arundhati roy and the decline of the indian state

A cover story in Tehelka a few weeks ago about the controversy surrounding Arundhati Roy and an accompanying interview. For background, Arundhati made several statements about Kashmir in a speech given in Delhi. In it, she said that

When I was in Kashmir.. what broke my heart on the street of Srinagar was when people say "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan, Jaan se Pyara Pakistan" and I said no because "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan" is with you, and if you are fighting for a just society then you must align yourself with powers and here are people who have fought their lives opposing Indian state....You have to look beyond stone pelting and how the state is using people. ...You have to know your enemy and you have to be able to respond by aligning tactically, intelligently, locally or internationally.

This raised some fuss, with BJP ministers accusing Roy of sedition. Rather than denying the charge, she instead takes issue with the word 'sedition' itself:

Sedition is an archaic, obsolete idea revived for us by Times Now, a channel that seems to have hysterically dedicated itself to hunting me down and putting me in the way of mob anger. Who am I anyway?

Put in context, Roy is pointing out that the BJP had a very real interest in diverting attention away from its corruption scandals and none-too-small involvement in the Ayodhya violence. As the Tehelka reporter points out at the beginning of her article, Roy has become a favorite target of India's middle classes.

 

Many in India and abroad, especially those in academia, might have no problem with this. The nation-state, they might argue, is already fading from the picture. From banking to immigration, commercial and local players are taking over from national governments.

The issue is one of legitimacy, and it is in no way limited to India. In the United States, in Europe--really anywhere democracy is struggling to stay alive--people are calling into question the idea that a large, diverse body politic can articulate itself in the form of representative government. This may seem abstract, but it is doubtless the reason Roy so rankles India's political elite. She does not stand for an independent Kashmir, but for the repudiation of state power exercised by the national government of India.

"I am among those who are very uncomfortable with the idea of a nation state," Roy said in the interview. "But that questioning has to start from those who live in the secure heart of powerful states, not from those struggling to overthrow the yoke of a brutal occupation. Sure, an independent Kashmiri nation may be a flawed entity, but is independent India perfect? Are we not asking Kashmiris the same question that our old colonial masters asked us: are the natives ready for freedom?"

bundi

udaipur

some images of my trip to udaipur.

a roadside temple

a bunch of photos with no comments

monsoon!

Even though I've missed most out on the bulk of it, the monsoon is definitely still weighing heavily on Jaipur. Every day brings a fresh downpour, and the crushing amount of water has brought with it mold, pests, and of course deliriously happy farmers. I've been living on a farm outside of town, and every day I walk into freshly-spun webs of spiders and new puddles in the middle of roads.

what's next

I know half of keeping all five-hundred of you coming to this blog regularly lies in simply making inane posts, so this one's dedicated to my growing audience:

This week I'll be making a few posts about food in India, inspired by a conversation I overheard. (teaser: it's about meat-eaters and karma. Are carnivores destined to lower reincarnation? stay tuned.)

Also, I've got some photos of a construction site down the street from my office. Get ready Jaipur, for Hotel Modal!

Thirdly, I've got some ruminations about my trip thus far. It's difficult to put a cap-stone on a trip which had no obvious beginning (nor, for that matter, does it really have an end. -I am planning on returning to India in August, all else equal), but there are several things which have given me pause for thought of late, and I'd like to share them.

Environmentalism in India

One of my most loyal readers (I won't name names, but thanks and much love for the comments) has dutifully put forward a question they'd like me to write at length about: Environmentalism in India, or its lack thereof. How do Indians treat nature? What is their relationship with nature?

First, a disclaimer: I have spent all my time in India within the sheltered confines of an organic farm. My hosts fulminate against the for-profit farmers who pervade the agricultural industries in India (just as they do in any country, really). Therefore, my opinion is necessarily informed by very few sources and extremely narrow experiences.

The first thing to know is that Indians are not actually that different from Americans, culturally. Although we are now separated by thousands of miles, and before that by the Ural mountains, Indians and Europeans came from common ancestors. The Aryans (who provided so much stock for the European races of today) also invaded and had a very profound effect on the Indian subcontinent. Around 1500 b.c., Aryans from the Iranian plateau invaded India and retained the Hindu religions of the land they conquered.

This idea of common ancestry is by no means new: the British Raj used it to cultivate a sense of shared history with subject Indians.

Whether or not there is a shared culture between Europe and India (there are shared linguistic roots, at the very least), the objectification of nature is an idea which seems to persist in both Indian and European cultures. This seems to lend credence to the idea that nature is headed towards certain collapse: humans here, as they have in Europe, have taken an instrumental view toward it and therefore do not see any inherent value in preserving the 'status quo'.

After independence in 1947, land was parceled out to owners. All that remained became state land. Since the government was not robust and did not possess the same powers of force that the Raj did, this land was ransacked by locals who needed timber. On my trip to Siliserh this became obvious enough:

There is a reason for the barrenness of the land in Rajasthan, and it is not the recent drought.

Obviously, there is a lot of research and understanding required in order to think properly about the relationship between humans and nature in India (or in any country, even my own). But there is something about the sheer oldness of this place – that people have been living here continuously for as long as humans have been, well, human – that gives rise to interesting thoughts about the proper notion of nature. Except for the Himalayas, I cannot think of any statements of natural beauty and awesome power which compare to American National Parks like Yosemite or Yellowstone.

Humans have already had their chance to make their mark on the land, and they have done so. Is the environmental condition of India going downhill or up? Is this even a valid question?