Deciphering Arundhati Roy

The list of causes that writer and activist Arundhati Roy supports goes like this, against Narmada dam project, support of a separate state of Kashmir, supports the Maoist struggle, supports not hanging of Afzal Guru(man convicted of attacking the parliament, anti India's nuclear weaponisation, blames Mumbai 26/11 attacks on Gujarat 2002 riots and ongoing struggle in Kashmir etc. Undoubtedly she has remarkable credentials as a writer and activist, but she looks like a rebellion without a cause to me.

She comes across as a hardcore socialist and idealist with noble intentions at heart for the poor. But she also has an outlook and opinion that take more prominence over the interests of the people she is fighting for. Many a times she looks like a self indulgent activist who is hell bent on imposing her thoughts on the poor in her fight against the state. Looking at her current diatribe against the government and in favour of Maoists just illustrates the point.

Roy holds the government responsible for the rise of Maoist movement in the backward states of India (which is true) and also supports the violence adopted by the Maoists as she terms it as their last resort. She accused the government of taking active interest in these areas because it has signed deals with corporate houses to vacate the land and wants to remove its local habitants from there.

Firstly, no one becomes terrorist for fun. If Maoist are justified like this for taking up arms, then so should be Islamic terrorist. Oppressed and poor are always easy targets for recruitment by terrorist groups but that cannot justify killing of innocent people. Every terrorist is fighting for a cause and has a tale of oppression behind him/her. If you justify one, you justify all. Secondly, government is undoubtedly to be blamed for the backwardness of these states. But isn't industrialization necessary for development of these areas? Its equally important to keep a check that naive locals are not cheated by the nexus of politicians and corporates, as has been the case in the past. Here is where activists like Roy can play a major role. Instead of fighting against every development activity that the state undertakes, why can't they use that energy in ensuring that every such development activity is inclusive of the growth of local people? Yes, India needs activists like Roy to take up the cause of oppressed but not someone whose ideologies overshadow the core purpose of upliftment.