• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Making trouble for peace:

Arundhati Roy and the Sydney Peace Prize

by Jackie Randles

Dissenting voices can polarise debates, stir up extreme emotions and obscure the middle ground – but they do get us thinking, and that's a good thing writes Jackie Randles.

When the Sydney Peace Foundation awarded the 2004 Sydney Peace Prize to Arundhati Roy, some people dismissed the Indian writer's eligibility on the grounds of what they considered to be her dubious ‘peace credentials’. On this point Roy agreed with her critics. One of the first remarks she made during her Peace Prize Lecture entitled Troublemaker for Peace, which she delivered to a full house at Sydney's Seymour Centre Theatre on 3 November, was that the award provoked a similar response from those who know her well:

‘Why did they give it to the biggest trouble-maker we know?’ they said. ‘Didn't anybody tell them that you don't have a peaceful bone in your body?’

The main gripe of certain newspaper columnists was that Roy has publicly stated that she supports the Iraqi resistance. Speaking at a press conference in Sydney, Roy clarified that her support for resistance does not extend to condoning acts of terror. Urging people to ‘look behind the curtain of blood’, Roy joins many other public figures who oppose the Iraqi occupation by foreign armed forces. As the new regime approaches its first round of elections, she appeals to the international community to be aware of what is going on with respect to the dubious linkages between governments and corporations.

Debates around dissenting voices quickly become polarised. Roy's critics deride the way she draws our attention to just one side of the story, refusing point blank to take into consideration any of the positive contributions corporations might provide to the rebuilding of Iraq – or to developing countries anywhere in the world for that matter. Supporters welcome her dissenting voice as an appeal to reason in an unjust world.

Depending on where you sit, Arundhati Roy and those of her ilk are either extreme militants who are totally opposed to any kind of corporate involvement whatsoever, or they are passionate advocates for justice who are deeply committed to speaking out on behalf of the vulnerable sectors of society who so often become ‘collateral damage’ – be they innocent victims of war or displaced communities condemned to further poverty. It could be argued that the hardline anti-corporate and anti-war stance taken by some is more than compensated by sophisticated propaganda peddled by governments and corporations alike. There are many examples one could draw on to support either view, with both sides of the debate as varied as their uncompromising advocates. It would seem that people crave absolutes.

Like many of those who heard Arundhati Roy deliver the Sydney Peace Prize lecture, I admire her. I was interested in how she draws on firsthand experience with the anti-Narmarda Dam movement in her home country of India, and similar scenarios in other poor countries, to argue that globalisation further disenfranchises some of the world's most disadvantaged communities. I was inspired by her poetic use of language and left the theatre determined to make an effort to be more analytical and to become better informed in the future.

A colleague at work responded in a very different way. First of all, she read the lecture, so was not present to witness Roy's engaging delivery and charismatic appeal. Far from being inspired by the words on paper, my colleague – a most reflective and thoughtful woman – felt that Roy's powerful use of metaphor would rouse anger, even violence. It would create further conflict rather than greater dialogue.

She felt that Roy's enigmatic plea for civil disobedience could be misinterpreted as a call to violence by people who perhaps felt disempowered and were seeking reasons to lash out against the mainstream. She was alarmed at the way Roy's address focused on the profits some multinational companies make from war rather than providing a wider appraisal of the benefits such corporations also provide. For her, the blatant lack of balance and its deliberate intent to arouse an emotional response was a serious problem – it was an extreme call to blind anti-globalisation.

The difference in how two people responded to the same words could not have been greater. That prominent voices of protest provoke such ire in some is offset by the blind adoration they arouse in others. One has to ask oneself, however, whether scathing dismissal or unquestioning adulation is ever an appropriate response. This also raises the question: should we always try to seek common ground?

Things are rarely black and white, but diametrically opposing viewpoints play an important role in initiating discussion and exposing the grey area in between. They provide departure points from which we can start conversations, think critically and begin to work out what we think. The problem is essentially that many people will not think beyond what they hear.

It is true that Roy uses her talents as a writer to passionately put forward a point of view that could be interpreted to be anti-corporate. That she questions the very notion of peace and what it means for the privileged compared with those in the developing world could also be seen a provocative act:

What does peace mean to the poor who are being actively robbed of their resources and for whom everyday life is a grim battle for water, shelter, survival and, above all, some semblance of dignity? For them, peace is war.

While some will be sympathetic to this challenging notion of peace, others will dismiss it as fanatical and extreme. How is it that we formulate opinions?

Like most people, I selectively process, absorbing enormous amounts of information every day and filtering viewpoints. Stretched for time and possessed of a limited capacity for knowledge, I often accept or reject information almost instinctively according to my own values and beliefs and what I think I already know. I’ll consider what I think about the person at face value and what other people might think of them. The quality of the media providing the information will also shape my view – but this assessment will also be highly subjective.

Such a method for acquiring knowledge is in no way rigorous, but how could I possibly verify every piece of information I encounter? Like many, I do not always fact-check. This lack of habitual critical thinking activity is precisely what Arundhati Roy is concerned about (as is my colleague at work). I might support much of what the talented Indian writer says, but she is not asking me to agree with her. She is urging me to think for myself – as she does.

Read the full transcript of Arundhati Roy's address in the news section on the University of Sydney website: www.usyd.edu.au. See also: www.sydneypeacefoundation.org.au.

discuss this article

---