Interview with Arundhati Roy – Revolutionary Journalists Needed
Posted by hetty7 on February 12, 2012
India does gain a lot of brownie points from appearing to be a democracy, which is why nobody says half as much about Kashmir as they will about Tibet or about the uprising in the Middle East. So when major media start reporting very enthusiastically about one uprising and keeps very quiet about another, you have to work it out – why is it happening? What’s the story here?”
This is from freespeechdebate
Arundhati Roy on National Security and the Indian Media
The award-winning Indian novelist and activist speaks to Manav Bhushan about the limits to free speech in India, including government censorship through the media and “good squads”.
MB: Do you think there should be any restrictions on the freedom of speech, justified on the grounds of national security, public order or morality?
AR: No. I am completely against any restrictions. Once you have restrictions, they lend themselves to interpretation and the interpretations will always favour the state or the powers that be. So I am completely against any restrictions.MB: Examples in India and previously in Europe show that fascism begins with speeches, which breed hatred and appeal to the baser instincts of society. Do you think we need to control hate speech by members of the majority against minorities.
AR: I don’t think it would be fair to say that fascism begins with speeches. There were a lot of factors which led to fascism in different countries. Speech was just a form of expression. I don’t think that if there had been limits to free speech there would have been no fascism. To shut it out would be counterproductive. Certainly, I think that in India the problem doesn’t lie with hate speech. The problem lies with the fact that when acts of communal violence are committed, when states are happily sponsoring pogroms and murder then nothing happens.
It’s not the speech which is the problem, its the action. So, if you say that you live in a society with laws regarding murder, mass murder, burning people to death and rape, and you don’t take any action on that, and you want to control hate speech through a law, then that law will simply be misused.
If you look at India today, I think a lot of people who don’t do hate speech are charged with hate speech. For example, if I say that having 700,000 soldiers patrolling Kashmir is unacceptable, someone says that’s hate speech. So I don’t think that great politics or history come from the expression of people through speech. It comes from what you allow people to do to one another in a country or in a society.
MB: You mentioned your statements regarding Kashmir and the reactions from parties like the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and others. Do you think that India is moving towards more freedom of expression or less?
AR: The reactions to the things I say about Kashmir don’t come only from the BJP. They come from the congress as well. It immediately coagulates into some kind of nationalist agenda with these parties trying to out-do each other to prove their mettle as the leaders of a nation without morality, without ethics. But when it comes to silencing us, the first card they pull out is moral or ethical. But no, actually I think in India a few things are happening.
One is that there is a huge amount of noise. Perhaps it’s because we have more television channels than any other country in the world. All are increasingly falling into the hands of major corporations, which have a major conflict of interest because those are the same corporations, which are making a lot of money in the privatization of resources, in telecommunications etc. And now they are able to control the media entirely, either directly, or through advertising. So that is one form of control that is happening.
The second form of control is when the state itself goes after people for speaking about things that it does not wish them to speak about. And the third is that there has been a great outsourcing of censorship. So political parties outsource their ire to goon squads, who beat people in their homes or trash them, and create an atmosphere where you begin to have to think twice. It’s important to think twice or three times before you speak on important things but you begin to think twice before saying things which ought to be said because of fear.
So this outsourcing allows the government to continue to pretend that it’s democratic and that it allows free speech, but in fact all these ways to control is being exerted, from the corporates, from the goons, and also from the courts. Even the judiciary is misused hugely by political parties. For instance I have numerous cases filed against me wherever I speak so that you are just hunted down by these people in these little ways so that eventually they can just frighten you or tire you into keeping quiet. Do it isn’t like a dictatorship where everyone knows what’s going on and nobody is allowed to say anything; it’s done in a far more sophisticated way. And now of course they are planning to control the internet.
MB: What do you think is the way out of this corporatisation of the media and the control by private parties which is witnessed not just in India, but also in countries such as the USA. And do you think that the internet provides a way out because it lowers the bar to entry?
AR: Well, I’m sure that the reason that the government is considering clamping down on the internet is because major players are worried about the fact that while they are managing to control TV and newspapers, etc. the internet still provides a space for people to tell things which need to be told. But eventually the way out, I mean ideally the way out – not just regarding the media, but regarding so many things – is that cross-ownership of businesses really has to stop. You cannot allow major corporations, which are slowly getting a grip on everything, from water to electricity to minerals to telecommunications to control the media in the way that it is. I mean that kind of conflict of interests has to stop. So eventually there ought to be some kind of legislation that ensures that the media cannot be controlled in that way.
MB: Do you think that the BBC model, or the kind of model that they have in Germany where you have a statutory body controlling the media, which is answerable to a parliamentary committee, would offer a more neutral medium which would allow people to get at the facts?
AR: Well, I think compared to what is going on it would be comparatively better, but I don’t think the BBC is entirely neutral. I mean if you look at the scenario of world politics, you still have to ask why media channels are extremely concerned about deaths in some places but when there is three years of continuous uprising in Kashmir, it’s not covered. So why do they cherry pick and what is the politics behind it? But certainly I think it’s a starting point. I don’t think it’s that difficult to come up with a model where there is a way of making the media more independent. Obviously, it’s never going to be perfect. But right now they are talking a bout moving in the direction of independence or moving in the direction of, not just complete control, but almost brainwashing which goes on in India certainly in many of the TV channels. You find a situation where they have so much power and they are misusing it to such a great extent that it becomes very very dangerous.
In some of my essays I talk about how the superintendent of police in Chhattisgarh told me that. “Look, there is no point in sending the police and the army out to clear the land…” He didn’t say, “for the mining companies” but it was understood that that’s what he meant. He said, “All you have to do put a TV in every tribal person’s house. The problem with these people is that they don’t understand greed.”
So it’s not such a superficial game, it’s a very deep business. The business of what’s happening on television and what’s being sold. It’s not just potato chips and air-conditioners, it’s a whole philosophy. It’s a whole way of thinking that is utterly destructive, which has already destroyed so many people, and the idea is to destroy more and more.
MB: So you have written extensively about the problems in central eastern India (Chhattisgarh), where mining corporations are trying to take over the lands of tribals there. You’ve also said Ghandhian protests, like the one by Anna Hazare, require an audience, which doesn’t exist for the tribals in Chhattisgarh. In which kind of scenario do you think that violence becomes a necessity, if not legitimate, form of expressing anguish and the need for justice?
AR: I think I might argue with you about the use of the word “violence”, as well as linking the word “violence” to a form of expression. Because if violence is a form of expression, then it would suggest something cultish. It is not that. I think what is happening there is really a desperate form of defense. Of self-defense for their homeland. It’s not like they arbitrarily decided to become violent. And violence is a word that the middle class and particularly the people in these TV studios like to use because it has a very different connotation from the idea of resistance or an armed struggle by a mass of people. Violence also links up with terrorism, and I don’t think you can accuse these people in Chhattisgarh, who are fighting and who are being called terrorists, of violence just because they have refused to come out of the jungle and joined these police camps. So it doesn’t mean that the people who are in the jungle are terrorists and Maoists.
The whole situation is that in the colonial time, the tribal people were pushed under siege by the colonial powers. But when independence came, the Indian constitution actually perpetuated colonial law, and said that the tribal lands belonged to the forest department. So it criminalized these indigenous people and their way of life.
And today they have been promoted from the status of common criminals to that of terrorists. So if you don’t come out of the forests, if you plant your seeds, if you live in your village, you are a Maoist terrorist and are liable to be shot on sight. So then you have a situation where a thousand security personnel surround a village, set fire to it, and rape the women, or murder its people. And there is a reaction or a response, which may not be right somewhere else, then it’s called terrorism, it’s called violence.
I mean you have 200,000 security forces in that forest and you have the government of India, which calls itself a superpower now, and you are planning to deploy the army and airforce against the poorest people in the world. So there, it’s no longer about expression, it’s about war.
So Ghandhian forms of protest in the cities are required. I mean I have nothing against it. I mean just because it’s a Ghandian protest doesn’t mean they are protesting for the right cause or asking for the right things. But it is a very effective theatre, as Gandhijj himself showed. But I think it needs an audience and it needs a middle class, a sympathetic middle class. Otherwise if people go on a hunger strike in the Bhatti mines or some other obscure place, then who cares? You need the media. You need the middle class. And you need an audience.
MB: Many people would argue that the problem which plagues the Indian media is similar to the problem which plagues Indian democracy in general: that it runs after populism, it runs after things which capture the imagination of the middle class and people in general. That’s why there is no sympathy for marginalized people or marginalized causes. And that explains the difference in the kind of attention that Anna Hazare’s fast gets and the kind of attention that Irom Sharmila’s fast received. So what do you think of the comparison between Anna Hazare and Irom Sharmilla, who were using the same method of expressing themselves.
AR: Here again I think there are some threads, which need to be separated. One is that, the word “populism” is an interesting one. Because populism and the middle class are two separate things. So you have a situation where the rituals of democracy, the rhetoric of democracy, requires you to talk about the poor and lower castes, and so on. But what it delivers, it delivers only to the middle class. And the media. especially the big media, the mass media – because 90% of its revenues come from advertising consumer products – is only geared for that middle class. That middle class is the market; it is the consumer of all these international consumer goods. That’s why all the international financial companies and businesses have their eyes on them. And that middle class exists at the cost of a much larger underclass. I read the other day that we have more poor people in India than the 26 poorest countries of Africa put together. That middle class is the market and so populism only applies to them, not to the whole population.
But the issue with Anna Hazare and Irom Sharmila is different. Irom Sharmila is also a middle class person, and there are plenty of middle class people in Manipur who support her. But that’s the nationalism issue. Her stage is a much smaller one and the middle class population (of India as a whole) is very hostile to that. Or at the most might it might say, “Oh poor thing”, but we can’t do anything about the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which is a law that allows even non-commissioned officers in the Army to shoot on suspicion, and which has been abused in Manipur, to rape and kill women, which is why Irom Sharmila is fasting to get the AFSPA repealed.
But far from being repealed, this act has been extended to Nagaland, Assam, Kashmir and today the reason that the army has not been deployed in Chhattisgarh yet, is that the army refuses to be deployed unless it has the protection and the impunity that the AFSPA would