Paper by Bibin Sam & Danish S. Georshia,
Published in Vol.III, Issue.XXXIV, November 2017
Abstract
Arundhati Roy is a Booker prize winner, who explores her linguistic competence and pliancy in the English language in all her writings. Her urge to communicate is seen in the way she uses language to express herself. Arundhati Roy is like a nightingale that does not forget its roots, even though it flies far across the barriers of this world. English is not the first language of Roy, but the fact that non – native speakers can also handle the language effectively is seen in her works. Roy writes in a simple language that is easily understood by people across the globe. Roy has a clear-cut style of her own. Devices like satire and irony that she uses in her prose work help to convey her message effectively. Poetic language and embellishing idiom make her essays highly readable. Roy has successfully handled language to suit the theme of her writing, and the readers get a distinctive voice and vision.
Arundathi Roy is a Booker prize winner, who explores her linguistic competence and pliancy in the English language in all her writings. Her urge to communicate is seen in the way she uses language to express herself. Arundathi Roy is like a nightingale that does not forget its roots, even though it flies far across the barriers of this world. English is not the first language of Roy, but the fact that non – native speakers can also handle the language effectively is seen in her works. According to Indira Nityanandan “Arundathi Roy writes in a style truly different from that of other Indo – English novelists – both male and female of the country. She writes differently to a great extent and in doing she breaks many of accepted rules of language” (qtd. in Rajimwale 209).
In her essay “The Algebra of Infinite Justice”, Roy attacks America’s war against Afghanistan in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. She presents this essay with real historical facts that give us a picture of what exactly took place in Afghanistan. Even at the beginning, Roy finds that America is at war against people it doesn’t know. There are no proper evidence or reasons behind this fight against terrorism. Roy points out that, on 20th September the FBI said it has doubts about the identities of the hijackers. But President Bush is not ready to compromise with these words from FBI. Bush says, “We know exactly who the terrorists were and which governments were supporting them” (220).
Roy writes in a simple language that is easily understood by people across the globe. She condemns American government’s policies and activities that are truly selfish and points out the exaggerated media coverage through which they try to win the world’s attention and sympathy. She boldly presents the fact that the hijackers in those planes that hit the WTC are not glory boys. They left no suicide notes or political messages, in order to claim any credit for their attacks. The inner hatred which burns deep down against America is revealed through these attacks.
In this essay too, Roy breaks the “conventional rules of grammar and syntax” (Kumar 89). She makes use of short, crisp sentences to convey the disaster that is to happen. She declares, “But war is looming large. Whatever remains to be said, must be said quickly” (224). The name America has chosen for this war against terrorism is “Operation Infinite Justice” (224). After strong objections from the Muslim side, the infinite justice gets a new name “Operation Enduring Freedom” (224). In Roy’s works, “the commanding poetic mode finds full rhythm through the resonance of words” (Kumar 89). This is seen in her way of expressing what infinite justice looks like. Roy says, “Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death, while they’re waiting to be killed” (227).
This essay also has many questions left without answers, as it is in the hands of people to decide what is wrong and what is right. She just presents some real evidence, necessary to solve deep mysteries of the past and present. For example, questions like: “Infinite justice/Enduring freedom for whom? Is this America’s war against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here?” (224). These questions put forth by Roy, are tough choices for anyone around this world. The reasons must be attributed only with regard to the other side too. If this is America’s fight for freedom from terrorism then, “how many dead Iraqi’s will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead children for every dead man?” (225). Roy leaves it for the reader to decide. The reader-response way of writing in Roy is explicitly shown in this essay.
Osama Bin Laden is the man held responsible by President Bush for the September 11 attacks. As the Taliban government is sheltering Osama Bin Laden, America wants to wage a war against them to find out where he is. Now Roy gives a description of Afghanistan and how difficult it is to enter a country that is in rubbles. These are real historical facts that she portrays. In Afghanistan, there is, “no conventional co-ordinates or signposts to plot on a map- no military bases, no industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned into mass graves. The countryside is littered with land mines- ten million is the most recent estimate” (226).
Against a country that is in such a state, America’s CIA joins hands with Pakistan’s ISI in order to carry out this tough task. Over the years, the CIA has been funding the ISI to gather a large number of soldiers from forty Muslim countries for America’s proxy war. But as the need for money increases, they get the help of these mujahideen to plant opium as “revolutionary tax” (228). This shows the extent of destruction done to Pakistan and Afghanistan by the CIA. The figures point out how “Pakistan – Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of heroin in the world and the single biggest source on American streets. The annual profits said to be between $ 100 and $ 200 billion were ploughed back into training and arming militants” (228). All these small, but important details are enough to show a true picture of America and the cruelty it has meted out to innocent people.
In this essay, Roy deviates from the conventional narrative style and invents in its place a new kind of montage technique. This particular technique uses segments of scenes and events from diverse time – frames and pastes them in one place. At first, Roy provides an insight into the present, as what took place on September 11, 2001. Then she takes the reader back to the past history of Afghanistan and the war with the Soviet Union that brought it down to mere rubbles. There are time shifts and break ups when she mentions about the coalition between Pakistan’s ISI and America’s CIA. Here she brings the true ally of Afghanistan and the support given to them by America.
The essay also makes use of various memories that break the barriers in a way, and make the past merge with the present: “Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead . . . And now Afghanistan is poised to be the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won this war for America” (229).
Usage of figurative phrases is another striking quality of Roy. She is concerned with the effect it can produce on the readers. Powerful phrases like, “littered with land mines” (226), “bloodied by ten years” (228), “ploughed back in to training” (228), “monstrous calling card” (234), “sown like dragon’s teeth”(230), gives the necessary artistic impact to the essay. These are sharp and spicy words that invoke the attention of the people, towards America and its heavy, cruel attacks on others. This is a stylish weapon handled by Roy, in a picturesque manner, to present the realities behind America’s “war on terrorism”.
Roy’s thoughts “look vivid, colourful but sometimes startling” (Patil 60). Her views about India and their attitude to America, is something strange and shocking to others. According to Roy, India “has so far been fortunate enough to be left out of this Great Game. Had it been drawn in, it’s more than likely that our democracy, such as it is, would not have survived. Today, as some of us watch in horror, the Indian government is furiously gyrating its hips, begging the US to set up its base in India rather than Pakistan” (231).
Some of Roy’s “heartfelt expressions and sayings” (Patil 60) help in making the essay an interesting piece of art. The Taliban is considered to be a “regime of terror” (229). Taliban’s “first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girl’s schools, dismissed women from government jobs and enforced sharia laws under which women deemed to be ‘immoral’ are stoned to death and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive” (229). In some places Roy is seen, “using her lively original language, sensitive poetic style, deep feelings, shocking emotions and a novel approach” (Patil 58) in. America’s most trusted ally is Pakistan. But in the recent times, the
US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country . . . Pakistan’s economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalization’s structural adjustment programmes and drug lords, are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrassas, sown like dragon’s teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with the tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. (230)
This is what has happened from the past to the present. America’s support for Pakistan has become a threatening aspect for Pakistan. The entire country is being affected to a great extent by America’s drug labour.
Satire also plays an important part and it forms the prominent stylistic element in the essay. Through the use of satire, Roy expresses, “her intense dissatisfaction at the state of affairs and her anger at the shame being practised by hypocrites” (Rajimwale 215). America has been supporting Pakistan in order to raise soldiers for a proxy war. And Pakistan, with this help, is forced to rear the Afghan pets on its own backyard to bring up fattened sheep for war. Later the request of US government is, “to garrot the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years” (230-231). Roy uses such powerful imagery to highlight the extent to which America can go in doing a shameful act. Roy does not spare her own country when she finds India extending support to America in its war against Afghanistan: “Any third world country with a fragile economy and a complex social base should know by now that to invite a superpower like America in . . . would be like inviting a brick to drop through your windscreen” (231).
If there is a strong element of satire in the essay, there must be a strong element of irony also, as satire without irony is devoid of animation and liveliness. In this essay irony works, “more subtly, causing pin – prick feelings of discomfort and creating an intensely amusing effect” (Rajimwale 224). Roy attacks the UN ambassador to the United Nations, Madeline Albright for her reaction to the death of 500,000 Iraqi children as a result of US economic sanctions. The reply Albright has given is, “we think the price is worth it” (225). She seems to have been so carefree that Roy feels it as a crime against humanity. There is a demand put forth by this superpower to Taliban government. It is the extradition of Bin Laden. But the response of Taliban government is, “produce the evidence, we’ll hand him over” (236). To Bush, this demand is “non – negotiable” (236). As a retort to this, Roy asks a question: “can India put in a side – request for the extradition of Warren Anderson of the USA?” (236). This Warren Anderson is the person held responsible for the 1984 Bhopal gas leak that took the lives of 16,000 people. There is proper evidence in files and not like Bush who doesn’t know who Bin Laden is. These are some of the pin – prick attacks on America that bring to limelight the so-far-suppressed truths about that country. The essay reveals stark realities that sear our imagination.
Roy feels, “President George Bush can no more ‘rid the world of evil-doers than he can stock it with saints” (233). Her views on terrorism are different from that of Bush. To her, “Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It’s trans-national, as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their ‘factories’ from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multinationals” (233).
In her views, Arundathi Roy is very close to Pearl S. Buck: “war and killing achieve nothing but loss and that a noble end is assured only if the means to attain it are of a place with it and also noble” (Prasad 119). To sum up, revenge is not the end but tolerance and endurance can win a war against terrorism. To convey this idea, Arundathi Roy has written a powerful essay “The Algebra of Infinite Justice” in simple language of common people, avoiding rules of grammar and syntax. She has a clear-cut style of her own. Devices like satire and irony that she uses in her prose work help to convey her message effectively. Poetic language and embellishing idiom make her essays highly readable. Roy has successfully handled language to suit the theme of her writing, and the readers get a distinctive voice and vision.
Introduction to the Authors:
Dr. C Bibin Sam is an assistant professor of English at Sivanthi Adithanar College, Pillayaruram. And the co-author, G. Danish S. Georshia is a lecturer at Holy Cross College, Nagercoil.
Works Cited
Kumar, Gajendra. “The God of Small Things: A Novel of Poetic Narratology and Lawrentian Ecstasy”. Indian English Literature: A New Perspective. New Delhi: Sarup and Sons, 2001. 88 – 100. Print.
Patil, Mallikarjun. “Arundhati Roy’s The God of Small Things: A Study of Theme, Language and Style”. Arundathi Roy’s Fictional World: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. A. N. Dwivedi. New Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation, 2001. 55 – 63. Print.
Prasad, Amar Nath. “Arundhati Roy’s Life, Mind and Art”. New Lights on Indian Women Novelists in English: Part III. Ed. Amar Nath Prasad. New Delhi: Sarup and Sons, 2005. 111 – 120. Print.
Rajimwale, Sharad. “Style and Technique in Arundathi Roy’s The God of Small Things”. Indian Fiction in English: Roots and Blossoms: Volume I. Ed. Prasad, Amar Nath, Nagendra Kumar Singh. New Delhi: Sarup and Sons, 2006. 209 – 237. Print.
Roy, Arundathi. “The Algebra of Infinite Justice”. The Algebra of Infinite Justice. New Delhi: Penguin Group, 2002. 217 – 238. Print.