Tags
Arundhati Roy, Gandhi, Maoists, Nationalism, philosophy, Review
“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
-Arundhati Roy
“Literature is the opposite of a Nuclear Bomb.”
– Arundhati Roy
Nationalism, as of today, is fashionably thrown out-of-context by out-of-context concepts. We all know it, but do not understand it. It is one of the epistemological stuff that social scientists refer to; and the phenomenological aspect of mind that philosophers mull over. Of course it is simple enough to understand it, but only if you understand the whole philosophical or scientific jargon that goes with it. But then, contemporarily, it is simple enough to just know Arundhati Roy and criticize her – that’s Nationalism for Dummies!
The simple distinction that people make between nationalists and anti-nationalists does not bother me anymore. I understand that people (including Aristotle) are naïve enough to believe in dichotomies and classifications. I, on the other hand, believe in deconstruction – going beyond classification to the continuum scale. I know Arundhati Roy would not like this determinism but, she is an out of time (and place) deconstructionist going beyond the trivial bang-bang of politics, chit-chat of guns and the bakar of the commons, she formulates (and contemplates and deconstructs) a theory of Indian Nationalism albeit with a Gandhi with guns (no connection to Maoists here), an aazaad Kashmir and a neo-Nazi India. Let us focus on the first one but keep in mind that I will only interpret (and re-sketch) the image of “Gandhi with a gun”. I am in no way talking about the Maoist issue (which is problematic in itself even without the interference of Mahatma Gandhi) but instead commenting on her use of the metaphor of Gandhi which can be a crucial element in understanding Indian Nationalism. And then I suggest an alternative on her Maoists remark.
What is wrong with imposing the image of Gandhi with a gun on a Maoist? Is it really sedition or treason? The question we should be asking her is: how, instead of shouting ‘to hell with you’. Being critical is part of nationalism too. Frankly, I cannot fully digest the fact that a Maoist is a Gandhi misunderstood. But then again, I am critical (or self-reflexive) of my nationalism and I am willing to listen to her and inform myself. I believe in democracy, but somehow the nation-state (read: Supreme Court) is lacking in such concepts. Just for clarification, I am not reiterating the same old debate about how India should uphold the freedom of its citizens; we all have the right to speak our minds and blah-blah. Contrarily, I understand that one of the ways to enforce democracy is anarchy – state domination and control. But I believe that, in the words of Michel Foucault, Roy understood the ‘power–relations’ but she was naïve enough to speak them out loud: “God is dead”, but only Nietzsche can say so. One cannot say anything about India’s institutionalized framework of peace and non-violence: Mahatma Gandhi. We believe in Gandhi and; we love to believe that we have the correct beliefs.
Let us forget that this was said in reference to the Maoists. Let us think beyond and understand the metaphor of “Gandhi with a gun”. Half of my generation curses Gandhi all the time – what should be done with us then? If Arundhati Roy must be imprisoned, then we must be shot dead on Republic Day! But we pose no threat, for we are not heard; but when a Booker Prize winner starts to speak, people listen closely. That’s where the trouble starts. But then again, Mahatma Gandhi is just another excuse to put her in prison. Nation-State Politics is the Other of Arundhati Roy. One often does the mistake of comparing Arundhati Roy to the likes of Ayn Rand. This is wrong on two grounds. One, Arundhati Roy is much simpler to read. Second, Ayn Rand is a narcissistic self. If you disagree to any of the two, I humbly request you to stop reading. If Maoists are Gandhians with guns, Arundhati Roy is Nationalism with insight.
But let’s go deeper: what is nationalism? Is there a way that one can explain it without using the discourse of politics and violence? Rhetoric seems to be handy. I think that a good way to understand nationalism is through metaphors and not just any metaphor, but the metaphors of everyday life. Of course, nationalism is a state of mind, a stream of consciousness that links us to our nation-state, our fellow citizens and ideologies; an imagined relationship that exists through symbols and ideals. But, rhetorically, nationalism IS being a ‘Gandhian with a gun’. Is it not about having that love for India that Gandhi had? That feeling of never giving up on your fellow citizens and showing them the way? Is it not about perpetual peace that India desires? Is it not about the feeling of communal harmony that we need? Is it not about hamara India? Is it not about defending your country when called to do so? Is it not about self-defense? Is it, then, not about being a Gandhi but keeping that necessary bandook (for the English fancy: gun) inside your loin-cloth? Think about it! I am willing to believe in Arundhati Roy’s nationalism insofar as it does not include hatred. It is about the duality of nationalism: on one hand you should be able to love and respect your country like Gandhi but on the other hand you should be able to defend Bharat Mata like a soldier. (If the Maoists are actually doing that is a different question altogether! I am in no position to comment on that) Arundhati Roy, while talking about the Maoists, has hit upon a critical paradox of Indian nationalism – be a Gandhi but carry a gun nonetheless. Is then not every soldier fighting vehemently on the front for India – a gun carrying Gandhi?
Anupam Kher called Roy a “one book wonder”, I do not blame him – his generation wants to get rid of all self-reflexive thinkers. One can now understand why Zizek is called a rock star, Derrida: a French-maniac, Nietzsche: a fool and Lacan: absurd! I wonder if Roy could ever match the likes of them – but for me, she definitely makes a cut above some of the others; she is critical and not afraid to say what is on everyone’s mind albeit a bit, too, explicitly. Of course, I presume (or would like to believe) that even Roy knows that aazadi for Kashmir or an alternative discourse of Maoists is a rhetorical tool and is far from being a solution. But, it is a tool nonetheless. A tool that brings us closer to the inherent paradoxes of the system; the problem is not why ‘she’ is saying all of this; the problem is ‘why’ is anybody is saying this at all? There must be something wrong, somewhere.
People say she is promoting India as a neo-Nazi political system and we should stop, oppose and condemn her. I say, we let her speak. Let her try to make her point. Let her, also, suggest solutions. Lets ask her ‘why is India neo-Nazi?’, ‘what after aazadi?’ or ‘alright, a Maoist is a Gandhi with gun but then what?’ On a talk on TV, people accused her of just wanting to seek attention and that we should ignore her. Surprisingly, the same people (and more) devoted an hour and a half on prime time television giving her all the attention she needed. I am NOT defending her. I am defending the idea of democracy. I am defending that she be allowed to speak and if the idea of India is such a weak one that it would fall down to shambles by a singular booker voice then perhaps, it should. I defend her questions insofar as they are driven by criticism and not cynicism. Let us ‘Row the Roy’ for a while and see where it leads us!
Echoes of a Frivolous Mind 
We as a society have evolved from reality to fiction. in earlier times tribes followed the concept of kinship, blood relations. later we created fictions, first ‘religion’ and then in industrial era ‘nation state’. we need a dichotomy between love of one’s kind (as in a nation and which can extend to whole human race) and the fancy of nation state. this fiction was created to fasten the socio economic ties, not to create separatists. We need to extend this notion of kinship –> religion –> nation state to humanity as a whole. Roy is very right in saying that “Either way, change will come. It could be bloody, or it could be beautiful. It depends on us.”
Liked the piece though ‘gandhi’ seems overused.. :peace:
Thanks! I agree with your comment. Though my argument is simple: You say that dichotomies and the subsequent notions be extended to the society at large; I say we need to do away with them in the first place. Not by doing away with them as concepts but with the consequence. It was quite a surprise that you noticed that I overused Gandhi. Surprisingly, this was my thought too when I read the piece after writing it. But then I left it that way so that maybe somebody would notice that, in general, in today’s India – Gandhi is so overused already! That was a notion extended to whole. That was a notion gone rogue!