Arundhati Roy says the glass is 1/2 empty

by indophile Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:38 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13624077

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:45 am

I think this "half-empty/half-full" thing is dicey in the first place. It all depends on whether you are drinking or pouring.

by indophile Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:08 am

nutmeg wrote:I think this "half-empty/half-full" thing is dicey in the first place. It all depends on whether you are drinking or pouring.

Wonder how it squares with Arundhati Roy. She is neither a drinker (not an enjoyer of good life), nor a pourer (provider for others who wish to enjoy a good life:-)

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:31 am

just watched the interview. she does not answer a single question! a lot of anti-capitalism and hyperbole in her talk but no answer. and, strangely, she smiles all the time -- as if she is some eastern mystic! how can somone smile all the time? at least the facial expressions betray a lack of conviction. some of her thoughts are silly: for example, she says that the ore (bauxite/iron) will be sold to large corporations. is *that* her problem? we can process the ore and sell the finished good here and sometimes back to the "indigenous" people! will that solve her problem? no. then why harp on it? something is really wrong with her. she does come across as a scary person in the interview (for she gives no answers). and add to that the incident in which she was guilty of owning a resort in "reserved" forests (along with vikram seth). i do not doubt that she genuinely feels for the oppressed but aside from drawing our attention to them, she has little else to offer. and that is quite a waste of her time on a personal level. writing novels would not have been a nobler pursuit but at least she could have searched and found a viable solution during this time to educate us about.

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:39 am

indophile wrote:She is neither a drinker (not an enjoyer of good life)

in the arundhati roy world, if you have a fan, a tv and books in a cell, then you are addicted to the "good life." i would like to see her live her life as the tribals do -- eweRRyday. or live like medha patkar. better still, live like mamata banerjee -- a nation state activist. this is the "least" punishment she, in her own courtroom, ought to sentence herself to for doing something so unforgivingly bourgeois as writing a book of fiction on bourgeois lives.

by Mosquito Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:40 pm

I dont care about Arundhati Roy. I've to agree with one thing. Poverty in India is huge problem, it's about time some attention is paid to it.

by doofus_maximus Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:42 pm

it saddens me to see the millions and millions left behind ...

PS: AR has grown old very quickly..

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:48 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:Poverty in India is huge problem, it's about time some attention is paid to it.

Well, it's not as if one can ignore the problem considering it's staring in your face wherever you look. The only time-tested solution is continued economic development. Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels. In the meantime, create scalable infrastructure to train people on marketable skills so they can become productive wage-earners.

Unfortunately, this commonsensical approach doesn't quite have the same media appeal that sustains drama queens like A Roy or that chronic-starver-in-search-of-a-cause, M Patkar.

by .|Sublime|. Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:51 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:I dont care about Arundhati Roy. I've to agree with one thing. Poverty in India is huge problem, it's about time some attention is paid to it.

the problem though is that the task of eliminating poverty is in the hands of politicians who use poverty and illiteracy to get to power. that is like asking the fox to clean the coop so the hens can live well. the fox does not care about cleanliness - it would rather eat the hen.

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:16 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:Poverty in India is huge problem, it's about time some attention is paid to it.

Well, it's not as if one can ignore the problem considering it's staring in your face wherever you look. The only time-tested solution is continued economic development. Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels. In the meantime, create scalable infrastructure to train people on marketable skills so they can become productive wage-earners.

Unfortunately, this commonsensical approach doesn't quite have the same media appeal that sustains drama queens like A Roy or that chronic-starver-in-search-of-a-cause, M Patkar.

i have to agree with you 100%. nicely said.

by Guest Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:17 pm

.|Sublime|. wrote:the problem though is that the task of eliminating poverty is in the hands of politicians who use poverty and illiteracy to get to power. that is like asking the fox to clean the coop so the hens can live well. the fox does not care about cleanliness - it would rather eat the hen.

let us see what baba ramdev does. anna has already rattled the system. i don't know if it is a good or bad omen but it is interesting.

edit. i am travelling from tomorrow and i am looking forward to finishing chankya's chant.

by Mosquito Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:38 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:Poverty in India is huge problem, it's about time some attention is paid to it.

Well, it's not as if one can ignore the problem considering it's staring in your face wherever you look. The only time-tested solution is continued economic development. Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels. In the meantime, create scalable infrastructure to train people on marketable skills so they can become productive wage-earners.

Unfortunately, this commonsensical approach doesn't quite have the same media appeal that sustains drama queens like A Roy or that chronic-starver-in-search-of-a-cause, M Patkar.

Can you give me some examples where trickle down economics actually worked? What India needs is allround development. At present growth is highly skewed.

by charvaka Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:44 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:
Can you give me some examples where trickle down economics actually worked? What India needs is allround development. At present growth is highly skewed.

The question ought to be: what is the alternative that Roy is proposing? For forty years, we had "socialist" economic policies. What we got was stagnation. The current policies have at least expanded the tax base, allowing the government to spend oodles of money on welfare programs. At least in that sense, post-liberalization policies have been better for all-round development.

by Mosquito Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:55 pm

charvaka wrote:
PseudoIntellectual wrote:
Can you give me some examples where trickle down economics actually worked? What India needs is allround development. At present growth is highly skewed.
The question ought to be: what is the alternative that Roy is proposing? For forty years, we had "socialist" economic policies. What we got was stagnation. The current policies have at least expanded the tax base, allowing the government to spend oodles of money on welfare programs. At least in that sense, post-liberalization policies have been better for all-round development.

I am not supporting Roy. Nor am I suggesting that liberalization policies have been bad. India spends on welfare but it doesn't reach people. The issue is not what we spend but how we spend it. We need sound economic strategies for allround development is my point.

by Nila Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:00 pm

God of small things - the people who see what she can see is sure fits in with her book title.

I am kinda awry that she sees the glass and that glass scene is seen by media....awful!

by artood2 Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:23 pm

Why do people even care about here any more? One trick pony...

by charvaka Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:01 pm

artood2 wrote:Why do people even care about here any more? One trick pony...

Yeah, the only thing she's good for is passionate rhetoric. (I don't like her fiction.) She doesn't put too much thought into what she says, lest her polemics be affected by a semblance of substance.

by artood2 Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:54 pm

Her views always seem to lack intellectual depth and often you wonder if she is trying to stay in the limelight. I really stopped caring about what she said long ago.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:04 pm

PseudoIntellectual wrote:Can you give me some examples where trickle down economics actually worked? What India needs is allround development. At present growth is highly skewed.

If you live in India, you'll see it all around. It's not just the middle and affluent folks who are living it up. You've no idea how difficult it is to find maid servants and drivers - nobody wants those dead-end jobs now that they have so many better employment options.

A large realty company recently confessed that they're finding it very difficult to get construction workers in the Delhi region. Basically, opportunities have opened up at all levels and everyone's aspirations have gone up. Someone at a subsistence level ten years back is now in the lower middle class in hard economic terms - only the individuals may not think of themselves as better off simply because their aspirations have also gone up.

I don't deny that there is a skew. The free market does favor individuals with capital or in its absence, some saleable skill. But the solution to that skew is by enabling quick and mass-scale dissemination of saleable skills, to include the folks who're currently left out. I've no idea what you mean by "allround development". Most of those inclusive / holistic growth prescriptions are just the old, discredited, socialistic mantras repackaged in newspeak. Those haven't worked anywhere in the world. If anything, four decades of that stuff turned India into an economic basketcase. Funny how people have forgotten how bad things were back in those good old days.

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:10 pm

Another indicator of the trickledown effect is how food consumption patterns have changed. From a predominantly cereal-based diet, new found prosperity has led to increased protein consumption. A billion people consuming more pulses, diary, poultry and meat is a massive structural driver of food inflation not just in India but also globally.

by artood2 Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:29 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Another indicator of the trickledown effect is how food consumption patterns have changed. From a predominantly cereal-based diet, new found prosperity has led to increased protein consumption. A billion people consuming more pulses, diary, poultry and meat is a massive structural driver of food inflation not just in India but also globally.

George Bush said the same and he got hammered for it.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:54 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels.

Yes.. yes...by the time the people at the lowest level get a few drops, the people at the highest level will be floating in a cruise ship drinking and laughing at the few drops they spilled.

Hm..wonder who coined the word 'Trickle-down theory" and if any country has been in trouble following that policy...

by artood2 Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:57 pm

Trickle down theory works when people spend for consumption not for hoarders like Indians. The money is sitting tight in some back accounts or converted to jewellery. Trickle down works well when there is a bigger spread even at the highest levels of income. If 20% are stinky rich, things will trickle down. If 1% is stinky stinky stinky rich and toheres are not, it would not trickle down.

Edit: Just a clarification, I agree with Md's point on food consumption but my point is more over the quanta of trickle down effect.

by Merlot Daruwala Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:04 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels.

Yes.. yes...by the time the people at the lowest level get a few drops, the people at the highest level will be floating in a cruise ship drinking and laughing at the few drops they spilled.

Ok then. Focus instead on pulling down those people at the highest level. That is a sureshot way of reducing economic disparity, as the Bolsheviks demonstrated a century ago.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:54 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Eventually, it'll trickle down to all levels.

Yes.. yes...by the time the people at the lowest level get a few drops, the people at the highest level will be floating in a cruise ship drinking and laughing at the few drops they spilled.

Ok then. Focus instead on pulling down those people at the highest level. That is a sureshot way of reducing economic disparity, as the Bolsheviks demonstrated a century ago.

Even your trickle-down country broke up Rockefellers, vanderbilts, Carnegies, Watsons and the Bells.

The Ambanis, Marans, Birlas, Tatas, and the Patnaiks, and not to mention the fast rising political industrialists are very similar and needs to be broken up.

In the US and in Britain, the country takes 50% of the wealth when a rich guy dies - precisely to prevent family conglomerates to dominate. In India, the entire inheritance is passed down to the children - thus maintaining the hold of the rich and powerful. Any wonder why the laxmi Mittal still holds the Indian passport - it is not bcz of his love for his country.

by artood2 Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:05 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote: Any wonder why the laxmi Mittal still holds the Indian passport - it is not bcz of his love for his country.

doesn't the country of domicile have a greater impact on tax?

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:16 am

artood2 wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote: Any wonder why the laxmi Mittal still holds the Indian passport - it is not bcz of his love for his country.

doesn't the country of domicile have a greater impact on tax?

Of course. that is why they incorporate in tax havens.

But, in most countries, inheritance of property is based on citizenship of the dead dude.

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:20 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:In the US and in Britain, the country takes 50% of the wealth when a rich guy dies - precisely to prevent family conglomerates to dominate.

this is like a nauseating sea saw. till a few decades ago, when we were still in the "socialistic" mood and the hindu growth rate period, there was estate duty and punitive wealth tax rates in force. now we should install them again?

by artood2 Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:23 am

I have no problems with no iheritance tax as long as they prevent loot of public money through nexus.

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:25 am

and those were the days when the paradigm, money begets more money, was alarmingly true. the line between the haves and have-nots was unbreachable. today money does not necessarily beget more money. today ideas (like 3g!) beget money. if you have an idea, money will follow (through ipos, venture capital).

by SomeProfile Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:31 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:just watched the interview. she does not answer a single question! a lot of anti-capitalism and hyperbole in her talk but no answer. and, strangely, she smiles all the time -- as if she is some eastern mystic! how can somone smile all the time? at least the facial expressions betray a lack of conviction. some of her thoughts are silly: for example, she says that the ore (bauxite/iron) will be sold to large corporations. is *that* her problem? we can process the ore and sell the finished good here and sometimes back to the "indigenous" people! will that solve her problem? no. then why harp on it? something is really wrong with her. she does come across as a scary person in the interview (for she gives no answers). and add to that the incident in which she was guilty of owning a resort in "reserved" forests (along with vikram seth). i do not doubt that she genuinely feels for the oppressed but aside from drawing our attention to them, she has little else to offer. and that is quite a waste of her time on a personal level. writing novels would not have been a nobler pursuit but at least she could have searched and found a viable solution during this time to educate us about.

Smiles all the time, but has no real answer? Something really wrong with her? Comes across as a scary person? Genuinely feels, but has little to offer? Are you sure you are not talking about Liar Maria?

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:42 am

LOL. well, they both share on more thing in common: evil gonna bite yo ass lulsss!!111

by Kris Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:54 am

indophile wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13624077

>>>>> You can see the guy is baffled by this strange mix of passion and cliched worn-out ideas.

by Guest Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:00 am

lol, yes he is.

by Kris Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:09 am

This kinda reminds me of the 'Swami/Guru' scene where some guy in saffron robes spouts gibberish and there is a bunch (of western followers) which hangs on to his every word. Except, with Ms. Roy, she is a day late and a dollar short with her "solutions" and with the socialists' bluff having been called, there are no takers. The interviewer could barely keep his disbelief in check.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:15 am

artood2 wrote:I have no problems with no iheritance tax as long as they prevent loot of public money through nexus.

This calls for either strong govt regulations, controls, and enforcement while the rich are alive or strong govt. inheritance laws and enforcement after the rich are dead.

You cannot avoid both and still expect fairness.

by artood2 Fri Jun 03, 2011 2:18 am

Requires a efficient and clean judiciary, transparent governance (technology is there, the will is missing) and a general disdain for dishonesty. Its in Indian culture to admire the fox who fools all and get away with dishonest methods.

by .|Sublime|. Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:26 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
edit. i am travelling from tomorrow and i am looking forward to finishing chankya's chant.

liking it so far?

i am reading a very depressing but compelling trilogy now. hoping to finish it soon to its happy ending (i know it has one).

by .|Sublime|. Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:30 am

artood2 wrote:Requires a efficient and clean judiciary, transparent governance (technology is there, the will is missing) and a general disdain for dishonesty. Its in Indian culture to admire the fox who fools all and get away with dishonest methods.

well said.
you also need sincere and incorruptible enforcement.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:37 am

.|Sublime|. wrote:
you also need sincere and incorruptible enforcement.

Since this is never likely to happen, India needs stricter regulations and inheritance laws. Wait...that wont happen either bcz that also depends on the same corrupt people.

by artood2 Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:12 pm

.|Sublime|. wrote:
artood2 wrote:Requires a efficient and clean judiciary, transparent governance (technology is there, the will is missing) and a general disdain for dishonesty. Its in Indian culture to admire the fox who fools all and get away with dishonest methods.

well said.
you also need sincere and incorruptible enforcement.

If you have a good judiciary any oversight in enforcement can get a redressal. Transparent governance gives you ample data ofr legal persecution. If you have these two you can have better enforcement.

by Impedimenta Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:26 pm

artood2 wrote:
.|Sublime|. wrote:
artood2 wrote:Requires a efficient and clean judiciary, transparent governance (technology is there, the will is missing) and a general disdain for dishonesty. Its in Indian culture to admire the fox who fools all and get away with dishonest methods.

well said.
you also need sincere and incorruptible enforcement.

If you have a good judiciary any oversight in enforcement can get a redressal. Transparent governance gives you ample data ofr legal persecution. If you have these two you can have better enforcement.

that simple huh? wow, you and subbi run for elections back home and get elected and do all this. what? it should be simple given the trend i see in this thread. deala? no deala?

by artood2 Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:31 pm

Whiever said it was simple? The concepts are simple the execution is not. It takes decades for those things to happen.

by charvaka Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:12 pm

artood2 wrote:Trickle down theory works when people spend for consumption not for hoarders like Indians. The money is sitting tight in some back accounts or converted to jewellery. Trickle down works well when there is a bigger spread even at the highest levels of income. If 20% are stinky rich, things will trickle down. If 1% is stinky stinky stinky rich and toheres are not, it would not trickle down.

Edit: Just a clarification, I agree with Md's point on food consumption but my point is more over the quanta of trickle down effect.

I agree with you. You do see some positive effects of trickle down in India's cities now, but there are also many negative effects on the poor. This is where the government comes in. We are spending the money, but not achieving results with that money. Earlier, we didn't even have the money to spend.

by Silhouette Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:45 pm

I listened to her interview and I thought she raises some pertinent issues with respect to india that one doesn't get to hear otherwise, at least not frequently. Many of the issues she raised on the magnitude and enormity of poverty and land rights in india are recorded by world bank, oxfam and even amartya sen (I do wonder if she's a bit dated though).

Every society has figures like Roy. They may exaggerate a bit but they play a crucial role in highlighting marginalized and oft-neglected issues. I think the criticism against her is also a bit exaggerated. She sounds like any other environmentalist - while all of them like to claim the sky is failing however their underlying grievances generally tend to be true.

by charvaka Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:54 pm

Welcome to the new CH, Silhouette!

by artood2 Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:12 am

Silhouette wrote:I listened to her interview and I thought she raises some pertinent issues with respect to india that one doesn't get to hear otherwise, at least not frequently. Many of the issues she raised on the magnitude and enormity of poverty and land rights in india are recorded by world bank, oxfam and even amartya sen (I do wonder if she's a bit dated though).

Every society has figures like Roy. They may exaggerate a bit but they play a crucial role in highlighting marginalized and oft-neglected issues. I think the criticism against her is also a bit exaggerated. She sounds like any other environmentalist - while all of them like to claim the sky is failing however their underlying grievances generally tend to be true.

The exaggeration and the rhetoric does a disservice to the cause. you can cry wolf only as many times.

by charvaka Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:58 am

artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I listened to her interview and I thought she raises some pertinent issues with respect to india that one doesn't get to hear otherwise, at least not frequently. Many of the issues she raised on the magnitude and enormity of poverty and land rights in india are recorded by world bank, oxfam and even amartya sen (I do wonder if she's a bit dated though).

Every society has figures like Roy. They may exaggerate a bit but they play a crucial role in highlighting marginalized and oft-neglected issues. I think the criticism against her is also a bit exaggerated. She sounds like any other environmentalist - while all of them like to claim the sky is failing however their underlying grievances generally tend to be true.

The exaggeration and the rhetoric does a disservice to the cause. you can cry wolf only as many times.

With Roy, one gets the feeling that she values the rhetoric a lot higher than accomplishing any actual change on the ground. She consistently chooses incendiary language and attention-seeking tactics over substance and talking about solutions. So it is hard to take her seriously.

by Silhouette Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:11 am

charvaka wrote:
With Roy, one gets the feeling that she values the rhetoric a lot higher than accomplishing any actual change on the ground. She consistently chooses incendiary language and attention-seeking tactics over substance and talking about solutions. So it is hard to take her seriously.

Well, so far i'm not so affected by Arundhati Roy that I'm unable to separate the issues from the person. At least not yet.

p.s. thanks and nice work, Carvaka.

by artood2 Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:31 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:I listened to her interview and I thought she raises some pertinent issues with respect to india that one doesn't get to hear otherwise, at least not frequently. Many of the issues she raised on the magnitude and enormity of poverty and land rights in india are recorded by world bank, oxfam and even amartya sen (I do wonder if she's a bit dated though).

Every society has figures like Roy. They may exaggerate a bit but they play a crucial role in highlighting marginalized and oft-neglected issues. I think the criticism against her is also a bit exaggerated. She sounds like any other environmentalist - while all of them like to claim the sky is failing however their underlying grievances generally tend to be true.

The exaggeration and the rhetoric does a disservice to the cause. you can cry wolf only as many times.
With Roy, one gets the feeling that she values the rhetoric a lot higher than accomplishing any actual change on the ground. She consistently chooses incendiary language and attention-seeking tactics over substance and talking about solutions. So it is hard to take her seriously.

I agree totally. I have followed her for a while and was disappointed by lack of substance in her talks. After a while I just stopped taking her opinions seriously. Her views on Kashmir, Mumbai attack, Naxals all have been very incendiary and have not been backed up by facts or sound logic.

by Sponsored content