Arundhati Roy, a Ghost, has got it all wrong!!

I never expected this wonderful surprising commentary article by Aakar Patel who refutes on well grounded basis, the false propositions of cunning socialist and communist leaned Arundhati Roy. 


I must say that when I read Roy's article which was based on a lecture she gave in Mumbai some time ago, I was deeply worried about the false propositions against folly ideas of her.


Patel concludes that:

• When all’s said and done, the solution to such problems in dysfunctional societies like India is simple, though boring. Communities must start taking responsibility for themselves. They cannot wait for a revolution to come to their doorsteps and clean their neighbourhoods, or to care for their infants, or to teach hygiene to their women or to educate themselves. Nor can they entirely depend on the state either, though they must vote against those who fail to help them do this.

• Experience has also shown that in tribal areas where external influence has been allowed, it can be a force for good. The tribals of Mizoram have 90 per cent literacy because of work done by the Presbyterian church. Shielding tribals from the outside world keeps them just as they are. This might have aesthetic appeal for some, but most tribals don’t think so. That is why the Salwa Judam militia attacks those who are their brothers and sisters. Unfortunately, this isn’t the sort of thing we can blame the whole world for, and so it isn’t good material for belles lettres.

Why don’t you name it “a corporate, Hindu, satellite state”?

In her interview with Mr.Karan Thapar’s Devil's Advocates Ms.Roy reveals her views on The State and the Naxlites movement etc.

One has to read the full interview. Its quite interesting. Some excerpts:

Karan Thapar: That I understand but do you support any attempt to overthrow the Indian state?

Arundhati Roy: Well, I can't say I do because they will lead me from here, in chains.

Karan Thapar: That technicality apart, it sounds as if you do.

Arundhati Roy: However, I believe that the Indian state has abdicated its responsibility to the people. I believe that. I believe that when a state is no longer bound, neither legally nor morally by the Indian Constitution, either we should rephrase the preamble of the Indian Constitution which says...

Karan Thapar: Or?

Arundhati Roy: Which says we are a sovereign, democratic, secular republic. We should rephrase it and say we are a corporate, Hindu, satellite state.

Karan Thapar: Or?

Arundhati Roy: Or we have to have a government which respects the Constitution or we change the Constitution.

Karan Thapar: Let me be blunt. It sounds very much to the audience as if you are trying to find a clever, subtle way of saying that you do support the Maoists commitment to overthrow the state but you are scared to say it upfront because you are scared that you would be whisked away to jail.

Arundhati Roy: If I say that I support the Maoists' desire to overthrow the Indian State, I would be saying that I am a Maoist. But I am not a Maoist.

Karan Thapar: But you sympathise with them.

Arundhati Roy: I do sympathise with all the movements. I am on this side of the line with a group of people who are saying that here is a State that is willing to bring out the Army against the poorest people not just in the country but in the world. I cannot support that.

Karan Thapar: Let me put this to you. You sympathise with the Maoist cause, but what about the tactics that the Maoists use? The problem is that the Maoists want to trade a new democratic order not by persuading people, not by winning legitimate elections but by armed liberation struggle. To many, that is tantamount to civil war. Do you go that far with them?

Arundhati Roy: There is already a civil war. I don't believe that a resistance movement that believes only in violence will lead to a new democracy. I don't believe that. Neither do I believe that if you doctrinally say you must only be non-violent, I believe that is a twisted way of supporting the status quo. I believe that has to be a bandwidth of resistance and I certainly believe that when your village is surrounded by 800 CRPF men who are raping and burning and looting, you can't say I am going on a hunger strike. Then, I support people's right to resist that.

Karan Thapar: But put this to me. If you support, no matter what qualifications you add, the right of the Maoists to resist with violence: whether you call it armed liberation struggle or whatever.

Arundhati Roy: You keep on going to these Maoists.

Karan Thapar: If you support that, no matter with what qualification, how then can you deny the State the right to resort to arms to defend itself?

Arundhati Roy: The State doesn't have to defend itself. The State is supposed to represent the people and defend the people.

Karan Thapar: But if the State is under attack, it is the people that are under attack and...

Arundhati Roy: It is not under attack. The State is perpetrating the attack. That is what I am

trying to say. The State is going in violation of its own Constitution and perpetrating an attack. If you look at the recent report, the censured chapter in a recent report by the Panchayati Raj, it says so clearly: the State is being completely illegal in its actions. What do you suggest people should do when an army, a police, a paramilitary, an air force is going to start making war on the poor? Do you suggest that they should leave and live in camps and allow the rich and the corporates and the mining sector to take over?

Karan Thapar: So you are saying that the Maoists and all the other resistance fighters are left with no option but to fight back?

Arundhati Roy: What I am saying is that if a State respects non-violent resistance as has been the case in years, but if you ignore non-violence, by default you privilege violence.

India is an emerging delusion but the antidote is wakeup and stand for Rule of Law

Soutik Biswas has a book review in Mint Lounge which I think fair enough. Some excerpts.

• “Monarchies, fascism and communism have been discredited. Theocracies don’t have many takers. Roy, however, wonders whether democracy should be the “utopia that all developing societies aspire to”. Her political insight lags far behind her clever prose. Sample this: “What happens once democracy has been used up?” Used up? How? Then she continues, “What happens when each of its institutions has metastasized into something dangerous? What happens now that democracy and the Free Market have fused into a single predatory organism with a thin, constricted imagination that revolves almost entirely around the idea of maximizing profit? Is it possible to reverse the process? Can something that has mutated go back to being what it used to be?” What did it use to be? Weren’t democracies and free markets always compatible? Is this an activist’s cant or a writer’s rant?
• Roy’s apocalyptic pitch continues: “Could it be that democracy, the sacred answer to our short-term hopes and prayers, the protector of our individual freedoms and nurturer of our avaricious dreams, will turn out to be the endgame for the human race?” So, what fascism and communism and feudalism couldn’t do, democracy might. The end of the world is nigh, thanks to democracy’s failings.
• In all these respects, India remains a work in progress. The country is still quite a distance from being a truly “liberal democracy” in which democracy extends from being a mere celebration of free and fair elections to a rule of law, and protection of rights to speech, religion, property and so on (Journalist Fareed Zakaria calls this “constitutional liberalism”). Also, it is common knowledge that democracy hasn’t always led to liberalism and elections don’t necessarily lead to more democracy—after all, Adolf Hitler was voted into power through free elections.”

More interestingly:

• “Democracies have often been imperfect, with rulers abusing power, undermining human rights, stoking intolerance, and promoting sectarianism and bigotry. It is surprising to see Roy writing off democracy because it is not delivering all the goods; this is hardly a revelation. Indian democracy is even more complex.”