More rhyme? Or good reason?
By Kryshnadev Calamur Posted Wed, Dec 1 1999
Arundhati Roy is famous for her elegant prose and unrivaled descriptive powers. Recently she has turned those powers into hard-hitting journalism. Amid the public euphoria over the Indian nuclear tests in May 1997, Roy wrote a scathing diatribe against the government's nuclear policy, earning the ire of many in the establishment. Roy was accused of being a part of India's English-speaking elite, a group often singled out for not understanding the country's real needs.
Roy was in the news again this year for an article that criticized the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Project, a portion of one of the world's largest dam projects. It is being built mainly in the western Indian state of Gujarat, where many of India's poor live.
Her essay, “The Greater Common Good,” first appeared in two of India's leading English-language news magazines, Outlook and Frontline. It was later reprinted in Britain'sThe Guardian and is now available as a book. In the essay, Roy questions the Nehruvian ideal tat the few should sacrifice for the benefit of the many. The concept was named after India's left-leaning first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru. She also asks if displacing almost half a million people constitutes the greater common good.
“I suddenly remembered the render concern with which the Supreme Court judges in Delhi (before vacating the legal stay on further construction of the Sadar Sarovar Project) had inquired whether tribal children in the resettlement colonies would have children's parks to play in,” she writes. “The lawyers representing the Government had hastened to assure them that indeed they would.”
Roy's comments attracted the resentment of both the nation's courts and its political establishment. Both the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, and its main opposition, the Congress party, were unanimous in criticizing Roy. Supporters of both parties held rallies condemning her views. Congress supporters burned copies of the essay. Bookstores in Gujarat pulled copies of The Greater Common Good for fear of reprisal.
“If within the next 24 hours, all (Roy's) irresponsible, anti-development books are not withdrawn from the shelves, the bookstores will have to face to wrath of angry Youth Congressmen,” Himmatcinh Patel, the president of the youth wing of the Congress was quoted as saying.
The courts contemplated bringing contempt charge against Roy. According to the three-judge bench, the article “was an attempt to undermine the dignity of the court and influence the course of justice.” They later reconsidered.
Roy's involvement gave the Narmada Bachao Aandolan a much needed publicity boost. The group's name means Save the Narmada River, a reference to the river on which the dam is being built. Though the NBA, as it is known in India, did receive a lot of publicity in the early '90s, of late it had seemed to outlive its newsworthiness.
“Obviously, there is no doubting the fact that her involvement has changed the media attention,” says Tushita Mitra, resident of the Bangalore edition of The Asian Age. “All the mainstream newspapers sent corespondents all the way to Jalsindhi (the site of the dam) to cover her role in saving the Narmada.”
Roy's essay did another thing. Despite ideological differences, critics as well as supporters praised her quality of prose. Supporters called her a harbinger of a new form of journalism. Detractors felt, “The poetry was charming, the facts wrong; more rhyme than reason.”
Roy first came into prominence with her Booker Prize-winning book, The God of Small Things, published in 1997. The critically acclaimed semi-autobiographical novel won her admirers throughout the world. In June, she donated the US$34,000 prize she received for the book to the NBA ,which had been fighting against the building of the dam for nearly a decade.
The proposed dam has a long history of controversy. It first came into prominence in the 1980s, when the World Bank approved a loan to the Indian government for its construction. The protests began almost immediately. Ecologists pointed out that the dam would displace nearly half a million people and could cause famine in the very areas it was supposed to serve. Both the World Bank and the Indian government, however, held firm.
According to the Indian government, the project will ultimately benefit 30 million people and help irrigate crops that will feed another 20 million. Anti-dam activists, including Roy, point out that it will ultimately displace 250,000 people and submerge 98,800 acres of land.
The NBA has not been able to generate the international media attention that China's Three Gorges Dam project was the center of international media attention this year following the Chinese government's plea for Western help to fight the rampant corruption impeding the dams' construction.
The NBA has had brief periods of hope. In 1993, after renewed protests by the NBA and pressure from several donor countries, the World Bank withdrew from the project. The Indian government decided to go ahead with the project anyway; it became an issue of national pride.
In 1995, the anti-dam activists had a breakthrough. The absence of any resettlement or rehabilitation policy for the tribal population that would be displaced led the Supreme Court to order a stay on the construction. But in February, after what it saw as adequate assurances from the government, the court reversed its earlier decision.
Roy's involvement with the NBA has put the issue back on the media agenda and on people's minds. The question remains whether the revitalized movement could be eclipsed by its star activist. Roy's supporters hope she has the same influence as American writer Rachel Carson, whose groundbreaking environmental book of the 1960s, The Silent Spring, led to the eventual banning of the pesticide DDT.
“She had huge masses following her, taking the train to Bhopal and staying in the villages, taking boats and so on,” says Mitra, referring to when Roy visited Jalnidhi. “I guess it was a big people's movement in that sense, although I don't know if they knew what exactly was involved.