Defiant Gods and indignant followers

Current uproar about Arundhati Roy’s comments on Kashmir and the ensuing reactions to it kept me thinking. Not much about the issues raised as much, but regarding our ways of responding to views which are in dissonance with that of ours. And its relation to the context and architect of the views.

Why is it that most of the reactions to Roy are so hostile? I am not talking only about the Sang Parivar, or the beaurocracy or the politicians. I am talking about the general public and media. Is it just that her diatribes against ‘the Nation state’ is something too abrasive for a patriotic Indian? May be so. One criticism that is consistently leveled against her is that she takes a bite in every fight, every affray against the Indian government while enjoying the freedom and space offered by the Indian state (Reminded me about similar indignation against Noam Chomsky in US).

But I don’t think that it is the only reason or the central problem. Why is it that Medha Patkar is not hated like Arundhati Roy? Why is that even with all the blood bath, the big Maoist leaders are still shadow figures for us? And look at the last straw. Azad Kashmir. Is Roy the first Indian to offer support for the independent Kashmir? What about all the Geelanis and Abdullahs before?

The difference is probably how Arundhati Roy is perceived in the overall scheme of things. She is viewed as a popular icon who is an outsider to all these issues. So the sentiment is that her swinging her weight into any argument gives an abnormal validity to certain groups in the dispute in an international arena. I think the indignation and fury against her is because she came out with ideological inclinations which were not only unacceptable but also blasphemous for the same general public who had taken her up in their shoulders as a ‘celebrity’ when she won Booker prize. Everyone feels being stabbed in the back after decorating her edifice.

Another crucial element could be her writing style. Arundhati Roy basks in the sheer brilliance of her convictions incorporated in her vitriolic words. She doesn’t leave space for ‘ifs’ and ‘buts.’ Everything is cut and dry and wobbly facts (if any) are plastered well by the sheer power of the lampoon. So among the intellectuals (if she could be called one), she sticks out because she draws blood.

One thing that is noticeable is that despite all the hue and cry, there is no attempt any where to really counter her point by point laying out the inanities in her arguments (or rather proclamations). Why is that every one is so convinced about the vacuousness of her ideas and still every one’s reaction some how boils down to a longer or smaller version of ‘ she is insane?’ Is it because responding to her rationally is in itself vulgar? Or is it is too much trouble to collect one’s thoughts, dissect one’s own long held convictions and develop (or fail to develop) shockproof counter arguments?

Some have blogged that the sharp reactions she invoke is more related to jealousy because of the success she enjoyed. I don’t believe that. In India no one is jealous of their Gods. But they would kill their Gods if they extend their favors to rival devotees.


2 thoughts on “Defiant Gods and indignant followers

  1. I’m glad that you wrote this post. Chomsky and Roy shared a platform sometime back at MIT and I listened to that discussion.
    Roy is an extremely uncomfortable phenomenon for our educated and ‘liberal’ thinking middle class in India. They simply cannot stand her because not only they stand no chance in countering her intellect at any level, but also because she attacks the very foundations of which they want to take pride for (pan-indianness, secularism and shining India).
    Roy has extreme views and of late I cannot bring myself to agree with her on some of the issues. But perhaps she is doing it deliberately to attract our attention to these issues and atleast force ourselves to ask more questions even if all this makes people really incensed and even puts her own life in danger. I’m not sure.
    Whatever, but tolerance of variant opinions is hallmark of any true democracy. So, arresting her on sedition or muzzling her voice forcefully will not harbor well for our future.

    1. Hi Dev,
      The problem with our current ‘book reading, net surfing’ mass of India is that their opinion is formed very easily about anything and that opinion depends too much on many superficial factors (including good looks, power of the media push, hype and sensationalisation factor etc). But still that collective perspective has a significant weight (as you could see most recently with the Australian racism issue) because of the sheer number and the tentacles Indian middle class have all over the world. In that aspect Indian public opinion has become something to be scared of, like the mafia or the terrorist groups. Only thing is other groups have some basic rationale in their functioning and target marking, while no one can predict what we Indians could be searching to burn and scream tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s