In “What is Poverty? ” Theodore Dalrymple argues that the poorness in England is non economic. it is moral and religious. In the text “The City by the Sea” by Shiva Naipaul discusses the poorness in Bombay and its economic and moral connexions. Theodore Dalrymple besides argues that the poorness his state of affairs in England is worse than poorness in Third World states. I agree with Dalrymple’s first thesis. but in Naipaul’s essay the life conditions are more suffering than England. That’s why if the economic conditions in the Third World are so bad. that will convey more moral poorness.

Therefore I disagree with Dalrymple’s 2nd thesis. If one must compare states. it shouldn’t be between England and Third World states because they are non in a similar place. In his essay Dalrymple gives background information about poorness in England. He states that the poorness in England is non economic. it is religious and cultural. He supports his thought with an effectual illustration that the rate of coffin nail ingestion among the hapless. Higher ingestion belongs to people from slums ; they do non belong to rich portion.

It shows that hapless people in England has adequate money to pass their money for a useless thing ( 40 ) . So they have adequate money to last. With this illustration Dalrymple shows us that the poorness in England is non because of economic system. They prefer to purchase coffin nails instead than medical specialty. Another thought given by Dalrymple is about religious poorness in England and the consequences of being welfare province. He gives an illustration about diacetylmorphine addict’s behaviour towards the physicians. After an nut who is unconscious because of holding overdose of diacetylmorphine aftermaths up. he doesn’t demo any appreciative behaviour towards the physicians.

But these physicians and nurses care about him and seek to salvage him without anticipating anything in return ( 41 ) . Giving this illustration of diacetylmorphine nut. Dalrymple tries to explicate cultural poorness in England and the emotional numbness in of the hapless. He shows that even though that diacetylmorphine addict doesn’t deserve this favour. because he is non grateful to people who saved his life. Furthermore. Dalrymple gives another illustration of a miss who has no hope and is brought to the infirmary because of deliberate overdose. She doesn’t want to populate this life because she is fed up with her ex-boyfriend who beats her up.

Besides she has three kids from different fellows. All of these grounds take her to despair. Although there are many people whose life conditions are worse than hers. people in India attempt to last ( 42 ) . These illustrations show that people in lower category in England don’t have any regard for the people who are seeking to assist. That’s why poorness in England is related to cultural behaviour of the hapless. so it is religious non economic. Other thought of Dalrymple which shows the poorness is non economic in England is about the poor’s irresponsibleness and indolence.

He supports his thought giving the illustration of a larceny. Dalrymple explains what he sees during walking from infirmary to the prison. “There are seven or eight puddles of glass shattered into fragments lying in the trough en route” ( 42 ) . Despite government’s public assistance province and installations for hapless people. some of them still disregard this aid and seek to happen other ways for happening money. This is one of the groundss of cultural poorness in England. Dalrymple besides tells about the litter on the streets and in the paces of the public lodging.

The hapless people in England don’t clean up their rubbish because they think that authorities will make it for them ( 42 ) . They are lazy. irresponsible and anticipating everything from the authorities. The hapless in England don’t want to take a duty. so there is once more cultural and moral poorness. In the 2nd portion of Dalrymple’s thesis. he supports that the poorness in England is worse than in Third World states and there is less moral corruption in these states like India. When we look at Shiva Naipaul’s essay “The City by the Sea” . Naipaul indicates in his thesis that people in Bombay denies their panics.

To demo the moral poorness in Bombay Naipaul describes the “garrulous” cab driver who offers his immature and educated cousin for harlotry. This cab driver says “When life is difficult. sahib. a adult male will make anything” ( 54 ) . That shows the moral poorness in Bombay and how the despairing life conditions lead people to populate like that. Another illustration of Naipaul is the people who work in The Mill Area ( 57 ) . In Bombay 1000s of people work in the fabric industry. They work with cotton dust in humid countries. Because of such on the job status. one in every six work forces develops TB.

They don’t have equal medical attention. but they work for many hours and they sleep in displacements. They work under so bad conditions but they earn so few rupees. Additionally. they are all immigrant workers from Tamil Nadu. Andhra Pradesh. Kerela. Mysore. Assam. These immigrant workers send money to their household to assist them to last. This illustration shows how people work and seek to populate and besides assist their household. These hapless people try to last non merely for themselves. but besides for their households. If we compare. hapless people in England can’t even seek to last for themselves.

Despite Dalrymple’s 2nd thesis. there are many similarities between moral poorness of England and India. He gives an illustration of the station office drudge in Bombay. Naipaul sees this adult male in public vacation and he has no program for the twenty-four hours. He is apathetic towards the universe and his duties. Furthermore. in homesteader settlements in India people don’t attention about anything like the people who are populating in English slums ( Naipaul 59 ) . This emotionlessness points out the moral poorness in England is besides effectual for India. Another similar illustration is about force.

Like in England. crushing married woman and kid is common in slums in Bombay. In chunky settlements drug and inexpensive spirits means that it is clip for get rid of the emphasis by kicking married woman and kids ( Naipaul 59 ) . Besides the illustration reminds the illustration of immature and hopeless miss in England. So. people in England and Bombay don’t attention about their married woman and kids because in Bombay they try to prostitute their cousins to gain money. To sup up. if we compare these thoughts. after analysing Dalrymple’s and Naipaul’s essays. Dalrymple’s thought in his thesis is non wholly valid.

It is true that poorness in England is moral. cultural and religious. non ecomonic. but as seen with the aid of effectual illustrations of Naipaul. the life of hapless people is non worse in England. In England there are moral debasements. but at least hapless people in England have more opportunities to last because of holding higher economic criterions. In India. things are different. they don’t have anything but they got hope. They hope without believing that one twenty-four hours their life is traveling to be alteration.