Sorry Shoba, the first response was from my bed, on a blackberry. Now: On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:32 AM, Shoba Narayan <narayan.sh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Salil, you are clearly very well-read and I don't mean that in a snarky > way-- my Dad's an English prof. so I have a great deal of respect for > literature even if I shirk it. And I happen to love Barrett Browning. And > as you know, she said, "How do I love thee?" so the quotes are wrong. > Sorry, couldn't resist. But I had to look that up unlike you who probably > said it from memory. >
As I said, pleased you looked it up, but I was kidding; I was deliberately playing on the quote. > The TamBrahm analogy was because I know so many men who hate Roy and they > always describe their dislike of her with this dispassionate, rational, > logical, arguing-equations-in-IIT tone that bugs the shit out of me. As if > it was self-evident that Roy is an inferior writer and a hypocrite > activist... when in fact this dislike goes deeper and more visceral than > that...and I am curious why. > Oh, she does destabilize people's comfort zones. But that isn't in itself a virtue. > >> Her causes aren't original > > So now we are back at the causes...not the writing. > Well, if you are talking about her writing as craft, then yes, she is a good rhetorician, but the logic is flawed often, and the solutions proffered are not necessarily going to be effective. There are nuances, not extreme positions, in the world (it isn't dams-or-no-dams, but how do you harvest water for irrigation, and what are the means to do so; it isn't accede to Al Qaeda or accede to Bush, but speak out for civilians; it isn't Maoists or capitalists, but creating an effective system for the tribal communities to prosper - and leave them in their forest habitats only if they wish to, and how do we know if they want the lifestyle that we are told they want, etc). >> - she gatecrashes as a latecomer, and moves >> on when the next crisis beckons her (does anyone remember her struggle >> against Narmada anymore? > > I think all of us do remember Narmada. There was a Narmada struggle before Arundhati (think of Claude Alvares's book in late 70s or early 80s, Paranjpye's work, Medha Patkar's struggle) and there is a Narmada struggle now (though she has moved on - ask Medha and others privately about it). I wrote the India Today major feature on Narmada in 1987 or so, and the issue was there for all to see; the Japanese and the World Bank were still funding the project; Amarsinh Chaudhary was Gujarat's CM; Babubhai Jashbhai Patel was proud that Janata Party was backing the project; and no, I didn't run into Ms Roy in many of the villages I went, and it was sufficiently known then. They're still there; the river is dammed, there's a fake Sabarmati river in Ahmedabad - but Ms Roy has a new target and has moved on. Ms Patkar hasn't. >But Salil, again, I would argue the > counter. If you are a celebrity-- like Roy or Angelina or even apna Aamir, > you ought to lend your name and move from cause to cause. I don't agree there. Unless you see the celebrity-hood as a brand, and causes as franchise operations. That's cynical, but that's how it sounds. >Roy never claimed > monogamy for her causes. So why aren't you outraged by Madonna changing > religions or Aamir forgetting dyslexia once he moved films. Why hold Roy to > a different standard? Because she exudes - or demands - sincerity. It is a disservice to compare Roy with Khan or Madonna. It is fine to compare her with Naomi Klein or Noam Chomsky. > >> Medha Patkar doesn't fly from one cause to >> another like a butterfly). Two, she connects the farthest dots to >> create a scary Rorschach image, when Occam's Razor would've provided a >> simpler explanation (OK, too many metaphors, but you get the drift). > > I've heard this one many times. And funnily enough I agree that he connects > the farthest dots. There are two ways to look at this. Roy uses > revolutionary-tactics. Extremism is her forte and her choice. But extremism paints the world in starker tones - like in a coloring book - compared with the real world. I don't want a picture book; In my day job I work in the field of human rights and business, and have seen mining and oil projects in remote communities, in Indonesia, Nigeria, Colombia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Peru, etc. And the world is far more complicated than the way she - or James Cameron - portrays. > You can say > that she does this because it is self serving or (if you want to be > charitable) because it draws attention to her cause in a > more-bang-for-the-buck way. If I were Roy, I would do exactly what she > does. If my forte was this kind of polemic writing and I find that it > works-- draws attention to the things I want to highlight -- that's what I > would do. But is she drawing attention to the cause, or herself? That's the question worth reflecting on. > I would stick to extremist polemics. There are enough > dispassionate, logical, objective, on-the-one-hand type writers. There are > very few Roys. > >> So she's terrific for conspiracy theorists, but not of much value >> besides. And three, there's nihilism in her writing, valorizing of >> certain folks over others, and a congenital failure to see nuances - >> witness her churlish, childish responses to BG Verghese on dams, her >> shrill outburst against Ram Guha (who called her Arun Shourie of the >> Left), and her ignoring the more serious criticism from Gail Omvedt. > > What about Ram Guha's shrill outburst against Roy? Ram called her Arun Shourie of the Left; and I think that's hardly shrill. It is an accurate summary of the way she operates. There's intellectual heft in Shourie, too. And it had its uses. I won't forget his sterling journalism from 1976-1982 - after which he turned away from civil liberties for all. Both Shourie and Roy are advocates, and there's more in common between them than otherwise. >He has done it before to > Vir Sanghvi and that was called "excoriation." When Roy retaliates, it is > an outburst? > I don't get the Sanghvi reference.... Sure, Roy can retaliate, but that doesn't prevent me from judging who's right. And her responses to Verghese and Omvedt (ignoring her, largely) were childish. >> That, and her hypocrisy: she has a home in a forest land in violation >> of the Forest Act, > > This to me is terrible. And Salil, you should know that I am not so much in > love with Roy. Part of this is the pleasure of a good argument!! :-) > >> and she did a huge song and dance about the >> judiciary vis-a-vis Narmada, though she was warned she'd be jailed >> under contempt of court laws (I don't like those laws, but that's a >> different matter). She went to jail for one night, probably didn't >> like the dal, and next day paid the fine and got out. She ain't no >> Gandhi (the real one, not the pretenders). >> > > I think Abhijit Menon-Sen has addressed this. Yes, I'm sorry; I do stand corrected there. >> I could go on. > > So could I. But my feminist colors are showing. > Ah, feminism: what would make you think I'm not one? Salil
