[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: The Hindu interview with Arundhati Roy, July 11
The Hindu, July 11, 1999
An alliance with the Narmada
Arundhati Roy describes the Narmada valley project
as a development paradigm that is destructive,
inequitable and which has forced the poor to
subsidise the rich. "Uprooting these people is not a
form of social engineering. It is garbage disposal."
she told GARGI PARSAI in an exclusive interview.
AUTHOR and Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy,
startled civil society with her impassioned essay,
``The Greater Common Good'', on the Narmada
Valley Project which envisages the construction of
about 3,000 large and medium dams along the course
of the Narmada - it includes the controversial Sardar
Sarovar Project (SSP) in Gujarat.
Her brilliant, well-researched piece, based on several
visits to the valley, has caught the imagination of people, particularly
the intelligentsia.
Recently, Roy went a step further and dedicated the Rs. 15 lakh Booker
Prize money to
the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) which has been leading a people's movement
against the project in the valley for 14 years.
In an interview with GARGI PARSAI, Arundhati Roy saw the project as a
symbol of a
development paradigm that was destructive, inequitable and which forced the
poor to
subsidise the rich.
Q: Your essay has generated an unprecedented debate. B. G. Verghese did a
damning
critique on it. What is your reaction?
A: I think it is great that it has generated a debate. I just hope it is a
real debate instead
of just invectives and personal mud slinging. Also, I think there can be a
real debate
only if the Government is prepared to be transparent and release all
documents and have
them reviewed. Otherwise, one side is keeping its cards close to its chest
and just
making these wild allegations.
B. G. Verghese's piece is, I think old hat; what he has been saying for a
long time. He
picks little things like, that these sugar factories will not be permitted
and will be
discouraged. That is not true. The 14 that exist... there are 12 that have
been given
permission... among the chief promoters of two, one is Sanat Mehta, who was
Chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited, and the other the late
Chimanbhai Patel
who was Chief Minister of Gujarat). And trying to say the sugar factories
are outside
the Command Area .... I mean if sugar factories are there, can the
sugarcane fields be
far behind?
Like when I am talking about this water not getting to Kutch and
Saurashtra, he says,
``Let's wait and see''. Is that an argument? He has not even begun to
address the
question of why the Government says only these many people are displaced in the
Sardar Sarovar Project, when one by one by one, I have listed the
categories of people
that are not counted as project-affected. The people displaced by the canal
system, the
colonies, the afforestation. What about Soorpaneshwar? So the points he
chooses to be
silent upon are more eloquent.
And if they were so keen on development... in their idea... for tribal
people, what
happened in these last 50 years? Why is there not one school, not one
hospital, not one
road, not one well? Why is development contingent on their having to give up
everything of theirs. One is not saying that big dams never produce
anything. I am
saying that they have usurped the resources of the countryside and taken
them to the
city to serve a metropolitan elite. That has to stop.
Take a look at the figures. We are the third biggest dam builders in the
world. Okay,
they say dams have generated electricity. Of course, they have, but over 80
per cent of
rural households have no electricity, 350 million live below the poverty
line, 250
million people have no drinking water. Whatever food production is there, is
distributed in a manner that is completely ..... the inequity is
astounding. So what you
are talking about is... do we want a society that is more egalitarian or do
we believe that
this is alright. That the poor must subsidise the rich. That the villages
must subsidise
the cities.
Q: This critique has been rather personal ...
A: Yeah, but that is standard with me. For some reason everybody gets very,
very
personal. I am getting used to it. People attack me so emotionally for
being emotional.
Q: May be you provoke them into that kind of reaction.
A: May be. But I also think that emotion frightens people. I do write
emotionally and I
think to live in this society you have to deaden your emotions because even
to try to
ignore the problem is an effort, you know. So you do not want to be
emotional and you
want to attack someone who is. And apart from what I think about it, I
really do see it
as something which is a sign of a sick society. People are so frightened to
feel anything
because if you open up, the distress comes rushing in.
Q: How did you get into Narmada?
A: Basically, after the whole thing of The God of Small Things, the public
story of the
book is one of this immense success and money and the Booker Prize and all
that. But
the private story for me was one of feeling as though one had traded every
feeling in
that book for some commercial return, which, after a point, becomes very
uncomfortable. You do not know why this is happening. And I feel that I
really wanted
to make an alliance with the world from which my book had come. You know, I did
grow up on the banks of a river and I did love a river very much and I
actually was in
Kerala, in Kozhikode. Some people who live on the banks of the Chaliyar,
came and
asked me to go to the house of this activist Rehman, who had been fighting
this Grasim
fibre and rayon factory for so long, and, who had just died. And I did
(visit his house).
I came back and read about what was happening there. Suddenly this whole system
was conjured up. I somehow felt that this struggle in the Narmada Valley
was a symbol
of this whole system that is at work, and I wanted to make an alliance with
it. I wanted
not to play safe. I wanted to say I am on this side and I am not hedging my
bets about
it. And I know that it is a dangerous thing to do, because you take a lot
of flak. But if
you are committed, you have to do that. You have to step into the firing line.
For me The God of Small Things, ``The End of Imagination'' and ``The Greater
Common Good'' - these are all world views. These are all enquiries into how
the world
works. Though I knew about the Narmada Valley, I needed to know much more
before
I made up my mind. So I started reading, meeting people. I really had a
pretty good
picture of what was going on before I went to the Valley.
On one hand I was exhilarated by the strength of the movement there, on the
other hand
I was shocked at how little people know of what was going on there and without
knowing how quickly they make judgments, and passionate judgment at that.
At least I
am arguing the case, before I say which side I am on.
At least, I hope that people - whether they are pro or against the dam -
will bother to go
there and see the price that is being paid. You cannot really comment on
this otherwise.
Q: Some people have also remarked that you are upstaging Medha Patkar (of the
NBA)?
A: There is no way I could. She and I have different territories. She
belongs to that
Valley. I do not. I am only saying listen to what she is saying ... I will
always be a
loner. I will never lead a movement, nor do I ever want to. What people do not
understand when they keep asking ``Are you a writer or an activist?'' is
that that is
what a writer is. Somebody who comments on what is going on in the world.
That is
my business. That is my brief. I really do admire the Narmada Bachao
Andolan (NBA)
immensely. Immensely. They are people who have incredible intellectual
rigour, as
generosity of spirit, as well as political commitment to their cause.
Q: How far do you intend to go on with the Narmada issue?
A: I am doing what I can do best and what I can do best is to write.
Everything else is
not my strength. There is no way that I go into the Valley and be an NBA
activist. I
would just not be any good at it. But I will do what I can.
Q: Arundhati, why do you think such mass destruction and displacement of people
does not move politicians?
A: I think there is quite a simple explanation for that, which is, that the
Valley is strung
along the river. So it is never a majority in any one political
constituency; it is like a
minority or a ribbon minority. It is just a geographical problem, somehow.
Also what politicians do... in the case of Narmada... is that they play.
Whenever they
are out of power they pretend that they are very concerned. The minute they
come to
power they have no time.
Q: There is a lot of debate that this ``romanticism'' about tribals
preserving their
civilisation is a reaction to modern capitalism.
A: See, the point is that it is not somebody's choice. As far as I am
concerned, as I said
in my essay, I am not some proselytiser for the eternal upholding of
tradition. Its just
that I am not the proselytiser for bulldozing that guy and saying you get
out of your
land or else I will flood you. I just think that they should have a choice.
It is not upto
somebody else to decide that or to flush them out of their homes or their
forests. There
has to be a level of honesty in this debate, and if you believe that, then
stop pretending
that this is a form of social engineering. Uprooting these people is not a
form of social
engineering. It's garbage disposal. That is what you are after. Come out
and say it.
Q: There is this major concern about the money spent on the Sardar Sarovar
Project,
whereas the NBA, and even you say that you are against large dams. So what
is the
solution?
A: I do not think it's for an individual citizen to say what is the
solution. The
Government says it has spent Rs. 7,500 crores on SSP, but only one-quarter
of the
submergence has actually happened. Something like 3,00,000 people can still
be saved
if the dam does not go up any higher. Eventually the public has to decide.
Rs. 7,500
crores is gone. But is it worth throwing good money after bad? Certainly
the people
who are going to be displaced have to be consulted. The Madhya Pradesh
Government
has already said ``reopen the tribunal''. But the saddest thing about this
is that the
people of Gujarat have been mis-led into believing that they are going to
get something
out of this.
Q: It is not as if they are not going to get anything.
A: No, no. But who is going to get it? Nearly 85 per cent of the State's
irrigation
budget is going into this. The point is of scale. You say in the publicity
and political
mobilisation, `oh we are going to displace 2,00,000 people in order to take
water to 40
million peoples.'' Actually, when you start looking at it that is not the
ratio. You say
sugar factories and five-star hotels ... Once again that routine... of the
poor subsidising
the rich starts. Just the business of constructing a dam is a lot of money
for a lot of
people. I mean, dams fund elections. The dam is a monument to political
corruption.
It's not as though just constructing it and leaving it does not benefit
some people
enormously. Of course, it does.
Q: Why are people not convinced about alternatives such as watershed
development,
rainwater harvesting, smaller check dams and so on?
A: Because you are so conditioned to these mammoth schemes, huge monuments, of
water falling down. What one is saying is there have to be localised
alternatives for
water and electricity as opposed to large dams. The fact is that until a
government is
convinced that we need to look for alternatives ... you also need to fund
research. After
all, solar energy is an amazing thing, but it is very expensive now. But if
you put
1/1000th of the amount you put into researching nuclear bombs into a fund
to look for
alternatives, you would come up with alternatives.
The important thing is this huge thing about people's relationship with the
State. I have
said,in my essay,that people are broken not just by what the State takes
away but by
what it gives. This whole thing of coming from up... that needs to change
in people's
minds... They need to learn to help themselves.
Q: You read about B. G. Verghese saying that the water you drink comes from the
Bhakra-Nangal dam?
A: That is the usual argument. What I am saying is: are we in search of a
more equitable
society? If we are, then let us argue it further. I am not saying that I am
a deprived
person. Of course, I am completely privileged. I am so privileged that I
want to make
an alliance with those who are not.
Q: The NBA would have welcomed your moral support. Why did you give away your
Booker Prize money?
A: There is a strange answer to that. It bothered me that the huge income
tax I have paid
in the last two years is being used to uproot people and to do things that
I do not believe
in. And I just wanted to balance that out. I really did. It was something I
felt I should
do.
Q: Why this ``Rally for the Valley'' and what do you hope to achieve?
A: All I hope to achieve, to be honest, is that a larger group of people
gain a deeper
understanding of what is going on there.
Q: Are you going to take up other such issues. The Grasim one, for instance?
A: I am not going around mopping up causes. It's just that I ... there is a
link between
my book, ``The End of Imagination'' and ``The Greater Common Good''. And that
link is really a fascination with how power works. A kind need to dissect
the system
and look at it inwards and see the machine at work. As a writer, that is
what fascinates
me. To lay it open. It is that, which thrills me artistically.
Q: So what is coming up after The God of...?
A: I do not know. I never want to know what lies in the future. I am really
happy to
turn the corner when the corner comes.
Q: You dedicated your royalties from the sale of ``The End of Imagination''
to this
anti-bomb campaign and now from the sale of ``The Greater Common Good'' to the
NBA. Are you looking for a cause?
A: I do not need to. I am not looking for a cause. I am somebody who is not
looking
for anything, in the sense that I have more than I need.
Q: In terms of?
A: Everything. People ask me if I am under great pressure for my second
book. I say
why? I am, in a personal individual sense, very relaxed, because I am not going
anywhere. It is great to be able to do something and let it go. I look
forward to being a
little irresponsible in the future. Right now, I am too affected by what is
happening in
the valley to be that.