|
Opinion
A Note on Arundhati Roy’s Essay *
by
Uddipan Mukherjee
It needs to be clarified right at the very outset that the
present piece is neither an outright remonstrance against
Arundhati Roy’s essay ‘Mr.
Chidambaram’s War’* nor a panegyric of Mr. Chidambaram’s
policies regarding the ‘Maoists’.
Rather, what the author fails to comprehend is the manner in
which Roy embarks on a ‘reprimanding
spree’. That obviously does not
exonerate the Home Ministry of its rhetoric, policies and
actions which keep on fluctuating in an asymmetric fashion.
It is an undeniable fact that the mainstream media,
government and even the think-tanks are to a large extent
alienated from the movement that has been launched in tribal
India by the followers of Mao Zedong; morally and sometimes
financially and physically abetted by the urban
intelligentsia. ‘Alienation’
does not mean in terms of information, dossiers or papers,
but in terms of understanding the ‘root
cause’ of the armed
insurrection. In that direction, Roy has hit the bull’s eye.
But Roy also flounders at the very beginning when she says :
“Perhaps the Kondh are supposed
to be grateful that their Niyamgiri hill, home to Niyam
Raja, their ‘god of universal law’, has been sold to a
company with a name like Vedanta (the branch of Hindu
philosophy that teaches the Ultimate Nature of Knowledge)”.
‘Has been sold’
is a phrase which is completely ‘out
of phase’ with reality. In fact,
throughout her article she has used such phrases which
bolster paranoia. Is she trying to mock at the age-old Hindu
Philosophies pertaining to the Vedas or just castigating
Chidambaram? Not clear at all.
Roy vociferously proclaims :
“Of course, the Maoists are by no means the only ones
rebelling. There is a whole spectrum of struggles all over
the country that people are engaged in — the landless, the
Dalits, the homeless, workers, peasants, weavers.”
Hereby, she is exaggerating the internal security threat to
the country and undermining our success as a democracy.
Moreover, is she eulogizing these
movements? In the first place, she needs to appreciate the
vastness of India, not only in the sense of territoriality
but also in terms ethnicity, religion and caste. By no means
are struggle of the landless, Dalits, peasants and workers
novel. They had been documented since the days of the Raj
and continue to spark the headlines even today. It is the
sheer efficacy of democracy that such incidents get reported
more often today and hence debated and thus sometimes acted
upon.
That in independent India, we get the opportunity to
discuss, debate and criticize; in itself is a pointer
towards free democracy. Every system has its bottlenecks and
India is no exception. And this is the fact which Arundhati
Roy probably fails to understand or may be deliberately
evades.
To quote her;
“They’re pitted against a juggernaut of injustices,
including policies that allow a wholesale corporate takeover
of people’s land and resources”.
This is sheer hyperbole. There is no
gainsaying the fact that at times, the policy-makers and the
executive have treated the tribal populace with disdain.
There is also no denial that post-1991, Indian economy has
proceeded towards the LPG (Liberalisation Privatization and
Globalisation) policy and on occasions almost without paying
any heed to the repercussions on the rural demography.
Nevertheless, the scenario is surely not as bleak as Roy
portrays it to be.
Statements like “wholesale corporate takeover of people’s
land and resources” and “the women raped as a matter of
right by police and forest department personnel” are
horrendous.
The usurpation of farm and forest lands on which the
livelihood of millions depends has indeed fomented
movements, both of the non-violent and violent genres.
Starting from Naxalbari in 1967 to the recent events at
Singur and Nandigram in West Bengal can be cited as viable
case studies. There has been corruption and thoughtless
imposition of industrialization from above. But then people
have spoken and acted against these ‘State malfunctions’.
Furthermore Roy laments : “Right now in central India, the
Maoists’ guerrilla army is made up almost entirely of
desperately poor tribal people living in conditions of such
chronic hunger that it verges on famine of the kind we only
associate with sub-Saharan Africa”.
This is another exaggeration to its limit. Roy should
present proper data in order to corroborate her assertions.
True, there is poverty, hunger and malnutrition in India,
even after six decades of independence. Officially speaking,
about one-third of the total population of the nation is
‘under the poverty line’ whereas probably another major
chunk is fighting to survive. But that does not necessarily
make India comparable to sub-Saharan Africa ! If that had
indeed been the case, then India would not have sent the
Chandrayaan to space or exported its software knowledge to
that continent.
And Roy continues, “They are people who, even after 60 years
of India’s so-called independence, have not had access to
education, healthcare or legal redress.”
First, let us harp on the concept of the ‘so-called
independence’ of India. This phrase has reverberated through
decades, starting from the ranting by the Communist Party of
India right after 1947. But the sheer ambivalence of the
Party regarding the definition of the term has manifested
with time. To rebuke the government for its failures in
order to usher in change and better governance is a welcome
step, but not at the cost of jeopardizing ‘National
Sentiments’. Roy should realize that casting aspersions in a
blatant manner on the Indian government in international
media generally boomerangs on oneself. Populism at national
cost is unacceptable.
On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that the Indian
authorities have vacillated to an uncanny degree in
combating the Maoists and faltered in their analysis in
distilling the tribal elements from the ‘ruffians’. Hence
further alienation with the ‘grass-roots’ has occurred with
time.
One fails to gauge why Roy is not joining the ranks of the
Maoists when we come across the line; “Their journey back to
a semblance of dignity is due in large part to the Maoist
cadre who have lived and worked and fought by their side for
decades.”
Arundhati Roy fails to mention, inter alia, about the Right
to Information Act (2005) or the National Rural Employment
Guarantee Act (NREGA) which have made independent India
proud. On most occasions, she looks at the other side of the
coin. She goes for excessive ‘demonisation’ of the
government and puts forward wrong data through the argument;
“To get the bauxite out of the flat-topped hills, to get
iron ore out from under the forest floor, to get 85 per cent
of India’s people off their land and into the cities”. It is
well known that about 67 per cent of Indians live in the
countryside, and not 85 per cent as Roy comments.
One thing is crystal clear though. She is definitely against
Operation Green Hunt. She advocates talks with the Maoists.
But she does not bring out the negative fallouts of an armed
rebellion. What are the solutions offered by Roy? Apart from
talks with the Maoists, she does not offer any further clue.
I guess Roy is vehemently trying to dissuade the government
not to subscribe to Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism or fall
into the trap of Neo-Liberalism.
A few words of caution are probably the fallout of this
autopsy. The administration needs to reorient its thoughts
and be more pro-people. To do so, it shall require
overhauling of the machinery at some level and repairing at
other levels. Nonetheless, intelligentsia too needs to put a
restraint on their verbosity. It would not only be mutually
beneficial, but also a catalyst for democracy and for the
development of the ‘tribals’ on the whole.
End Note :
* : ‘Mr. Chidambaram’s War’, By
Arundhati Roy
Saturday, 31 Oct, 2009
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/12-mr+chidambarams+war--bi-11
October 31, 2009
Top | Opinion
|
