Home = page > >> = English >=20 Global = > Tide? Or Ivory Snow? Public Power in the Age of = Empire

Address to the 99th annual meeting of the American=20 Sociological Association

Tide? Or Ivory Snow? Public Power in the Age of=20 Empire

Arundhati Roy, Democracy Now!

Monday 24 = September=20 2007, posted by John=20 Malone

All the versions of this article: [English] [Espa=F1ol]

August 16th, 2004 - San Francisco, California.

I=92ve been asked to speak about "Public Power in the Age of Empire." = I=92m not=20 used to doing as I=92m told, but by happy coincidence, it=92s exactly = what I=92d like=20 to speak about tonight.

When language has been butchered and bled of meaning, how do we = understand=20 "public power"? When freedom means occupation, when democracy means = neo-liberal=20 capitalism, when reform means repression, when words like "empowerment" = and=20 "peacekeeping" make your blood run cold - why, then, "public power" = could mean=20 whatever you want it to mean. A biceps building machine, or a Community = Power=20 Shower. So, I=92ll just have to define "public power" as I go along, in = my own=20 self-serving sort of way.

In India, the word public is now a Hindi word. It means people. In = Hindi, we=20 have sarkar and public, the government and the people. Inherent in this = use is=20 the underlying assumption that the government is quite separate from = "the=20 people." This distinction has to do with the fact that India=92s freedom = struggle,=20 though magnificent, was by no means revolutionary. The Indian elite = stepped=20 easily and elegantly into the shoes of the British imperialists. A = deeply=20 impoverished, essentially feudal society became a modern, independent = nation=20 state. Even today, fifty seven years on to the day, the truly vanquished = still=20 look upon the government as mai-baap, the parent and provider. The = somewhat more=20 radical, those who still have fire in their bellies, see it as chor, the = thief,=20 the snatcher-away of all things.

Either way, for most Indians, sarkar is very separate from public. = However,=20 as you make your way up India=92s social ladder, the distinction between = sarkar=20 and public gets blurred. The Indian elite, like the elite anywhere in = the world,=20 finds it hard to separate itself from the state. It sees like the state, = it=20 thinks like the state, it speaks like the state.

In the United States, on the other hand, the blurring of the = distinction=20 between sarkar and public has penetrated far deeper into society. This = could be=20 a sign of a robust democracy, but unfortunately, it=92s a little more = complicated=20 and less pretty than that. Among other things, it has to do with the = elaborate=20 web of paranoia generated by the U.S. sarkar and spun out by the = corporate media=20 and Hollywood. Ordinary Americans have been manipulated into imagining = they are=20 a people under siege whose sole refuge and protector is their = government. If it=20 isn=92t the Communists, it=92s al-Qaeda. If it isn=92t Cuba. it=92s = Nicaragua. As a=20 result, this, the most powerful nation in the world - with its = unmatchable=20 arsenal of weapons, its history of having waged and sponsored endless = wars, and=20 the only nation in history to have actually used nuclear bombs - is = peopled by a=20 terrified citizenry, jumping at shadows. A people bonded to the state = not by=20 social services, or public health care, or employment guarantees, but by = fear.

This synthetically manufactured fear is used to gain public sanction = for=20 further acts of aggression. And so it goes, building into a spiral of=20 self-fulfilling hysteria, now formally calibrated by the U.S = government=92s=20 Amazing Technicolored Terror Alerts: fuchsia, turquoise, salmon = pink.

To outside observers, this merging of sarkar and public in the United = States=20 sometimes makes it hard to separate the actions of the U.S. government = from the=20 American people. It is this confusion that fuels anti-Americanism in the = world.=20 Anti-Americanism is then seized upon and amplified by the U.S. = government and=20 its faithful media outlets. You know the routine: "Why do they hate us? = They=20 hate our freedoms" . . . etc. . . . etc. This enhances the sense of = isolation=20 among American people and makes the embrace between sarkar and public = even more=20 intimate. Like Red Riding Hood looking for a cuddle in the wolf=92s = bed.

Using the threat of an external enemy to rally people behind you is a = tired=20 old horse, which politicians have ridden into power for centuries. But = could it=20 be that ordinary people are fed up of that poor old horse and are = looking for=20 something different? There=92s an old Hindi film song that goes yeh = public hai,=20 yeh sab jaanti hai (the public, she knows it all). Wouldn=92t it be = lovely if the=20 song were right and the politicians wrong?

Before Washington=92s illegal invasion of Iraq, a Gallup = International poll=20 showed that in no European country was the support for a unilateral war = higher=20 than 11 percent. On February 15, 2003, weeks before the invasion, more = than ten=20 million people marched against the war on different continents, = including North=20 America. And yet the governments of many supposedly democratic countries = still=20 went to war.

The question is: is "democracy" still democratic?

Are democratic governments accountable to the people who elected = them? And,=20 critically, is the public in democratic countries responsible for the = actions of=20 its sarkar?

If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terrorism = and the=20 logic that underlies terrorism is exactly the same. Both make ordinary = citizens=20 pay for the actions of their government. Al-Qaeda made the people of the = United=20 States pay with their lives for the actions of their government in = Palestine,=20 Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The U.S government has made the = people of=20 Afghanistan pay in their thousands for the actions of the Taliban and = the people=20 of Iraq pay in their hundreds of thousands for the actions of Saddam=20 Hussein.

The crucial difference is that nobody really elected al-Qaeda, the = Taliban,=20 or Saddam Hussein. But the president of the United States was elected = (well ...=20 in a manner of speaking).

The prime ministers of Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom were = elected.=20 Could it then be argued that citizens of these countries are more = responsible=20 for the actions of their government than Iraqis are for the actions of = Saddam=20 Hussein or Afghans for the Taliban?

Whose God decides which is a "just war" and which isn=92t? George = Bush senior=20 once said: "I will never apologize for the United States. I don=92t care = what the=20 facts are." When the president of the most powerful country in the world = doesn=92t=20 need to care what the facts are, then we can at least be sure we have = entered=20 the Age of Empire.

So what does public power mean in the Age of Empire? Does it mean = anything at=20 all? Does it actually exist?

In these allegedly democratic times, conventional political thought = holds=20 that public power is exercised through the ballot. Scores of countries = in the=20 world will go to the polls this year. Most (not all) of them will get = the=20 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=20 as we celebrated, we knew that on nuclear bombs, neo-liberalism, = privatization,=20 censorship, big dams - on every major issue other than overt Hindu = nationalism -=20 the Congress and the BJP have no major ideological differences. We know = that it=20 is the fifty-year legacy of the Congress Party that prepared the ground=20 culturally and politically for the far right. It was also the Congress = Party=20 that first opened India=92s markets to corporate globalization.

In its election campaign, the Congress Party indicated that it was = prepared=20 to rethink some of its earlier economic policies. Millions of India=92s = poorest=20 people came out in strength to vote in the elections. The spectacle of = the great=20 Indian democracy was telecast live - the poor farmers, the old and = infirm, the=20 veiled women with their beautiful silver jewelry, making quaint journeys = to=20 election booths on elephants and camels and bullock carts. Contrary to = the=20 predictions of all India=92s experts and pollsters, Congress won more = votes than=20 any other party. India=92s communist parties won the largest share of = the vote in=20 their history. India=92s poor had clearly voted against = neo-liberalism=92s economic=20 "reforms" and growing fascism. As soon as the votes were counted, the = corporate=20 media dispatched them like badly paid extras on a film set. Television = channels=20 featured split screens. Half the screen showed the chaos outside the = home of=20 Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, as the coalition = government was=20 cobbled together.

The other half showed frenzied stockbrokers outside the Bombay Stock=20 Exchange, panicking at the thought that the Congress Party might = actually honor=20 its promises and implement its electoral mandate. We saw the Sensex = stock index=20 move up and down and sideways. The media, whose own publicly listed = stocks were=20 plummeting, reported the stock market crash as though Pakistan had = launched=20 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=20 privatization of public utilities would continue. Meanwhile the BJP, now = in=20 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=92ve provided the votes, they are = expected to=20 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=92s true that if John Kerry becomes president, some of the oil = tycoons and=20 Christian fundamentalists in the White House will change. Few will be = sorry to=20 see the back of Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft and = their=20 blatant thuggery. But the real concern is that in the new administration = their=20 policies will continue. That we will have Bushism without Bush.

Those positions of real power - the bankers, the CEOs - are not = vulnerable to=20 the vote (. . . and in any case, they fund both sides).

Unfortunately the importance of the U.S elections has deteriorated = into a=20 sort of personality contest. A squabble over who would do a better job = of=20 overseeing empire. John Kerry believes in the idea of empire as = fervently as=20 George Bush does.

The U.S. political system has been carefully crafted to ensure that = no one=20 who questions the natural goodness of the military-industrial-corporate = power=20 structure will be allowed through the portals of power.

Given this, it=92s no surprise that in this election you have two = Yale=20 University graduates, both members of Skull and Bones, the same secret = society,=20 both millionaires, both playing at soldier-soldier, both talking up war, = and=20 arguing almost childishly about who will lead the war on terror more=20 effectively.

Like President Bill Clinton before him, Kerry will continue the = expansion of=20 U.S. economic and military penetration into the world. He says he would = have=20 voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq even if he had known that = Iraq had=20 no weapons of mass destruction. He promises to commit more troops to = Iraq. He=20 said recently that he supports Bush=92s policies toward Israel and Ariel = Sharon=20 100 percent. He says he=92ll retain 98% of Bush=92s tax cuts.

So, underneath the shrill exchange of insults, there is almost = absolute=20 consensus. It looks as though even if Americans vote for Kerry, = they=92ll still=20 get Bush. President John Kerbush or President George Berry.

It=92s not a real choice. It=92s an apparent choice. Like choosing a = brand of=20 detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they=92re both owned by = Proctor=20 & Gamble.

This doesn=92t mean that one takes a position that is without nuance, = that the=20 Congress and the BJP, New Labor and the Tories, the Democrats and = Republicans=20 are the same. Of course, they=92re not. Neither are Tide and Ivory Snow. = Tide has=20 oxy-boosting and Ivory Snow is a gentle cleanser.

In India, there is a difference between an overtly fascist party (the = BJP)=20 and a party that slyly pits one community against another (Congress), = and sows=20 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=20 year=92s U.S. presidential candidates. The anti-war movement in the = United States=20 has done a phenomenal job of exposing the lies and venality that led to = the=20 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,=20 if the anti-war movement openly campaigns for Kerry, the rest of the = world will=20 think that it approves of his policies of "sensitive" imperialism. Is = U.S.=20 imperialism preferable if it is supported by the United Nations and = European=20 countries? Is it preferable if UN asks Indian and Pakistani soldiers to = do the=20 killing and dying in Iraq instead of U.S. soldiers? Is the only change = that=20 Iraqis can hope for that French, German, and Russian companies will = share in the=20 spoils of the occupation of their country?

Is this actually better or worse for those of us who live in subject = nations?=20 Is it better for the world to have a smarter emperor in power or a = stupider one?=20 Is that our only choice?

I=92m sorry, I know that these are uncomfortable, even brutal = questions, but=20 they must be asked.

The fact is that electoral democracy has become a process of cynical=20 manipulation. It offers us a very reduced political space today. To = believe that=20 this space constitutes real choice would be na=EFve.

The crisis in modern democracy is a profound one.

On the global stage, beyond the jurisdiction of sovereign = governments,=20 international instruments of trade and finance oversee a complex system = of=20 multilateral laws and agreements that have entrenched a system of = appropriation=20 that puts colonialism to shame. This system allows the unrestricted = entry and=20 exit of massive amounts of speculative capital - hot money - into and = out of=20 third world countries, which then effectively dictates their economic = policy.=20 Using the threat of capital flight as a lever, international capital = insinuates=20 itself deeper and deeper into these economies. Giant transnational = corporations=20 are taking control of their essential infrastructure and natural = resources,=20 their minerals, their water, their electricity. The World Trade = Organization,=20 the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other financial=20 institutions like the Asian Development Bank, virtually write economic = policy=20 and parliamentary legislation. With a deadly combination of arrogance = and=20 ruthlessness, they take their sledgehammers to fragile, interdependent,=20 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,=20 thousands of small enterprises and industries have closed down, millions = of=20 workers and farmers have lost their jobs and land.

The Spectator newspaper in London assures us that "[w]e live = in the=20 happiest, healthiest and most peaceful era in human history." Billions = wonder:=20 who=92s "we"? Where does he live? What=92s his Christian name?

The thing to understand is that modern democracy is safely premised = on an=20 almost religious acceptance of the nation state. But corporate = globalization is=20 not. Liquid capital is not. So, even though capital needs the coercive = powers of=20 the nation state to put down revolts in the servants=92 quarters, this = set up=20 ensures that no individual nation can oppose corporate globalization on = its=20 own.

Radical change cannot and will not be negotiated by governments; it = can only=20 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=92s not=20 presumptuous to assume that the only thing that is worth discussing = seriously is=20 the power of a dissenting public. A public which disagrees with the very = concept=20 of empire. A public which has set itself against incumbent power -=20 international, national, regional, or provincial governments and = institutions=20 that support and service empire.

What are the avenues of protest available to people who wish to = resist=20 empire? By resist I don=92t mean only to express dissent, but to = effectively force=20 change. Empire has a range of calling cards. It uses different weapons = to break=20 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=20 of cruise missiles and tanks, as it has in Iraq or Afghanistan or = Vietnam. It=20 appears in their lives in very local avatars - losing their jobs, being = sent=20 unpayable electricity bills, having their water supply cut, being = evicted from=20 their homes and uprooted from their land. All this overseen by the = repressive=20 machinery of the state, the police, the army, the judiciary. It is a = process of=20 relentless impoverishment with which the poor are historically familiar. = What=20 Empire does is to further entrench and exacerbate already existing=20 inequalities.

Even until quite recently, it was sometimes difficult for people to = see=20 themselves as victims of the conquests of Empire. But now local = struggles have=20 begun to see their role with increasing clarity. However grand it might = sound,=20 the fact is, they are confronting Empire in their own, very different = ways.=20 Differently in Iraq, in South Africa, in India, in Argentina, and = differently,=20 for that matter, on the streets of Europe and the United States.

Mass resistance movements, individual activists, journalists, = artists, and=20 film makers have come together to strip Empire of its sheen. They have = connected=20 the dots, turned cash-flow charts and boardroom speeches into real = stories about=20 real people and real despair. They have shown how the neo-liberal = project has=20 cost people their homes, their land, their jobs, their liberty, their = dignity.=20 They have made the intangible tangible. The once seemingly incorporeal = enemy is=20 now corporeal.

This is a huge victory. It was forged by the coming together of = disparate=20 political groups, with a variety of strategies. But they all recognized = that the=20 target of their anger, their activism, and their doggedness is the same. = This=20 was the beginning of real globalization. The globalization of = dissent.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of mass resistance movements in = third=20 world countries today. The landless peoples=92 movement in Brazil, the = anti-dam=20 movement in India, the Zapatistas in Mexico, the Anti-Privatization = Forum in=20 South Africa, and hundreds of others, are fighting their own sovereign=20 governments, which have become agents of the neo-liberal project. Most = of these=20 are radical struggles, fighting to change the structure and chosen model = of=20 "development" of their own societies.

Then there are those fighting formal and brutal neocolonial = occupations in=20 contested territories whose boundaries and fault lines were often = arbitrarily=20 drawn last century by the imperialist powers. In Palestine, Tibet, = Chechnya,=20 Kashmir, and several states in India=92s northeast provinces, people are = waging=20 struggles for self-determination.

Several of these struggles might have been radical, even = revolutionary when=20 they began, but often the brutality of the repression they face pushes = them into=20 conservative, even retrogressive spaces in which they use the same = violent=20 strategies and the same language of religious and cultural nationalism = used by=20 the states they seek to replace.

Many of the foot soldiers in these struggles will find, like those = who fought=20 apartheid in South Africa, that once they overcome overt occupation, = they will=20 be left with another battle on their hands - a battle against covert = economic=20 colonialism.

Meanwhile, as the rift between rich and poor is being driven deeper = and the=20 battle to control the world=92s resources intensifies. Economic = colonialism=20 through formal military aggression is staging a comeback.

Iraq today is a tragic illustration of this process. An illegal = invasion. A=20 brutal occupation in the name of liberation. The rewriting of laws that = allow=20 the shameless appropriation of the country=92s wealth and resources by=20 corporations allied to the occupation, and now the charade of a local = "Iraqi=20 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=20 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=20 Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle.

Like most resistance movements, it combines a motley range of = assorted=20 factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up = collaborationists,=20 communists, etc. Of course, it is riddled with opportunism, local = rivalry,=20 demagoguery, and criminality. But if we are only going to support = pristine=20 movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity.

This is not to say that we shouldn=92t ever criticize resistance = movements.=20 Many of them suffer from a lack of democracy, from the iconization of = their=20 "leaders," a lack of transparency, a lack of vision and direction. But = most of=20 all they suffer from vilification, repression, and lack of = resources.

Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct = their=20 secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our = end of=20 the resistance by forcing the U.S. and its allies government to withdraw = from=20 Iraq.

The first militant confrontation in the United States between the = global=20 justice movement and the neo-liberal junta took place famously at the = WTO=20 conference in Seattle in December 1999. To many mass movements in = developing=20 countries that had long been fighting lonely, isolated battles, Seattle = was the=20 first delightful sign that their anger and their vision of another kind = of world=20 was shared by people in the imperialist countries.

In January 2001, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 20,000 activists, students, = film=20 makers - some of the best minds in the world - came together to share = their=20 experiences and exchange ideas about confronting Empire. That was the = birth of=20 the now historic World Social Forum. It was the first, formal coming = together of=20 an exciting, anarchic, unindoctrinated, energetic, new kind of "Public = Power."=20 The rallying cry of the WSF is "Another World is Possible." It has = become a=20 platform where hundreds of conversations, debates, and seminars have = helped to=20 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=20 200,000 delegates. I have never been part of a more electrifying = gathering. It=20 was a sign of the social forum=92s success that the mainstream media in = India=20 ignored it completely. But now, the WSF is threatened by its own = success. The=20 safe, open, festive atmosphere of the forum has allowed politicians and=20 nongovernmental organizations that are imbricated in the political and = economic=20 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=20 movement for global justice, runs the risk of becoming an end unto = itself. Just=20 organizing it every year consumes the energies of some of the best = activists. If=20 conversations about resistance replace real civil disobedience, then the = WSF=20 could become an asset to those whom it was created to oppose. The forum = must be=20 held and must grow, but we have to find ways to channel our = conversations there=20 back into concrete action.

As resistance movements have begun to reach out across national = borders and=20 pose a real threat, governments have developed their own strategies of = how to=20 deal with them. They range from cooptation to repression.

I=92m going to speak about three of the contemporary dangers that = confront=20 resistance movements: the difficult meeting point between mass movements = and the=20 mass media, the hazards of the NGO-ization of resistance, and the = confrontation=20 between resistance movements and increasingly repressive states.

The place in which the mass media meets mass movements is a = complicated=20 one.

Governments have learned that a crisis-driven media cannot afford to = hang=20 about in the same place for too long. Like business houses need a cash = turnover,=20 the media need crises turnover. Whole countries become old news. They = cease to=20 exist, and the darkness becomes deeper than before the light was briefly = shone=20 on them. We saw it happen in Afghanistan when the Soviets withdrew. And = now,=20 after Operation Enduring Freedom put the CIA=92s Hamid Karzai in place,=20 Afghanistan has been thrown to its warlords once more.

Another CIA operative, Iyad Allawi, has been installed in Iraq, so = perhaps=20 it=92s time for the media to move on from there, too.

While governments hone the art of waiting out crisis, resistance = movements=20 are increasingly being ensnared in a vortex of crisis production, = seeking to=20 find ways of manufacturing them in easily consumable, spectator-friendly = formats.

Every self-respecting peoples=92 movement, every "issue" is expected = to have=20 its own hot air balloon in the sky advertising its brand and = purpose.

For this reason, starvation deaths are more effective advertisements = for=20 impoverishment than millions of malnourished people, who don=92t quite = make the=20 cut. Dams are not newsworthy until the devastation they wreak makes good = television. (And by then, it=92s too late).

Standing in the rising water of a reservoir for days on end, watching = your=20 home and belongings float away to protest against a big dam used to be = an=20 effective strategy, but isn=92t any more. The media is dead bored of = that one. So=20 the hundreds of thousands of people being displaced by dams are expected = to=20 either conjure new tricks or give up the struggle.

Colorful demonstrations and weekend marches are vital but alone are = not=20 powerful enough to stop wars. Wars will be stopped only when soldiers = refuse to=20 fight, when workers refuse to load weapons onto ships and aircrafts, = when people=20 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=20 liberate ourselves from the tyranny of crisis reportage and its fear of = the=20 mundane. We have to use our experience, our imagination, and our art to=20 interrogate the instruments of that state that ensure that "normality" = remains=20 what it is: cruel, unjust, unacceptable. We have to expose the policies = and=20 processes that make ordinary things - food, water, shelter and dignity - = such a=20 distant dream for ordinary people. Real pre-emptive strike is to = understand that=20 wars are the end result of flawed and unjust peace.

As far as mass resistance movements are concerned, the fact is that = no amount=20 of media coverage can make up for mass strength on the ground. There is = no=20 option, really, to old-fashioned, back-breaking political = mobilization.

Corporate globalization has increased the distance between those who = make=20 decisions and those who have to suffer the effects of those decisions. = Forums=20 like the WSF enable local resistance movements to reduce that distance = and to=20 link up with their counterparts in rich countries. That alliance is an = important=20 and formidable one. For example, when India=92s first private dam, the = Maheshwar=20 Dam, was being built, alliances between the Narmada Bachao Andolan (the = NBA),=20 the German organization Urgewald, the Berne Declaration in Switzerland, = and the=20 International Rivers Network in Berkeley worked together to push a = series of=20 international banks and corporations out of the project. This would not = have=20 been possible had there not been a rock solid resistance movement on the = ground.=20 The voice of that local movement was amplified by supporters on the = global=20 stage, embarrassing and forcing investors to withdraw.

An infinite number of similar alliances, targeting specific projects = and=20 specific corporations would help to make another world possible. We = should begin=20 with the corporations who did business with Saddam Hussein and now = profit from=20 the devastation and occupation of Iraq.

A second hazard facing mass movements is the NGO-ization of = resistance. It=20 will be easy to twist what I=92m about to say into an indictment of all = NGOs. That=20 would be a falsehood. In the murky waters of fake NGOs set up or to = siphon off=20 grant money or as tax dodges (in states like Bihar, they are given as = dowry), of=20 course there are NGOs doing valuable work. But it=92s important to = consider the=20 NGO phenomenon in a broader political context.

In India, for instance, the funded NGO boom began in the late 1980s = and=20 1990s. It coincided with the opening of India=92s markets to = neo-liberalism. At=20 the time, the Indian state, in keeping with the requirements of = structural=20 adjustment, was withdrawing funding from rural development, agriculture, = energy,=20 transport, and public health. As the state abdicated its traditional = role, NGOs=20 moved in to work in these very areas. The difference, of course, is that = the=20 funds available to them are a minuscule fraction of the actual cut in = public=20 spending. Most large funded NGOs are financed and patronized by aid and=20 development agencies, which are in turn funded by Western governments, = the World=20 Bank, the UN, and some multinational corporations. Though they may not = be the=20 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=20 missionary zeal? Guilt? It=92s a little more than that. NGOs give the = impression=20 that they are filling the vacuum created by a retreating state. And they = are,=20 but in a materially inconsequential way. Their real contribution is that = they=20 defuse political anger and dole out as aid or benevolence what people = ought to=20 have by right.

They alter the public psyche. They turn people into dependent victims = and=20 blunt the edges of political resistance. NGOs form a sort of buffer = between the=20 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=20 they work among. They=92re what botanists would call an indicator = species. It=92s=20 almost as though the greater the devastation caused by neo-liberalism, = the=20 greater the outbreak of NGOs. Nothing illustrates this more poignantly = than the=20 phenomenon of the U.S. preparing to invade a country and simultaneously = readying=20 NGOs to go in and clean up the devastation.

In order make sure their funding is not jeopardized and that the = governments=20 of the countries they work in will allow them to function, NGOs have to = present=20 their work in a shallow framework more or less shorn of a political or=20 historical context. At any rate, an inconvenient historical or political = context.

Apolitical (and therefore, actually, extremely political) distress = reports=20 from poor countries and war zones eventually make the (dark) people of = those=20 (dark) countries seem like pathological victims. Another malnourished = Indian,=20 another starving Ethiopian, another Afghan refugee camp, another maimed = Sudanese=20 . . . in need of the white man=92s help. They unwittingly reinforce = racist=20 stereotypes and re-affirm the achievements, the comforts, and the = compassion=20 (the tough love) of Western civilization. They=92re the secular = missionaries of=20 the modern world.

Eventually - on a smaller scale but more insidiously - the capital = available=20 to NGOs plays the same role in alternative politics as the speculative = capital=20 that flows in and out of the economies of poor countries. It begins to = dictate=20 the agenda. It turns confrontation into negotiation. It depoliticizes=20 resistance. It interferes with local peoples=92 movements that have = traditionally=20 been self-reliant. NGOs have funds that can employ local people who = might=20 otherwise be activists in resistance movements, but now can feel they = are doing=20 some immediate, creative good (and earning a living while they=92re at = it). Real=20 political resistance offers no such short cuts.

The NGO-ization of politics threatens to turn resistance into a=20 well-mannered, reasonable, salaried, 9-to-5 job. With a few perks thrown = in.=20 Real resistance has real consequences. And no salary.

This brings us to a third danger I want to speak about tonight: the = deadly=20 nature of the actual confrontation between resistance movements and = increasingly=20 repressive states. Between public power and the agents of Empire.

Whenever civil resistance has shown the slightest signs of evolving = from=20 symbolic action into anything remotely threatening, the crack down is = merciless.=20 We=92ve seen what happened in the demonstrations in Seattle, in Miami, = in=20 G=F6thenberg, in Genoa.

In the United States, you have the USA PATRIOT Act, which has become = a=20 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=20 still smelling sweet. The government of India, an old hand at the game, = lights=20 the path.

Over the years the Indian government has passed a plethora of laws = that allow=20 it to call almost anyone a terrorist, an insurgent, a militant. We have = the=20 Armed Forces Special Powers Act, the Public Security Act, the Special = Areas=20 Security Act, the Gangster Act, the Terrorist and Disruptive Areas Act = (which=20 has formally lapsed but under which people are still facing trial), and, = most=20 recently, POTA (the Prevention of Terrorism Act), the broad-spectrum = antibiotic=20 for the disease of dissent.

There are other steps that are being taken, such as court judgments = that in=20 effect curtail free speech, the right of government workers to go on = strike, the=20 right to life and livelihood. Courts have begun to micro-manage our = lives in=20 India. And criticizing the courts is a criminal offense.

But coming back to the counter-terrorism initiatives, over the last = decade,=20 the number of people who have been killed by the police and security = forces runs=20 into the tens of thousands. In the state of Andhra Pradesh (the pin-up = girl of=20 corporate globalization in India), an average of about 200 "extremists" = are=20 killed in what are called "encounters" every year. The Bombay police = boast of=20 how many "gangsters" they have killed in "shoot outs." In Kashmir, in a=20 situation that almost amounts to war, an estimated 80,000 people have = been=20 killed since 1989. Thousands have simply "disappeared." In the = northeastern=20 provinces, the situation is similar.

In recent years, the Indian police have opened fire on unarmed = people, mostly=20 Dalit and Adivasi. Their preferred method is to kill them and then call = them=20 terrorists. India is not alone, though. We have seen similar thing = happen in=20 countries such Bolivia, Chile, and South Africa. In the era of = neo-liberalism,=20 poverty is a crime and protesting against it is more and more being = defined as=20 terrorism.

In India, POTA (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) is often called the=20 Production of Terrorism Act. It=92s a versatile, hold-all law that could = apply to=20 anyone from an al-Qaeda operative to a disgruntled bus conductor. As = with all=20 anti-terrorism laws, the genius of POTA is that it can be whatever the=20 government wants. After the 2002 state-assisted pogrom in Gujarat, in = which an=20 estimated 2,000 Muslims were savagely killed by Hindu mobs and 150,000 = driven=20 from their homes, 287 people have been accused under POTA. Of these, 286 = are=20 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=20 Asia Human Rights Documentation Center reports that India has the = highest number=20 of torture and custodial deaths in the world. Government records show = that there=20 were 1,307 deaths in judicial custody in 2002 alone.

A few months ago, I was a member of a peoples=92 tribunal on POTA. = Over a=20 period of two days, we listened to harrowing testimonies of what is = happening in=20 our wonderful democracy. It=92s everything - from people being forced to = drink=20 urine, to being stripped, humiliated, given electric shocks, burned with = cigarette butts, having iron rods put up their anuses, to being beaten = and=20 kicked to death.

The new government has promised to repeal POTA. I=92d be surprised if = that=20 happens before similar legislation under a different name is put in = place. If=20 its not POTA it=92ll be MOTA or something.

When every avenue of non-violent dissent is closed down, and everyone = who=20 protests against the violation of their human rights is called a = terrorist,=20 should we really be surprised if vast parts of the country are overrun = by those=20 who believe in armed struggle and are more or less beyond the control of = the=20 state: in Kashmir, the north eastern provinces, large parts of Madhya = Pradesh,=20 Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh. Ordinary people in these = regions are=20 trapped between the violence of the militants and the state.

In Kashmir, the Indian army estimates that 3,000 to 4,000 militants = are=20 operating at any given time. To control them, the Indian government = deploys=20 about 500,000 soldiers. Clearly, it isn=92t just the militants the army = seeks to=20 control, but a whole population of humiliated, unhappy people who see = the Indian=20 army as an occupation force.

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act allows not just officers, but = even junior=20 commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers of the army, to use = force=20 and even kill any person on suspicion of disturbing public order. It was = first=20 imposed on a few districts in the state of Manipur in 1958. Today, it = applies to=20 virtually all of the north east and Kashmir. The documentation of = instances of=20 torture, disappearances, custodial deaths, rape, and summary execution = by=20 security forces is enough to turn your stomach.

In Andhra Pradesh, in India=92s heartland, the militant = Marxist-Leninist=20 Peoples=92 War Group - which for years has been engaged in a violent = armed=20 struggle and has been the principal target of many of the Andhra = police=92s fake=20 "encounters" - held its first public meeting in years on July 28, 2004, = in the=20 town of Warangal.

It was attended by about hundreds of thousands of people. Under POTA, = all of=20 them are considered terrorists. Are they all going to be detained in = some Indian=20 equivalent of Guant=E1namo Bay?

The whole of the north east and the Kashmir valley is in ferment. = What will=20 the government do with these millions of people?

There is no discussion taking place in the world today that is more = crucial=20 than the debate about strategies of resistance. And the choice of = strategy is=20 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,=20 with such overwhelming military force, can the resistance be expected to = be a=20 conventional military one? (Of course, even if it were conventional, it = would=20 still be called terrorist.) In a strange sense, the U.S. government=92s = arsenal of=20 weapons and unrivalled air and fire power makes terrorism an = all-but-inescapable=20 response. What people lack in wealth and power, they will make up with = stealth=20 and strategy.

In this restive, despairing time, if governments do not do all they = can to=20 honor nonviolent resistance, then by default they privilege those who = turn to=20 violence. No government=92s condemnation of terrorism is credible if it = cannot=20 show itself to be open to change by nonviolent dissent.

But instead nonviolent resistance movements are being crushed. Any = kind of=20 mass political mobilization or organization is being bought off, or = broken, or=20 simply ignored.

Meanwhile, governments and the corporate media, and let=92s not = forget the film=20 industry, lavish their time, attention, technology, research, and = admiration on=20 war and terrorism. Violence has been deified.

The message this sends is disturbing and dangerous: If you seek to = air a=20 public grievance, violence is more effective than nonviolence.

As the rift between the rich and poor grows, as the need to = appropriate and=20 control the world=92s resources to feed the great capitalist machine = becomes more=20 urgent, the unrest will only escalate.

For those of us who are on the wrong side of Empire, the humiliation = is=20 becoming unbearable.

Each of the Iraqi children killed by the United States was our child. = Each of=20 the prisoners tortured in Abu Ghraib was our comrade. Each of their = screams was=20 ours. When they were humiliated, we were humiliated. The U.S. soldiers = fighting=20 in Iraq - mostly volunteers in a poverty draft from small towns and poor = urban=20 neighborhoods - are victims just as much as the Iraqis of the same = horrendous=20 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,=20 the judges and generals look down on us from on high and shake their = heads=20 sternly. "There=92s no Alternative," they say. And let slip the dogs of = war.

Then, from the ruins of Afghanistan, from the rubble of Iraq and = Chechnya,=20 from the streets of occupied Palestine and the mountains of Kashmir, = from the=20 hills and plains of Colombia and the forests of Andhra Pradesh and Assam = comes=20 the chilling reply: "There=92s no alternative but terrorism." Terrorism. = Armed=20 struggle. Insurgency. Call it what you want.

Terrorism is vicious, ugly, and dehumanizing for its perpetrators, as = well as=20 its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the = privatization of=20 war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who = don=92t believe=20 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=92s called = justice.

It=92s time to recognize that no amount of nuclear weapons or = full-spectrum=20 dominance or daisy cutters or spurious governing councils and loya = jirgas can=20 buy peace at the cost of justice.

The urge for hegemony and preponderance by some will be matched with = greater=20 intensity by the longing for dignity and justice by others.

Exactly what form that battle takes, whether its beautiful or = bloodthirsty,=20 depends on us.

Transcript of full speech by Arundhati Roy in San Francisco, = California on=20 August 16th, 2004.

http://www.democracynow.org/static/Arundhati_Trans.shtml.

The opinions = expressed herein=20 in the articles and comments are those of their authors and do not = necessarily=20 reflect those of AlterInfos. Insulting or injurious comments will be = deleted=20 without previous notice.

1 Message

Tide? Or Ivory Snow? Public Power in the Age of=20 Empire 24 September 2007 07:39, posted by = Prof=20 T B Vijayakumar Kerala India

This piece is wonderful, truthful and exciting.
Kindly accept = my=20 congratulations. Madam Arubdati roy How are you?
I am an old = humble=20 admiror from Kerala.
Prof T B Vijayakumar
Thrissur
Kerala=20
India
Email: vapn2005@yahoo.co.in

Reply to this = message

Reply to this = article

=20 Print
= Share

In the = same=20 section

Keywords

N=FAmeros ISSN : 1955-2556 (AlterInfos) - 1955-253X = (Dial)=20

About = us |=20

=20 | Sign In | Site Map |=20 RSS 2.0

Tide? Or Ivory Snow? Public Power in the Age of=20 Empire

1 Message

Sections

In the = same=20 section

Keywords