initiatives.
8
3. Research on slum tourism: the state of the academic debate
Parallel to the bloom of slum tourism, there is a growing academic interest in the
phenomenon. The last few years have seen a noticeable increase in the number of publications
on this topic. The fact that slum tourism is a rather young area of research has both benefits
and drawbacks. On the one hand the scope of the literature is still manageable, on the other
hand a clear line has yet to be formed and research tends to go in all directions. Fabian
Frenzel and Ko Koens, who together with Bianca Freire-Medeiros might yet be seen as the
leading voices on this subject, offered a survey of the current state of research and pointed out
gaps and possibilities for future analysis. According to them, research in this field has thus far
been undisciplined, in the sense that the subject has been approached from various scientific
disciplines and multiple theoretical angles (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 198). Most contributions
are case studies. Research long focused primarily on township tourism in South Africa and
favela tourism in Brazil. Recently, other locations are getting more attention, as was evident at
the recent Destination Slum conference in Potsdam (May 2014), the second international
conference on slum tourism.
The moral ambiguity of slum tourism has been the focus of the majority of press releases on
the matter, and that ethical issue is a major aspect of the academic debate as well. In brief, the
issue is whether it is morally acceptable for privileged tourists to visit underprivileged areas,
with the purpose of experiencing how the less fortunate live (Outterson, Powys White &
Selinger 2011: 2). Critics find it voyeuristic and an obscene form of entertainment; some have
gone as far as to compare it to a human zoo (Saint-Upéry 2010). Tour operators are aware of
such criticism, but of course paint a more upbeat picture. Their aim is, they state, to break
negative stereotypes, promote social awareness and stimulate the local economy. To put their
claims to power, most of them stress their ties with local development projects they support,
financially and otherwise. The extent of this support, however, is often far from clear.
Interviews with tourists confirm that tourism enterprises indeed succeed, at least to some
extent, in changing the image of poverty. Rolfes (2010), for example, notes that many tourists
adjusted their image of the slum and its inhabitants in a positive sense after their visit.
Regarding the impact of slum tourism on the local economy, most researchers are more
pessimistic. Several studies on the sector in South Africa, for example, reveal there are as of
yet major obstacles to overcome before the local population can actually benefit from tourism
(Rogerson 2004; Scheyvens 2007). Due to lack of market access and frequent power abuse,
9
only a limited group reaps the benefits; even for them, this often does not imply a fulltime
income (Koens 2012).
An interesting question is how tourists deal with the ethical issue. It is striking that many of
them tend to ignore this issue altogether. When their expectations are gauged, it shows that
poverty is the main feature tourists associate with the slums. If we assume tourists want to see
what they expect to see, we might logically deduce poverty to be the major pull factor of
tourism. Still, few explicitly admit they have come to see poverty – probably because they
themselves perceive this curiosity as morally problematic (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). As
the reason for their visit, tourists more often cite the fact that they hope to see ‘everyday life’
and to get a more ‘authentic’ experience. According to Frenzel (cited in McGuinness 2012) it
comes down to a curiosity about ‘the other’, a desire to see something new and different,
something that moreover is often associated with insecurity and is therefore exciting. In this
respect, Steinbrink (cited in McGuinness 2012) speaks of ‘social bungee-jumping’: visitors
leap into the life of the poor, but have the safety cable of the tour operator to pull them back
up. Meschkank (2010: 56) relates slum tourism to the need to present oneself as ‘better’, “a
brave and serious traveller in contrast to a foolish and superficial tourist”. These motives seem
self-centred, but Frenzel (cited in McGuinness 2012) notes that other tourists are likewise
driven by a desire to acquire a broader and thus more complete picture of the country, in order
to understand it, and thus give more meaning to their trip. That a portion of tourists does
indeed struggle with the moral dilemma is evident from several newspaper articles, blog posts
and my own personal conversations with visitors of Dharavi.
All authors acknowledge the ethical concerns regarding slum tourism. In an attempt to solve
those problems, some of them offer tips for responsible slum tourism. Koens (cited in
McGuinness 2012) states that both proponents and opponents are often too generalizing in
their arguments. He seeks a balance by arguing that slum tourism may very well benefit local
communities, provide residents with income and even give them a certain pride, if only when
the tours are conducted in a respectful manner. An example is to not take pictures of people
who are not directly involved with the tour organization. Koens (blog post, March 31, 2011)
also favours direct contact between tourists and locals, to give the latter the opportunity to tell
their own story and thus debunk stereotypes. Unfortunately this direct contact is often lacking,
due to strict time schedules, language barriers and even a not infrequent lack of desire among
tourists themselves to have a meaningful conversation. Outterson et al. (2011) argue tourists
10
should only participate in poverty tourism if there is a mutually beneficial transaction. This
should be a partnership with mutual consent; the visited community should be compensated
fairly. At the same time, they acknowledge the difficulties travellers might have in judging if
a certain tour meets these criteria, given they do not have easy access to the locals’
perspective. Booyens (2010) finally points to the role of local authorities in the development
of responsible tourism options.
Strongly associated with the ethical issue is the question of representation and interpretation
of the slum. Tour operators and guides have an important role as intermediaries, who interpret
the slum and form it into a narrative for the tourists (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). The tours
claim to portray the ‘reality’ of slum life (reality tourism), as opposed to the ‘fictional’ – and
presumably more negative – image that is prevalent in the West. In fact, each reproduction is
of course always subjective, conditional and dubious; a construction of reality (Dyson 2012).
Tourism businesses naturally want to make a profit and benefit from bringing their customers
an appealing story. For this, they are highly dependent on visual aspects. They search for
strong images that accentuate both negative and positive aspects of slum life. An example is
when tourists are consciously being led past a dumping ground (shocking), before visiting a
school (heart-warming). Slum tour providers help visitors to construct their own experience as
more authentic, morally superior and more valuable than that of other (‘mainstream’) tourists
(Frenzel & Koens 2012: 200). In most cases tourists will accept the story that is presented to
them without question as ‘authentic’ and ‘realistic’. Goossens (2011: 6) argues that for the
visitors, the experience of the slum tour becomes a symbolic signifier of all poverty and
inequality in the world. A complex reality is thus reduced to a more easily consumable
product. Additionally, she cautions that poverty might come to be seen as a cultural difference
instead of an economical one, thus reducing the need for a political-economical solution.
Stereotypes such as that of the ‘cohesive community’ or ‘poor but happy’ provide a feel good
effect, which reduce the tourists’ feelings of guilt about their own privileges. In this way, the
tours might contribute to the “de-problematization and de-politicization” of poverty, rather
than to raising awareness (Goossens 2011: 11).
Also addressed in academic literature, albeit to a lesser extent, is the link between slum
tourism and the issue of poverty reduction. Since the 1970s, there has been optimism in some
circles about tourism as a tool for local economic development. It is from this perspective, for
example, that the South African government has been supporting and promoting township
11
tourism for the last two decades. However, for almost an equally long time period, empirical
research has raised doubts about this optimism. By now it is obvious that slum tourism in no
way automatically ensures benefits for the poor and hence is not necessarily a good option for
development (Booyens 2010). This of course does not entail that it cannot have positive
effects and should be completely dismissed. It simply means that adjustments should be
considered that benefit the poor, which in turn would make tourism more responsible and
justifiable. This discussion can be situated within the broader debate on pro-poor tourism.
Frenzel and Koens (2012: 201) have argued that researchers on slum tourism might have an
interest in following this debate, and could very well contribute to it as well.
As current gaps in the state of research and opportunities for further investigation, Frenzel and
Koens (2012: 208-210) first note a better understanding of the way in which the tourism chain
is organized. This includes the role of transnational brokers, the relation between bigger
(international) travel agencies and smaller local players, and how various local enterprises
(handicraft, accommodation, catering and transport) respond to tourism. Ko Koens (2012)
himself has touched upon this in his research on Cape Town, South Africa. His findings
illustrate the complexity of the subject, and how difficult it is for microenterprises to obtain a
place in this chain. A second, and arguably the most important gap in the research is the
position of local inhabitants. Research has thus far been conducted primarily from the
perspective of travel agencies and tourists, while the feelings and reactions of slum residents
on the tourism activities have largely been ignored. This is likely mainly for practical reasons.
Language and cultural differences make contact with local residents far less convenient than
with tourists, who in most cases share similar (Western) backgrounds with most researchers.
As a result, important questions remain unanswered: How do slum residents experience
tourism? How do they feel about the way their living environment is presented? In which
ways do or could they obtain advantages from the advent of tourism and which disadvantages
do they suffer? What little information there is on this topic suggests that with locals too there
are supporters and opponents, and that the overwhelming majority of them do not find easy
access to tourism benefits (Rogerson 2004 and Koens 2012, among others).
My own contribution to this debate follows the tradition of a case study. It focuses less on the
ethics of slum tourism per se, but rather on the way slum tourism is currently being conducted
in one particular location. In order to transcend the descriptive level and deliver a socially
relevant contribution, and following the recommendations of Frenzel and Koens (2012), this
12
study is imbedded within the debate on pro-poor tourism. The organization of the tourism
sector is examined, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor. And an important gap in
slum tourism research is addressed by making the experiences of slum residents an integral
part of the analysis.
13
4. Pro-poor tourism
4.1. The case for PPT
Pro-poor tourism (PPT) is defined as tourism that generates net benefits for the poor. This
includes economic as well as social, environmental and cultural gains (Ashley, Goodwin &
Roe 2001: 2). Supporters of PPT want to employ international tourism as a development tool,
to contribute to poverty alleviation in the developing world. The underlying idea is that, on
the one hand, long-term sustainable poverty reduction requires pro-poor growth. On the other,
tourism is an important and fast growing sector in many countries of the Global South and can
contribute significantly to economic growth. Thus it is believed that, if a concerted effort is
made, tourism could contribute to pro-poor development and could thus be used to alleviate
poverty in deprived communities (Ashley et al. 2001: 48). The potential of rapidly growing
international tourism to aid in poverty alleviation was first noted in the 1970s and was initially
endorsed by the World Bank. Fading into the background in the 1980s and most of the 1990s,
the idea of tourism-based poverty reduction resurfaced and was brought to attention by the
Earth Council’s Agenda 21 (1996), which was subsequently adopted by the United Nations
(1999). The Millennium Development Goals of 2000 further endorsed tourism’s role in
poverty reduction (Harrison 2008: 851-852) and was followed by the launch of UNTWO’s
ST-EP initiative. Around the same time, the movement for pro-poor tourism emerged in
earnest.
The tourism sector indeed has some characteristics which make it particularly suitable for propoor strategies: It is labour-intensive, offers possibilities for small-scale initiatives, provides
opportunities for the informal sector and vulnerable groups such as women and migrants, and
is in many cases based on the natural and cultural capital of the poor (Chock, Macbeth &
Warren 2001). PPT-initiatives can not only generate income for the poor, they can also
provide collective gains for the community, which could be invested in infrastructure,
education, health care, etc. Other positive effects may be skills development; improved access
to information, infrastructure, credit and markets; and the strengthening of communal
organizations. Less tangible changes have also been noted, such as increased pride and
optimism, and increased participation in decision making (Ashley et al. 2001).
14
PPT is not limited or tied to any one development theory or model, a specific method, nor to
any tourism niche (Harrison 2008: 855-858). It is a holistic approach characterized by a focus
on providing net benefits for the poor and can be encapsulated by a set of principles:
participation, focus on livelihood, distribution (of benefits and costs), flexibility and
commercial realism (Ashley et al. 2001: 2). The intent of PPT is not to create new tourism
products and expand the field, but to unlock opportunities for the poor within the current
scope of tourism. Although PPT might apply to any form of travel and is not opposed to
mainstream tourism, it seems clear that slum tourism is ideally suited for PPT-initiatives,
since in this case it is the living environment of the poor itself that is the subject. The poor are
thus directly involved and should, at least in theory, be able to get easier access to the benefits
of tourism. Indeed, most case studies of PPT have focused on small-scale, community-based
tourism activities.
PPT has received its fair share of criticism. Criticasters naturally do not deny the importance
of poverty reduction, but they question if PPT is the right strategy. Firstly, according to Chock
et al. (2001), there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that tourism can provide
considerable improvements for the poor. It is true PPT-initiatives have thus far had little
impact on a national level. This is because projects are mostly small-scale, site-specific and/or
at the early stages of implementation (Ashley et al. 2001: ix). However, at the local level, PPT
can have considerable impact. Secondly, Hall (2007: 4) argues that it is still the wealthy who
benefit the most from tourism. He joins Solomon in calling for a complete revision of tourism
practices, in order to “guarantee it is just, participative, and geared to authentic advancement”
(cited in Hall 2007: 4). PPT-proponents do not deny the validity of these points, but choose to
focus on bringing about direct, measurable change while accepting the limitations of the
international system (Harrison 2008: 855-858). It is accepted that non-poor may also benefit
from tourism, even to a disproportionally large extent. As has been previously stated, the
focus is on net benefits rather than their relative distribution. As long as the poor benefit as
well, initiatives might be considered pro-poor. It is thus a pragmatic approach that focuses on
feasible goals. Likewise, PPT is not anti-capitalist, but strives to find opportunities for the
poor within existing capitalist markets. For it to be successful, PPT needs to be integrated into
wider tourism systems.
15
In spite of criticism, Ashley et al. (2001: 41) argue that case studies have revealed PPTstrategies do provide opportunities and benefits to certain individuals and communities. Even
if gains are small in absolute terms (on a national scale) or relative terms (in comparison to
the profits made by more powerful actors), PPT can be invaluable for those involved, playing
an important role in livelihood security and poverty reduction. Employment can provide a
way out of poverty, and small earnings an additional income as part of a survival strategy.
Many more still are affected by non-financial livelihood benefits, which are hard to quantify,
but can reduce the vulnerability of the poor.
4.2. Pro-poor tourism strategies
There is no blueprint for PPT; location-specific circumstances dictate to a large extent which
steps are possible and efficient in order to reach pro-poor goals. In other words, strategies
must always be adapted to local realities. However, in order to conduct a case study, it is
necessary to identify some specific criteria of PPT. From a number of earlier case studies,
Ashley et al. (2001) have identified common PPT-strategies. These shall be, as far as possible,
used in this work as benchmarks to evaluate to what extent slum tourism in Mumbai is or
could be consistent with PPT.
According to Ashley et al. (2001: 11-17), PPT-strategies focus on the following core areas:

Expanding economic benefits for the poor
o Business opportunities
Developing small complementary tourism enterprises, particularly in the informal
sector. Examples are craft initiatives, cultural displays or enterprises that supply the
tourism industry itself. Obstacles such as lack of market opportunities and investment
capital must be addressed.
o Employment opportunities
Tourism is labour-intensive and can provide semi-skilled and unskilled jobs for the
local poor, including for vulnerable groups such as women and migrants. Both regular
jobs and casual earning opportunities should be unlocked.
o Collective benefits
Collective community income, through equity stakes or community payments, can be
used for needs that would not otherwise be met. To be effectively managed, strong,
accountable and transparent community organizations are needed.
16

Addressing non-economic impacts
o Livelihood benefits
Capacity building, training and empowerment; transfer of skills and knowledge.
Increased participation and access to assets can reduce vulnerability.
o Mitigating environmental impacts of tourism
Tourism can lead to displacement of the poor from their land or degradation of natural
resources on which they depend.
o Tackling social and cultural impacts of tourism
Tourists’ behaviour might be regarded as cultural intrusion.

Developing pro-poor policies and process reform
o Building a more supportive policy and planning framework
Promoting participatory planning and increasing communication with the government,
lobbying for supportive policies and legislation and for investments in infrastructural
development.
o Promoting participation
The poor are often excluded from decision-making processes, making it very unlikely
their priorities will be reflected. They should be made stakeholders instead of passive
recipients.
o Bringing the private sector into pro-poor partnerships
Ideally there should be a tripartite partnership between company, community and
government.
4.3. Key factors and stakeholders of PPT
Additionally, Ashley et al. (2001: vii, 28-36) identified a number of critical issues that
facilitate or constrain PPT:

Access of the poor to the market
Factors such as the strength of economic elites, the physical location and social constraints
can hinder poor people’s access to the market.

Commercial viability
Ensuring and sustaining commercial viability is critical. PPT should be a long-term
investment. Continued importance of active marketing, establishing links with
international tour operators and securing government support.
17

Policy framework
Government attitude and commitment can be crucial. At the minimum there needs to be a
policy environment that facilitates PPT.

Implementation challenges. These include:
o Skills and capacity gap: lack of business skills and understanding of tourism.
o Cost of PPT for private companies: additional funds from tourists, NGOs or
donors might be needed.
o Managing expectations: unrealistic expectations may cause enthusiasm to wane
quickly.
o Maximizing collaboration between stakeholders.
A diversity of actors must be involved for PPT-strategies to be implemented effectively.
Following Ashley et al. (2001: 43-44), the key stakeholders are:

Private sector
Private tourism enterprises can employ a number of pro-poor strategies. They can establish
business partnerships with local residents or whole communities and maximize the use of
local suppliers and staff. They can share or develop infrastructure, key equipment or services
and help boost understanding of the tourism industry among the poor, governments and
NGOs. They can also collect donations from tourists.

Government
There is much that only governments can do – in terms of policies, regulations and
coordination. “While many interventions and actions can take place outside of the sphere of
responsibility of the state, they cannot be fully effective without a strong commitment and
involvement of government in the area of policy”, say Ashley et al. (2001: 33).

The poor
The poor are involved as individual producers, employees, casual labourers, and operators of
micro and small enterprises. The community as a whole can be an actor through strong and
representative community organizations, which negotiate a community stake, manage
collective assets or income and participate in decision-making.

Civil society
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can act as an intermediary and explore options for
linkages between different stakeholders.
18

Donors
Donors can, through strategic donations, ensure pro-poor possibilities in a specific area are
fully assessed. They can promote PPT within the international agenda.
4.4. Measuring actual impact on the poor
As Ashley et al. (2001: 18) put it, “success is not measured in terms of intentions but in terms
of actual reductions in poverty”. To measure the actual impact on the poor, the following
factors should be reviewed (Ashley et al. 2001: 18-27):

Financial impact: all local earnings, including regular wages, casual earnings and
collective income for the community.

Livelihood impact: all non-economic benefits and impacts, such as:
o Human capital: enhanced skills, improved access to education and health.
o Physical capital: improvements in infrastructure (roads, water, tools).
o Financial capital: access to credit, loans and investments.
o Social capital: strengthening of community institutions, enhanced cohesion and
sense of purpose. Conversely, tourism might also lead to intra-community tensions
over community funds, inequitable power balances or problems in collective
management of resources and enterprises.
o Natural capital: tourism can provide incentives for conservation activities.
o Access to information: increased communication and external contact.
o Policy context: attitude change at policy level, recognition of the poor as
stakeholders, spread of more participatory approaches.
o New market opportunities and livelihood options: contact between the community
and tour operators generates ideas and opportunities.
o Cultural values: tourism is seen as valuing and encouraging local cultural assets,
knowledge and skills. On the downside, there may be cultural intrusion and
excessive commodification.
o Optimism, pride and participation: contribute to a sense of empowerment.
o Exposure to risk and exploitation: tourism is notoriously fickle and seasonal.
Overdependence can exacerbate the vulnerability of the poor.
19
Case study: slum tourism in Dharavi
1. Dharavi
Up to the late 19th century, the area of present-day Dharavi was predominantly marshland
inhabited by Koli fishermen (Jacobsen 2007). In the 1880s the British colonial rulers,
concerned about epidemics in an already densely populated Bombay, pushed polluting
industries and Indian natives out of the main peninsula and to the edge of the city (Nijman
2010). Different communities of tanners and potters moved into Dharavi, soon joined by rural
migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and other parts of India. Without spatial planning or
major investments in infrastructure, living quarters and small-scale factories grew at random,
without provision for sanitation, drains, drinking water, roads, or other basic services. By the
time of India’s independence, Dharavi was the country’s largest slum. Dharavi later gained
notoriety as one of the major slum areas in the world. The area is about 225 hectares in size
and the number of inhabitants has been estimated to be anywhere from 300,000 to more than
one million people. As a result, Dharavi has one of the highest population densities in the
world (Nijman 2010: 8). Today, although it is still marketed as such, Dharavi may in fact not
even be the biggest slum in the Mumbai metropolitan area anymore. The city is rapidly
expanding, nearly doubling its population since the early 1990s, and has enormous problems
with regard to substandard living conditions: An estimated 60% of its approximately 20
million residents lives in slums (Jain 2010). Davis (2006: 23) therefore has called Mumbai
“the global capital of slum dwelling”. The shanty towns at the edge of the city have continued
to grow at an exponential rate and according to some sources may already have surpassed
Dharavi in size (Lewis 2011).
Two factors make Dharavi unlike any other slum in India, and quite possibly the world. First
is its unique location at the heart of the economic capital of India. As Bombay/Mumbai
continued to grow to the north, the city surrounded Dharavi. What was once the edge of the
city lies now at its centre. The second aspect, directly linked to its location, is Dharavi’s
thriving economy. The slum is home to thousands of small-scale and household enterprises,
chiefly engaged in textile, leather, pottery and recycling. The estimated annual turnover is up
to 500 million euro per annum. Dharavi thus contributes greatly to the city’s (informal)
economy and its products often find their way abroad. Dharavi therefore continues to attract
rural poor looking for economic opportunities. Many work a few months in the factories –
20
where they receive board and lodging – before returning home, while others stay. Its central
location, between Mumbai’s two major suburban railway lines and adjacent to the Bandra
Kurla business complex, and its comparatively low rental rates explain its appeal as a
residential area to many in the urban working class. However, its location also prevents the
Dharavi slum from expanding further horizontally; so now it starts to do so vertically.
Due to the relative economic prosperity, Dharavi is certainly not the poorest of slums: Nearly
all houses now have electricity and, at least for a few hours a day, tap water – (payable) basic
services provided by the government. TV and mobile phones are widespread. Contrary to
popular belief, crime rates are low: The sheer amount of people living closely together
enhances social control. Dharavi has its own shops, schools, and even a fire brigade and
police station. It is in effect a city within a city, and has been dubbed Mumbai’s shadow city
(Jacobsen 2007). Nonetheless, living conditions are still very much substandard: lack of living
space, bad infrastructure, unsafe and unhealthy work conditions, and a severe lack of sanitary
facilities – one toilet for every 1440 people – lead to serious public health concerns.
Epidemics and other disasters such as fire and flood are quite common. Because of its
location and size, both private investors and government officials are keen to redevelop the
area in order to pursue business opportunities. Since 1997, there have been multiple plans to
redevelop Dharavi. This has been a long and arduous process. The current plan calls for the
population to be relocated to apartment blocks, which would take up two-thirds of the area.
The remaining one-third would be used for economic exploitation, as compensation for
private investors. This would give the government more control over the area and the chance
to improve sanitation, but would also facilitate registration and thus revenue from taxes. The
plans have been met with significant local opposition. Some of the grievances are the limited
living space provided per resident and the fact that only those families who have lived in the
area since before the turn of the century would be relocated. Many residents also fear losing
their businesses in the process of resettlement.
The first wave of tourists came to Dharavi in 2006. Since then, their number has grown every
year. The hype surrounding the major motion picture Slumdog Millionaire (2008), partly shot
in Dharavi, contributed considerably to the growing stream of visitors. Accurate figures are
not available, but a reasonable estimate – based on conversations with tour operators – would
put their number today at around 20,000 per year, and growing. This makes Dharavi the third
largest destination of slum tourism in the world, although the numbers do not (yet) compare to
21
those recorded in township tourism in South Africa and favela tourism in Rio de Janeiro. As
the demand increased, more and more providers joined the market, both formal companies
and more informal players. Their activities will be discussed in the next chapter.
22
2. The Dharavi tours
In this chapter, we will take a closer look at the supply side of slum tourism. In October 2013,
I took part in seven Dharavi tours with six different guides representing five different
providers, initially posing as an ordinary tourist, to ensure I would get a representative
experience rather than an atypical treatment. This participative observation was thereafter
followed by a series of interviews: I informed the slum tour providers of my research
intentions and interviewed all key players within the sector, either informally or following a
prepared questionnaire, depending on the (possible) setting. In some cases this was further
supplemented with personal e-mail correspondence. Based on the information I gathered, an
overview is provided below of the different ways in which tourists visit Dharavi. An image
will also be formed of a ‘typical’ Dharavi tour. After the activities of the different tour
providers have been outlined, it will be discussed in what ways their policies correspond with
and diverge from previously mentioned pro-poor tourism strategies. In this, the focus will
mainly be on the two biggest tour companies. Attention will be paid to the way in which these
operators are currently competing, which may potentially cause problems in the future.
Finally, the role of the government – previously identified as an important (potential)
stakeholder in PPT – will be discussed.
2.1. Slum tour providers
The Dharavi tours can be divided into two categories. The first comprises the formal tours,
offered by legitimate tourism businesses. This implies these are licensed firms, who pay taxes.
The majority of tourists goes on a walking tour with one of two formal providers which
currently dominate the market. The second category are the informal tours, offered by
unlicensed freelance guides. These can be further subdivided between tours offered by
Dharavi residents and those conducted by outsiders. To my knowledge, only one Dharavi
resident currently offers slum tours as a freelance guide on a regular basis. The outsiders,
which van Winssen (2012: 7) has dubbed ‘maverick tours’, are more numerous.
2.1.1. Reality Tours and Travel
Pioneers of slum tourism in Dharavi were the Englishman Chris Way and his Indian associate
Khrisna Pujari. Inspired by favela tourism in Rio de Janeiro, they founded their company
Reality Tours and Travel (RTT) in 2005 and conducted their first tours in 2006. Since then,
the number of visitors has risen steadily each year, up to nearly 14,000 in 2013 (C. Way,
23
personal communication (p.c.), Jan. 27, 2014). This makes RTT the largest provider of
Dharavi tours, by a relatively wide margin. The company’s approach is disclosed in its name:
It aims to show the ‘real’ Dharavi. The stated objective is to show the positive side of the
slums
and
break
down
negative
stereotypes
about
its
residents
(http://www.realitytoursandtravel.com). RTT set up a community centre in Dharavi in 2007 to
provide English lessons and computer classes. In 2009, Way and Pujari started their own nonprofit organization, Reality Gives (formerly Reality Cares). RTT has since committed itself to
donate 80% of profits to their sister NGO, which provides educational programs for children
of Dharavi, and supports a number of micro-enterprises and community initiatives in the area.
In 2012, RTT was the overall winner of the Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards
and won the category ‘Best for poverty reduction’. The jury praised “its fully integrated
approach to realizing the social purpose of using tourism to raise awareness of the reality of
slum life, good and bad, and to raise money from its business and its customers to assist the
community in Dharavi to develop. It has developed a form of responsible tourism that
deserves to be adapted and replicated elsewhere” (Responsible Tourism Awards, 2012). The
company thus has an excellent international reputation. Over time, RTT has diversified its
offer to include other tours in Mumbai and beyond as well, but the Dharavi tour is still its
major draw, accounting for 85% of turnover (C. Way & K. Pujari, p.c., Nov. 4, 2013).2
Currently the company is expanding into Delhi, where it plans to offer a similar slum tour (C.
Way, p.c., Jan. 27, 2014).
RTT’s Dharavi tour focuses on the cottage industries and small scale enterprises of Dharavi to
showcase the entrepreneurship and creativity of its residents. Tours are conducted according
to demand; in peak season (October – February) RTT caters to multiple groups of tourists a
day, divided over two daily shifts (morning and afternoon). Tourists are gathered at the
Mahim train station near the entrance to Dharavi, where they are split up into small groups
and each group is assigned a guide. Once a group is formed, its guide will take it to the
footbridge over the railroad tracks, which forms the border between Mahim and the western
side of Dharavi. From the bridge the tourists get their first view of Dharavi, while the guide
provides information on the size and scope of the slum and its inhabitants. Before they go
further, the company’s no-photo policy is explained: Out of respect for the residents, it is not
allowed to take pictures. Additionally, tourists are ensured that Dharavi is a safe place, but
2
This share is diminishing because of the larger increase in demand for its other tours.
24
asked to stay close and not get in the way of people working. The first part of the tour leads
through the industrial area, where multiple workshops are visited to show the diverse
economic activities taking place. The different procedures of recycling are addressed,
followed by quick visits to a bakery, a soap-making workshop and a textile dyer. The group
also passes an open sewer which is identified as the location of a scene from Slumdog
Millionaire.
Next the group enters a residential area which consists of a network of very narrow alleys.
The guide asks his customers to stay close and keep walking as he moves quickly through the
dark maze, the tourists following in single file, dipping their head to not hit the electrical
wires hanging overhead. The fact that most houses are only separated from the street by a
curtain gives tourists the opportunity to peek – with some diffidence or not – into the singleroom dwellings. Once the group sees daylight again and leaves the narrow path onto an open
area, it is immediately confronted with the sight of a dumping site next to one of the
communal toilet blocks. The tour continues through the ‘nicer’ part of Dharavi, where the
streets are wider and cleaner. This is a mixed industrial, commercial and residential zone.
Here additional industries can be seen, such as leather tanning and the women’s cooperative
papadum-making (Ashayen area). In between, the group halts at a local supermarket to offer
tourists the opportunity to buy refreshments. The next stop is a house rented by RTT, with the
purpose of showing what is available in a typical house and how small the living area is. The
walls are decorated with pictures of Dharavi, and the opportunity is seized to remind tourists
they will be able to buy photos at the end of the tour. Next, the Reality Gives Community
Centre is visited and the group passes a school before entering Kumbharwada, Dharavi’s
pottery village. The tour ends at RTT’s office, where visitors fill out evaluation forms and
souvenirs, ranging from postcards to t-shirts and bags, are on offer.
2.1.2. Be The Local Tours and Travels
Over the years, RTT has had to deal with various ‘separatist’ organizations. Several of their
former employees – guides from the Dharavi area themselves – decided to start their own
company. Some initiatives have been short-lived: Thomas Tours India (TTI) was set up by a
dissident employee of RTT in 2011. Besides slum tours, Thomas offered tours and packages
in Mumbai and Kerala. However, in the course of 2013 Thomas seems to have discontinued
his offer. He could not be reached by e-mail or phone and none of his former competitors
seem to know his current whereabouts. Recently the website for TTI went offline as well.
25
By far the most successful initiative has been that of Fahim Vora and Tauseef Siddiqui, who
set up Be The Local Tours and Travels (BTL) in 2010. Fahim is a former employee of RTT,
who after a falling out regarding the company’s policy left to set up his own project. BTL
distinguishes itself by emphasizing its local character: all staff members are youths living in
Dharavi. The sizeable cost of higher education is often a too heavy burden for Dharavi
families. BTL’s aim is to help local students earn an income and gain valuable skills. The
approach to slum tourism is the same as that of RTT: To dispel the myth that poverty is due to
laziness and instead demonstrate the entrepreneurship of the hardworking poor. “If visitors are
expecting extreme poverty and despair based on movie depictions, they will be disappointed.
In
fact
this
tour
actively
breaks
stereotypical
depictions
of
the
slum”
(http://www.bethelocaltoursandtravels.com). Just like RTT, BTL does not allow photography.
The route through Dharavi is also very similar: As with RTT, the group starts off from Mahim
station and makes its way through the industrial area and the first residential area with the
narrow alleys, ending up at the dump. Afterwards, the route deviates, but the experience is
largely the same, the only exception being that no NGO is visited.
For now, BTL is surely the smaller competitor. Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 23, 2014) estimates
that BTL receives about 30% of RTT’s tourism share. BTL is however becoming more
professional. It is ever more present in travel guide books and is also starting to diversify its
offer. A very recent addition is the Dharavi Foodie Tour, which allows tourists to become a
chef in a local’s house. This will presumably allow residents and visitors to interact more
directly and provide a more meaningful experience. In addition, BTL has started tours of
Mumbai and its surroundings, as well as a car rental service. BTL has from its inception been
mentored by Deepa Krishnan, owner of Magic Tours of India. It is a close relationship, with
Mrs. Krishnan offering both advice and support in a number of ways. Until recently, Mumbai
Magic (an affiliate of Magic Tours) offered a Dharavi tour under its own name, but using
BTL’s guides and allowing almost all profits to go to BTL.
2.1.3. Mohammed’s Dharavi Slum Tours
Mohammed Sadique is a Dharavi native who offers his services as a freelance guide. He is a
university student and is close friends with the clique of BTL, but works solely for his own
account. BTL does cover him if he gets in trouble with the authorities, since he is not
officially licensed to act as a tour guide. Mohammed’s route is, again, very similar to that of
RTT and BTL – although he does offer some unique experiences: He takes tourists on a
26
rooftop visit in the industrial area, where they can see the drying plastic on the roofs, and he
ends the tour with a visit to his own house, where he offers chai (tea) in the company of
family and/or friends. Being from Dharavi, he has extensive knowledge of the area. The
quality of the experience for tourists is therefore up to par with that of the formal tour
providers.
2.1.4. Maverick tours
‘Maverick tour’ is an umbrella term for all tours conducted by unlicensed Dharavi outsiders.
These are professional or non-professional freelance guides who do not live in Dharavi, but
bring tourists there.
Firstly, there are (semi-)professional guides who roam the streets of Colaba – the tourist
centre of Mumbai – and invite travellers on a tour through the city, which in some cases
involves a trip to Dharavi. The experience on this kind of tour obviously depends in large part
on the guide. Therefore, I can only draw from experience. In my case, I got to see a
completely different part of the residential area, which is not frequented by the tour operators.
This visit demonstrated the impact of tourism in an indirect way: Along the main route,
people are used to see tourists. They therefore tend to ignore them or stare at them with blank
faces. Since people in other parts of Dharavi are far less used to tourism, they are more
curious and far more enthusiastic. On this maverick tour, I had ample opportunity to
communicate directly with the residents. On the formal tours, in contrast, there is hardly ever
room for spontaneous encounters and conversations. Here, the guide is the narrator and
tourists passively consume the provided information, while the residents are mostly
background figures, part of the décor. Direct interaction between tourists and locals is
virtually eliminated. On the flip side, facts and figures provided by the maverick guide were
often wildly inaccurate and the main industrial area – the most integral part of the formal
tours – was not featured. Like most outsiders, my guide allowed to take pictures and even
encouraged this. In addition, he displayed some questionable and irresponsible behaviour,
which could possibly put tourists at risk.
Secondly, although I did not take part in this myself, it is known that there are taxi drivers
who offer tours to Dharavi by car. Of course, visiting the area in this way is very different
from a walking tour. For one thing, the car can only stay on the main roads. As one can gather
from my earlier description of a walking tour in Dharavi, staying on the main roads would
27
considerably limit the experience. The main residential and industrial areas of Dharavi cannot
be reached by car – the alleys are simply to narrow. While tourists might feel comfortable to
just sit back and relax, from the perceived safety of the car any contact with the area is
eliminated. As van Winssen has shown, the permanent separation created between the tourist
and his surroundings actually enhances the image of the slum as an unsafe place. As one
tourist explained: “They told me that I could get out of the car just for a quick look and should
go back in the car immediately. While we were driving, he asked me to keep the window
closed. This made me feel uncomfortable and almost gave me the feeling that we were doing
something illegal.” This is in sharp contrast to the experience of a tourist that took the walking
tour: “The place is very different from what I expected […] I actually felt more safe there then
I do in other parts of Mumbai” (van Winssen 2012: 10-11).
Lastly, tourists may make Indian friends who are not regular guides. van Winssen (2012: 2324) has described such an experience, wherein the visitors “were just walking the main streets
without [making] comments that went beyond the obvious.” Moreover, when one of them
took photographs and got into an argument about this with a local, “the [friends] just walked
off and waited a bit further down the street”. Here, as with the other maverick guides, there is
an obvious lack of guidance and proper information.
2.2. Opportunities and constraints for pro-poor development
Based on the organization of the tourism sector detailed above, some intermediate conclusions
can be drawn on the economic opportunities and other benefits available to the local poor, as
well as the negative impacts of tourism. The perspective of the slum tour providers will
further on be supplemented with that of the slum residents themselves.
2.2.1. Employment in the tourism sector
RTT currently employs about fifteen professional guides – some of them half-time or seasonal
– and a half dozen other members of staff, three of which are non-Indian. Guides make
between 9,000 and 14,000 Rs. per month (C. Way & K. Pujari, p.c., Nov. 4, 2013). This is
consistent with other entry-level salaries in Mumbai and might be a nice additional income for
a family, but would be insufficient to support a household on its own. Therefore, all guides
are young and mostly still living at home, and staff turnover seems to be quite high. Only one
or two guides are from Dharavi itself, but the company stresses that all are of humble
28
backgrounds. Pujari has therefore called RTT “an empowerment program for young people
who cannot find jobs” (Zaidi 2012). Although this might well be the case, the fact that RTT
has moved away from using local guides can still be considered a negative development. Way
(p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) freely admits that RTT has shied away from hiring Dharavi natives in
recent years because of the fact that some of their former employees – “guys who we invested
in” – have moved on to set up competing companies. From a business standpoint, it is
understandable that they want to avoid this situation.
BTL’s founders have indeed benefitted from their training and work experience with RTT as
well as from their local ties to set up their own company. BTL employs about 10 studentguides, who are assigned tours according to their availability and own preferences. They are
paid 200 Rs. per tour, which they consider to be fair money.3 As Salman (p.c., Oct. 31, 2013)
explained, other student jobs would require them to work more hours for the same wage,
while they would have to travel away from their own neighbourhood as well. Around 90% of
Dharavi children go to school. Free or very cheap education is provided for by the
government. The problem is pursuing a higher (college or university) education, when prices
rise astronomically. Only the top students are able to secure scholarships. Because the cost is
too high for most families to afford, there are a lot of high school dropouts. By offering local
students a sustainable income to support and continue their education, the job as guide can
indirectly be seen as a vehicle for social mobility.
To the informal tour providers, the Dharavi tours provide more occasional earnings. For
Mohammed Sadique (p.c., Oct. 25 & 27, 2013), his earnings are a welcome addition to his
family’s income and give him the opportunity to help fund his education, but they are not
sufficient to call it a full-time job. Although he receives customers on a fairly regular basis,
even in peak season he does not have tours every day. He still relies mostly on word of mouth
and some marketing via Facebook, and remains relatively hard to find. For Dharavi outsiders,
the earnings are scarcer still. To them it is a supplementary income, as part of a survival
strategy of livelihood diversification.
Opportunities within the tourism industry are not available to everyone. A first condition is of
course to have excellent English language skills in order to communicate with foreign
3
The amount may vary somewhat depending on the size of the group.
29
tourists. Jobs with BTL are only open to full-time students from the Dharavi area. In addition,
BTL is basically a group of long-time friends. It would be hard for someone without a prior
connection to the members to acquire a job. This demonstrates the importance of social
network in finding economic opportunities. When assessing the personnel in the slum tourism
sector, it is obvious that there are serious gender constraints as well. All informal guides are
male, just like all staff members of BTL. Being a guide is considered a man’s job, as Tauseef
(p.c., Oct. 21, 2013) explained: “Perhaps some girls could do it, but you have to walk around
a lot in the heat”, suggesting women would be averse to doing this. RTT has long employed at
least one woman in its supporting staff. In addition, I had the fortune to be part of the
inaugural tour of the first female guide in Dharavi. RTT thus breaks through the barrier for
women.
2.2.2. Other earning opportunities
The lack of response to tourism from local entrepreneurs and service providers is striking.
Nowhere along the main touristic route do local vendors actively address visitors to buy their
goods, as is common at nearly every other tourist attraction in India. This is in stark contrast
to the situation in South African townships and in Rio de Janeiro’s Rocinha favela, where a
whole range of enterprises, from street vendors to small-scale transport services, restaurants
and B&Bs, have developed in the margins of the tours to cater specifically to tourists. The
only visible sign of local merchants responding to tourism in Dharavi was outside of one
particular leather workshop, where handbags and belts are stalled out in a glass display. From
conversations with guides I gathered that these are indeed meant for tourists. Although no one
from my groups purchased here, I was told it does happen with some frequency. In other spots
which seem ideal for souvenir selling, such as in Dharavi’s pottery village, I found no trace of
this, nor did I see anyone offer other services.
When I questioned the tour operators about this and asked if they would be interested in
forming partnerships with local businesses, the responses were lukewarm at best. Deepa
Krishnan (p.c., Oct. 21, 2013), mentor to BTL, expects that the market will respond
organically and people will find opportunities on their own. She is a strong supporter of
bottom-up, grassroots initiatives. She mentioned someone offering hygienic food or setting up
a clean toilet along the route as potential business opportunities. However, since in eight years
time no such initiatives have sprouted, it seems that the market is incapable of responding
organically. Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) also expect there to be more vendors
30
providing food or souvenirs in the future. While Pujari brushed off the possibility of creating
partnerships, Way was not so quick to dismiss it. He did explain they would have to be very
careful to ensure that this is done in an ethical way. Their main concern is to not create
friction by favouring certain enterprises. This is also the reason why none of the tour
providers compensate the local businesses or factories they visit. They don’t want this to
become a habit. When locals object to bringing foreigners, they will simply take their
customers to another factory or shop. However, all providers also argue that the visited
businesses do not ask for compensation anyway. According to Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 22,
2013), local business men have asked for orders, but only in bulk.
Certainly a factor in the major actors’ hesitance to promote other tourism initiatives is a
genuine concern for the impact of large-scale tourism on the area. For Deepa Krishnan, it is
hard to draw the line. She feels like tourism has its merits, but does not want to put too much
pressure on Dharavi. Vora likewise does not want to see his area become “another Colaba”
and wants to keep tourism small-scale. To Chris Way, “Dharavi is not a place to buy things,
but to see.” None of the actors want to change the nature of Dharavi and make it another
major tourist attraction, which is certainly justifiable.
Still, opportunities could be explored to develop local partnerships and promote sensible
initiatives. For instance, earlier it was mentioned that RTT offers souvenirs at the end of the
tour. It is poignant that none of these are locally made. While the craftsmanship is certainly
available within Dharavi itself, bags, postcards and other merchandise are manufactured in
other parts of Mumbai. “I love Dharavi” t-shirts are, ironically, imported from northern India
(C. Way, p.c., May 15, 2014). Secondly, RTT-employees have actually advised tourists
against buying goods at the earlier mentioned leather store. Krishna Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013)
argues that it is their responsibility to warn tourists that the goods are overpriced. However,
the company has a responsibility to the community as well. Therefore I would argue that local
shop owners have every right to set the price and make the most out of it. The goods are of
high quality, prices are still far lower than tourists are used to pay in their home countries and
as anywhere in India there is ample opportunity to haggle. Ultimately, the laws of supply and
demand will do their work. That the topic of providing business opportunities to other local
enterprises has been given little thought, is evident from the following anecdote: For years,
RTT has been stopping at the same local supermarket to allow tourists to buy refreshments. In
this way, RTT has long directed customers to this particular store. However, this is
31
unintentional – there has never been any arrangement between RTT and the shop keeper. The
shop is just conveniently located along the route. If RTT and other providers would think this
through and spread their groups around, they would be able to provide additional income
opportunities to a number of shopkeepers. Up to this point none of the providers has
expressed a clear interest in opening up this kind of economic opportunities for other
businesses in Dharavi.
2.2.3. Non-economic and indirect benefits of tourism
In 2009, Way and Pujari founded Reality Cares, which was later renamed Reality Gives. The
NGO is based in the Ashayen area of Dharavi, where it operates a community centre. Reality
Gives is funded through RTT, which donates 80% of profits from its tours and 100% of
profits from sales of merchandise. Additionally, Reality Gives asks for both monetary and inkind (equipment) donations on its website (http://www.realitygives.org).
On that website, Reality Gives notes as its key achievements so far:

“Health and environment: Educated and consulted the mothers of 87 children about the
determinants of malnutrition.

Education: 13 trained local women taught more than 500 students in English using childcentred and interactive teaching methods.

Livelihood: Empowered 400 students between 16 and 30 by providing training in English,
computer and soft skills.”
Reality Gives runs a number of programs:

Youth Empowerment Program (YEP): a 3½ month course run at the Community Centre,
consisting of English, computer and soft skill lessons, which are free of charge; a deposit
to assure attendance is reimbursed upon successful completion of the program.

English Language Support for school children (3-6 years old), in collaboration with the
Royal City School. Additionally, they have run their own kindergarten in the
Kumbharwada area of Dharavi, providing tuition for 130 children in the last 3 years.

Ashayen Community Centre: as well as the YEP, the community centre hosts evening
computer classes – which teach basic skills such as use of Microsoft Windows and Office
– a library and community engagement programs like drama, dance and art classes, movie
screenings and opportunities to play games.
32

Reality Gives also runs a cricket team and a girls football team, in cooperation with
Project Front Foot and YUMA respectively.
In addition, Reality Gives financially and logistically supports a number of small-scale
projects in the area, most notably an acupuncture clinic (Barefoot Acupuncturists), a program
for hearing impaired children (CORP) and a health foundation focusing on malnutrition
(FMCH).
All in all, it is clear the programs concentrate on teaching valuable skills which youths can
utilize to continue their education and/or get better jobs, and ultimately improve their quality
of life. English and computer skills are extremely valuable assets in a modern economy, while
group activities like sports and games can provide children with important soft skills as well.
In addition, Reality Gives has improved access to health care. By funding these programs,
RTT has – through Reality Gives – responded to local needs and certainly made an important
positive contribution to a considerable number of beneficiaries. One flaw is that as of yet
there are no accurate figures available for the amount of people that directly benefit from
Reality Gives’ activities on a regular basis. The numbers mentioned earlier are actually out of
date and incomplete. This makes it hard to accurately measure and follow up on the impact of
these programs, in order to make adjustments where necessary. Chris Way (p.c., Jan. 26,
2014) acknowledged this problem and hoped to put an overview together by May 2014.
However, he was not able to provide this before the deadline of this dissertation. In addition,
the yearly report for Reality Gives is also late.
Whereas RTT strongly emphasizes the relationship with its sister NGO Reality Gives, BTL
does not want to be known as an NGO, but strictly as a (for-profit) company. BTL does intent
to support one NGO with 50% of profits from the sale of t-shirts. However, this initiative is
solely based on personal relations: The NGO’s owner is Vora’s former teacher and personal
friend, and he wants to repay her in this way (F. Vora, p.c., Oct. 23, 2013). In addition,
several guides and tour providers have noted an increase in charity and volunteer work in the
Dharavi area, attributing it to increased exposure. This is hard to measure, however.
On a personal level, non-economic benefits of tourism have been noted as well. Besides
offering them a sustainable income to support their education, Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 22,
2013) argues that working with international tourists boosts the guides’ self-esteem and self33
confidence: “I myself have become way more confident; it broadens the mind.” For all guides
I talked to, financial incentives were clearly the main reason to become a guide, but they did
note other positive outcomes. Salman sees the tours as part of his personal development (van
Winssen 2012: 16-18). He calls the tours a mutual learning process. From the different
questions tourists ask him, he gains a new perspective on things which are normal to him.
According to Irshaad, being a tour guide teaches him about Western culture and life, but
makes him reflect on his own life as well. Shekar adds: “Working with tourists has definitely
changed my mind. I became more free. You know how Indian society is, but now I am more
free.” van Winssen therefore has called the tours a process of intercultural exchange. This
broadening of the mind can also be seen as a kind of skills development.
2.2.4. Addressing social and cultural impacts
Tourism undeniably and unavoidably has an impact on the visited community/ies. Mitigating
this impact and making sure that negative effects do not outweigh benefits, is an important
task for tour operators if they want to conduct their activities in a responsible manner. All
formal providers deal with the ethical issues of slum tourism in a similar way. On the Dharavi
tours that were until recently conducted under the name of Mumbai Magic, the tourists
received a letter from Deepa Krishnan on this matter. She argues that, in any case, there is no
avoiding the poor in Mumbai. According to her, there is an image of two Mumbais, one of
wealth and one of misery, and the aim of the tours is to show a third side: that of the hardworking poor. Other tour companies likewise point to their intent to improve the image of the
slums. By informing the locals of these intentions they avoid negative responses to tourism
activities, claim representatives of both BTL and RTT (a claim that will be tested extensively
in the next chapter, when the opinions of slum residents themselves are assessed).
Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) further mentioned the fact that they deliberately keep
groups small and invest profits back into the community as strategies for addressing the
impact of tourism. The point about using small groups is an interesting one. RTT is actually
somewhat victim to its own success. On busy days, the amount of tourists gathering near
Mahim station can make it almost feel like mass tourism. RTT tries to limit each group to a
maximum of six tourists, and while this is certainly the right idea, all groups follow the same
route, which makes it hard to avoid each other. It is not uncommon that two groups need to
pass each other in a narrow alley, or that several groups end up at the same spot at the same
time, blocking the way for workers or passersby. That this can occasionally get somewhat
34
crowded is certainly noticeable when compared to the experience with smaller tour providers.
Several tourists expressed to me the feeling that they were in the way at times, which is
consistent with my own experience. RTT may benefit by trying to diversify the route or
taking a little more time between each group. BTL and other, informal providers struggle less
with this problem, although this is more a reflection of relative customer demand than of any
intentional policy.
As we have seen, with the maverick guides the quality of tour is in most cases lacking, which
is detrimental to both tourists and the host community. The industrial area of Dharavi was in
all cases ignored. The formal tour companies, as well as local resident Mohammed Sadique,
have a clear purpose of changing the perception of Dharavi. Their strongest asset in negating
the image of the slum as a place of misery, laziness and crime, is to demonstrate and
emphasize the entrepreneurial spirit and productivity of the hardworking poor. The maverick
guides are often inexperienced in tourism and their activities fit solely into a survival strategy
without any broader purpose. By ignoring the industrial activity, any potential for a deeper
meaning of the tour is lost. In addition, we have seen that these maverick guides usually take
less measures to protect both residents and tourists, for instance by allowing photography.
Indeed, while the formal providers have a no-photo policy, many maverick guides – like my
own – actively encourage tourists to take pictures. My guide’s view was that people,
especially children, often want to have their picture taken, and to forbid this is to treat them
like they are dangerous (T.A. Bradley, p.c., Oct. 16, 2013). Of course it is too one-sided to
claim that everyone in Dharavi is opposed to photography. I heard several groups of children
implore tourists to take their picture. Likewise, I spoke to a group of Muslim men who
assured me there was no problem: “What can be offensive about taking a picture of a
person?” However, in the same breath they added: “We’d just rather you don’t take pictures
of the women.” This anecdote demonstrates that there certainly are sensitivities and how hard
it is to clearly define these. Tourists cannot be expected to always correctly assess if it is
acceptable to take a picture. Therefore it is wiser to ban photography altogether. Guides have
a responsibility to both the tourists and the community to avoid possible irritation and tension.
Maverick guides often lack that sense of responsibility and, because of a lack of experience,
are less capable to properly assess situations. As one of the employees of BTL (p.c., Oct. 23,
2013) so eloquently put it: “It is a zoo for them, but a house for us. They are not liable to you
and to the community; we are, because we live here.”
35
2.3. Escalating competition? The ‘80%-controversy’
Although lauded internationally, Reality Tours and Travel is not devoid of local critics. On
the contrary, all other tourism actors seem to share a dislike for RTT. This stems at least in
part from RTT’s dominant position in the sector. Most competitors believe, and this idea is
shared by other people in Dharavi with a good enough understanding of the tourism sector to
have an informed opinion, that RTT’s tagline of donating 80% of profit to its sister NGO is
untrue. Fahim Vora claims that, while still an employee of RTT, he checked the numbers and
found that profits were much higher. He confronted Way and Pujari and this falling out led to
him starting his own company. Other guides for BTL, as well as freelancer Mohammed
Sadique – who was present at a physical altercation between Vora and Pujari – follow this
narrative.4 Similar ideas have been uttered by my maverick guide and some Dharavi residents,
namely a number of local students (none of which were affiliated with BTL) and one factory
owner. Most of these people did not have tangible arguments other than the fact that they
simply found it to be impossible.. Most striking is that one guide who at this point is still
employed by RTT expressed similar doubts. After an initial conversation, he refrained from
further comment and asked not to be named, for fear of losing his job.
To investigate these allegations is not a simple task. Part of the reason why RTT is
commended internationally is the fact that the company is reputed to be very transparent in its
profit allocation. On its webpage, audited accounts are provided, detailing the company’s
yearly revenue and expenses (http://www.realitytoursandtravel.com/transparency.html).
However, in the last few years RTT has been less diligent: the most recent numbers date back
to March 2011. Like with the numbers for Reality Gives, Chris Way hoped to set this straight
by May 2014, but was unable to do so in time. Therefore we must for now rely solely on older
data and other sources. An (admittedly cursory) assessment of the available accounts by a
qualified accountant has proven no irregularities. I also contacted all local projects with which
Reality Gives has partnerships; none of them had anything other than praise for the NGO and
its sister company (p.c., Feb. 17-19, 2013).
4
Sadique is noticeably afraid to express any opinion on RTT and even to wander too close to
RTT’s office or the Reality Gives Community Centre; the reason likely being that he does not
have a license and wants to stay under the radar.
36
Nonetheless, the perception is there. The most plausible explanation is that this is due to a
combination of envy and suspicion for the large, ‘outsider’ company, and the result of a
misconception. My hypothesis is that there is a misunderstanding of what exactly that 80%
comprises. Many sceptics explained their thinking by stating that "if anybody gets 100 Rs., he
will not give 80 Rs. away”. What those people do not seem to fully understand, is that RTT
does not (claim to) donate 80% of the generated income – which could be rightfully dismissed
as absurd – but 80% of net profit after payment of all expenses, including (reasonable)
salaries. According to RTT’s own website, this amounts to 25-35% of total turnover. This, of
course, sounds far more reasonable. According to the data currently available on the website,
the expenditure on social projects fell short of the stated goal in the initial years (2006-2009).5
This is somewhat to be expected, as the company was still finding its ground and not
profitable yet. Reality Gives was only formed in August 2009. Subsequently the expenses
picked up, making the total amount spent on social projects over the period of January 2006 to
March 2011 27.3% of total turnover.6 According to the webpage, this means that up to March
2011 effectively 100% of profits after tax went to community projects. RTT adds that all of
that has been administered to frontline services.
To really verify this would require a thorough, professional analysis of the accounts, and even
then some peculiarities may stand in the way of clear conclusions. RTT seems to hedge itself
somewhat, for example by stating: “With regards to our policy of donating 80% of profits,
there are some years where our cash flow is less as we have to invest in fixed assets and pay
for deposits on lease agreements etc. This means that our accounting profit is significantly
higher than money available for that year.” A second example is: “The figures are
complicated because up to 31 March 2011, most of the expenses for the community projects
went through the accounts of Reality Tours and Travel and not our sister NGO Reality Gives.
This will change in subsequent years.” However, for now, from the available information and
from my own experience, RTT certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. Other than secondhand, unverifiable allegations and assumptions, there is no evidence to support the claim that
RTT is not genuine. To quell all doubts however, RTT would do well to update their
transparency page as soon as possible.
5
6
0 in 2006-2007; 22.5% in 2007-2008; 11.3% in 2008-2009.
29.1% in 2009-2010; 34.9% in 2010-2011.
37
At this point in time, the casual tourist will notice nothing of the competition between BTL
and RTT. In the event that start times for both tours coincide, tourists who have booked with
BTL will kindly be directed to the right group by RTT’s guides, and vice versa. When
meeting another group within the slum, some guides are clearly familiar with each other and
interact quite amicably. However, having spent time with and interviewed employees and
owners of both companies, it is obvious that there is bad blood between RTT and BTL. They
generally try to ignore each other’s existence. However, both Fahim Vora of BTL (p.c., Oct.
23, 2013) and Krishna Pujari of RTT (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) said to me that within their personal
circle of friends there had been talk of disrupting the other company’s activities, but both had
cautioned their friends not to do so. In addition, Chris Way (p.c., Oct. 23, 2013) indicated that
he feared that former guides might cause problems. This has the potential to evolve into a
dangerous situation, both for the local communities and tourists.
2.4. The role of the public sector
Up to this point, the role of government bodies has not yet been covered. In South Africa, the
government has been supporting tourism enterprises that offer services in the townships for
over a decade. Tourism is seen as a potential lever for local economic development, slum
upgrading and black empowerment. More recently, the same trend of public interventions in
the sector is noticeable in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In both cases, early reluctance and
scepticism about the tours was overcome (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 208-209). That same
scepticism still reigns with authorities in Mumbai. This is easy to understand: slum tourism,
after all, creates a paradoxical situation, in which the gains of tourism are more than welcome,
but the propagated image of the city is less than desirable (Dovey & King 2012). Frenzel and
Koens suspect heavy criticism might be typical for the early stages of slum tourism activity in
all locations.
For a long time, Mumbai’s authorities did not interfere with the sector, although they always
disapproved of it. All major actors agreed that the local government discourages slum
tourism. Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) stated that their company had some initial
problems, but what they are doing is not illegal. When asked if the government should play a
more active – supporting – role in the sector, the opinions were similar. Deepa Krishnan is a
liberal minded business women and “likes the idea of local people doing what has to be done”
(p.c., Oct. 21, 2013). According to her, “any interference, even well-meant, would probably
38
turn out bad because the government is so incapable. The best alternative is to leave it to the
market, but often those with the most muscle benefit from this.” She’s afraid bigger
competitors like RTT will ultimately push out local initiatives like BTL. Fahim Vora (p.c.,
Oct. 22, 2013) stated that in a perfect world, the government should support local projects.
“But at this point, the government is so badly managed... In any case, they will try to do
things on their terms and I don’t want that.” Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) also
expressed a lack of confidence in the government: “We’d rather they stay away.”
However, quite suddenly the authorities have started to play a more active role in the sector.
There has already been alluded to the fact that Krishnan’s Mumbai Magic until recently
organized its own Dharavi tour, with the support of BTL’s guides. Now Mrs. Krishnan has
been asked by the tourism department to discontinue the tour.7 This is significant, but for now
it only affects Mumbai Magic: It is the only guided tour company in Mumbai officially
approved by the Ministry of Tourism and allowed to use the Incredible India logo (D.
Krishnan, p.c., Apr. 25, 2014). To retain this, it had no other option but to oblige. Other
providers are not bound by this, and in the case of RTT and BTL, are legitimate companies.
Nevertheless, a more active government role is surely something to keep an eye on. It is still
to be seen to what extent the elections of 2014, in which opposition party BJP is heading for
victory, has an impact on tourism policy – although it is unlikely that there would be a
complete reversal towards government support for slum tourism.
7
Meanwhile, BTL’s guides are still trained and used for some of Mumbai Magic’s other
tours. The partnership thus continues.
39
3. Analysis of interviews with Dharavi residents
3.1. Method and position of the researcher
The position of the local population has been somewhat neglected and almost reduced to an
afterthought in many studies on slum tourism, which often focus on the tourists’ perspective.
In this study, the intention was to make the experiences of slum residents an integral part of
the analysis. To gauge the residents’ feelings concerning tourism in Dharavi, I conducted a
series of semi-structured interviews along the route followed by the majority of tourists.
These interviews consisted of a set of four to five questions seeking short, quantifiable
answers on a select number of topics. The interviews were deliberately kept concise, as to not
hinder respondents in their daily activities and encourage their participation; circumstances –
factors such as time constraints, knowledge level and language skills – typically did not allow
for longer, in-depth interviews.
To account for language barriers between myself and the slum residents, the majority of
which did not speak sufficient English, I received the support of local student-guides, who
acted as translators. Over the course of four half-day sessions (October 30 - November 1) and
with the help of four different translators, I conducted over 80 interviews. Unfortunately, my
experiences with the first translator immediately proved the potential limitations of this
approach. For one, the language barrier made it hard to verify if the translator accurately
reproduced the respondents’ sentiments. Second, and tied to the first point, is the fact that the
translators were employed in the tourism industry and may therefore have benefitted in some
cases by altering the respondent’s answers. The first translator was freelance guide
Mohammed Sadique, who I had hired and recommended to other travellers on several
occasions; he was interested in my research and very willing to help. It soon became obvious
though that he steered interviews in his preferred direction: He would select the respondents
and refuse to approach certain others, while turning a nod or a two word response into long
monologues of his own. Thus, all respondents seemed – as he presented it – entirely pleased
with tourism in Dharavi. Almost all interviews conducted with his help had to eventually be
discarded. To prevent this situation, it would have been ideal to work with neutral translators
who were in no way involved with the tourism sector. The problem was that people were
needed that both knew the area very well and had the language skills to act as a translator; this
specific skill set almost automatically led to the student-guides. Luckily, however, this
40
problem did not present itself with the other translators. All three of them were students who,
at least occasionally, guide for Be The Local. We discussed the problems I had with my first
translator and good arrangements were made. I am confident they reproduced the
respondents’ answers accurately.
One of the issues we discussed, was my own position as a researcher. As van Winssen (2012:
8) has noted, the slum tourism researcher is effectively his own subject: a slum tourist. Even
when he does not see himself in that role, invariably he is categorized as such by slum
residents. It is telling that not only guides but even some people who were not affiliated with
the tourism sector would say they had answered questions from many researchers. Mumbai
has been called the global capital of slumming and Dharavi has become a hotspot for research
on all aspects of slum life. Researchers and tourists alike come often, look around and ask
questions about life in Dharavi. Whether this is for scientific or other reasons makes no
tangible difference to the residents. The fact that I myself was seen as a tourist could
potentially impact the residents’ willingness to express negative feelings regarding tourism.
Therefore, the translators were instructed to start each interview by explaining my research
purposes, imploring the interviewee to speak freely and guaranteeing him/her anonymity.
Salman, the translator with whom I conducted the most interviews, proved keenly aware of
this potential problem. Whenever we sensed a subject seemed somewhat reluctant, he would
press on for honest answers. In all, this made for a great collaboration. Nevertheless, in some
cases the attitude or body language of the interviewees was more telling than their answers.
Ultimately I was left with what I feel is an appropriate sample of 62 interviewees. The
respondents are distributed over different age groups and occupations. Men are somewhat
overrepresented (51 to 11) – because of cultural reasons it was difficult to convince my guides
to approach Muslim women. The questions were used as a guideline for the conversation,
more than a strict questionnaire. Not all respondents answered every question, while some
gave multiple answers to the same question. In order to get an overall picture and draw
conclusions, similar answers were grouped together and are presented in tables below.
41
3.2. General feelings about slum tourism: a ‘trouble spot’
Table 1. How do you feel about tourism in Dharavi?
Positive
Respondents
Percentage
34
55%
sense of pride
9
entertainment
8
tourists are guests
3
exchange of ideas
2
Neutral
19
31%
Negative
9
14%
tourists take pictures (invasion of privacy)
7
sense of shame
5
lack of communication, language barrier
3
inappropriate clothing
1
tourists get in the way
1
Total
62
100%
When probed for general thoughts on tourism in Dharavi, more than half of the respondents
expressed mostly positive feelings towards tourists.

Nine people expressed a sense of pride, be it in their work, their community or country.
They appreciate tourists take an interest in their craft, they feel tourists will represent
Dharavi to the outside world, or they are proud tourists “take precious time and money to
come to India”.

Eight persons mentioned they like looking at foreigners. They see the tourists as a form of
entertainment, a pastime. One of them explained that he cannot afford to go on vacation,
but he can look at different people who pass by. Another said it sometimes feels “like
Hollywood girls coming by”. Critics have often called slum tourism voyeuristic. While
this may or may not be accurate, it is important to realize residents gaze upon the tourists
as well, often to their own amusement.

Three people explained that tourists are guests, and that “guests should be treated like
gods”. This is a common sentiment in India.
42

Two men, both obviously having received higher education and interacting directly with
me in English, explicitly mentioned the exchange of ideas. While tourists get information
about Dharavi, they expect the new ideas the foreigners bring with them will help the
country to develop.
About a third of the respondents took a neutral stance, meaning they did not really care either
way. They weren’t particularly excited about nor opposed to slum tourism.
This means that 14% had predominantly negative emotions regarding tourism. Most members
of this group gave multiple reasons. Additionally, several people who felt mostly positive
about tourism still shared some negative remarks:

Seven people complained of a lack of respect or invasion of privacy in one way or
another. Six of them explicitly expressed irritation that tourists take pictures, and some
suspected they would make money off of this as well. This is noteworthy, since most tour
operators forbid people from taking photographs. This demonstrates that either tourists do
not heed these rules or the number of tourists visiting Dharavi with maverick guides –
who in most cases do allow pictures – is significant enough to cause irritation.

Five people expressed a sense of shame. Two of them were actually predominantly
positive about tourism, but did feel somewhat embarrassed. The first said “tourists are
high class” and the contrast sometimes makes him feel poor. The other liked looking at
tourists but was aware this might make them feel uncomfortable, which in turn made him
feel the same. This shows residents are aware of the unequal relationship with the tourists.
The contrast with the wealthy tourists made them reflect negatively on their own situation.

Three men cited a lack of communication, mainly because of the language barrier. One of
them, an elderly man operating a shredder, explained that he is curious and would like to
talk to tourists. He feels like he could give better, more detailed information about the
production process than the guides. He elegantly compared the guides’ and his own
knowledge to a patient going to a chemist rather than a doctor. This shows the man is not
opposed to tourism per se, but is unhappy with the way it is conducted. Cultural exchange
has been noted as a strong point of slum tourism, but the limited direct interaction
between tourists and residents makes reciprocal exchange difficult.

Other answers included the fact that tourists get in the way of work or might dress
inappropriately.
43
From this it could be concluded that only a small (although not insignificant) percentage of
the inhabitants is genuinely opposed to tourism, at least in the way it is being conducted at the
moment, and that the tourism activities are generally accepted. After all, the large majority of
respondents either liked the tourists coming to Dharavi or at least did not mind their presence.
However, perhaps more telling than this overall picture was the spatial divide of the opinions.
The typical Dharavi tour can be split up roughly into four parts. The first part would be the
industrial area visited at the start of the tour. The second is the residential area comprising the
network of narrow alleys and the open area with the dump. Next there is a mixed
commercial/residential zone, and finally the pottery district. It is noteworthy that most
positive responses were recorded in the first and fourth zone, while all interviewees in the
second part where decidedly negative. Upon entering the alleys, I immediately sensed unease
with my translator. It was noticeably harder to approach people here and questions were
mostly met with indifference. Near the dumping ground we approached a group of men, who
vehemently argued their points while a large group of silent supporters gathered around us.
For the first and only time I was in Dharavi, the mood became tense and hostile. The men
accused tourists of taking pictures through windows and of dressing inappropriately (“those
girls with their miniskirts”). They could not understand why tourists would come there and in
no uncertain terms questioned the ethics of slum tourism: “This is a slum, do you like what
you see?” They further indicated to have received no benefits at all from tourism in their
neighbourhood. Another person in this district seemed particularly well-informed on tourism
in Dharavi. According to him, only a small part – what he called “the end” – of Dharavi
benefitted from RTT’s charitable activities. He felt like “the centre” of the slum should be
handled first, instead of “a corner”.
It later became clear this area is a well-known ‘trouble spot’ to the guides and tour companies.
Indeed, guides always ask their group to move through the alleys quickly. Krishna Pujari, cofounder of RTT, acknowledged they are aware of the sensitivities in this district (p.c., Nov. 4,
2013). According to him, the residents have been invited to join RTT’s programs at the
Reality Gives Community Centre, to no avail. “Whenever we do a program, we tell [people]
everywhere around the route. But they don’t want to come, they say it is too far. They want us
to [set up programs] in their own area, but we can’t do it everywhere. Opportunities will not
come to you, you need to reach for it.” The conflicting perceptions of tourism in the different
districts of Dharavi could be explained as follows: For the workers in the industrial area,
commercial zone and pottery district, the tourists are often a welcome diversion. Their arrival
44
breaks the long day at work. In this way, the tourists themselves are a source of entertainment.
The workers gaze upon the Westerners as much, if not more, as vice versa. Additionally, the
workers often take a sense of pride in their craft, especially when the guide offers an
explanation and/or tourists take an interest. Secondly, the residential zones displayed in the
third part of the tour are relatively neat and comparatively more prosperous. In fact, many
tourists have indicated they do not even feel like this district is a slum. It looks very similar to
many living quarters in southern India. This explains why less negative remarks have come
out of this area. The area with the narrow alleys and dumping ground, by contrast, is
undoubtedly the poorest district of Dharavi visited on the tour. The single room dwellings
stand close together and are often only separated by a curtain from the very narrow streets,
giving the tourists every opportunity to look inside and offering the residents little privacy.
Moreover, having a pile of garbage in their backyard, so to speak, does not evoke feelings of
pride. Considering wealthy Westerners gaze upon their misfortune daily and these people
have gotten nothing in return, their frustration is clearly understandable. On the other hand,
the tour providers feel the area cannot be avoided since it is an integral part of the tour to
show the living conditions in this part of Dharavi.
3.3. Understanding of tourism motives
Next the residents’ understanding of tourism motives was assessed. There are two sides to this
topic: On the one hand, the reasons tourists have to take part in the slum tour, on the other the
intentions of the slum tour providers.
From extensive surveys of tourists in Dharavi, Bob Ma (2010) concluded that cultural
curiosity is their primary motivation for taking the tour. Tourists are curious to see a different
way of life; additionally, there is a desire for ‘authentic’ and ‘realistic’ experiences. But what
exactly are they curious about? Meschkank (2010) noted that when tourists participating in
the Dharavi tour are asked what they expect to see, the most common answer is poverty. It
thus follows that, if we assume tourists want to see what they expect to see, curiosity for
poverty is an important motive to go on the tour – even if most visitors would not say it with
so many words. As Meschkank (2010: 48) noted: “Accordingly, several tourists express moral
doubts and a certain sense of guilt in anticipation of sightseeing poverty and misery, and the
accompanying implicit accusations of voyeurism and exploitation. However, they justify their
decision to participate in a slum tour by stating the desire to experience the ‘real life’ of the
city they are visiting.” Taking this into account, I asked the residents what they thought
45
tourists want to see in Dharavi. I especially wanted to know if residents are aware tourists are
attracted by their poverty, and if so, how this made them feel. This of course relates to the
ethical concerns on slum tourism.
Table 2. Why do you think tourists come to Dharavi?
Responses
Percentage
Economic activity
12
21%
Experience something new; see a different lifestyle, culture, …
13
23%
No idea, nothing to see
13
23%
Poverty
7
13%
Other responses
11
20%
56
100%
Total
What stands out here is the great variety of answers:

A quarter of the respondents, predictably mostly people working in the industrial area,
answered that tourists come to learn about the economic activity. While this is not the
main pull factor for tourists, this is correct in the sense that the tour operators aim to
showcase the productivity and that this is the main takeaway from the tour for most
tourists.

A second quarter gave responses that were consistent with what was identified by Ma:
“They are on holiday and want to see the lifestyle and culture of India. They want to
experience or observe something new.”

A third quarter could think of no good reason why tourists would come to Dharavi. In
fact, several of them reversed the roles and started asking me questions about the tourists’
intentions.

Seven people said tourists came to see poverty, the slum or dirtiness. To one person this
was not an issue: “It is not a problem. We are poor, that is just reality.” However, all
others did feel bothered by it.

There was a range of other responses, some of which were very thoughtful: “to see the
architecture/buildings” (3), “for research purposes” (2), “to see scenes from the movie
[Slumdog Millionaire]” (2), “to do business” (1) or simply “to get to know us” (1). Other
ideas were more farfetched: One person believed the foreigners would settle in Dharavi
once the redevelopment plan was completed. Another felt they were looking around in
46
preparation of an invasion, to take over India once more. My translator explained to me
this kind of colonial thinking is still prevalent with the elder generation.
The main conclusion is that a significant part of the population (about 25%) has no idea or a
very unlikely opinion of why tourists visit Dharavi. Additionally, I have found that many of
them would like to understand this better. Only a relatively small part of the respondents
explicitly identified poverty as a major draw for tourism. Of course, the fact that they did not
mention it specifically does not guarantee they are not aware of this, at least on a
subconscious level. This is still somewhat unclear.
We now turn to the second part of this topic, namely the intentions and approach of tourism
operators. Focusing on the two major companies, for whom the tours are more than just a
survival strategy, their stated objective is basically the same. As has been said before, they
intent to break down negative stereotypes of the slums. RTT’s major selling point, in
distinguishing itself from its competitors, is that it promises to have “real social impact on the
Dharavi community” by investing in development projects (company website). Conversely,
representatives of BTL emphasize the fact that they are ‘Dharavi natives’, as opposed to the
‘outsiders’ of Reality Tours. Because they have lived in Dharavi their whole life, they claim
to know the area and its residents far better (“the others have only book knowledge”), and
suggest they would be more accepted by those residents as well. The slum residents were
asked if they know which different guides or companies come by, and/or if they noticed any
difference between them. The aim was to see if residents could identify and distinguish
between different providers and had some kind of understanding of what they stand for.
Additionally, I wanted to know if the inhabitants had any preference and whether the
affiliation of the guides impacted their feelings towards the tourists.
47
Table 3. Which different guides or companies come here; Do you notice or know of any
differences between them?
Responses
Percentage
No difference
29
66%
Superficial differences (group size, language skills)
6
14%
Tour guide is a friend
4
9%
Mentions company name(s)
5
11%
44
100%
Total
The result was that to an overwhelming majority of interviewees this was not a factor:

Two-thirds of the respondents did not notice any difference whatsoever between different
guides or groups of tourists.

Six only mentioned superficial differences, mainly pertaining to the size of the groups.
This might indicate a distinction between RTT, which usually has more customers, and
other providers. But this is also highly variable from day to day, and in any case
respondents did not express a preference for either smaller or bigger groups.

Four respondents said that one or more of the tour guides were friends, and thus they like
them better. When asked if they knew for which company these guided, the respondents
had no answer, nor did all of them know if the particular guide lived in Dharavi. Their
feelings were mostly based on the fact that they were familiar with the guide and/or the
guide called attention to their particular activity. This pertains to the pride local craftsmen
take in their work.

Only five interviewees mentioned one of the companies’ names; two of them lived less
than 20 meters from that company’s headquarters. One mentioned three companies (only
one by name) but he added they all do the same things and did not notice any differences.
A factory owner said Krishna Pujari of RTT had told him what they were doing when the
tours started in 2006. He did not think highly of the company, since he did not believe
their claim of investing 80% of profits in the community. One other worker knew of BTL
and the fact that they work with student-guides. He approved of this and felt other
companies should not come to Dharavi.
Although the owners of both RTT and BTL stated that they informed the local residents about
their intentions, it is clear that the high majority of slum residents does not know about the
48
different tourism companies, much less what they stand for. They do not distinguish between
guides from different companies and/or freelance guides. The guides’ origins (from Dharavi
or not) and affiliation or the companies’ policies currently do not factor into the feelings of
Dharavi residents towards tourism. I asked half a dozen people if they would prefer local
guides to outsiders, to which the majority (4) answered affirmative (although to the others this
did not matter). Likewise I asked a handful of people how they would respond to community
projects set up by the tourism companies; they all felt like this would be a positive
development. This clearly indicates both companies might benefit by informing the residents
more about their activities.
Finally, since almost none of the respondents had even mentioned RTT or Reality Gives in
the conversations, I specifically questioned people living and/or working in the immediate
vicinity of the Reality Gives Community Centre about their knowledge of the NGO’s
activities. All of these interviews were conducted within a radius of 50 metres around the
Centre.
Table 4. Do you know about the Reality Gives Community Centre and their activities?
Responses
Percentage
Very familiar
4
24%
Somewhat familiar
4
24%
No
9
52%
17
100%
Total
It is rather surprising that even the majority of this group did not have a clear understanding of
the NGO’s activities.

Four respondents were familiar with Reality Gives. Three of them were women belonging
to the same community and sitting together making papadum; they explained their
children visited the Community Centre and received free classes in dance, football and
drama. The fourth was a child, who presumably also visited the Centre.

Four people indicated at first glance that they did not know what I was referring to, but
after some consideration and consultation they did have a faint image. One of them
explained that he had seen tourists go there and that it was frequented by children, but
only those of “one specific community”.
49

More than half of the respondents claimed to have never heard of it. Two of them stood at
the foot of the stairs leading to the Centre (located on the first floor). When I pointed this
out, they responded that they never went upstairs.
These results are concerning. Even within the immediate vicinity of its Community Centre,
RTT’s projects are not well-known. Additionally, there seems to be a sense – previously
noted in the ‘trouble spot’ as well – that these projects are reserved for only a small part of the
residents.
3.4. The benefits of tourism
This topic is directly connected to the pro-poor aspects of slum tourism in Dharavi. Pro-poor
tourism comprises all benefits for the poor. The question was thus if residents feel they or
their community gain anything from tourism.
Table 5. Do you feel like tourism brings any benefits for you personally or for the
community?
Responses
Percentage
Yes, to me personally
4
8%
Yes, to the community
7
14%
Only the tourism industry
5
10%
No / Don’t know
34
68%
50
100%
Total

Only four people indicated that they have benefitted directly from tourism. Three were
manufacturers who occasionally sold products to tourists – fabrics, leather articles and
pottery, respectively. However, the impact of this must not be overstated: all of them
usually handle in bulk (big orders); the occasional purchase from tourists is not a major
source of income. One other man noted an intangible benefit: he gained pride. It is likely
that others would agree with him, given that nine respondents mentioned a sense of pride
earlier in the conversation (see table 1). However, it must be noted that almost all
respondents seem to have approached this particular question with only material benefits
in mind.
50

Seven people felt the community benefitted from tourism. Three – namely the women
making papadum mentioned earlier – talked about the actions of Reality Gives, two others
suggested that tourists might buy things in the shops. Another notable response was that
local people would adopt Western clothing styles.

Five were of the opinion that only those affiliated with the tourism industry benefitted,
although again it was obvious that most of them have no clear idea who the stakeholders
are: “Indian people”, “the guides”, “the tourism department” and “the government” were
all named.

The overwhelming majority answered negatively. This group can be divided into three
subcategories:
o The first and largest group (20) felt strongly that no one in Dharavi benefitted from
tourism and could not see how they would. “NGOs don’t come” and “donations
disappear into the pockets of corrupt people” were some of the sentiments uttered.
They were either bitter or resigned about this.
o The second group (4) had expectations of tourism, but had not seen those met (yet):
They expressed hope that tourists would inform the government about the living
conditions and that this would bring redevelopment. Up to now they had been
disappointed in the results.
o The third group (10) finally indicated that they had not received any benefits, but
immediately added that they did not need this. This illustrates a sense of pride and
independence. “No harm if no benefit, we are happy with what we have and don’t
need to be paid”.
It is clear that most slum residents do not receive any significant (financial) benefits from
tourism in their neighbourhood. The ones who do gain some benefit, do not depend on
tourism as a main or even significant source of income. Only those directly involved with the
tourism sector might receive considerable financial gains. While some people are certainly
bitter about this, it must also be acknowledged that a significant part of the population does
not expect anything from tourists. Additionally, it must again be concluded that most residents
have no knowledge of or access to – at least in their perception – any community projects
financed by tourism.
51
Conclusions
In order to draw conclusions from all accumulated findings, we revert to strategies and key
factors and actors of pro-poor tourism previously identified in the theoretical framework. It
will be shown how the tourism sector currently corresponds with and diverges from PPTstrategies, while pointing out possibilities for improving the pro-poor aspects of tourism.
Economic benefits of tourism

Employment opportunities
Reality Tours and Travel, the dominant tour operator in the Dharavi area, is currently not
promoting local employment. However, although local employees are generally preferred in
PPT-theory (Ashley et al. 2001), RTT does aim at attracting employees from humble
backgrounds. Wages are consistent with other entry-level salaries in Mumbai and the job
seems to be mainly valuable as an initial work experience. On the contrary, Be The Local
Tours and Travels only offers jobs to local full-time students, allowing them to earn a
sustainable income to support and continue their education. For informal guides, both native
and maverick, tourism can provide casual earning opportunities, which reduce their financial
vulnerability.
Several restrictions on job opportunities have been noted. Regular wage earners are relatively
skilled (fluent in English) and educated, although they can still be classified as poor. Second,
personal connections are vital – especially in the case of BTL – to gain access to the tourism
industry, demonstrating the importance of social network. In addition, although RTT has
recently employed the first female guide in Dharavi, gender constraints remain very real.

Business opportunities
Several of RTT’s former employees have, with varying degrees of success, taken matters into
own hands and grabbed business opportunities made available by their training and work
experience with RTT, as well as their own local ties. Only BTL has been and continuous to be
a long-term success. Notable is the complete lack of complementary tourism enterprises in the
Dharavi area. Neither of the major tour operators has expressed a real interest in establishing
partnerships with local businesses or investing in initiatives aimed at tourism. There is some
concern to overcomplicate matters and cause friction by favoring certain enterprises over
52
others. On the other hand, it must also be noted that local entrepreneurs, service providers an
traders have seemed to express little interest in pursuing opportunities in tourism. The fact
that they have, according to Fahim Vora of BTL, only inquired after orders in bulk signifies
that they are not interested in the relatively small earning opportunities in the tourism sector.
The unique feature of the Dharavi slum is its economic productivity and most businesses
might arguably gain more from concentrating on export.
None of this must stand in the way of exploring opportunities for sensible initiatives and
partnerships, preferably in favor of the most vulnerable of local enterprises. This topic has up
to now been given too little thought and there certainly is untapped potential. For instance, it
is deplorable that the souvenirs sold by RTT are not locally made, while local craftsmen are
abundant (notably in pottery, leather and the textile industry). First, providing the local
residents with a better understanding of the tourism sector and tourist needs and preferences
might open up opportunities, such as catering, craft initiatives, cultural displays or enterprises
that supply the tourism industry itself. In a second stage, initiatives may require input to
develop skills, marketing links, and commercial expertise (Ashley et al. 2001: 16). This is a
task that has been undertaken by Deepa Krishnan of Magic Tours of India in favor of BTL,
with great success. Moreover, this could arguably be done without raising costs for tour
companies. Thirdly, supply side measures would have to be combined with measures to
expand the demand for the products and services. Tour operators should therefore channel
their own clients to local enterprises (Ashley et al. 2001: 13, 17). BTL’s newest addition of a
‘Foodie Tour’, wherein tourists get to cook with the locals, might be a step in this direction,
depending on how exactly this is brought into practice.

Collective community income
These seem to be very limited, if not non-existent. There are no systems of revenue sharing or
community payments in place. Tour operators are not dependent on community organizations
to conduct their activities; they can offer their tours without directly involving the locals. The
local communities are currently not actors at a whole. It is unclear if strong community
organizations exist that could take up this role. Possibilities to generate a considerable income
are limited to a small group of those who are directly involved with the tourism industry.
Ashley et al. (2001: 1, 27) have suggested that, although the numbers employed may be low
and jobs may be concentrated among the more skilled, the spread of earnings throughout a
community – by supporting relatives and re-spending locally – can make tourism significant
53
to local, not just individual, poverty reduction. However, although the impact might certainly
extent to the household level, I have found little evidence of a so-called trickledown effect to
the wider community. Freire-Medeiros (2009) has previously come to a similar conclusion in
research on Rocinha, Brazil. Tourism might actually perpetuate inequality instead of reducing
it.
Non-economic benefits and impact

Livelihood benefits
On an individual level, guides benefit from skills development. They gain vocational training,
and improve their English and confidence, all of which might ultimately help them find better
job opportunities. As such, the function of guide might be considered a vehicle for social
mobility. It must be added that it concerns youngsters who are in most cases relatively highly
educated and who already have the language skills necessary to communicate with tourists.
Their English and confidence might improve further, but it has to be reasonably high already
before starting the job.
RTT has made a strong, long-term commitment to local projects in the fields of education and
health care through its own NGO Reality Gives. The benefits of this are more widespread.
Their programs focus on teaching valuable skills (English, computer, soft skills) to school
children, which will arguably help them gain easier access to higher education and/or the job
market, and in turn could have a major impact on their quality of life. The real impact of these
programs needs to be evaluated over a considerable time period.

Addressing social and cultural impacts of tourism
Both major tour companies point to their intent to improve the image of the slums and to their
no-photo policy. Further, the fact that they deliberately keep groups small was also noted. The
maverick guides typically do not take measures to mitigate negative impacts of tourism, and
therefore cause local friction. Case in point is that photography was still identified as a major
problem by multiple residents. While the tours have been called voyeuristic, it is important to
realize this goes both ways: The residents are often just as interested in the tourists. The
difference lies in the fact that tourists can independently decide whether to take part in a tour,
while for residents this is not a choice. It has been shown that residents are aware of this
unequal relationship.
54
While overall the majority of slum residents has no major problems with tourism, there are
still some grievances to be addressed. There is evidence to support the claim that both RTT
and BTL could benefit from investing in spreading information on their intentions and
activities, in particular by promoting their respective community projects and employment of
local student-guides. Although both companies claim to have informed the residents before, it
is clear that the latter’s understanding of tourism motives and actions is low. Spreading
information and addressing some misconceptions may quell certain negative sentiments and
could even increase commercial viability by enhancing local support and thus what Ashley
and Haysom (2006) have called ‘social license to operate’.
One issue that most certainly has to be addressed is that of the previously identified ‘trouble
spot’ along the route. Here, poverty is most glaring and privacy issues are a major concern.
A debate between the residents and tour companies is needed, where one group can voice its
grievances and the other can explain its intentions. Ideally this would not be a one-off thing,
but a continuous process. In this way, a solution for the privacy issues must be found, while
possibly also opening up opportunities and providing access to benefits of tourism. Finally, it
must be pointed out that the snappy rivalry and increasing competition between RTT and BTL
may in the near future cause intra-communal tensions to increase and eventually boil over.
There has already been talk in some circles of disrupting the competitor’s activities, which
would be detrimental to both local residents and international tourists.
Pro-poor policies and process reform
If we consider possibilities for policy reform on the level of the private sector, we must first
point to the fact that neither of the tourism companies has local partnerships or a regular
consultation system in place. Local residents were presumably consulted at the start of the
activities, but this is certainly not a continuous process. They are therefore mostly excluded
from decision-making processes. To give voice to concerns of the poor, there is a need for
increased communication and participatory planning. RTT’s approach could arguable be
called philanthropic, one of corporate responsibility. Without denying the considerable
contributions of charitable support, Ashley and Haysom (2006) have proposed a change
towards a different way of doing business by integrating pro-poor approaches into the
corporate culture. This would entail switching from a model whereby communities are mere
recipients of donated benefits from tourism, to one of community empowerment by offering
them a stake in the enterprise and actively involving them with the projects (Ashley et al.
55
2001:8). Practical constraints, most notably the size of the population, might stand in the way
of this. As BTL continues to grow, it should also look to incorporate pro-poor strategies into
its business approach, in order to help its community develop.
However, the fundamental void situates itself on the level of the public sector. In order for it
to make business sense for tour companies to fully invest in PPT-approaches, they would have
to receive full support from the public sector. A strong commitment and involvement of
government in the area of policy is needed for PPT-interventions to be fully effective. The
local government has however been reluctant to accept slum tourism. Indeed, one of the tour
companies, Mumbai Magic, has recently been asked to discontinue its Dharavi tours. At this
point, there are no (effective) constraints for other providers. Securing government support
would be a major step and would provide more room for PPT-initiatives. Tourism companies
could try to lobby their case, but the chances of success seem slim. In any case, as long as
their activities are not interrupted, tour operators would rather avoid this. In order to reach its
full potential, both private sector and public sector would have to make a full commitment to
PPT. And independent NGO could arguably play the part of lobbyist and act as an
intermediary between different stakeholders to explore and establish linkages.
Final conclusion: measuring actual impact on the poor
Although tourism in Dharavi has undeniably produced some pro-poor benefits, there are still
significant challenges to address and obstacles to overcome if PPT is to be implemented
effectively.
In any case, tourism might simply be too small of a niche to provide significant financial
impact and bring real economic benefits for the bulk of the residents. It does not seem
appropriate to considerably stimulate the growth of the tourism sector; since increased
pressure on the area would arguable cause more harm than good, it is best kept small-scale.
Tourism will therefore, of course, not solve the problems of the slum. Although the financial
impact of tourism is not felt on a community level, it can have a considerable impact on an
individual level. For a select few, it might indeed be a vehicle for socio-economic mobility
and a way out of poverty; for some others it provides critical gap-filling income as part of a
survival strategy. By maximizing the use of local suppliers and staff, by developing and
exploring business partnerships with small complementary tourism enterprises, and by simply
56
boosting understanding of the tourism industry, more opportunities could be opened up. There
certainly is untapped potential for local supply of services and products.
Many more are affected by non-financial livelihood benefits, which are hard to quantify, but
can reduce the vulnerability of the poor. Skills development has been noted within the tourism
industry, while community projects funded by tourism profits have improved access to
education and health for a large number of people. However, the livelihood impact of tourism
is certainly not unequivocally positive. The exchange of ideas has been cited as a strong point
of tourism, but this applies only to those who are able to interact directly with the foreigners.
Limited interaction, because of language barriers and other constraints, often impedes mutual
exchange. Stimulating more direct interaction between residents and tourists in an effort to
create more balanced intercultural interactions would be a positive development. When
considering the social impact of tourism, it is notable that tourism can both stimulate feelings
of pride for some and evoke a sense of shame for others. Where one finds himself within this
spectrum depends in part on personal traits, but is also tied to relative levels of poverty. We
have seen that more measures should be taken to protect the most vulnerable. Perhaps most
concerning is the effect unchecked competition and rivalry between the two main competitors
in tourism could soon have on intra-community tensions.
57
References
1. Literature

Ashley, C., Goodwin, H. and Roe, D. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making
tourism work for the poor. A review of experience. Nottingham: Russell Press.

Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. (2006). From philantrophy to a different way of doing
business: Strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism
business. Development Southern Africa, 23(2), 265-280.

Booyens, I. (2010). Rethinking township tourism: Towards responsible tourism
development in South African townships. Development Southern Africa, 27(2), 273-287.

Chock, S., Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2001). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A
critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’ and implications for sustainability. In C. Hall (Ed.),
Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp. 3455). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Davis, M. (2012). Planet of slums. London: Verso.

Dondolo, L. (2002). The construction of public history and tourism destinations in Cape
Town’s townships: A study of routes, sites and heritage. Cape Town: University of the
Western Cape.

Dovey, K. and King, R. (2012). Informal urbanism and the taste for slum. Tourism
Geographies, 14(2), 254-274.

Dyson, P. (2012). Slum tourism: Representing and interpreting ‘reality’ in Dharavi,
Mumbai. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 275-293.

Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009). The favela and its touristic transits. Geoforum, 40(4), 580588.

Freire-Medeiros, B. (2011). ‘I went to the city of god’: Gringos, guns and the touristic
favela. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 20(1), 21-34.

Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (2012). Slum tourism: Developments in a young field of
interdisciplinary tourism research. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of
Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 14(2), 195-212.

Frenzel, F., Koens, K. and Steinbrink, M. (2012). Development and globalization of a new
trend in tourism. In F. Frenzel, K. Koens and M. Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism:
Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Routledge.
58

Goossens, L. (2011). Dagtrippers in de sloppenwijk: De integratie van armoede in de
toeristische markt. Unpublished paper, Ghent, Political Sciences Department.

Hall, C.M. (2007). Editorial. Pro-poor tourism: Do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily
the countries of the South’? In C.M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits?
Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp. 1-8). Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.

Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor Tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 851868.

Koens, K. (2012). Competition, cooperation and collaboration. Business relations and
power in township tourism. In F. Frenzel, K. Koens & M. Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum
Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 87-96). Oxford: Routledge.

Ma, B. (2010). A trip into the controversy: A study of slum tourism travel motivations.
Scholarly Commons, University of Pennsylvania, Undergraduate Humanities Forum
2009-2010.

Meschkank, J. (2010). Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty Tourism and
the tensions between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal, 76(1), 7-62.

Nijman, J. (2010). A study of space in Mumbai’s slums. Tijdschrift voor economische en
sociale geografie, 101(11), 4-17.

Outterson, K., Powys White, K. and Selinger, E. (2011). Poverty Tourism and the problem
of consent. Journal of Global Ethics, 7(3), 1-26.

Rogerson, C.M. (2004). Urban tourism and small tourism enterprise development in
Johannesburg: The case of township tourism. GeoJournal, 60(1), 249-257.

Rolfes, M. (2010). Poverty Tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings
regarding an extraordinary form of tourism, GeoJournal, 60(1), 421-442.

Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In C. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor
Tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction (pp. 121-144).
Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Steinbrink, M. (2012). We did the slum! – Urban poverty tourism in historical perspective.
Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and
Environment, 14(2), 1-22.

UN-Habitat (2003). The challenge of slums. Global report on human settlements. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd.
59

van Winssen, I. (2012). Cultural brokers. Host-tourist encounters in slum tourism in
Mumbai. Unpublished paper, University of Amsterdam, Contemporary Asian Studies
Department.
2. Internet sources

Be The Local Tours and Travels: http://www.bethelocaltoursandtravels.com.

Jacobsen, M. (2007, May). Dharavi – Mumbai’s shadow city. Retrieved from
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/dharavi-mumbai-slum/jacobson-text.

Jain, B. (2010, October 10). 62% of Mumbai lives in slums: Census. Retrieved from
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mumbai/62-of-mumbai-lives-in-slumscensus/article1-614027.aspx.

Koens, K. (2011, March 31). The danger of single story [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.slumtourism.net.

Lewis, C. (2011, July 6). Dharavi in Mumbai is no longer Asia’s largest slum. Retrieved
from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dharavi-in-Mumbai-is-no-longer-Asias-
largest-slum/articleshow/9119450.cms.

McGuinness, R. (2012). Slum tourism: A cynical cash cow or a helping hand to those in
poverty? Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2012/07/10/slum-tourism-a-cynical-cash-cowor-a-helping-hand-to-those-in-poverty-493097/.

Reality Gives: http://www.realitygives.org.

Reality Tours and Travel: http://www.realityoursandtravel.com.

Responsible Tourism (2012). 2012 responsible tourism awards winners. Retrieved from
http://www.responsibletravel.com/awards/winners/2012.htm.

Saint-Upéry, M. (2010, October 21). Left at the crossroads: Ogling the poor. Retrieved
from http://en.ria.ru/columnists/20101021/161035393.html.

Tourism Concern (n.d.). Slum/Poverty/Favela tourism. Retrieved from
http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/slum-tourism.html.

UN, 2012. Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml.

Weiner, E. (2008, March 9). Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism? Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/travel/09heads.html?pagewanted=al&_r=1&.

Zaidi,
A.
(2012).
Slumgawk
millionaires.
guardian.com/artbeat/sluwgawk-millionaires.
60
Retrieved
from
http://www.sunday-