Chitra Divakaruni Live Free And Starve Analysis

“Live Free and Starve” is an essay by Chitra Divakaruni, written in 1997 for Salon magazine. Divakaruni begins the essay apprising us of the passing of a United States bill by the House that would not permit the import of goods from countries that was using forced or indentured child labor. This made many United States citizens joyful that children in third world countries would no longer have to spend their childhood working in factories. According to Divakaruni this was not the best plan of action on the part of the United States. Child labor is an awful thing when you think about what a child is subjected to in these factories, how long it will take a child to pay off their debt to earn their freedom, and the fines or pay cuts they endure

for mistakes or bathroom breaks. Unfortunately, in these third world countries, this is all a child can do to get food, clothing and shelter. So the freedom the United States thinks it is bestowing on these children is in reality more hardships. Divakaruni reminisces about growing up in Calcutta and about a young boy who worked in her home. Her mother reluctantly took the young boy in to work for them, because his family could not feed all their children and he was too frail to help his family with field work. She felt her mother was a good employer to this child because she gave him the same food her children ate, gave him clothes and encouraged him to learn to read and write. The pride this young boy had when he was able to contribute to his family earnings was immense. The children who did not have this opportunity to work were starving and became beggars and thieves. So, the United States needs to think about what it can or will offer these countries to help provide for these children once it forces them out of the workplace. This essay was enlightening, in the respect to demonstrating what would happen to these children if they did not have to work. It makes you more aware or at least want to question our actions first. This is a true case of not considering the effect of our actions, though the United States has good intentions, the whole picture needs to be evaluated before we can act.