[Reader-list] Reg: The problem with Arundhati Roy

[Pheeta Ram]

Dear Rakesh

Thank you for such an honest response. I understand some of the things you
have underlined here and would want to contribute my two bit.

When Arundhati states something, two things happen, and simultaneously: One,
the 'fact'[or the absence thereof, if you like it have it this way] is
stated; two, what matters much in stating a fact is the subject position of
its enunciator. A fact is not something entirely dissociated from the person
who states it. Arundhati's is a peculiar position. Much of her earlier
persona was largely a media creation, but when she began stating her
mind-with-a-heart, the media didn't know what to do with her. So it would be
a mistake to sift a fact from the one who states it and her/his ethical
stand regarding it. A singular 'fact' and Arundhati, who enunciates it
passionately by creating a 'romance' around it, create a curious compound
which becomes a perfect counter to the myriad discourses propagated by the
hegemonic State and its stooges.

To me, a fact is less a rational statement and much more a moral-ethical
position. So for me the fact would be more your ethical standing/position
regarding the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than merely stating
that this-much kilo tonne of explosive was detonated on such and such date
by a fighter jet of such making at such and such place.

Also, and this particular argument i have heard umpteen times, "She only
enumerates our shortfalls but never cares to tell us what the solution is!"
And believe you me, i have always understood this lament as an act of bad
faith. This question tells us more about the people who ask it rather than
the people who we expect to answer it. Despite being conscious votaries of
rational choice we have still not been able to get rid of our spurious
unconscious that longs for a messiah to deliver us through such a river of
fire that today's world is. Doesn't our longing for 'the final solution' /
the final deliverance from all our worldly miseries have a fascist tinge to
it? What is it that makes us uncomfortable when faced with the notion of a
fractured 'god'? Why is it that all our queries end at the beginning, that
is, the integer one, our own universal gravitational constant? Are we
terminally doomed to think vertically rather than horizontally? Such
questions have continuously amused me and i wonder if they indeed are
properly formed questions.

Moreover, why is it that we are running after Arundhati for answers to the
questions she has raised or is raising? Isn't it enough that she has at
least taken all the trouble to raise those problematic questions? Can't you
see the dumb majority that Arundhati once represented: the curious breed of
Indian writers writing in English? Why is it that her entire erstwhile
fraternity is not with her? What are they afraid of, the fear of which she
has valorously conquered? Raising questions that need to be asked is a feat
greater than finding answers for it is the well posed questions that are the
repositories of right answers. Also, polemics have their own place in a
discourse. Wouldn't it be better if we define 'polemics' in Arundhati's case
to be 'a passionate stating of an ethical position'? Your putting an
excessive emphasis on 'facts' is telling. The turf of today's wars has not
only shifted to the cyber sphere but also to the ethics of engagement. While
the tyrants could easily forge hundreds of contradictory 'facts' it takes
something to falsify an ethical position. To counter a facthics
[fact+ethics] you would need to engage personally, with all of your
<B><i>vajood</B></i>, putting the entire weight of your existence behind
your argument. You can't remain aloof and claim sacrosanctity while at the
same time claiming to contradict a facthics.

The phenomenon that Arundhati is demands your complete engagement at the
level of facthics. You can't indulge in bargepole bashing, you shall have to
dirty your feet and soul [ pardon the vocabulary] while engaging with her.
Our criterion of judging you would be based on facthics rather than mere the
soundness of 'facts'.

Subsequently, i find your presumption of State as a monolith quite
problematic. The need is not to capture power ascribed to the State but to
entirely change the nature of power and the rules that govern it. Its like
re-engineering the entire ergonomics of the chair [the seat of power] itself
rather than just jostling to capture it.

Additionally, calling oneself a 'mobile republic' is a fantastic [ and not
fanciful] statement of one's existential position. It might be a complete
nonsense to you but does it bother Arundhati a bit? Nope; it should you
instead, as it does indeed. The beauty of Arundhati's calling herself a
'mobile republic' lies in the facthics that she always already engages you,
existentially. So rather than calling her bluff you need to state your own
ethics of engagement and define your facthics.

Best

Pheeta Ram