But she wears a distorted lens. Look at the descriptions she provides us. The policemen, she wants to convince us, are themselves at war with the government—for they got their jobs by paying heavy bribes—and the officers are making merry while sending the boys to die. You think even commandants have lost their lives leading the ranks against the Maoists or other extremist groups? Perish the thought. All she can discern in this spectrum is that police personnel are “poor khaki trash, cannon fodder in the Rich Man’s war”. And what does she think of the killings by the Maoists? Bad, but this is the Janus-faced morality of “revolutionary violence...that we can expect more of in a war zone in which tactics trump rectitude and make the world a worse place”. Bravo, Che Guevara of the 21st century! She has all the statistics on how well the security forces are armed. As for the Maoists, their resistance of this “war” is conducted using a few arms snatched from the police. Obviously, she has not heard or read about their links to arms-smuggling rings and terrorist groups in Pakistan and Nepal, and about their extortionist demands from local businessmen, industrialists and contractors.
And how is the Indian State an enemy of the people and “waging war on the poor”? Industrialisation, for her, is the new capitalism-imperialism in action. Just as the old colonialists grabbed the resources of Asia and Africa to fatten themselves, the new capitalists are grabbing the resources that belong to the poor—their water, trees, forests, mineral-rich land—to make profits. Therefore, she prescribes an Arcadia—no mining, no interference with the flow of rivers, no dams, no displacement of people to make way for infrastructure, no tampering with nature. How distorted this vision is can be seen in many of her examples.
Why should you mine bauxite? Mining bauxite is dangerous—because aluminium is made using enormous quantities of power and that means further damage to the environment. And, says Arundhati, what is aluminium used for? To make weapons, so that the poor can be kept suppressed using the very things they own—the bauxite buried in Niyamgiri. No mention of the fact that aluminium is a major component in airplanes, cars, engines, domestic utensils for the poor, a hundred other things.
Not only is her rural Arcadia a myth, it is dangerous too. It may be that tribals could once have made a living out of the forests. But for centuries, they have lived on the margins, even before this recent spell of industrialisation. When the rest of India was enjoying great prosperity in the middle ages, the tribals remained poor. And Arundhati says the wisdom of sustainable lifestyles will come from the tribals!
Nor is the modern state all that cruel, “waging war against its own poor”. No one claims that it is a perfect state, or that democracy means justice overnight. Democracy by itself does not guarantee justice and growth. It only provides the framework within which different groups can peacefully struggle for their advancement and for justice.
Arundhati is also wrong when she characterises the Indian media as a handmaiden of corporations. If that were so, Outlook, which is owned by a business house, would not have published her denunciation of the Indian State as a tool for exploitation by business. Big business houses and many successful businessmen—Ramalinga Raju of Satyam, for instance—have been exposed in the media. Furthermore, the media itself works to resist business pressure and political corruption. It is the media that has fought against corruption, even within itself—like with the recent paid news virus. When the struggle against Tata Motors began at Singur, it was this very media that Arundhati decries that gave it full exposure.
Farmers are genuinely agitated at being denied a fair share of the benefits from entrepreneurs who use their land. But the problem does not need a war in order to be solved. Governments in India have to seek the people’s mandate every five years. Governments in the states and at the Centre have been removed by the collective exercise of the vote. Leading businessmen have lost elections very often. If governments are under the thumb of Big Business, many regulations on business that exist today would not have been there.
However, there’s no formula to make democracy completely tamper-proof. Medha Patkar and Arundhati fought against the damming of the Narmada. But the people of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh did not agree with what they said against the dams. These agitations, however, highlighted one genuine problem—rehabilitation of the displaced. Governments are now obliged to demonstrate rehabilitation package in advance, before projects are sanctioned. That’s how democracy works.
India’s poverty—or that of other countries—is not the result of the emergence of corporations. It has been there for centuries. Europe was, till the 19th century, desperately poor. Industrialisation and empire-building brought wealth and democratic pressures forced the rich to share that wealth and today, in most of Europe, there is a welfare state. Look at the high standard of living in the Scandinavian countries, which never had colonies to begin with. It was technology and democracy that brought about this change—not guns.
Activists like Arundhati who hold up daily the statistical reality of 70 per cent of the people living below the poverty line ignore the reality that this poverty is not the result of any deprivation now. India’s population has almost quadrupled since independence; yet, the average lifespan has improved, the levels of maternal and infant deaths have gone down, though they are still high enough to cause concern, the level of literacy has improved, especially female literacy.
Poverty is central to public discourse in India. There is a plethora of schemes aimed at poverty alleviation. Of course, given the imperfections of the system, and corruption, they do not always give the desired results. Some state governments may have a poor record in PDS, for instance. But the bjp government in Chhattisgarh has shown how pds can be run efficiently. Similarly, in Gujarat, thousands of small check-dams have come up under Narendra Modi’s government, always a target for attack by activists like Arundhati.
While Arundhati and others decry the building of infrastructure like expressways, railways, ports, airports, power grids and so on, they ignore how employment—skilled and semi-skilled—is being created in these areas. Even five-star hotels and tourism generate jobs.
Activists who decry industrialisation have no answer when you ask them how the burgeoning population will find jobs if enterprises do not come forward to take risks and invest widely. The tribes in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Kalahandi, whom Arundhati extols for their “wisdom” in sustainable livelihood, are the ones who suffer most where there are no alternative jobs. Mines and industries have brought modern education, healthcare and technology, even though not in adequate quantities.
The 600 million users of mobile phones in India, many among the lowest income groups, like repairmen, vegetable vendors, fishermen—in fact, some 200 million people in rural areas alone—uphold the benefits of technology that have come only through industrialisation. The 40 lakh self-help groups in the country, each comprising 15 to 20 poor village women, are a declaration to activists like Arundhati that their apology for armed struggle against the state is regressive and can only harm the poor they claim to support.
We need to struggle, for a better life for all. But it can only be achieved through more technology, more enterprise and more democratic devolution of real power. Most of all, through the aspiration for a better life, not a throwback to the old one. The choice is between a functioning democracy (with all its warts) and Maoist anarchy. “If the Maoists ever come to power, the first person we (read Maoists) would hang would probably be you,” Arundhati writes. For once, she is right; the anarchists she extols have no use for dissent. But can one dream of Arcadia without free thought?
(The writer, a BJP MP, can be contacted at email@example.com)
I fully agree with Balbir Punj’s opinion when he says that Arundhati Roy’s diatribe against the Indian state (Pretty Prose and Guns From Cloud Cuckoo Land, Oct 11) ignores the freedom it offers. Ms Roy should know more than what her elevated rant conveys, namely, that only democratic, industrialised countries are able to ensure a dignified, ‘free’ existence to their citizens. States based on ideologies that aim for a heaven on earth have inevitably ended up as versions of hell. Is Ms Roy aware of the paradox? Dr (Maj) Amitabh Upadhaya, Gorakhpur
Outlook should be congratulated for publishing Balbir Punj’s column. It has now published opinions from both sides of the fence. Both views should ideally contribute to the healing of hurt, and towards resolving such an emotional issue as proper justice for our tribals. V.S. Sankaran, Madurai
Mr Punj’s chauvinistic dismissal of an innovative and honest assessment of Indian democracy, and its onslaught on the poor, confirms all of Ms Roy’s arguments about a repressive elite. Punj hopes to trash her views by quoting sections of her essay—as if her views could be refuted by his sagacious highlighting! Punj is a member of the bjp, a party which till recently had dangerously skirted the margins of the Constitution, but now swears by it. Not only is this hypocrisy, it’s also an effort to clamp down on any view that challenges the Constitution—an imperfect text that has been amended tens of times. Punj’s belittling of the tribal way of life reflects the shared vision of our middle class. It’s tragic. Akash Dey, New Delhi
According to Mr Punj, Roy’s perfidy lies in her portrayal of India as being on the wrong side of history. Of course, for the likes of him, ‘real India’ is a scene from the prosperous, sari-clad, bejewelled baniyas inhabiting the sets of soap operas on Star TV. What a disconnected sense of reality he has! Bazeed Mirza, Edinburgh
Punj’s article is a clear admission of how short the right-wing rhetoric is of logical counterpoint and data. The article merely vindicates Arundhati Roy. Varun Garde, Bangalore
Arundhati is a pseudo-intellectual operating from inside a cocoon of comfort and privilege. Yes, the government is corrupt and power-hungry. Its actions are ham-fisted. But what right do the Maoists have to destroy the lives of innocent people to score political points? If Arundhati had lost a close relative in a Maoist attack, would she have been so tolerant of them? What about acts such as the beheading of ordinary policemen? Is that a sign of sanity? Dilip Mahanty, Sydney
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT