Sunday, June 01, 2008

The Shape of the Beast



I read part of Arundhati Roy's new book ( a collection of interviews from the past few years, some of which I've already read) in Delhi and was quite affected. One can see the progression in her activism and analysis. First she was actively involved in a particular struggle (the Narmada dams). She puts the defeat of the struggle especially in the Supreme Court in the following perspective: that non-violent peoples' movements, (not just this one) are being comprehensively rejected ('humiliated') by our democratic institutions. This is very serious and leaves pretty much armed struggle as the only other means of change. This is the context in which she views the terrorist, naxal and other recent violent conflicts. She argues that one cannot take the conventional straightforward position of condemning these struggles, notwithstanding, as she is unambiguous about, that many of them are highly unjust and cruel themselves. As she put it, she is in the position of siding with groups who are quite likely to string her up if they come to power. She says that right now therefore what she is interested in is in looking to see if there are effective ways of resisting, in the current political regime.

She paints a pretty bleak picture out of an analysis that reaches very deep. If she's right we'll see lots more of violence and conflicts in the country.

I seem to follow behind her faithfully as she traces her own path of experience and understanding. I remember reading "The Greater Common Good" and just being blown away in the immediate moment, and also permanently affected in my thinking because of it. Later to my delight I found that she too has huge regard for Chomsky. Right now I'm trying to absorb her latest thinking.

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

All this only based on her writings - I have never met Ms. Roy.

I can see why Arundhatis Non-Violent movements will fail - she is an extremely violent person. She just doesnt do physical harm. Her violence is far greater, she likes to look down on others and feel cool about her self. She is a person who cannot sustain herself without rejection of a lot of people, that is the sense that I unfailingly get in all her writing. She only embraces in order that she can apply a contrasting pallete. This is the prevailing sense I get in all her writings.

Non violent movements cannot work without an inherent rejection of hatred for the opposing force. That is the staggering achievement of Gandhi - rejection of hatred at a really really deep level.

Of course, non violent movements can fail with authoritarian states. And perhaps a majority of them do so for any reason. But any non-violent effort led by Arundhati Roy, will fail for a different reason - her giant ego which permeates right through the false modesty of her existance.

I just cant stand any of her writings for this reason - political and God of small things.

Arvind

10:53 AM  
Blogger VK said...

Okay -- I'd like to take you on, on this one.
Roy doesn't strike me as particularly egotistic.
Why don't you quote from somewhere and we can analyze

Vijay

8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just as to get a sense of Seurats pontillist works, you look from a distance, so too with a writer. It is the sense of writing that you get after reading the entire work - so I cannot quote a particular line. Rather its my sense of the structure. Every single brick that made up Auschwitz had probably its own beauty, but its the structure which is ghastly.

Besides why would I want to re-read her trash just so I can quote to you? One time misery, is enough. But i will be kind once.


Heres her idea of non-violence for you ...

During the summer of 2004 Roy stated "The Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle.

Like most resistance movements, it combines a motley range of assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, etc. Of course, it is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality. But if we are only going to support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity."

Basically, her policy is not at all different from US right wing idealogy of fighting any one you dislike independent of who you join forces with. If this is non-violence, I am glad Gandhi is not around to bear the misery of co-existing with her.

Now, only a person with a giant ego wants to crush her opposition, the way she suggests. I know this feeling, because its familiar to me, I badly want to crush those I dont like. And the reason is I too have a giant ego. You cannot lead any nonviolent movements if you have an ego, and therefore I too will be a miserable failure as a champion of nonviolence. But unlike Arundhati, I dont claim to be a non-violent person - or a person who is qualified to lead or judge the efficacy of non-violent movements.



Arvind

7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sukesh, how come you are surprisingly quite since you dislike Roy as much as I.

Arvind

8:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In you earlier post you, you state with some qualifier, that "I really *get* this thing called 'life' and I am above it all".

This is what you and Arundhati share in common, the delusion that you are above it all. Thats perhaps why you like her, the vanity and ego that makes you want to be above it all. You simply are not above it all- not even for a moment. Never have and never will. You like me, are just a part of all the shit around us. Trying to be above it, which you do constantly, merely pulls you back into the quick sand.

Think about it.

Arvind

1:34 PM  
Blogger VK said...

All wrong.

Regarding your quote from her: The point is: people see the injustice of the ruling power, and look for ways to oppose it and those ways are not perfect. Since she sees the ruling power as incredibly horrible and unjust and since she sees that there is no space for democratic nonviolent movements, she finds that she has to side with imperfect resistance movements. In fact in a great passage in "The Shape of the Beast" she indicates (as I said in the post) that she is in the uncomfortable position of siding with groups, that are likely to 'string her up', if they come to power.

It is not non-violence - it is her response to seeing the ineffectuality of non-violent movements today.

It is not 'her' opposition. The current dispensation is quite good to her, giving her money and prizes. She's consciously chosen to make it her fight since she sees the effect it has on people less priviledged than her.

Where did she claim to be a 'non-violent' person ? Why does she need to be specially qualified to comment on current events that affect us all ? Am I specially qualified to write this blog ? Don't confuse your frustration that she gets prominence with her right to write.

10:05 PM  
Blogger Indiawaterportal said...

There is a disturbing nastiness to what you say : 'she likes to look down upon other people' 'cannot sustain herself without rejection'

Your worldview is blunt -- like a hammer. "You like me are just a part of the shit all round". It seems you cannot distinguish between the shit of a George W. Bush and the shit of say Manmohan Singh or Infosys or Arvind Narayanan. Nihilistic. Presumably this lack of ability to discern paralyzes you into inaction which can't be a fulfilling thing.

2:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You miss the main point, which should be the key take away that I have for you - get over your massive delusion that you "are above it all" and the desire you have to be "above it all". You are imprisoned and conditioned by this attitude - since the long time over which I have known you.

This "above it all" is the same feeling I sense in Arundhatis crappy work. Thats the ego shining through, I refer to.

The rest, I have filed under the agree-to-disagree folder. My "nihilism" is perhaps true, will examine. Hey, but this blog is about you and not me - so feel free to take a good and well deserved bashing when it comes your way.


Arvind

6:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pals,
AR through her "God of Small Things" has not made enough of a leap for me to start reading her views on social issues.
I cannot see GST as any useful commentary and AR as any useful commentator on the human condition. But as it is, the book does reveal a good deal about the author. Those revelations should make one wary (at least they make me disinterested) about resonating other sounds made by AR. Does AR reveal love for humanity in GST? Or wisdom and honesty about it? What is it that she, as a writer, brings to an issue?
But the defense presented by Despo is unassailable in its modesty - she has a right to write. And we all have our right to delight in random resonance.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see.
You engage in immense verbal diarrhoea and then I am supposed to understand that the real takeaway is "above it all" points, more about me than about Roy. Much clarity in thinking from your side.

A highly qualified and reflective comment about the way particular books etc. make me feel is distorted into a general feeling of and hankering for being 'above it all'.
I find the world to be a vast staggeringly messy murderous confused place. Making sense of this, and finding my niche in this so that I can engage with it from a point of understanding and control is the central theme of my life.

Why are you friends with / respect some people and dislike loathe some others ? Because you have your own scale of what is good and respectworthy and what is not. So then why fuss so much about my scale ? I don't know if you have changed much but your slavish respect for people smarter than you that I have observed was quite pathetic and your uncontrolled loathing for some others showed an inability to engage fruitfully with the reality of the world.
You would best spend your energy solving some of this internal distortion -- likely they will give you a better (and more sympathetic) perspective of mine and Roy's egos and being above it all.

--VK

11:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The resentful righteousness in this last comment is immense and immensely useless. Like Roy's words it comes from a place that is lacking in affection and it would be to the credit of the reader to find the good sense in it.

9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not to beat up on you when you are down Babu :-)
but I have to agree with Arvind on you having this "above it all" attitude and looking down your nose on somethings, a patronizing attitude, if you will.
For example in one of your posts you said, wife, house, kids, descent into meaningless existence...a lot of people are doing just that and are very happy.
My two cents.

6:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have taken Nanditas suggestion to not let this discussion cause any further negative emotions.

Also, if you want to mouth off about me, you need to take a number and stand in line - there are plenty of people waiting to do so.

Arvind

6:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

pals,
you should be following nandita's advice more often. a LOT more often.

9:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Et tu Sajini.

And so the debate (perhaps) draws to a close ? With Arvind reining in his negative-emotion causing fulminations the fire is missing.

Well, okay, let me get down my guard a bit. I do have strongly-felt ideas of what are the right ways to engage with the world and it probably shows up as judgementalism sometimes. More than that I will not accept

--Vijay

7:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since I am not allowed to heat things up any more, let me tell you what Shakespeare said - these are his words not mine, and they are from his play Omlette.

This above all:
To thine own self be true
Then it shall follow
As the night the day
Thou canst not then be Arundhati Roy to no man.

- Bard


Posted by an anonymous person of significant intellectual depth, who is really above it all at all times, and is too shy and modest to reveal his identity.

10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Despo, I am really upset that the previous commentator substituted false with Arundhati Roy, as though they were synonymns, and left a self important comment. Please let me know once you find out the identity of this person, I will find some body to give him a good thrashing.

Arvind

11:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so cute!

1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes indeedy!

You little rascal, you, pretending that you were not the same person who wrote the bard quote ! But you gave yourself away ! Since you mentioned that you are not allowed to 'heat things up' anymore, you must be the same Arvind whose better half (much better), asked him to cease and desist ! Gotcha !

Such a elfin sense of humor. Always ready for a practical joke.
You wascally wabbit you !!

10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

good lord! this debate (sic), stupid to begin with, has degenerated into the depths of the truly asinine.

11:02 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home