Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiArundhati Roy at the London Literature Festival - 2009
LONDON - She entered the stage of the Southbank Centre from the far left of centre, similar to her beliefs, stepping up to the podium to speak about "dark talks", of failed promises and diabolical designs in the name of democracy. She ended the evening, the faded pink anchal of her sari draped on the armchair, with the audience applauding and listening to her chosen ghazal by Farida Khanum:
![[Arundhati Roy, writer, activist (a term she dislikes) kicked off the London Literature Festival-2009 with a public interview conducted by an exuberant Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty (a British pressure group) and Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University.]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/roy-2.jpg "roy-2.jpg")
If there is no hope, there must be dreams
If there is no love, there must be yearnings...
Arundhati Roy, writer, activist (a term she dislikes) kicked off the London Literature Festival-2009 with a public interview conducted by an exuberant Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty (a British pressure group) and Chancellor of Oxford Brookes University. The last time Roy had been at the Centre was to pick up the 1997 Booker Prize for her The God of Small Things. Her political journey over the last decade has produced four more books, all increasingly focused on issues like the "language heist" by so-called democracies who use coded terms to mask their real political and social intent ('Operation Enduring Freedom' in Iraq, Operation Restore Hope' in Somalia, 'Operation Uphold Democracy' in Haiti, etc.). Roy has been an outspoken activist on issues such as Indian policy on Kashmir, its nuclearization, Sri Lanka's attack on Tamils, and most famously, on water-dam issues.
Hers was an Indian voice, with sub-continental thali samples floating in the accent, thin but unbreakable, like a fishing line strong enough to reel in a twenty-pound carp of dogma and land it on the writer's beach to be expertly gutted of its insides. Shami's cross-cultural modulated mate'ism acted on the audience with morning chat show familiarity, while Roy's remained the voice of principle, embellished with flashes of poetic metaphors that illuminated the socio-economic issues that burn in her. At times there would be lapses, as if she was thought-lagged, but never veering from the topic, attempting to convey her position with facts while leaving the conclusions self-evident to the jam-packed audience in the Purcell Room.
Her range and grasp of topics is impressive or expressive, perhaps, of a remarkable genetic mix and activist upbringing: Born in Shillong, to Keralite Syrian Christian women's rights leader Mary Roy, and a Bengali tea planter father. As all the world seems to know by now, Arundhati earlier had dabbled with architecture, screenplays, films, even running aerobic classes until her voice began to draw attention, beginning with her blistering critique of Shekhar Kapur's internationally applauded Indian film 'Bandit Queen' (1994), based on the life of Phoolan Devi. Her film review, 'The Great Indian Rape Trick' questioned the right to "restage the rape of a living woman without her permission," and charged Kapur with exploiting Devi and misrepresenting both her life and its meaning. Thereafter the topics changed but the defiance of popular perceptions and the relentless exposure of hypocrisy grew, as did Roy's exploration of injustice and its global dimensions.
Roy's first nonfiction book appeared to mark the beginning of the end for her as a novelist, as she continued to indefatigably question, probe and campaign on national and international issues, as a spokesperson of the anti-globalization movement and a vehement critic of the United States' foreign policies, especially the post 9/11 agenda of carnage and conquest. She has spared few, repeatedly criticizing with razor-sharp words both the USA and the Taliban, and India's adoption of a neo-liberal industrialization and development agenda - physically embodied in the obscene Sardar Sarovar Project, with its dam across the Narmada river.
She was ambivalent about her Booker, stating that it gave her money, fame and the instant recognition with which she could explore her subsequent social passions, but insistent that writing was "about bridging the gap between thinking and language." Since "all writing has to have a political dimension," reaching her inner self was more necessary and by doing so touching the lives of others thus writing was activism, but not the other way round.
Roy detailed the workings of the American military-industrial complex and the emerging one in India, where the tribal poor were being evicted from their land to feed the demand for bauxite, to be exported to Western armaments factories that fed the wars in these developing democracies. She answered questions about the Indian Supreme Court gone 'Demon Crazy' - they often referred to her as the "other woman" for her insolence and defiance of the Court - wryly commenting that she was the "Hooker who won the Booker."
She ranged over other crimes, when "democratic outcomes did not suit their designers" such as the Hamas in Gaza now, and Chile in 1970 where Salvador Allende was assassinated by a CIA-aided army coup. She spoke about a media aligned with the military in this ever-changing, short-sighted exploitation of the world, its people and their eroding inheritance. Shami waved her pen and mike, and the audience responded by asking questions, such as about the Obama phenomenon, to which Roy's brief answer was that "he has been elected for them, by them, not for us." Another question was about "the fact that liberal, educated people are the ones who can listen and appreciate your arguments and books and not the poor." Roy's touchiness showed as she replied that, "strangely in India, the hierarchy of education and status has, like you, resulted in more narrow thoughts at the top rather then amongst the poor."
The night ended with Roy again reading from her next book Listening to Grasshoppers: Field Notes on Democracy and the piece of music she had chosen to end the night. As my son and I walked along the bank of the Thames I reflected on her words, and thought that my ideal would be power closer to the people, where the ruthless efficiency of capitalism could be rewarded on the basis of sustainability rather then balance sheets alone. That Arundhati is dedicated to peeling the gnarled, poisoned bark of business and bureaucracy, to scything an ill crop so that someone, somewhere, can plant fresh shoots and sow fresh crops.
S I Ahmed is an occasional contributor for The Daily Star literature page from London.
36 Comments so far
Show AllApologies for the late post, but I hope it helps...
In the fierce intellectual debate as posted above by two or three persons, I noticed the following (quote):
">>>I would even argue that she is palatable to 'liberals' in the West only because she criticizes the workings (and deservedly so) of the govt in her own country.
"So what? I suppose that's also the reason why many educated Indians (judging by the online comments on Indian newspapers) cannot stand Arundhati Roy - because she exposes the ugly truths."
For my two-cents-worth, I'd say that arundhati roy is "tolerated" because she is OF the "elites" and has transcended them. Or, if not exactly OF them, then arisen THROUGH them, not unlike Barry Obama... .
Would that Benazir (sp?) Bhutto chosen to write novels...
Am I wrong to ask without having done any research on this, whether Bhutto and Roy were friends?
AR seeks to transcend the silliness of all these huge stupidities of those who think of themselves as our leaders, kings, and nomenclature. YOU ALL, Define a "credit default swap." Now go to yore local supermarket to the produce section and ask yourself, can you find a single vegetable or fruit that has not been contaminated by Capitalism gone to the New Fascism (just paste on the smiley face...).
Also, to poster vdb, thanks for correcting my shooting UK/India Star source.
As for Hillary In India this past week promoting a huge nuclear deal about which we have heard too little lately, I hope they can make a documentary from the iPhone footage.
One more point... Most of those posting on CD are the poor cousins of the "elites." Certainly I am.
Methinks that the Indian guvment is in large part trying to replicate the China model, with a resultant increase in landless peasants pouring into the cities. In hard economic times they try to return home to farm the little land, but find the aquifer depleted because some transnational corporation ecause
But there is no work! The whole world is "over-capitalized" and thus "Entropic." There is no "economics" solution to this long-standing "crisis." The First Order ("Order" not meant in the pejorative) is to localize yourself and work out from there. And come back. And keep going farther out. And come back. Etcetera. Each rhythm will become more complex. Understand its beauty, and transcend. It can become music.
Ahh, but I digress. War is Hell! Does Hillary really want to bomb bomb bomb Iran? Is not the subtext here, that if India can have nuclear power plants built by US corporations, as Hillary seems to have just signed off on, then Russia ought to be able to complete its construction of a civilian nuclear power plant in Iran??? Quid Pro Quo... ???
---
This time, without apology SR...
---
One final point... I consider CD a far better site than alternet. Not that I would like to make an invidious comparison or anything. I notice that some of us are using our CD monikors at alternet.prg [sic]. I wonder if that is such a good idea...
Transcend
-30-
"But it is large enough to affect the poor in their country by cornering resources and by driving them out of their lands. I see it as a dangerous trend that is developing. If unchecked, India could turn into a Latin American country, except the conquistadors will be their own elite."
You are right on all these counts and no one on CD needs a lecture on the destructive effects of multi-nationals like Walmart !
--"Most here on CD have read of the farmers' suicides in India - because they couldn't pay back loans as little as $3,000. "
Absolutely ... and most here on CD are also aware of the American practice of subsidizing our own farmers so much that we can easily destroy the agricultural output of countries like India just by competing in a globalized world. Farmer suicides in India are a direct result of Monsantos greed and Indian govt complicity under mistaken notions of higher yield. Whether you like to admit or not, blaming India's elite is a convenient way attempt at absolving our own sins. Maybe you should read a lot more of Roys work before chafing under the collar.
riddimboy, you ask me what my gripe? It's that YOU seem to have a gripe that someone is criticizing India, without realizing the context.
The context is this: This is an article about Arundhati Roy. She has routinely called the bluff of the elite - whether it's in India or elsewhere. And my first comment mentioned Medha Patkar. Though her fight is for justice for those evicted for the Narmadha dam, it is also part of a broader fight where the rights of faceless millions are trampled on for the benefit of the elite (and those who side with the elite) - in this case, the benefits of the dam construction would primarily go to people living in urban areas of a neighboring state while the villages adjoining the dam catchment area are to be (already?) submerged. Arundhati Roy joined Medha Patkar on some agitations. And then my first comment also mentioned Vandana Shiva. Again, on the surface of it, she is fighting to preserve whatever biodiversity (mostly the seeds used by traditional farmers) is left - but it is also a fight against companies like Monsanto. Now these multinational corporations cannot spread their tentacles in countries like India without the help of the local elite and the educated people who work for them.
The article mentions "India's adoption of a neo-liberal industrialization and development agenda - physically embodied in the obscene Sardar Sarovar Project, with its dam across the Narmada river". It also mentions "the American military-industrial complex and the emerging one in India, where the tribal poor were being evicted from their land to feed the demand for bauxite, to be exported to Western armaments factories". And Roy's comment: "strangely in India, the hierarchy of education and status has, like you, resulted in more narrow thoughts at the top rather than amongst the poor." The author finishes by saying "Arundhati is dedicated to peeling the gnarled, poisoned bark of business and bureaucracy". I remember there was a huge debate in India when they signed on to some nuclear deal with the U.S. The elite in India clearly believe that they need nuclear power (to meet India's energy needs) and nuclear weapons (because there are others in the neighborhood who have them). I don't have an opinion one way or the other on these issues - but I do recall reading comments on some Indian newspaper where the readers were furious at Arundhati Roy for her stand on these issues. But I did think - why doesn't India invest more in renewables, conservation, etc., so the need for dams and nuclear power may be less. (That said, I also pointed out on a different article that India ranks 5th in the world in installed wind power capacity, and one Indian state alone has more wind power capacity than in Canada). I know that the average Indian consumes far less than any westerner. But there is a growing trend in India where the elite and the educated seem to think that they can somehow have the same kind of luxuries (huge malls, routine air travel, driving fancy cars - including SUVs, etc. - including some neo-rich driving RV's) without regard to what it will do their environment or how it will impact the poor in their own country. First of all, land is limited - if you think about a billion-plus population. Anyway, my comments were NOT about the average Indian - it was about the elite. Yes, I also included the "educated" Indians - those who don't care much for the poor or the environment. I also mentioned R.K. Pachauri - Chairman of the IPCC in my first comment - he too is an educated, elite Indian - but my comment was not about him. So, everything in context.
So, this is NOT an article about the relative consumption levels of the USA vs. India - if you haven't noticed. Elsewhere in CD, on other articles, I have pointed out exactly that - that the average consumption levels in India and other developing countries are way too low and that the west has NO moral authority to preach to other countries. I've also pointed out how certain countries are defaulting even on the modest emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol (which calls for "common but differentiated responsibilities" - where countries that have historically produced the most emissions must start first by reducing their emissions). And when someone points to the population of China and India, I have responded by pointing out the historical migrations - how the whites from Europe had three entire continents (the Americas and Australia) and parts of Africa to absorb their population growth. I have also pointed out repeatedly about the unsustainable nature of the west's consumption and their huge ecological footprint. But everything in context. Reading about Arundhati Roy reminded me about the callous attitude of the Indian elite towards the poor in their own country. And that's exactly what I wrote about in my comments. Yes, on most articles, I point to the western over consumption, arrogance and lack of moral authority to preach to other countries. Whereas in an article about Arundhati Roy, I may point out about the Indian elite and their attempts to hide behind the poor. Inconsistencies? I don't think so - if you can place things in context.
-->"But there is a growing trend in India where the elite and the educated seem to think that they can somehow have the same kind of luxuries (huge malls, routine air travel, driving fancy cars - including SUVs, etc. - including some neo-rich driving RV's) without regard to what it will do their environment or how it will impact the poor in their own country."
Once again, this seems entirely supercilious in nature, as the elite in India are really no different from the elite elsewhere. You seem to question their 'right' to want luxuries, which incidentally is universal and not restricted to the white West. I have no use for nationalism of any kind, whether American or Indian or Chinese, but human nature follows an inordinate path and as affordability increases so do 'wants'.
We need to question the destructive footprint of Western countries at large and their refusal to alter their own lifestyle, despite the extremely, negative impact they have on the developed world. This trend of thought runs central to several of Roy's articles and of course she never hesitates to focus her wrath on the Indian govt as well.
I would even argue that she is palatable to 'liberals' in the West only because she criticizes the workings (and deservedly so) of the govt in her own country. The transgressions of the Indian elite are minuscule in comparison to the destructive, planet-altering behavior of our own American population at large and not just the elite.
>>>riddimboy wrote: Once again, this seems entirely supercilious in nature, as the elite in India are really no different from the elite elsewhere.
Unless I defend the elite in the west, how is it supercilious?
>>>...human nature follows an inordinate path and as affordability increases so do 'wants'.
But when these 'wants' threaten the livelihoods and even the lives of others, it should be pointed out.
>>>We need to question the destructive footprint of Western countries at large and their refusal to alter their own lifestyle...
Again, I remind you of the context. There are other articles on CD where I have done that.
>>The transgressions of the Indian elite are minuscule in comparison to the destructive, planet-altering behavior of our own American population at large and not just the elite.
But it is large enough to affect the poor in their country by cornering resources and by driving them out of their lands. I see it as a dangerous trend that is developing. If unchecked, India could turn into a Latin American country, except the conquistadors will be their own elite. I can give you more examples of how local businesses - from farmers markets to soft drinks - are driven out of business due to encroachment by mega-corporations - some of them multinational, and all in the name of modernization. Just like most mom-and-pop stores in the U.S. had to close down due to the Wal-Mart's. Most here on CD have read of the farmers' suicides in India - because they couldn't pay back loans as little as $3,000. I've also read of big businesses defaulting on their loans running into millions - and I haven't heard of a millionaire Indian committing suicide because he couldn't pay back his debt.
>>>I would even argue that she is palatable to 'liberals' in the West only because she criticizes the workings (and deservedly so) of the govt in her own country.
So what? I suppose that's also the reason why many educated Indians (judging by the online comments on Indian newspapers) cannot stand Arundhati Roy - because she exposes the ugly truths.
Authoritarian Patriarchy, Male Supremacy, Gender Slavery, The Rights of Conquest, and feral Oligarchies of inherited wealth -- don't have to look far to see the structure of hell on Earth in India, the US, China, Russia, the 'Stans', or anywhere else. All are societies based on Exclusion, the "Many" and the "Few" on a superstructure of male dominance through violence and oppression (along with the women who support their own victimization & degradation). It is our collective doom as a species...
Alcyon it is also time to distinguish between the denizens of the slums of New Orleans and the people who have access to the corridors of power in Washington.
dryfruit, of course. I don't deny that. Katrina exposed to the whole world the shameful level of disparity in the U.S. I got to talking about India because Arundhati Roy is from India. And I do feel strongly about the elite in various developing countries hiding behind the poor by citing the low national averages when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, while doing little to follow a more efficient path of development. There is simply no point in repeating the mistakes of the western countries and trashing whatever is left of their environment. The fact that these countries have huge populations makes it all the more critical that there is a more equitable sharing of resources. Though I mentioned China and India, Brazil too will fall in the same category. It also pains me to see that the elite in the land of Gandhi care so little about the poor in their own country, while at the same time wanting more luxuries for themselves. When I see news reports about "Maoist rebels" in India fighting with the police and the military, I have to wonder if this is a result of decades of neglect, but the Indian government seems to treat it as a law-and-order problem. Oh well...
-->"And I do feel strongly about the elite in various developing countries hiding behind the poor by citing the low national averages when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, while doing little to follow a more efficient path of development. There is simply no point in repeating the mistakes of the western countries and trashing whatever is left of their environment."
How exactly did you come up with this contention ? Did you visit India and see all Indians driving around in emissions-challenged SUV's ? Do you even realize how expensive gas is in India ? The average Indian consumes a small fraction of what an American consumes as ive mentioned before, but you blithely side-step that fact and choose to pick on a discredited argument about third-world energy consumption. Why is that ?? It makes absolutely no sense in pointing fingers at your neighbor when you are guilty of committing a far, far more serious crime. Why do you think the Indians and Chinese mock us ?
-->"It also pains me to see that the elite in the land of Gandhi care so little about the poor in their own country, while at the same time wanting more luxuries for themselves."
This sounds trite coming from an American. The greatest disparity in wealth in the developed world exists in our very own country. We comprise of less than 5 % of the worlds population but consume 35% of the worlds resources and produce more climate-altering gases than the entire developing world ! All this is not news anymore, if youve taken the time to educate yourself and yet we cannot resist the urge to project faux concern over the environment, that we have so assiduously managed to destroy.
I don't know what the hell your problem is. I don't need to take lessons from someone who cannot see the context of a post.
Its a forum for discussion of views and you can expect to be challenged on everything. I dont know what your gripe is ... are you 'hurt' that i pointed out glaring inconsistencies ?? Jeez ...
As the comment width is getting narrower, I have responded on a separate comment above.
Bring America Back !!!!.....! ..Thanks CD for this on Roy !
**Is not Arundhati a most beautiful woman and person?
**I sure would like to meet her for many more reasons than just one !
Keep on Truckin'===Arundhati Roy !!!!
..........penned this before reading the other blogs, so all I can say is Mee2
All you guys getting turned on by a pretty woman is as disgusting as the Repubs getting it on for Sarah Palin and Tall. Keep it up, and CD is gonna start running photos of Cheney again!
I concur wholeheartedly.
If there is no love, keep your yearnings to yourself.
As for your hopes and dreams on this, keep them to yourself too.
Somewhere in the new testament it is stated that merely lusting after a woman is the same as actual adultery. (I remember Jimmie Carter pointed this out in his 1976 Playboy interview.) Whether I actually agree with this is irrelevant; however, if we follow this logic, is not preparing for war tantamount to murder?
Arundgati Roy is one of the great voices of our times; her right-brained brilliance complementing the left-brained genius of Chomsky. Most of the political books by both are on my shelf.
In spite of the Booker prize. I found it scandalous how hard it was to find her novel "The God of Small Things" in US bookstores. I had to special order it!
I don't think CD ever posted it, but her most recent essay can be found here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/21918
I would like to remind all of you A. Roy lovers (and I have been one for many years) that you are all responding to a REALLY GREAT ARTICLE. This is a really great article about a person/woman who needs to travel the Planet and deliver The Word. And, evidently, she is doing that.
My hat is off to S[.] I[.] [Hayakawa] Ahmed and The Daily Star/UK for telling it like it is. Before seeing this item on CD I had never heard of The Daily Star. Which star?
When will Literature, Economics, and Science come together and inform the Congress...whether here or in India?
And to one of you earlier, Ms. Roy DOES censor herself. The article makes it obvious that this is so. To wit:
'Roy's touchiness showed as she replied that, "strangely in India, the hierarchy of education and status has, like you, resulted in more narrow thoughts at the top rather then amongst the poor."'
It took self-censorship to arrive at that. Her "like you" was intentional, intended to make the questioner rethink his/her posture. Possibly, "like you, America."
This question of what we call Censorship can get interesting... as in what was the CIA doing that they did not tell The Congress? But I digress...
Yu Go Grl...
-30-
The Daily Star - India.
The Morning Star - UK.
(the US likely has The Shooting Star)
>>>She has spared few, repeatedly criticizing ...India's adoption of a neo-liberal industrialization and development agenda - physically embodied in the obscene Sardar Sarovar Project, with its dam across the Narmada river.
Medha Patkar is another brave woman who is at the forefront of fighting for the rights of the people displaced by the Narmada dam construction. Arundhati Roy lent her support to this cause from time to time. But Medha Patkar's story is that of pure heroism against the might of the state - which include state governments, the federal government and the supreme court of India - all of which seem to ignore the plight of those who were actually displaced.
Vandana Shiva is another Indian woman fighting the steady encroachment by multinationals into farming in India - threatenging the livelihoods of farmers as well as the biodiversity.
These are lone voices, lost in the mad rush towards 'development'. The Indian elites are shining examples of why education does not necessarily mean intelligence, let alone compassion. While the IPCC is chaired by another Indian (R.K. Pachauri), a random chat with some educated Indians would show that climate change is not a primary concern for them. Same with the educated Chinese. They remind me of frogs enjoying a warm bath while the heat is being cranked up.
--->>"These are lone voices, lost in the mad rush towards 'development'."
These are the voices that are heard ! The scores of other women activists (ive had the opportunity and have been blessed to meet some of them) in the developing world do not have the kind of access Roy and the others have unfortunately. Roy's brilliant command of the language has opened many doors and to her eternal credit she has used it to rake the powers that be over coals.
--->>"a random chat with some educated Indians would show that climate change is not a primary concern for them. Same with the educated Chinese."
If education alone is the criteria to determine climate change awareness and action, then Americans are on the same level as say sub-Saharan Africa. We suffer from a serious bout of head-in-the-assism. Indians and Chinese would probably mock at us and rightfully so. To claim that Indians and Chinese should adhere to the same strict levels of climate-control that we havent even begun to sign on to yet is essentially racist, because we inherently assume they are lesser than us and deserve a lower standard of living.
We have come this far economically over the last 100 years by ecologically destroying complete eco-systems and generating planet altering climatic change with our emissions. Need i go on ...
riddimboy, I was talking about the elite in India and China - and their level of concern for climate change. I know for a fact that the elite in India DO NOT give a damn about the poor in their own country. I know about per capita emissions and the need for development in many countries - which will invariably result in higher emissions than at present. I have also pointed out many times that the West has NO moral authority to ask the developing countries to reduce their emissions when the U.S.A. and Canada could not even meet the modest targets under Kyoto Protocol. I FIND YOUR USE OF THE WORD "RACIST" TO BE OFFENSIVE.
You are asking me, "Need I go on...". Before you go on, I would like you to look at concepts like ecological footprint and wealth distribution first. The elite in India have been cornering a disproportionate share of the available resources (land, water, energy) while pretending that a faster pace of development will eventually trickle down to the poor. Yes, it's trickling down, all right - but the consumption levels of the rich are going up too. India has developmental needs - but the direction it's taking is not very encouraging. Investment in public transportation, for example, has been dismal. In contrast, just about every major car company is either manufacturing or selling the cars in India. And when the rich get stuck in traffic, they arrogantly blame the poor cyclists and other two-wheeler riders on the road - whereas the fact is that there is simply not enough road space for everyone to be driving a car. They seem to be copying the worst from the developed countries, while leaving out the better aspects such as public transportation. While capacities in trains have not sufficiently increased to keep up with the population growth, air travel has increased tremendously - all you need is money. And I hope you know air travel - whether it's by the Indians or Chinese or by the Americans - results in several times more emissions per passenger per mile. And meat and dairy consumption has been increasing too - resulting in greater diversion of resources (land, water) for those who have the money. So India now imports food, fodder for animals and chicken, whereas it was largely self-sufficient in food until a decade ago. Most Indians will tell you that a vegetarian diet will do just fine to keep them healthy - and the sheer variety of dishes makes it easy to be a vegetarian in India. But that's my own opinion. Also, while many Indians will say they don't eat beef, India still has a huge number of cows - 15% of the world's cattle population. So what happens to the cows when they stop giving milk? And the male calves? Obviously there is a great deal of beef consumption. But more than that, they contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Once again, most of the dairy consumption is by the rich.
And I hope you know about the "Special Economic Zones" (SEZ) - where huge tracts of land are handed out to private capitalists ostensibly for industrial development, whereas the land (mostly acquired from farmers at unfair prices) gets used for real estate development for the rich. The bottom line is that the elite in India are pursuing a certain developmental path which leaves the poor further and further behind. Since the vast majority of the poor people consume so little, it keeps the national average down. This is called "Hiding Behind The Poor":
http://hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2424/stories/20071221502403200.htm
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/bline/2007/11/16/stories/2007111650711200.htm
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/news/hiding-behind-the-poor
India may still correct its course so development may be more equitable. But it's time to distinguish between the elite in India and the poor people there - like in every country, and for the elite to stop hiding behind the poor. Oh, and because the Americans in general do not know enough about climate change is no excuse for EDUCATED people elsewhere to be ignorant of this issue.
I repeat - I know about per capita emissions and per capita ecological footprint, and that India ranks way below even China on these numbers. That was not my point at all. It was about the lack of concern among the educated Indians about climate change.
So your diatribe is against the elite in India ... im down with that and i agree with you. The elite in India are really no different from the elite in the U.S. or Europe. The only valid argument you have is that the Indian elite have managed to skew developmental priorities to suit their own narrow interests ...in other words what we have down to a science here in the US. Whether you find my use of the word racist is offensive or not is moot.
Before you criticise India and China on climate change, you need to consider on what basis you want to criticise them.
If you look at things from an absolute standpoint, yes, due to their massive populations, they are problematic.
HOWEVER, looked at a relative standpoint, per capita, ie greenhouse gases "emitted" by each citizen of a country, Indians and Chinese "emit" far less than Americans, and also western Europeans.
Are Americans willing to (significantly) cut back on per capita greenhouse gases emissions, if doing so involves, possibly a contraction of the American economy etc?
I'm not defending either India or China, just pointing out that there are several perspectives on this.
You have a very valid point. An American consumes 16 times that of an Indian and 8 times that of a Chinese person. Unless we are seriously willing to give up our 'advanced' consumption levels, we need to shut the f~!@ up.
Yes - I so admire all of them! I can't wait until her next book comes out!
Yes, Arundhati Roy is indeed deserving of great respect. And support. If she doesn't inspire many others, especially women, to speak out and to hold their ground, there is nothing to be said for humanity. For these are times in which the repression, hatred, violence, greed and continual ramping-up of all of this nastiness in male-dominated geopolitics, theocratic states and society in general would make anyone think twice about being inspired and raising one's head above the foxhole. Fortunately it still happens -there's your faith in humanity. And there's Arundhati Roy, a brilliant, brave, alive force of nature who's inspiring me daily, who I take pains to tell others about. Every time she opens her mouth, I'm riveted.
How she must piss off the male power elite! The colloquialism suits: You go, girl!
I have been following her career, and predict that she will have a great influence on Indians and progressive people everywhere.
Arundhati Roy is brilliant and wonderful to read and listen to, in an age of media spectacle and shallowness that harms the body and spirit.
Arundhati Roy's words and actions are something to admire indeed....She does have beauty on both the inside and outside...Her inside beauty makes her all the more beautiful on the outside as well....
Arundhati Roy's presence on this planet definitely makes the world a better place!!!!
Arundhati Roy is a brilliant and tortured force for true democracy. Because she is unwilling or unable to censor herself, we can learn from everything she expresses.
What a woman. Brains and Beauty. And a merciless enemy of hypocrisy and the criminals who run this world. She is a treasure.
Well said, couldn't agree more -- a true international treasure.
I had no idea she was so beautiful.
Between her and Naomi Klein, this radical progressive's heart goes all a-flutter!
Great. So now we're down to discussing Ms. Roy's glam quotient on CD. LOL!
Haha...well, appreciating beauty when we see it is so natural...and I like being natural ;)
Arundhati Roy looked good even when she had really short hair (probably growing back after shaving her head? It looked like that on some photos and videos). That said, there is a certain beauty that's not necessarily glamorous - I have seen it in some activist women's faces - wrinkled, hair turning gray, no makeup - yet beautiful in their own way.
we can all be beautiful in our own ways.
some let it happen - others go into politics.
Arundhati Roy is a very remarkable person deserving of great respect.
"If there is no hope, there must be dreams
If there is no love, there must be yearnings..."