The Quintessential Outsider

Arundhati Roy and the Art of Speaking One’s Mind October 28, 2010

In the few days since I last posted on this blog, with a link to an article on human rights abuse cases against the Indian Army in Kashmir, a new dimension has been added to the Kashmir issue – there is now a debate on whether advocating secession from India, as Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Arundhati Roy did in a seminar in Delhi last week, is an act of sedition, or merely an exercise of one’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. Meanwhile, a friend of mine, in a comment on my last post, has shared a couple of links on why the world is silent over Kashmir and whether India should withdraw from this troubled region. I am going to share my thoughts on all of these, one-by-one.

Firstly, let’s talk about the seminar. What was a liberal, free-thinking, staunch feminist like Arundhati Roy doing sharing the stage with Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who dreams of a ‘free’ Kashmir under a strictly parochial rule which will strangle the lives of ordinary citizens, especially women, in the name of ‘Islamic law’? I have put the word ‘free’ in quotes because Mr Geelani is a staunch supporter, not of Kashmir’s independence, but of its accession to Pakistan. You can find a couple of articles by people who attended the seminar and even spoke there, which state that Geelani now has a more moderate stance, but at least one of them also confesses that he is surprised at this changed stance.

For anyone concerned about the status of Kashmir, what Mr Geelani says is not enough, what matters is the opinion of the masses. And these masses do not mean only those who were applauding Geelani or Roy at this seminar, or the stone-throwing mobs on the streets of Kashmir, but also those who wait inside their houses waiting for the endless cycle of stone-throwing, curfews and massacres to end, and also those who have been forced to leave Kashmir and settle elsewhere, e.g. the Kashmiri Pandits, some of whom turned up to protest against Geelani and Roy at their seminar.

If we look at Geelani as a parochial, fundamentalist leader who advocates violence to enforce his will and preaches hatred for others, he seems eerily similar to some leaders here in Mumbai, who have also been in the news recently for their latest attack on a liberal author and his book. They routinely transgress the boundaries of the freedom of expression, both through their actions when they snatch this right from others, and with their words which threaten to disrupt public order. Will Arundhati Roy ever share the stage or nod in agreement with any of them? No, and quite rightly so. Then why share the stage and nod in agreement with Geelani?

Let me state here that from the account of those who attended the seminar, and from reading Roy’s writings or speeches in their entire context, a discerning individual would agree with her at least on some points. However, the masses and even the mass media are not always so discerning. Arundhati Roy has been known for regularly making statements which can be variously termed provocative and outrageous. She might be right in her opposition to nuclear weapons, to the US-led War on Terror, to big dams and other forms of top-down development, to the imposition of draconian laws and heavy-handed armed action against peaceful protesters or innocent civilians, but her utterances often seem to suggest that she is too blinded by her own ideology to see its limitations.

For example, her sympathy for Maoists stops her from seeing that exploitation and abuse is as rampant in the Maoist ranks as outside. Or at least, if she sees this, she does not express it as vehemently as her support for the Maoist cause. The Naxalite-Maoist insurgency may have started as a spontaneous reaction of the most backward groups against neglect and oppression, and the underlying causes still remain unresolved and continue to drive people to extremism, but one cannot ignore that this movement has turned into a perennially violent struggle which refuses to recognize any peaceful or democratic initiatives as legitimate, and is as destructive for those within its fold as for those outside. It is also probably sponsored by rogue elements from outside India’s borders. It has large numbers of deserters and former members who have been disillusioned by its violent ways. It may be spread across some of the most backward and deprived regions in India, but has failed to take root in some other equally backward parts of the country. Most importantly, Maoism or Mao’s ideology has been conveniently sidelined in the country of its origin, and a pseudo-capitalist system has been put in its place.

Coming back to Kashmir, it might be right to say that every human being or a group of them has a right to self-determination which overrides the laws or constitution of any nation-state. Arundhati Roy has already exercised that right once when she ‘seceded’ and declared herself an ‘independent, mobile republic’. Similarly, Kashmiris could possibly secede and declare themselves independent, and India might be forced to agree if it sees no alternative. But is the issue as simple as that? As I have written above, what about those who were forced to leave Kashmir due to threats to their lives? Will a referendum, if any, include their opinion as well, or only of the current residents? What if, out of the current residents, say 40% favour secession? The movement will be defeated on the ballot, but will those 40% remain silent? And what if 60%, or even 80%, favour secession? Will the remaining 40% or 20% be forced to go with them? Will such a referendum extend to the parts currently controlled by Pakistan? And if an independent Kashmir is formed out of this entire exercise, how long will it remain truly independent, and free from interference by Pakistan and China? All these questions deal only with Kashmir, but can we assume no trouble for Jammu and Ladakh? After all, militancy-related reports keep emerging from Rajouri, Poonch and Doda as well (all of these are parts of Jammu), and Kargil and Siachen (both are parts of Ladakh) have been at the centre of conflicts between India and Pakistan.

Questioning the present or the future of Kashmir, and making suggestions for the same, even if those suggestions include a possible secession from India, may not be considered seditious. However, an openly provocative and belligerent stance against the nation-state, as has been adopted time and again by Geelani, is not only sedition, but treason, and Geelani should consider himself lucky to be in a tolerant nation like India. The same goes for Arundhati Roy, who can afford to say whatever she wants and some more, and still get away with it, precisely because she’s in India. If her fear is that this right will be taken away from her, then we need to be supportive of her and this right, for it concerns all of us. It is expected, however, from an author and thinker of her stature that she will understand when her words cease to convince and begin to provoke, when her speeches do not exhort people to think and reflect, but fill them with anger and add to the existing complications. With that, I shall move to the two articles on Kashmir I mentioned earlier in this post. Both the authors seem to suffer from broadly the same problem as Arundhati Roy.

The first article, on the silence over the Kashmir conflict in Western circles, makes some good points, e.g. that the Indian mainstream media has not shown enough sincerity in representing the ground situation in Kashmir, and that Kashmiris who have lived through these times will still remember and find ways to express themselves. However, calling that mainstream media “choleric”, “partisan” and “opinion-mongers” in a sweeping, generalized manner does little good to his arguments, and exposes the author to equally caustic accusations by those who disagree with him.

Another example is as follows:

A month before his election, Barack Obama declared that resolving the “Kashmir crisis” was among his “critical tasks”. Since then, the US president hasn’t uttered a word about this ur-crisis that has seeded all major conflicts in south Asia. David Cameron was advised a similar strategic public silence on his visit to India last fortnight. Those western pundits who are always ready to assault illiberal regimes worldwide on behalf of democracy ought not to be so tongue-tied.

Perhaps both Obama and Cameron were advised by their aides that the Kashmir issue was different and more complex than the others they usually comment on, so they decided to reserve their comments until they knew better? Perhaps they also realize that India is not, after all, a typical ‘illiberal regime’.

The author paints a black-and-white picture of Kashmir – of a population desiring independence but living under the oppression of Indian guns. If only things were that simple. Besides the political and demographic complexities mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, it might also be informative to note that the ground situation in Kashmir is a maze of pro-Azadi, pro-Pak and pro-Indian people whose opinions have shifted over time and been influenced by a range of factors. They are caught in a tangle of violence and peaceful struggles, terrorists both home-grown and from abroad, former terrorists-turned-informers, informers who are also double agents or even triple agents. Add to this a cocktail of politicians and leaders of different hues, all fighting to cultivate their own narrow domains, and surrounded by three of the most populous countries in the world, all three nuclear-armed. However, the author simplifies this situation to suit his sweeping arguments, and ends up leaving doubts in the minds of the reader.

The second author, writing on whether India should voluntarily withdraw from Kashmir, seems to have similar problems. He gives excellent arguments about how holding on to Kashmir gives India nothing but false pride, and how a voluntary withdrawal can not only leave India more secure and prosperous, but fatally cripple the undemocratic powers at the helm of affairs in Pakistan. However, through some of his other arguments, he undoes the good work. Here is an example:

Indians are not the leaders of Asia — the Chinese are. If India wishes to be considered a good second to China, it should not fritter away its resources on nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, or Commonwealth Games. India should use its scarce resources where they are most needed, to help people raise themselves out of poverty.

And India should not play dirty pool with China, and harbour Tibetan governments-in-exile. Let it not be forgotten that one of the causes of the India-China border war of 1962 was the covert activities of the CIA from Indian bases. Yes, it is sad, the Buddha lived in India 2,500 years ago, but none are true to his vision; nor are the Tibetans. India should mend its fences pronto with China, and accept the glaring fact that they are bigger, and better — just as it wants Pakistan to acknowledge its leadership.

Firstly, the Chinese might be bigger in many respects, but they are still not regarded as the leaders of Asia by all the other countries. For every country hostile or indifferent to India and close to China, there is some other country which is wary of Chinese ambitions and only too happy to engage more with India. Secondly, despite all its problems and poverty, India does need something for its security, and some spectacles to showcase its sporting and other abilities. There is, rightly so, a lot of debate over how much should be spent on these ventures, if at all, while people continue to live in poverty. When was the last time you heard such a debate in China? Has anyone in China dared to question the Beijing Olympics, or the high-handed measures taken to ensure its perfect execution? Here is an article which tells how the same story is being repeated for the Guangzhou Asian Games.

Thirdly, harbouring Tibetans is not just about playing dirty pool with China, but also about a fundamental commitment to provide asylum to those who have been unjustly driven away from their homeland. Regarding the India-China war of 1962, here is a much better and more detailed story of what exactly happened. It explains in great detail how India was probably more at fault for the war, and not China, but does not make arbitrary comments about how China is good and India is bad, which is what this author can be accused of saying. Indians know quite well that China is bigger in most aspects, but they are justifiably proud of their democracy, irrespective of its faults and malfunctions. Telling them to prostrate before another country for being bigger and better is not exactly a good way to convince them of your viewpoint, however sound it may be.

These examples tell you how liberal and free thinkers who are genuinely concerned for the good of people, or at least claim to be so, leave themselves prone to criticism of being anti-national or seditious, or of being apologists or agents of external powers. Unfortunately, in complicated situations like in Kashmir, it is difficult to find the truth between the lies and propaganda of different sides. As my friend in his comment on my last post states, in cases of human rights violations, it doesn’t really make sense for us to take the word of the accused over that of the victim.

But in a region where you cannot enter safely until you are assured protection from one side or the other, what do you do if you decide not to listen to the Army at all? You can go and meet the “local people”, and listen to their stories, but how do you know that some of those “ordinary people” are not miscreants deliberately planted to spread misinformation? And even if we keep aside the “false allegations”, the 35 cases found genuine also offer enough scope for propaganda. 35 stories of human rights abuses with graphic details and some survivors or relatives to showcase the associated human suffering in each of them, are enough for any separatist leader to further his agenda and foment trouble, to provoke more youth into taking up violent means and adding to the endless cycle of violence and repression. And adding 1,471 “false complaints” to the list only makes the situation worse.

It is highly likely that the actual number of genuine cases is higher, that the Indian Army and government have ignored or brushed under the carpet some of the cases, or unjustly declared them false. It is also well-known that successive Indian governments have committed a series of blunders in Kashmir, which has added to the region’s troubles, and that keeping such a huge region and population under such a heavy siege is not only unfair, but unsustainable. The Indian government already realizes that, which is why it has been willing to engage with even the most hardliner separatists in its bid to find a solution. Equating such a government to its more roguish counterparts from across the border, or to the former colonizing powers, as Arundhati Roy does here, is not exactly a good way of speaking one’s mind.