Arundhati Roy (born 24 November 1961) is an Indian novelist.

She won the Booker Prize in 1997 for her novel, The God of
Small Things, and has also written two screenplays and several collections of essays. Her writings on various social,
environmental and political issues have been a subject of major controversy in India.
Early life and background

Arundhati Roy was born in Shillong, Meghalaya,[1] India, to a Keralite Syrian Christian mother, the women's rights activist Mary

Roy, and a Bengali father, Ranjit Roy, a tea planter by profession.

She spent her childhood in Aymanam in Kerala, and went to school at Corpus Christi, Kottayam, followed by the Lawrence

School, Lovedale, in Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu. She then studied architecture at the School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi,

where she met her first husband, architect Gerard da Cunha.

Roy met her second husband, filmmaker Pradip Krishen, in 1984, and played a village girl in his award-winning movie Massey

Sahib. Until made financially stable by the success of her novel The God of Small Things, she worked various jobs, including

running aerobics classes at five-star hotels in New Delhi. Roy is a cousin of prominent media personality Prannoy Roy, the head

of the leading Indian TV media group NDTV,.[2] She lives in New Delhi.

Career
Literary career
Early career: screenplays

Early in her career, Roy worked for television and movies. She wrote the screenplays for In Which Annie Gives It Those

Ones (1989), a movie based on her experiences as a student of architecture, directed by her current husband, and Electric

Moon (1992); she also appeared as a performer in the first. Roy attracted attention in 1994, when she criticised Shekhar Kapur's

film Bandit Queen, based on the life of Phoolan Devi. In her film review titled, 'The Great Indian Rape Trick', she questioned the

right to "restage the rape of a living woman without her permission," and charged Kapur with exploiting Devi and misrepresenting

both her life and its meaning.[3][4]

The God of Small Things

Roy began writing her first novel, The God of Small Things, in 1992, completing it in 1996.[5] The book is semi-autobiographical

and a major part captures her childhood experiences in Aymanam.[1]

The publication of The God of Small Things catapulted Roy to instant international fame. It received the 1997 Booker Prize for

Fiction and was listed as one of the New York Times Notable Books of the Year for 1997.[6] It reached fourth position on the New

York Times Bestsellers list for Independent Fiction.[7] From the beginning, the book was also a commercial success: Roy received

half a million pounds as an advance;[4] It was published in May, and the book had been sold to eighteen countries by the end of

June.[5]

The God of Small Things received stellar reviews in major American newspapers such as The New York Times (a "dazzling first

novel,"[8] "extraordinary," "at once so morally strenuous and so imaginatively supple"[9]) and the Los Angeles Times ("a novel of

poignancy and considerable sweep"[10]), and in Canadian publications such as the Toronto Star ("a lush, magical novel"[11]). By the

end of the year, it had become one of the five best books of 1997 by TIME.[12] Critical response in the United Kingdom was less

positive, and that the novel was awarded the Booker Prize caused controversy; Carmen Callil, a 1996 Booker Prize judge, called
the novel "execrable," and The Guardian called the contest "profoundly depressing."[13] In India, the book was criticized especially

for its unrestrained description of sexuality by E. K. Nayanar,[14] then Chief Minister of Roy's homestate Kerala, where she had to

answer charges of obscenity.[15]

Later career

Since the success of her novel, Roy has been working as a screenplay writer again, writing a television serial, The Banyan Tree,

[citation needed]
and the documentary DAM/AGE: A Film with Arundhati Roy (2002).

In early 2007, Roy announced that she would begin work on a second novel.[4][16]

Arundhati Roy was one of the contributors on the book We Are One: A Celebration of Tribal Peoples, released in October 2009.

[17]
The book explores the culture of peoples around the world, portraying their diversity and the threats to their existence. The

royalties from the sale of this book go to the indigenous rights organization Survival International.

Advocacy and controversy

Since The God of Small Things Roy has devoted herself mainly to nonfiction and politics, publishing two more collections of

essays, as well as working for social causes. She is a spokesperson of theanti-globalization/alter-globalization movement and a

vehement critic of neo-imperialism and of the global policies of the United States. She also criticizes India's nuclear weapons

policies and the approach to industrialization and rapid development as currently being practiced in India, including the Narmada

Dam project and the power company Enron's activities in India.

Support for Kashmiri separatism

In an interview with Times of India published in August 2008, Arundhati Roy expressed her support for the independence of

Kashmir from India after massive demonstrations in favor of independence took place—some 500,000 separatists rallied in

Srinagar in the Kashmir part of Jammu and Kashmir state of India for independence on 18 August 2008, following the Amarnath

land transfer controversy.[18] According to her, the rallies were a sign that Kashmiris desire secession from India, and not union

with India.[19] She was criticized by Indian National Congress (INC) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for her remarks.[20]

In October 2010, at a seminar in Delhi named "Azadi – The only way" ("azadi" meaning "freedom"[21]), where Roy took part

with Hurriyat Conference leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Varavara Rao, Roy was reported to have said that "Kashmir should

get azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan". Official transcripts of her speech though put it as follows:[22]

When I was in Kashmir.. what broke my heart on the street of Srinagar was when people say "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan, Jaan se Pyara

Pakistan" and I said no because "Nanga Bhukha Hindustan" is with you, and if you are fighting for a just society then you must align

yourself with powers and here are people who have fought their lives opposing Indian state....You have to look beyond stone pelting and

how the state is using people. ...You have to know your enemy and you have to be able to respond by aligning tactically, intelligently, locally

or internationally.

Her remarks attracted criticism from the BJP leader Arun Jaitley that she was promoting secession of the Union of India, and that

the central government was not acting on the issue and prosecuting Roy and others.[23] Although it was widely speculated that she

could potentially face sedition charges from the center for her remarks in Delhi, Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram said no
action would be taken "unless there is direct incitement to violence".[24] An IPS officer from Uttar Pradesh, Amitabh Thakur opined

in an open letter published in the Daily Pioneer that her statements would come under the realm of sedition under section 124A of

the Indian Penal Code and demanded action should be taken against Arundhati under suitable sections of law.[25][26]

A few days after the October, 2010, seminar, Roy traveled to Srinigar and Shopian and then reported on her visits, noting at the

outset, though, U.S. President Obama's then-fresh visit to India. Roy contrasted the president's having said, a "week before he

was elected in 2008 ... [that] Kashmir’s struggle for self-determination — which has led to three wars between India and Pakistan

since 1947 — would be among his 'critical tasks' ..., remarks [which] were greeted with consternation in India," with his having

"said almost nothing about Kashmir since then." She further noted that during his India visit, Obama "pleased his hosts immensely

by saying the United States would not intervene in Kashmir," among other things. As to her own trip to Kashmir, Roy wrote that

with what she saw and heard even before reaching Shopian, where she heard more of the 2009 rape and murder case, "I could

not bring myself to regret what I had said in Delhi" despite the "bit of trouble" those remarks had caused. When Roy returned

home from Kashmir, she reported, "in what is becoming a common political strategy, officials outsourced their displeasure to the

mob; ... the women’s wing of the [BJP] staged a demonstration outside my house, calling for my arrest. Television vans arrived in

advance to broadcast the event live. The murderous Bajrang Dal ... have announced that they are going to 'fix' me with all the

means at their disposal, including by filing criminal charges against me in different courts across the country." Ending on a broader

note, Roy wrote "Indian nationalists and the government seem to believe that they can fortify their idea of a resurgent India with a

combination of bullying and Boeing airplanes. But they don’t understand the subversive strength of warm, boiled eggs." The C-17

Globemaster III aircraft were on the Obama agenda in Delhi; the eggs were a gift to Roy from the father of one of the Shopian

victims in appreciation for Roy's efforts.[21]

Sardar Sarovar Project

Roy has campaigned along with activist Medha Patkar against the Narmada dam project, saying that the dam will displace half a

million people, with little or no compensation, and will not provide the projected irrigation, drinking water and other benefits.[27] Roy

donated her Booker prize money as well as royalties from her books on the project to the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Roy also

appears inFranny Armstrong's Drowned Out, a 2002 documentary about the project.[28] Roy's opposition to the Narmada Dam

project was criticised as "maligning Gujarat" by Congress and BJP leaders in Gujarat.[29]

In 2002, Roy responded to a contempt notice issued against her by the Indian Supreme Court with an affidavit saying the court's

decision to initiate the contempt proceedings based on an unsubstantiated and flawed petition, while refusing to inquire

into allegations of corruption in military contracting deals pleading an overload of cases, indicated a "disquieting inclination" by the

court to silence criticism and dissent using the power of contempt.[30] The court found Roy's statement, which she refused to

disavow or apologize for, constituted criminal contempt and sentenced her to a "symbolic" one day's imprisonment and fined Roy

Rs. 2500.[31] Roy served the jail sentence for a single day and opted to pay the fine rather than serve an additional three months'

imprisonment for default.[32]

Environmental historian Ramachandra Guha has been critical of Roy's Narmada dam activism. While acknowledging her "courage

and commitment" to the cause, Guha writes that her advocacy is hyperbolic and self-indulgent,[33] "Ms. Roy's tendency to
exaggerate and simplify, her Manichean view of the world, and her shrill hectoring tone, have given a bad name to environmental

analysis".[34]He faults Roy's criticism of Supreme Court judges who were hearing a petition brought by the Narmada Bachao

Andolan as careless and irresponsible.

Roy counters that her writing is intentional in its passionate, hysterical tone: "I am hysterical. I'm screaming from the bloody

rooftops. And he and his smug little club are going 'Shhhh... you'll wake the neighbours!' I want to wake the neighbours, that's my

whole point. I want everybody to open their eyes".[35]

Gail Omvedt and Roy have had fierce discussions, in open letters, on Roy's strategy for the Narmada Dam movement. Though

the activists disagree on whether to demand stopping the dam building altogether (Roy) or searching for intermediate alternatives

(Omvedt), the exchange has mostly been, though critical, constructive.[36]

United States foreign policy, the War in Afghanistan

In a 2001 opinion piece in the British newspaper The Guardian, Arundhati Roy responded to the US military invasion of

Afghanistan, finding fault with the argument that this war would be a retaliation for the September 11 attacks: "The bombing of

Afghanistan is not revenge for New York and Washington. It is yet another act of terror against the people of the world." According

to her, U.S. PresidentGeorge W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were guilty of a Big Brother-kind of doublethink:

"When he announced the air strikes, President George Bush said: 'We're a peaceful nation.' America's favourite ambassador,

Tony Blair, (who also holds the portfolio of prime minister of the UK), echoed him: 'We're a peaceful people.' So now we know.

Pigs are horses. Girls are boys. War is peace."

She disputes U.S. claims of being a peaceful and freedom-loving nation, listing China and nineteen 3rd World "countries that

America has been at war with – and bombed – since the second world war", as well as previous U.S. support for the Taliban

movement and support for the Northern Alliance (whose "track record is not very different from the Taliban's"). She does not spare

the Taliban: "Now, as adults and rulers, the Taliban beat, stone, rape and brutalise women, they don't seem to know what else to

do with them."

In the final analysis, Roy sees American-style capitalism as the culprit: "In America, the arms industry, the oil industry, the major

media networks, and, indeed, US foreign policy, are all controlled by the same business combines." She puts the attacks on

the World Trade Center and on Afghanistan on the same moral level, that of terrorism, and mourns the impossibility of imagining

beauty after 2001: "Will it be possible ever again to watch the slow, amazed blink of a newborn gecko in the sun, or whisper back

to the marmot who has just whispered in your ear – without thinking of the World Trade Centre and Afghanistan?"[37]

In May 2003 she delivered a speech entitled "Instant-Mix Imperial Democracy (Buy One, Get One Free)" at the Riverside

Church in New York City. In it she described the United States as a global empire that reserves the right to bomb any of its

subjects at any time, deriving its legitimacy directly from God. The speech was an indictment of the U.S. actions relating to

the Iraq War.[38][39] In June 2005 she took part in the World Tribunal on Iraq. In March 2006, Roy criticized US President George W.

Bush's visit to India, calling him a "war criminal".[40]

India's nuclear weaponisation

In response to India's testing of nuclear weapons in Pokhran, Rajasthan, Roy wrote The End of Imagination (1998), a critique of

the Indian government's nuclear policies. It was published in her collection The Cost of Living (1999), in which she also crusaded

against India's massive hydroelectric dam projects in the central and western states of Maharashtra, Madhya

Pradesh and Gujarat.

Criticism of Israel

In August 2006, Roy, along with Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and others, signed a letter in The Guardian called the 2006

Lebanon War a "war crime" and accused Israel of "state terror."[41] In 2007, Roy was one of more than 100 artists and writers who

signed an open letter initiated by Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism and the South West Asian, North African Bay Area

Queers and calling on the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival "to honor calls for an international boycott of Israeli

political and cultural institutions, by discontinuing Israeli consulate sponsorship of the LGBT film festival and not cosponsoring

events with the Israeli consulate."[42][43]

2001 Indian Parliament attack

Roy has raised questions about the investigation into the 2001 Indian Parliament attack and the trial of the accused. She has

called for the death sentence of Mohammad Afzal to be stayed while a parliamentary enquiry into these questions are conducted

and denounced press coverage of the trial.[44] The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has criticized Roy for what it alleges is defence of

a terrorist going against the national interest.[45][dead link]

The Muthanga incident

In 2003, the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha, a social movement for adivasi land rights in Kerala, organized a major land occupation

of a piece of land of a former Eucalyptus plantation in the Muthanga Wildlife Reserve, on the border of Kerala and Karnataka.

After 48 days, a police force was sent into the area to evict the occupants—one participant of the movement and a policeman

were killed, and the leaders of the movement were arrested. Arundhati Roy travelled to the area, visited the movement's leaders

in jail, and wrote an open letter to the then Chief Minister of Kerala, A.K. Antony now India's Defence Minister, saying "You have

blood on your hands."[46]

Comments on 2008 Mumbai attacks

In an opinion piece for The Guardian (13 December 2008), Roy argued that the November 2008 Mumbai attacks cannot be seen

in isolation, but must be understood in the context of wider issues in the region's history and society such as widespread poverty,

the Partition of India (which Roy calls "Britain's final, parting kick to us"), the atrocities committed during the 2002 Gujarat violence,

and the ongoing conflict in Kashmir. Despite this call for context, Roy states clearly in the article that she believes "nothing can

justify terrorism" and calls terrorism "a heartless ideology." Roy warns against war with Pakistan, arguing that it is hard to "pin

down the provenance of a terrorist strike and isolate it within the borders of a single nation state", and that war could lead to the

"descent of the whole region into chaos".[47] Her remarks were strongly criticized by Salman Rushdie and others, who condemned

her for linking the Bombay attacks with Kashmir and economic injustice against Muslims in India;[48] Rushdie specifically criticized

Roy for attacking the iconic status of the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower.[49] Indian writer Tavleen Singh called Roy's comments "he

latest of her series of hysterical diatribes against India and all things Indian."[50]

Criticism of Sri Lanka

In an opinion piece, once again in The Guardian (April 1, 2009), Roy made a plea for international attention to what she called a

possible government-sponsored genocide of Tamils in Sri Lanka. She cited reports of camps into which Tamils were being herded

as part of what she described as "a brazen, openly racist war."[51] She also mentioned that the "Government of Sri Lanka is on the

verge of committing what could end up being genocide"[52] and described the Sri Lankan IDP camps where Tamil civilians are

being held as concentration camps.[53] Ruvani Freeman, a Sri Lankan writer called Roy's remarks "ill-informed and hypocritical"

and criticized her for "whitewashing the atrocities of the LTTE."[54] Roy has said of such accusations: "I cannot admire those whose

vision can only accommodate justice for their own and not for everybody. However I do believe that the LTTE and its fetish for

violence was cultured in the crucible of monstrous, racist, injustice that the Sri Lankan government and to a great extent Sinhala

society visited on the Tamil people for decades."[55]

Violation of forest law

In 2003, Arundhati and her husband,[56] were according to The Telegraph informed by Panchmarhi district administration that "a

hilltop bungalow her husband owns near Panchmarhi stands on notified forest land and has to be pulled down...on grounds of

violation of forest law.".[57] Also named in the case was the sister of Indian novelist Vikram Seth and two forest officials. Arundhati’s

husband bought the 4,346 sq ft (403.8 m2) plot in 1994. Thier land in Madhya Pradesh encroaches on a Wildlife protection zone[58]

Views on the Naxals

Roy has criticized Government's armed actions against the Naxalite-Maoist insurgents in India, calling it "war on the poorest

people in the country". According to her, the Government has "abdicated its responsibility to the people"[59] and launched the

offensive agaisnt Naxals to aid the corporations with whom it has signed Memorandums of Understanding(MoUs) .[60] While she

has received support from various quarters for her views,[61] Roy's description of the Maoists as "Gandhians" raised a controversy.

[62][63]
In other statements, she has described Naxalites as "patriot of a kind"[64] who are "fighting to implement the Constitution,

(while) the government is vandalising it".[59] Many commentators have noted that Roy does not hold sympathy for the victims of

Maoist terrorism.[65][66] In an interview with Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN, Roy defined the "ultimate goal" of the Maoists as

"overthrowing the Indian state and institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat", which she did not support because she does

not believe that a solution to the problems of the world would come from either a capitalist or a communist imagination. She was

repeatedly asked to clarify her views on the Maoists.[59]

Karan Thapar: How do you perceive the Maoists?

Arundhati Roy: I perceive them as a group of people who have at a most militant end in the bandwidth of resistance movements

that exist

Karan Thapar: but do you support any attempt to overthrow the Indian state?

Arundhati Roy: ..If I say that I support the Maoists' desire to overthrow the Indian State, I would be saying that I am a Maoist. But I

am not a Maoist.

Karan Thapar: .. what about the tactics that the Maoists use?..

Arundhati Roy: There is already a civil war...when your village is surrounded by 800 CRPF men who are raping and burning and

looting, you can't say I am going on a hunger strike. Then, I support people's right to resist that.

Awards
Arundhati Roy was awarded the 1997 Booker Prize for her novel The God of Small Things. The award carried a prize of about US

$30,000[67] and a citation that noted, 'The book keeps all the promises that it makes.'[68] Prior to this, she won the National Film

Award for Best Screenplay in 1989, for the screenplay of In Which Annie Gives It Those Ones.[69]

In 2002, she won the Lannan Foundation's Cultural Freedom Award for her work "about civil societies that are adversely affected

by the world’s most powerful governments and corporations," in order "to celebrate her life and her ongoing work in the struggle

for freedom, justice and cultural diversity."[70]

Roy was awarded the Sydney Peace Prize in May 2004 for her work in social campaigns and her advocacy of non-violence.

In January 2006, she was awarded the Sahitya Akademi Award, a national award from India's Academy of Letters, for her

collection of essays on contemporary issues, The Algebra of Infinite Justice, but she declined to accept it "in protest against the

Indian Government toeing the US line by 'violently and ruthlessly pursuing policies of brutalisation of industrial workers, increasing

militarisation and economic neo-liberalisation.'"[71]