Public Power
In The Age Of Empire
By Arundhati
Roy
24 August, 2004
Democrachy
Now!
I've
been asked to speak about "Public Power in the Age of Empire."
I'm not used to doing as I'm told, but by happy coincidence, it's exactly
what I'd like to speak about tonight.
When language has
been butchered and bled of meaning, how do we understand "public
power"? When freedom means occupation, when democracy means neo-liberal
capitalism, when reform means repression, when words like "empowerment"
and "peacekeeping" make your blood run cold - why, then, "public
power" could mean whatever you want it to mean. A biceps building
machine, or a Community Power Shower. So, I'll just have to define "public
power" as I go along, in my own self-serving sort of way.
In India, the word
public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In Hindi, we have sarkar
and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this use is the
underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from "the
people." This distinction has to do with the fact that India's
freedom struggle, though magnificent, was by no means revolutionary.
The Indian elite stepped easily and elegantly into the shoes of the
British imperialists. A deeply impoverished, essentially feudal society
became a modern, independent nation state. Even today, fifty seven years
on to the day, the truly vanquished still look upon the government as
mai-baap, the parent and provider. The somewhat more radical, those
who still have fire in their bellies, see it as chor, the thief, the
snatcher-away of all things.
Either way, for
most Indians, sarkar is very separate from public. However, as you make
your way up India's social ladder, the distinction between sarkar and
public gets blurred. The Indian elite, like the elite anywhere in the
world, finds it hard to separate itself from the state. It sees like
the state, it thinks like the state, it speaks like the state.
In the United States,
on the other hand, the blurring of the distinction between sarkar and
public has penetrated far deeper into society. This could be a sign
of a robust democracy, but unfortunately, it's a little more complicated
and less pretty than that. Among other things, it has to do with the
elaborate web of paranoia generated by the U.S. sarkar and spun out
by the corporate media and Hollywood. Ordinary Americans have been manipulated
into imagining they are a people under siege whose sole refuge and protector
is their government. If it isn't the Communists, it's al-Qaeda. If it
isn't Cuba. it's Nicaragua. As a result, this, the most powerful nation
in the world - with its unmatchable arsenal of weapons, its history
of having waged and sponsored endless wars, and the only nation in history
to have actually used nuclear bombs - is peopled by a terrified citizenry,
jumping at shadows. A people bonded to the state not by social services,
or public health care, or employment guarantees, but by fear.
This synthetically
manufactured fear is used to gain public sanction for further acts of
aggression. And so it goes, building into a spiral of self-fulfilling
hysteria, now formally calibrated by the U.S government's Amazing Technicolored
Terror Alerts: fuchsia, turquoise, salmon pink.
To outside observers,
this merging of sarkar and public in the United States sometimes makes
it hard to separate the actions of the U.S. government from the American
people. It is this confusion that fuels anti-Americanism in the world.
Anti-Americanism is then seized upon and amplified by the U.S. government
and its faithful media outlets. You know the routine: "Why do they
hate us? They hate our freedoms" . . . etc. . . . etc. This enhances
the sense of isolation among American people and makes the embrace between
sarkar and public even more intimate. Like Red Riding Hood looking for
a cuddle in the wolf's bed.
Using the threat
of an external enemy to rally people behind you is a tired old horse,
which politicians have ridden into power for centuries. But could it
be that ordinary people are fed up of that poor old horse and are looking
for something different? There's an old Hindi film song that goes yeh
public hai, yeh sab jaanti hai (the public, she knows it all). Wouldn't
it be lovely if the song were right and the politicians wrong?
Before Washington's
illegal invasion of Iraq, a Gallup International poll showed that in
no European country was the support for a unilateral war higher than
11 percent. On February 15, 2003, weeks before the invasion, more than
ten million people marched against the war on different continents,
including North America. And yet the governments of many supposedly
democratic countries still went to war.
The question is:
is "democracy" still democratic?
Are democratic governments
accountable to the people who elected them? And, critically, is the
public in democratic countries responsible for the actions of its sarkar?
If you think about
it, the logic that underlies the war on terrorism and the logic that
underlies terrorism is exactly the same. Both make ordinary citizens
pay for the actions of their government. Al-Qaeda made the people of
the United States pay with their lives for the actions of their government
in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The U.S government
has made the people of Afghanistan pay in their thousands for the actions
of the Taliban and the people of Iraq pay in their hundreds of thousands
for the actions of Saddam Hussein.
The crucial difference
is that nobody really elected al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or Saddam Hussein.
But the president of the United States was elected (well ... in a manner
of speaking).
The prime ministers
of Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom were elected. Could it then
be argued that citizens of these countries are more responsible for
the actions of their government than Iraqis are for the actions of Saddam
Hussein or Afghans for the Taliban?
Whose God decides
which is a "just war" and which isn't? George Bush senior
once said: "I will never apologize for the United States. I don't
care what the facts are." When the president of the most powerful
country in the world doesn't need to care what the facts are, then we
can at least be sure we have entered the Age of Empire.
So what does public
power mean in the Age of Empire? Does it mean anything at all? Does
it actually exist?
In these allegedly
democratic times, conventional political thought holds that public power
is exercised through the ballot. Scores of countries in the world will
go to the polls this year. Most (not all) of them will get the governments
they vote for. But will they get the governments they want?
In India this year,
we voted the Hindu nationalists out of office. But even as we celebrated,
we knew that on nuclear bombs, neo-liberalism, privatization, censorship,
big dams - on every major issue other than overt Hindu nationalism -
the Congress and the BJP have no major ideological differences. We know
that it is the fifty-year legacy of the Congress Party that prepared
the ground culturally and politically for the far right. It was also
the Congress Party that first opened India's markets to corporate globalization.
In its election
campaign, the Congress Party indicated that it was prepared to rethink
some of its earlier economic policies. Millions of India's poorest people
came out in strength to vote in the elections. The spectacle of the
great Indian democracy was telecast live - the poor farmers, the old
and infirm, the veiled women with their beautiful silver jewelry, making
quaint journeys to election booths on elephants and camels and bullock
carts. Contrary to the predictions of all India's experts and pollsters,
Congress won more votes than any other party. India's communist parties
won the largest share of the vote in their history. India's poor had
clearly voted against neo-liberalism's economic "reforms"
and growing fascism. As soon as the votes were counted, the corporate
media dispatched them like badly paid extras on a film set. Television
channels featured split screens. Half the screen showed the chaos outside
the home of Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, as the coalition
government was cobbled together.
The other half showed
frenzied stockbrokers outside the Bombay Stock Exchange, panicking at
the thought that the Congress Party might actually honor its promises
and implement its electoral mandate. We saw the Sensex stock index move
up and down and sideways. The media, whose own publicly listed stocks
were plummeting, reported the stock market crash as though Pakistan
had launched ICBMs on New Delhi.
Even before the
new government was formally sworn in, senior Congress politicians made
public statements reassuring investors and the media that privatization
of public utilities would continue. Meanwhile the BJP, now in opposition,
has cynically, and comically, begun to oppose foreign direct investment
and the further opening of Indian markets.
This is the spurious,
evolving dialectic of electoral democracy.
As for the Indian
poor, once they've provided the votes, they are expected to bugger off
home. Policy will be decided despite them.
And what of the
U.S. elections? Do U.S. voters have a real choice?
It's true that if
John Kerry becomes president, some of the oil tycoons and Christian
fundamentalists in the White House will change. Few will be sorry to
see the back of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft and
their blatant thuggery. But the real concern is that in the new administration
their policies will continue. That we will have Bushism without Bush.
Those positions
of real power - the bankers, the CEOs - are not vulnerable to the vote
(. . . and in any case, they fund both sides).
Unfortunately the
importance of the U.S elections has deteriorated into a sort of personality
contest. A squabble over who would do a better job of overseeing empire.
John Kerry believes in the idea of empire as fervently as George Bush
does.
The U.S. political
system has been carefully crafted to ensure that no one who questions
the natural goodness of the military-industrial-corporate power structure
will be allowed through the portals of power.
Given this, it's
no surprise that in this election you have two Yale University graduates,
both members of Skull and Bones, the same secret society, both millionaires,
both playing at soldier-soldier, both talking up war, and arguing almost
childishly about who will lead the war on terror more effectively.
Like President Bill
Clinton before him, Kerry will continue the expansion of U.S. economic
and military penetration into the world. He says he would have voted
to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq even if he had known that Iraq
had no weapons of mass destruction. He promises to commit more troops
to Iraq. He said recently that he supports Bush's policies toward Israel
and Ariel Sharon 100 percent. He says he'll retain 98% of Bush's tax
cuts.
So, underneath the
shrill exchange of insults, there is almost absolute consensus. It looks
as though even if Americans vote for Kerry, they'll still get Bush.
President John Kerbush or President George Berry.
It's not a real
choice. It's an apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent.
Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor &
Gamble.
This doesn't mean
that one takes a position that is without nuance, that the Congress
and the BJP, New Labor and the Tories, the Democrats and Republicans
are the same. Of course, they're not. Neither are Tide and Ivory Snow.
Tide has oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser.
In India, there
is a difference between an overtly fascist party (the BJP) and a party
that slyly pits one community against another (Congress), and sows the
seeds of communalism that are then so ably harvested by the BJP.
There are differences
in the I.Q.s and levels of ruthlessness between this year's U.S. presidential
candidates. The anti-war movement in the United States has done a phenomenal
job of exposing the lies and venality that led to the invasion of Iraq,
despite the propaganda and intimidation it faced.
This was a service
not just to people here, but to the whole world. But now, if the anti-war
movement openly campaigns for Kerry, the rest of the world will think
that it approves of his policies of "sensitive" imperialism.
Is U.S. imperialism preferable if it is supported by the United Nations
and European countries? Is it preferable if UN asks Indian and Pakistani
soldiers to do the killing and dying in Iraq instead of U.S. soldiers?
Is the only change that Iraqis can hope for that French, German, and
Russian companies will share in the spoils of the occupation of their
country?
Is this actually
better or worse for those of us who live in subject nations? Is it better
for the world to have a smarter emperor in power or a stupider one?
Is that our only choice?
I'm sorry, I know
that these are uncomfortable, even brutal questions, but they must be
asked.
The fact is that
electoral democracy has become a process of cynical manipulation. It
offers us a very reduced political space today. To believe that this
space constitutes real choice would be naïve.
The crisis in modern
democracy is a profound one.
On the global stage,
beyond the jurisdiction of sovereign governments, international instruments
of trade and finance oversee a complex system of multilateral laws and
agreements that have entrenched a system of appropriation that puts
colonialism to shame. This system allows the unrestricted entry and
exit of massive amounts of speculative capital - hot money - into and
out of third world countries, which then effectively dictates their
economic policy. Using the threat of capital flight as a lever, international
capital insinuates itself deeper and deeper into these economies. Giant
transnational corporations are taking control of their essential infrastructure
and natural resources, their minerals, their water, their electricity.
The World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and other financial institutions like the Asian Development Bank,
virtually write economic policy and parliamentary legislation. With
a deadly combination of arrogance and ruthlessness, they take their
sledgehammers to fragile, interdependent, historically complex societies,
and devastate them.
All this goes under
the fluttering banner of "reform."
As a consequence
of this reform, in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, thousands of small
enterprises and industries have closed down, millions of workers and
farmers have lost their jobs and land.
The Spectator newspaper
in London assures us that "[w]e live in the happiest, healthiest
and most peaceful era in human history." Billions wonder: who's
"we"? Where does he live? What's his Christian name?
The thing to understand
is that modern democracy is safely premised on an almost religious acceptance
of the nation state. But corporate globalization is not. Liquid capital
is not. So, even though capital needs the coercive powers of the nation
state to put down revolts in the servants' quarters, this set up ensures
that no individual nation can oppose corporate globalization on its
own.
Radical change cannot
and will not be negotiated by governments; it can only be enforced by
people. By the public. A public who can link hands across national borders.
So when we speak
of "Public Power in the Age of Empire," I hope it's not presumptuous
to assume that the only thing that is worth discussing seriously is
the power of a dissenting public. A public which disagrees with the
very concept of empire. A public which has set itself against incumbent
power - international, national, regional, or provincial governments
and institutions that support and service empire.
What are the avenues
of protest available to people who wish to resist empire? By resist
I don't mean only to express dissent, but to effectively force change.
Empire has a range of calling cards. It uses different weapons to break
open different markets. You know the check book and the cruise missile
For poor people
in many countries, Empire does not always appear in the form of cruise
missiles and tanks, as it has in Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam. It
appears in their lives in very local avatars - losing their jobs, being
sent unpayable electricity bills, having their water supply cut, being
evicted from their homes and uprooted from their land. All this overseen
by the repressive machinery of the state, the police, the army, the
judiciary. It is a process of relentless impoverishment with which the
poor are historically familiar. What Empire does is to further entrench
and exacerbate already existing inequalities.
Even until quite
recently, it was sometimes difficult for people to see themselves as
victims of the conquests of Empire. But now local struggles have begun
to see their role with increasing clarity. However grand it might sound,
the fact is, they are confronting Empire in their own, very different
ways. Differently in Iraq, in South Africa, in India, in Argentina,
and differently, for that matter, on the streets of Europe and the United
States.
Mass resistance
movements, individual activists, journalists, artists, and film makers
have come together to strip Empire of its sheen. They have connected
the dots, turned cash-flow charts and boardroom speeches into real stories
about real people and real despair. They have shown how the neo-liberal
project has cost people their homes, their land, their jobs, their liberty,
their dignity. They have made the intangible tangible. The once seemingly
in-CORP-o-real enemy is now CORP-o-real.
This is a huge victory.
It was forged by the coming together of disparate political groups,
with a variety of strategies. But they all recognized that the target
of their anger, their activism, and their doggedness is the same. This
was the beginning of real globalization. The globalization of dissent.
Broadly speaking,
there are two kinds of mass resistance movements in third world countries
today. The landless peoples' movement in Brazil, the anti-dam movement
in India, the Zapatistas in Mexico, the Anti-Privatization Forum in
South Africa, and hundreds of others, are fighting their own sovereign
governments, which have become agents of the neo-liberal project. Most
of these are radical struggles, fighting to change the structure and
chosen model of "development" of their own societies.
Then there are those
fighting formal and brutal neocolonial occupations in contested territories
whose boundaries and fault lines were often arbitrarily drawn last century
by the imperialist powers. In Palestine, Tibet, Chechnya, Kashmir, and
several states in India's northeast provinces, people are waging struggles
for self-determination.
Several of these
struggles might have been radical, even revolutionary when they began,
but often the brutality of the repression they face pushes them into
conservative, even retrogressive spaces in which they use the same violent
strategies and the same language of religious and cultural nationalism
used by the states they seek to replace.
Many of the foot
soldiers in these struggles will find, like those who fought apartheid
in South Africa, that once they overcome overt occupation, they will
be left with another battle on their hands - a battle against covert
economic colonialism.
Meanwhile, as the
rift between rich and poor is being driven deeper and the battle to
control the world's resources intensifies. Economic colonialism through
formal military aggression is staging a comeback.
Iraq today is a
tragic illustration of this process. An illegal invasion. A brutal occupation
in the name of liberation. The rewriting of laws that allow the shameless
appropriation of the country's wealth and resources by corporations
allied to the occupation, and now the charade of a local "Iraqi
government."
For these reasons,
it is absurd to condemn the resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq,
as being masterminded by terrorists or insurgents or supporters of Saddam
Hussein. After all if the United States were invaded and occupied, would
everybody who fought to liberate it be a terrorist or an insurgent or
a Bushite?
The Iraqi resistance
is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire. And therefore
that battle is our battle.
Like most resistance
movements, it combines a motley range of assorted factions. Former Baathists,
liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, etc. Of course,
it is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery, and criminality.
But if we are only going to support pristine movements, then no resistance
will be worthy of our purity.
This is not to say
that we shouldn't ever criticize resistance movements. Many of them
suffer from a lack of democracy, from the iconization of their "leaders,"
a lack of transparency, a lack of vision and direction. But most of
all they suffer from vilification, repression, and lack of resources.
Before we prescribe
how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist,
democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance
by forcing the U.S. and its allies government to withdraw from Iraq.
The first militant
confrontation in the United States between the global justice movement
and the neo-liberal junta took place famously at the WTO conference
in Seattle in December 1999. To many mass movements in developing countries
that had long been fighting lonely, isolated battles, Seattle was the
first delightful sign that their anger and their vision of another kind
of world was shared by people in the imperialist countries.
In January 2001,
in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 20,000 activists, students, film makers - some
of the best minds in the world - came together to share their experiences
and exchange ideas about confronting Empire. That was the birth of the
now historic World Social Forum. It was the first, formal coming together
of an exciting, anarchic, unindoctrinated, energetic, new kind of "Public
Power." The rallying cry of the WSF is "Another World is Possible."
It has become a platform where hundreds of conversations, debates, and
seminars have helped to hone and refine a vision of what kind of world
it should be.
By January 2004,
when the fourth WSF was held in Mumbai, India, it attracted 200,000
delegates. I have never been part of a more electrifying gathering.
It was a sign of the social forum's success that the mainstream media
in India ignored it completely. But now, the WSF is threatened by its
own success. The safe, open, festive atmosphere of the forum has allowed
politicians and nongovernmental organizations that are imbricated in
the political and economic systems that the forum opposes to participate
and make themselves heard.
Another danger is
that the WSF, which has played such a vital role in the movement for
global justice, runs the risk of becoming an end unto itself. Just organizing
it every year consumes the energies of some of the best activists. If
conversations about resistance replace real civil disobedience, then
the WSF could become an asset to those whom it was created to oppose.
The forum must be held and must grow, but we have to find ways to channel
our conversations there back into concrete action.
As resistance movements
have begun to reach out across national borders and pose a real threat,
governments have developed their own strategies of how to deal with
them. They range from cooptation to repression.
I'm going to speak
about three of the contemporary dangers that confront resistance movements:
the difficult meeting point between mass movements and the mass media,
the hazards of the NGO-ization of resistance, and the confrontation
between resistance movements and increasingly repressive states.
The place in which
the mass media meets mass movements is a complicated one.
Governments have
learned that a crisis-driven media cannot afford to hang about in the
same place for too long. Like business houses need a cash turnover,
the media need crises turnover. Whole countries become old news. They
cease to exist, and the darkness becomes deeper than before the light
was briefly shone on them. We saw it happen in Afghanistan when the
Soviets withdrew. And now, after Operation Enduring Freedom put the
CIA's Hamid Karzai in place, Afghanistan has been thrown to its warlords
once more.
Another CIA operative,
Iyad Allawi, has been installed in Iraq, so perhaps it's time for the
media to move on from there, too.
While governments
hone the art of waiting out crisis, resistance movements are increasingly
being ensnared in a vortex of crisis production, seeking to find ways
of manufacturing them in easily consumable, spectator-friendly formats.
Every self-respecting
peoples' movement, every "issue" is expected to have its own
hot air balloon in the sky advertising its brand and purpose.
For this reason,
starvation deaths are more effective advertisements for impoverishment
than millions of malnourished people, who don't quite make the cut.
Dams are not newsworthy until the devastation they wreak makes good
television. (And by then, it's too late).
Standing in the
rising water of a reservoir for days on end, watching your home and
belongings float away to protest against a big dam used to be an effective
strategy, but isn't any more. The media is dead bored of that one. So
the hundreds of thousands of people being displaced by dams are expected
to either conjure new tricks or give up the struggle.
Colorful demonstrations
and weekend marches are vital but alone are not powerful enough to stop
wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers refuse to fight, when
workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircrafts, when people
boycott the economic outposts of Empire that are strung across the globe.
If we want to reclaim
the space for civil disobedience, we will have to liberate ourselves
from the tyranny of crisis reportage and its fear of the mundane. We
have to use our experience, our imagination, and our art to interrogate
the instruments of that state that ensure that "normality"
remains what it is: cruel, unjust, unacceptable. We have to expose the
policies and processes that make ordinary things - food, water, shelter
and dignity - such a distant dream for ordinary people. Real pre-emptive
strike is to understand that wars are the end result of flawed and unjust
peace.
As far as mass resistance
movements are concerned, the fact is that no amount of media coverage
can make up for mass strength on the ground. There is no option, really,
to old-fashioned, back-breaking political mobilization.
Corporate globalization
has increased the distance between those who make decisions and those
who have to suffer the effects of those decisions. Forums like the WSF
enable local resistance movements to reduce that distance and to link
up with their counterparts in rich countries. That alliance is an important
and formidable one. For example, when India's first private dam, the
Maheshwar Dam, was being built, alliances between the Narmada Bachao
Andolan (the NBA), the German organization Urgewald, the Berne Declaration
in Switzerland, and the International Rivers Network in Berkeley worked
together to push a series of international banks and corporations out
of the project. This would not have been possible had there not been
a rock solid resistance movement on the ground. The voice of that local
movement was amplified by supporters on the global stage, embarrassing
and forcing investors to withdraw.
An infinite number
of similar, alliances, targeting specific projects and specific corporations
would help to make another world possible. We should begin with the
corporations who did business with Saddam Hussein and now profit from
the devastation and occupation of Iraq.
A second hazard
facing mass movements is the NGO-ization of resistance. It will be easy
to twist what I'm about to say into an indictment of all NGOs. That
would be a falsehood. In the murky waters of fake NGOs set up or to
siphon off grant money or as tax dodges (in states like Bihar, they
are given as dowry), of course there are NGOs doing valuable work. But
it's important to consider the NGO phenomenon in a broader political
context.
In India, for instance,
the funded NGO boom began in the late 1980s and 1990s. It coincided
with the opening of India's markets to neo-liberalism. At the time,
the Indian state, in keeping with the requirements of structural adjustment,
was withdrawing funding from rural development, agriculture, energy,
transport, and public health. As the state abdicated its traditional
role, NGOs moved in to work in these very areas. The difference, of
course, is that the funds available to them are a minuscule fraction
of the actual cut in public spending. Most large funded NGOs are financed
and patronized by aid and development agencies, which are in turn funded
by Western governments, the World Bank, the UN, and some multinational
corporations. Though they may not be the very same agencies, they are
certainly part of the same loose, political formation that oversees
the neo-liberal project and demands the slash in government spending
in the first place.
Why should these
agencies fund NGOs? Could it be just old-fashioned missionary zeal?
Guilt? It's a little more than that. NGOs give the impression that they
are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they are,
but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is
that they defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence
what people ought to have by right.
They alter the public
psyche. They turn people into dependent victims and blunt the edges
of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer between the sarkar
and public. Between Empire and its subjects. They have become the arbitrators,
the interpreters, the facilitators.
In the long run,
NGOs are accountable to their funders, not to the people they work among.
They're what botanists would call an indicator species. It's almost
as though the greater the devastation caused by neo-liberalism, the
greater the outbreak of NGOs. Nothing illustrates this more poignantly
than the phenomenon of the U.S. preparing to invade a country and simultaneously
readying NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation.
In order make sure
their funding is not jeopardized and that the governments of the countries
they work in will allow them to function, NGOs have to present their
work in a shallow framework more or less shorn of a political or historical
context. At any rate, an inconvenient historical or political context.
Apolitical (and
therefore, actually, extremely political) distress reports from poor
countries and war zones eventually make the (dark) people of those (dark)
countries seem like pathological victims. Another malnourished Indian,
another starving Ethiopian, another Afghan refugee camp, another maimed
Sudanese . . . in need of the white man's help. They unwittingly reinforce
racist stereotypes and re-affirm the achievements, the comforts, and
the compassion (the tough love) of Western civilization. They're the
secular missionaries of the modern world.
Eventually - on
a smaller scale but more insidiously - the capital available to NGOs
plays the same role in alternative politics as the speculative capital
that flows in and out of the economies of poor countries. It begins
to dictate the agenda. It turns confrontation into negotiation. It depoliticizes
resistance. It interferes with local peoples' movements that have traditionally
been self-reliant. NGOs have funds that can employ local people who
might otherwise be activists in resistance movements, but now can feel
they are doing some immediate, creative good (and earning a living while
they're at it). Real political resistance offers no such short cuts.
The NGO-ization
of politics threatens to turn resistance into a well-mannered, reasonable,
salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown in. Real resistance has
real consequences. And no salary.
This brings us to
a third danger I want to speak about tonight: the deadly nature of the
actual confrontation between resistance movements and increasingly repressive
states. Between public power and the agents of Empire.
Whenever civil resistance
has shown the slightest signs of evolving from symbolic action into
anything remotely threatening, the crack down is merciless. We've seen
what happened in the demonstrations in Seattle, in Miami, in Göthenberg,
in Genoa.
In the United States,
you have the USA PATRIOT Act, which has become a blueprint for antiterrorism
laws passed by governments across the world. Freedoms are being curbed
in the name of protecting freedom. And once we surrender our freedoms,
to win them back will take a revolution.
Some governments
have vast experience in the business of curbing freedoms and still smelling
sweet. The government of India, an old hand at the game, lights the
path.
Over the years the
Indian government has passed a plethora of laws that allow it to call
almost anyone a terrorist, an insurgent, a militant. We have the Armed
Forces Special Powers Act, the Public Security Act, the Special Areas
Security Act, the Gangster Act, the Terrorist and Disruptive Areas Act
(which has formally lapsed but under which people are still facing trial),
and, most recently, POTA (the Prevention of Terrorism Act), the broad-spectrum
antibiotic for the disease of dissent.
There are other
steps that are being taken, such as court judgments that in effect curtail
free speech, the right of government workers to go on strike, the right
to life and livelihood. Courts have begun to micro-manage our lives
in India. And criticizing the courts is a criminal offense.
But coming back
to the counter-terrorism initiatives, over the last decade, the number
of people who have been killed by the police and security forces runs
into the tens of thousands. In the state of Andhra Pradesh (the pin-up
girl of corporate globalization in India), an average of about 200 "extremists"
are killed in what are called "encounters" every year. The
Bombay police boast of how many "gangsters" they have killed
in "shoot outs." In Kashmir, in a situation that almost amounts
to war, an estimated 80,000 people have been killed since 1989. Thousands
have simply "disappeared." In the northeastern provinces,
the situation is similar.
In recent years,
the Indian police have opened fire on unarmed people, mostly Dalit and
Adivasi. Their preferred method is to kill them and then call them terrorists.
India is not alone, though. We have seen similar thing happen in countries
such Bolivia, Chile, and South Africa. In the era of neo-liberalism,
poverty is a crime and protesting against it is more and more being
defined as terrorism.
In India, POTA (the
Prevention of Terrorism Act) is often called the Production of Terrorism
Act. It's a versatile, hold-all law that could apply to anyone from
an al-Qaeda operative to a disgruntled bus conductor. As with all anti-terrorism
laws, the genius of POTA is that it can be whatever the government wants.
After the 2002 state-assisted pogrom in Gujarat, in which an estimated
2,000 Muslims were savagely killed by Hindu mobs and 150,000 driven
from their homes, 287 people have been accused under POTA. Of these,
286 are Muslim and one is a Sikh.
POTA allows confessions
extracted in police custody to be admitted as judicial evidence. In
effect, torture tends to replace investigation. The South Asia Human
Rights Documentation Center reports that India has the highest number
of torture and custodial deaths in the world. Government records show
that there were 1,307 deaths in judicial custody in 2002 alone.
A few months ago,
I was a member of a peoples' tribunal on POTA. Over a period of two
days, we listened to harrowing testimonies of what is happening in our
wonderful democracy. It's everything - from people being forced to drink
urine, to being stripped, humiliated, given electric shocks, burned
with cigarette butts, having iron rods put up their anuses, to being
beaten and kicked to death.
The new government
has promised to repeal POTA. I'd be surprised if that happens before
similar legislation under a different name is put in place. If its not
POTA it'll be MOTA or something.
When every avenue
of non-violent dissent is closed down, and everyone who protests against
the violation of their human rights is called a terrorist, should we
really be surprised if vast parts of the country are overrun by those
who believe in armed struggle and are more or less beyond the control
of the state: in Kashmir, the north eastern provinces, large parts of
Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh. Ordinary
people in these regions are trapped between the violence of the militants
and the state.
In Kashmir, the
Indian army estimates that 3,000 to 4,000 militants are operating at
any given time. To control them, the Indian government deploys about
500,000 soldiers. Clearly, it isn't just the militants the army seeks
to control, but a whole population of humiliated, unhappy people who
see the Indian army as an occupation force.
The Armed Forces
Special Powers Act allows not just officers, but even junior commissioned
officers and non-commissioned officers of the army, to use force and
even kill any person on suspicion of disturbing public order. It was
first imposed on a few districts in the state of Manipur in 1958. Today,
it applies to virtually all of the north east and Kashmir. The documentation
of instances of torture, disappearances, custodial deaths, rape, and
summary execution by security forces is enough to turn your stomach.
In Andhra Pradesh,
in India's heartland, the militant Marxist-Leninist Peoples' War Group
- which for years been engaged in a violent armed struggle and has been
the principal target of many of the Andhra police's fake "encounters"
- held its first public meeting in years on July 28, 2004, in the town
of Warangal.
It was attended
by about hundreds of thousands of people. Under POTA, all of them are
considered terrorists. Are they all going to be detained in some Indian
equivalent of Guantánamo Bay?
The whole of the
north east and the Kashmir valley is in ferment. What will the government
do with these millions of people?
There is no discussion
taking place in the world today that is more crucial than the debate
about strategies of resistance. And the choice of strategy is not entirely
in the hands of the public. It is also in the hands of sarkar.
After all, when
the U.S. invades and occupies Iraq in the way it has done, with such
overwhelming military force, can the resistance be expected to be a
conventional military one? (Of course, even if it were conventional,
it would still be called terrorist.) In a strange sense, the U.S. government's
arsenal of weapons and unrivalled air and fire power makes terrorism
an all-but-inescapable response. What people lack in wealth and power,
they will make up with stealth and strategy.
In this restive,
despairing time, if governments do not do all they can to honor nonviolent
resistance, then by default they privilege those who turn to violence.
No government's condemnation of terrorism is credible if it cannot show
itself to be open to change by to nonviolent dissent.
But instead nonviolent
resistance movements are being crushed. Any kind of mass political mobilization
or organization is being bought off, or broken, or simply ignored.
Meanwhile, governments
and the corporate media, and let's not forget the film industry, lavish
their time, attention, technology, research, and admiration on war and
terrorism. Violence has been deified.
The message this
sends is disturbing and dangerous: If you seek to air a public grievance,
violence is more effective than nonviolence.
As the rift between
the rich and poor grows, as the need to appropriate and control the
world's resources to feed the great capitalist machine becomes more
urgent, the unrest will only escalate.
For those of us
who are on the wrong side of Empire, the humiliation is becoming unbearable.
Each of the Iraqi
children killed by the United States was our child. Each of the prisoners
tortured in Abu Ghraib was our comrade. Each of their screams was ours.
When they were humiliated, we were humiliated. The U.S. soldiers fighting
in Iraq - mostly volunteers in a poverty draft from small towns and
poor urban neighborhoods - are victims just as much as the Iraqis of
the same horrendous process, which asks them to die for a victory that
will never be theirs.
The mandarins of
the corporate world, the CEOs, the bankers, the politicians, the judges
and generals look down on us from on high and shake their heads sternly.
"There's no Alternative," they say. And let slip the dogs
of war.
Then, from the ruins
of Afghanistan, from the rubble of Iraq and Chechnya, from the streets
of occupied Palestine and the mountains of Kashmir, from the hills and
plains of Colombia and the forests of Andhra Pradesh and Assam comes
the chilling reply: "There's no alternative but terrorism."
Terrorism. Armed struggle. Insurgency. Call it what you want.
Terrorism is vicious,
ugly, and dehumanizing for its perpetrators, as well as its victims.
But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the privatization of
war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don't
believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
Human society is
journeying to a terrible place.
Of course, there
is an alternative to terrorism. It's called justice.
It's time to recognize
that no amount of nuclear weapons or full-spectrum dominance or daisy
cutters or spurious governing councils and loya jirgas can buy peace
at the cost of justice.
The urge for hegemony
and preponderance by some will be matched with greater intensity by
the longing for dignity and justice by others.
Exactly what form
that battle takes, whether its beautiful or bloodthirsty, depends on
us.
Copyright 2004 Arundhati
Roy. For permission to reprint contact [email protected]