In her recent essay "Shall We Leave It to theExperts?" Arundhati Roy - I hestitate to use any descriptor here for fearit may spawn another essay - appears to be defending her right to write, be itfiction, non-fiction, or, more appropriately, creative non-fiction, a genre inwhich Ms. Roy specializes. Odd, isn't it, that one who rarely writes fewer than8000 words on a subject needs to defend her urge to write? No matter what othersmay think, their opinions have not prevented Ms. Roy from writing, on any topic,indeed, on many topics. Not that anyone is suggesting that she stop writing, ofcourse.
Distilling her essay to its essence - no easy task, mindyou - Ms. Roy appears to be making two main points. The first is that writers,even those living in illiterate and uncivilised India, are allowed to writepolitical essays. That is to say, writers are capable of having opinions on thegreat political issues of our time. The second point is that writers who haveopinions and express them are not taken seriously, because they are, well,writers.
With regards to writers having opinions, frankly, what isall the fuss about? Ms. Roy hypothesizes she has been labeled a writer-activistbecause she has opinions and puts them down in writing. She isn't the first writer to do so and I doubt she will be the last.Nadine Gordimer, Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Aldous Huxley, Salman Rushdie,William Faulkner, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Amitav Ghosh - the list of writers whohave expressed opinions on political issues is much too long for an onlinecolumn. Few before her, though, have made an issue of their essays, focusinginstead on the cause itself. Nor have these writers, I think, exhibited such public angstover whether a writer should express his or her opinion. They, in the words ofthat global demon Nike, 'just do it.'
Much of what Ms. Roy says regarding a writer's role insociety and his (or her) duty as a citizen of the world has been written before,so is it the 'activist' part of the label that makes Ms. Roy uncomfortable?Well, that probably doesn't come from writing political essays, anyway.Participating in high-profile protest marches, raging against the establishment- any establishment - being arrested and challenging the law of the land -forget writers, even the Pope would be called an activist if he carried on inthis way. So, why shrink from the label, if the shoe - excuse me, I mean, if thechappal fits...?
Ms. Roy is a writer and an activist. Since it is possibleto be both, I'm led to believe the real problem here is not if she should express an opinion on la cause du jour, butrather, why she and/or her essays are not always taken as seriously as she wouldprefer. Why do some question her credentials? Not as a writer, nor as anactivist, but as someone who is knowledgable enough on Phoolan Devi, nuclear bombs, dams, privatisation,globalisation (oops, sorry, please read 'corporatisation of essential infrastructure' instead of 'globalisation' ), fundamentalism, war (didI leave out anything?) to influence the 'experts,' or to change the world as itcurrently exists.
One gets the impression that it's because of her gender orphysical appearance that her essays are questioned. Or, that since she is afiction writer (one novel makes her a fiction writer?) there are those who thinkshe is not qualified to speak on complex issues such as the effects ofglobalisation on the world's poorest. That's a nice theory, but I'm surprisedsomeone who wants to be taken seriously would come up with such frivolousarguments. Perhaps Ms.Roy's fictionalized version of the facts, the drama, thehyperboles, her short attention span and the me-myself-and-I attitude whichpermeate her essays - maybe all of this makes it difficult for some to take herpolitical opinions seriously?
Take, for example, a line from this paragraph in Ms.Roy'srecently published essay:
"As Indian citizens, we subsist on a regular diet ofcaste massacres and nuclear tests, mosque breaking and fashion shows, churchburning... "
Pretty prose indeed and, to those who are not citizens ofIndia, quite believable. Actually, it's lucky for Ms. Roy that most peoplearound the world and possibly even in India, don't keep track of just howfrequently nuclear tests are conducted in India. Imagine if someone were to askMs. Roy to enlighten her audience with figures - once a day, once a month, everyyear - just what does 'regular diet' mean? And, what about those mosques?Do mosques get destroyed on a weekly basis in India or just once everydecade now?
I doubt I need to tell an award-winning writer that theline above is a classic example of what my English Composition professor incollege called an "attention-getting device." As Ms. Roy well knows,the trick works. And how.
When such gimmicks form the substance of an essay by a'writer-activist', though, is it any wonder one questions the validity of theinformation presented or the credibility of the writer as she opines on, in herwords, the 'huge political and social upheavals that are convulsing theworld?"
I can almost feel the earth move under my feet now.
Another gem from her essay on experts comes when shedigresses to the WTO and export-quality produce. Ms. Roy asserts that"Western consumers don't eat bruised mangoes..." and that in India"we" don't mind inferior quality, weevil-infested fruits and grains.Oh really? Perhaps if Ms. Roy came down off of her high horse occasionally andlistened to the shrill voices of housewives picking over perfectly good fruitsand vegetables in almost any Indian marketplace, rejecting those with thetiniest of specks, she would get a dose of reality. Bruised mangoes are fine for'we' in India? Who are you kidding, Ms. Roy? Oh, you didn't mean allIndians, just those who are starving to death? Why imply that all Indians wouldbe satisfied with bug-infested grain, then?
Because it makes Ms. Roy's passion for the poor anddowntrodden so much more persuasive. It doesn't hurt to blame the westernconsumer for India's woes, either. I mean, if she'd also mentioned the bruisedfruits and weevils that are abundant in produce markets across the USA, Ms.Roy's prose would have lost most of its punch.
My favorite example of Ms. Roy's fictionalized portrayal oflife in India, though, comes from an interview in which she said lentils madeher cry. Apparently, she was sad that the golden arches of McDonalds weredriving daal out of India. Puh-leez.Save your tears, Ms. Roy. Don't insult your readers and the masses you claim tofight for in this way. Do you actually think anyone in India believes burgersand fries will soon become the staple diet of 1 billion people? And you wonderwhy some ask what makes you an expert?
Maybe I'm nit-picking. What's a hyperbole or two in thegrand scheme of things? She's fighting for noble causes, let her overdramatizeand exaggerate - she is a writer, after all. She's just practicing her craft.Dams and nukes are not exactly the most exciting of topics, right? Besides, I'mtempted to throw in a few doozies myself as I react to Ms. Roy's essays.
I could, for example, say that, by any measure, ArundhatiRoy has done more than any other Indian writer ever to spread disinformation about India, its problems and itspeople. With each essay published, she significantly sets back the causes sheclaims to be fighting for so passionately. At the same time, she gains muchground in what seems to really be her No. 1 Cause - herself.
Pretty unbelievable stuff, right? In fact, about now manyare probably thinking I'm just jealous of Arundhati Roy. Or, that I don't get it- at least a celebrity like Roy attracts media attention to the horribleproblems facing so many who wouldn't otherwise have a voice. In any case, whatwould I know about writers or activists? What makes me an 'expert' on Roy?
Sound familiar? Here's a reminder - should we leave it tothe experts?
To be critical of her essays or to question the basis ofMs. Roy's positions on political issues is, apparently, to commit the ultimatesin. We're jealous, petty, ignorant or chauvinistic, no matter how legitimatethe questions posed to her are. It is natural -- those truly interested willquestion the source, verify the information presented, so that they may drawtheir own conclusions, form their own opinions. Ms. Roy seems to agree since, inher essay, she eloquently states that writers, like other citizens, aredemanding public explanations. Is Ms. Roy exempt from providing answers, then?Are only certain questions permitted of her? It seems so. When asked whatqualifies her to speak authoritatively on the myriad of causes she has taken up,her reply is another question: why can't a writer protest...?
Who says she can't? But,that wasn't the question, was it? Instead of respondng, Ms. Roy defends heractivism while her devoted GOST fans flog those who dare to speak out againsther writings. Doesn't it infuriate Ms. Roy that her critics are ridiculed,muzzled? Does it surprise her that those who voice their dissent are told theycan't understand Ms. Roy's passion, her ideas?
It shouldn't surprise her. After all, this is how she seemsto see her detractors - small-minded folks who write her off because of herlooks or her one best-selling, award-winning novel. Are they all jealous too? Ofwhat, I ask (for argument's sake)? The writer's dark hair and kajal-lined eyes?There's no shortage of women possessing either in India, so that can't be it.Besides, it seems her looks come up mainly when she herself mentions them.According to a recent column, Ms. Roy said she cut her hair because she didn'twant to be known "as some pretty woman who wrote a book."
And here I thought it was because short hair is easier tomanage when one is thrown in jail or marching through streets.
Are the critics jealous of her one-book-wonder claim tofame? Leave aside the fact that this might be more plausible were she a prolificnovelist, but it assumes that everyone who reads aspires to be a 'writer' - awriter like Ms. Roy. Perhaps, Ms. Roy's critics are jealous of her activism?She's not the only one - celebrity, writer, woman - who has spoken out for oragainst something.
Is it not possible to simply disagree with what Ms.Roywrites or to question the content of her essays? If one does, then is she or he automatically addle-brained?Isn't that precisely what Ms.Roy has spent thousands of words railing against?Isn't she saying one's convictions and opinions deserve to be taken seriously?Even if that opinion is on her essays?
If yes, then why is it, whether writing on the oppressed oron opinions, one single theme seems to be present in Ms. Roy's writing. A demandthat we take her writing on blind faith. "I write, therefore Iam...right," she appears to be saying.
This attitude has a familiar ring. The reader is eitherwith Arundhati Roy or the reader is against her. Ms. Roy will agree, I hope,that there is a world of thought, opinion and writing between those two choices.
Should political essays be left to the experts? I thinknot. I hope not. But, while degrees are not necessarily the measure ofauthority, merely writing with passion is not enough to make an impact, if thatis the desired end-result. Brushing aside those who may some day march alongside you serves no purpose. Histrionics and hyperboles may attract plenty ofattention, but in the end, it is credibility, not awe, which will get people -not the media, but people who can make a difference - to pay attention.
To the cause, that is, not the writer-activist.
