⇱ Index page

The Internationalist Archive

Aruna Roy is co-founder of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (Workers and Farmers Power Association or MKSS) and one of India’s most prominent social activists. She has played a crucial role in the successful struggle for rights-based legislation in India — including the Right to Employment Law (MGNREGA) and the Right to Information (RTI). Nine states passed right-to-information laws in the early 2000s as a result of a broad-based MKSS movement, and the Indian parliament enacted a national right-to-information law in 2005, through which thousands of activists and investigators have been able to hold the Indian government to account. 

Roy is the President of the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), uniting women’s organizations across the country since its foundation in 1954 as the feminist wing of the Communist Party of India. 

This week, Varsha Gandikota-Nellutla, member of the Cabinet of the Progressive International, engages Roy in a conversation about India under Narendra Modi, including the role of education in shaping young people in India, the pre-conditions for a revolution, and the battle of political spectacles.

Varsha: India has had a rich internationalist history. In the year of our independence, the Asia Relations Conference was one of the first events we held, followed by India’s leadership in the non-aligned movement, and of course, India’s support for liberation movements in Palestine and apartheid South Africa. But I would say these are not the conversations that animate public discourse today. We've become far more inward-looking. Do you think the internationalism moment has passed for India? 

Aruna: It's a very important question, but it's also very dense, and needs unpacking. The political and cultural texture of India has changed rapidly; the young literate aspirant bourgeoisie has grown up in a world with a different set of values. They have surrendered to a global technological dream — they believe that by just using and studying technology, or by entering the world of technology, you address aspirations and resolve all troubles. Along with it comes the dream of wealth generated through the application of that technology. I think this is a worldwide phenomenon. But it has also influenced political thinking in India to a great degree, where “progress” and “money” have taken over social and other concerns. It has also brought individual aspirations to the fore, often in the name of competition and excellence. The earlier worldview was strongly embedded in a firm belief and faith in an ideological and ethical frame. The criteria by which you evaluated yourself was the value you generated as a socially conscious citizen. It has changed to: “Are you making enough money? Are you making enough profit? How much do you own, and consume?” And issues of whether you are exploiting the earth and people, are set aside. Success is assessed through fiscal benefits and bank balances. We were apologetic about privilege and wealth; today it’s a badge you wear with brazen pride! 

The exposure in universities included an understanding of global processes. While we were proud to be Indians, being nationalistic did not narrow the confines of our curiosity and interest. We gauged our intelligence by how much we knew of major global history and contemporary politics. Today’s ambitions in universities and institutions of higher learning are defined by marketability. All aspirations get linked to the demand and the “package”. The biggest market is, of course, the USA and it is the final destination of almost all young people. 

Varsha: How did that narrowing of discourse occur? Whether through formal educational institutions or media, where did we on the Left slip up?

Aruna: To some extent, the Left is a victim of the tidal wave of the technology revolution. Somehow technology’s usefulness passed them by. The leadership failed to see the political capital in the use of technology.  There was also perhaps insufficient attention to detail; they failed to see that the young did not follow the older ideological narratives anymore. There was also complacency regarding support from the marginalized. 

Consider textbooks. While we fought for public and government education, we did not look at other political variables. Textbooks carried correct broad political messages, but let slip caste-biased statements and words. Researching textbooks in Rajasthan's schools in the 90s, we, in the MKSS, found objectionable words and positions, particularly affecting gender and caste. So, there was little attention paid to the minutiae of the curricula. 

Besides, teachers’ politics did not enter into the discussion, and neither did its impact on biases and political awareness. No matter what the curricula, a right-wing teachers’ union could and did manipulate historical facts. That is why after dismantling Babri Masjid, in 1992, a Rajasthani teacher could say that Mahatma Gandhi was killed by a Muslim, despite a heated debate where he was proved wrong! He continued to transfer that erroneous belief to his students. We did not sit with students at large, to explore what they had been told so that counter-statements based on facts could be shared. We never looked at the details, and it's in the details that everything went wrong. 

Educational processes require complete attention. Repetition, constancy, routine and discipline were not part of the agenda for many of us. These were the tools whereby right-wing propaganda flourished. It was too late when we got wise to the fact.

The Left parties have lost their rigour. This is the time when there should be a massive cadre of Left volunteers and party members in every community and panchayat in India. Holding special classes, like the Left always did, of logically linking the dismal condition and facts of their lives to the existence of a political system which is unequal and unjust. 

The continuing critique of the Left from the Dalits is that the parties did not address their issue separately, leaving it to be a part of the basic inequality debate. We have not understood the angst of the Dalits and their intra-politics. 

Varsha: I agree with you on education and the broader argument about the battle of ideas. But at what point do just wretched material conditions take over? For instance, it's undeniable that prices of food are going up much more than any real increase in wages. We know that we have an unemployment crisis. Only one in five college graduates in India today gets a job. So, we know that the right is very good at kind of articulating this pain and turning a moment of crisis towards reactionary politics. But one might also argue that these are precisely the kind of preconditions for some sort of revolutionary sentiment. Why do you think we're not seeing that? 

Aruna: We could argue that unemployment, continuing poverty, and the rising prices of vegetables are absolutely some of the issues faced by the ordinary and poor. The fact that they are increasingly caught in huge debts buying things that they can ill afford, should inform of a crisis. It is logical to think so. But the people are buying distorted facts peddled by social media, and everything that fails is the fault of an enemy created for the purpose. All the narratives of historical failure, including the current price of potatoes, lie at the door of the Congress Party or the minorities! This is a part of a larger political design to bring in a centrally controlled “democracy”, a contradiction in terms. 

Public protest is targeted and social activism is heavily restricted and constrained through terror and legal action. A similar crisis a decade ago would have resulted in widespread agitation and protests, linking the dots between the various issues and pointing a finger at the government and saying, “you failed us.” There has been a systematic plan to build narratives, through the restriction of democratic protest and freedom of speech.

Varsha: Let’s talk tactics. Across the world, the rules of the game, so to speak, have been changed to a battle of spectacles now. And obviously, the other side knows how to play the spectacle game well. And we did too, at some point. If you think about direct action in terms of barricading government offices, gheraos (encirclement), burning of effigies, and mass occupy movements — these possibilities are being taken away from us by the curtailment of the public sphere. It would be accurate to say that we’re struggling to build any hegemony over the media landscape now.

Aruna: Spectacles or tamashas, and the advertisement jingle have taken over politics to such an extent that there is no separate idiom for political statement and exchange. There is no real difference in the presentation between a politician and a “popular” cinema star. Now with big money entering politics, spectacles are planned and executed with algorithms, which tell you exactly what will work. Steadily over the years, big money owns all influencers and influence structures. As interest wanes, new “idols” take over. 

Prejudices and preferences are fine-tuned and filled in. There are not one but a hundred stories to incite different groups to hatred and violence. Imagery and references change, from religion to cosmetics! The propaganda is based on untruth, and the dilemma is we cannot manufacture counter-propaganda, as we cannot sacrifice truth and logic for felt truth and lies. Alternatively, we are not willing or able to travel across India and develop a discourse with patience, and hear and answer every question.   

We don't break up our facts into simple language, into simple ideas, that people can comprehend without having to struggle over the syntax. We haven't changed our idiom of speech and language. We say the same things, the same arguments over and over again, in a fairly Sanskritised version of the language, which is in itself discriminatory. We have to understand the culture of communication.

Public protest has to reinvent itself. This is a period of resistance, where new tools have to be developed. We have to look at the systems of governance from a people's point of view and expose misgovernance, corruption and lack of accountability, educate the people, and fashion demands. The inability to communicate with the young is our biggest challenge. We have to understand that the methods have to change. 

Varsha: Would you say you're not popular in what you say?

Aruna: I don't know. The crisis calls for serious self-evaluation and only then can we find real solutions. You have to first acknowledge the gaps, otherwise, how are you going to address the issue and shape movements? How are you going to evolve a charter for action? 

Varsha: Something I often think in terms of what drives us toward action is how there’s tremendous joy and happiness in finding a political community, which anyone that’s been part of a political movement will acknowledge. But being on the Left is frequently painted as quite gray and grim. It’s simply untrue! Most of the work we do is so joyful, in fact, David Graeber talks about this idea of “political happiness” in a somewhat obscure speech, about finding friends and comrades, and trusting them to decide things on your behalf, and that being an incredibly liberating experience. 

Aruna: Yes, the Left has been projected as grim. The self-image as well is that of being “worthy”. Which leaves out the fun, singing, and dancing of a joyful community. The absence of women may account for it. The movements in India have lasted because of the element of fun and song inherent in their strategies. The RTI movement was full of them.

As women, we understand that there is politics in love, in hugging and having fun together. The need for ceremony and ritual, cooking and eating together is important.  For instance, May Day is important to me and the MKSS, because it's the one day in the year we meet to laugh and sing, where we seek out friends. Where we truly hug each other and feel a sense of solidarity and share anecdotes of having created something together. We have to offer people a glimpse of happiness, liberation and joy in the now.

Varsha: A socialist dance party for starters, then?

Aruna: [Laughs] Yes, perhaps, count me in when you do. 

The Internationalist Archive