How Deep Shall We Dig? By Arundhati Roy (Other (Not Listed) Sample)

How Deep Shall We Dig? By Arundhati Roy Arundhati Roy has dedicated her writing career to politics and social causes and is a vehement critic of neo-imperialism and globalization. Her essay, "How Deep Shall We Dig?" was published in a national Indian newspaper ‘The Hindu’ on 25 April, 2004 against the backdrop of the 14th General Lok Sabha Elections in India. In her essay she attempts to portray the harsh conditions prevalent in the entire India due to unjust laws and an increasingly fascist approach towards governance by the ruling parties and stresses upon the need to bring about a revolutionary change in the country. Roy presents her argument effectively with the use of sarcasm, irony and rhetorical questions complimented by a well supported and organized progression of ideas. However, her occasional arrogant tone and fallacious reasoning make the reader question the credibility of her case. Roy links the violent situation of Kashmir to the entire Indian state by highlighting unjust laws, adverse impacts of privatization, violence in various states and insensitivity of the ruling parties. She presents strategies of resistance and civil disobedience as the only way forward to a radical change in the country. Roy’s mastery over sarcasm and irony helps to depict the true picture of India’s stability and politics in the current era. Her use of sarcasm at various instances in the essay plays a pivotal role in helping the reader to identify the reality juxtaposed against the false picture of India presented by the government. For example, "Of course there is a difference between an overtly communal party with fascist leanings and an opportunistically communal party" (5) captivates the reader’s interest and helps to emphasize her point that there is no difference between the mandates of the two current ruling parties of India and neither will be successful in bringing a change to the country. Similarly in the line, "There'll be no more criminals then. Only terrorists. It's kind of neat." (2), the writer effectively conveys her disapproval of the POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) through sarcasm and enlightens the reader with the devastating consequences that could take place by the integration of this Act into criminal law. Along with sarcasm, the author makes effective use of irony and refers to the oppressed as "gangsters" (1) and their killing by the police as "eliminated on orders" (1) in order to illuminate the reader about the reality of violence and ruthless killings taking place across the country. The use of words in quotation marks such as "free press" (3) and "Creating a Good Investment Climate" (3) highlight the various instances of irony used by Roy to criticize the misleading image presented by the ruling parties of democracy and privatization in the country. Efficient use of sarcasm and irony throughout the essay allow the reader to critically analyze the image of the ‘Shinning India’ presented in the international community and agree to the author’s point of view in this context. Along with irony, the strategic placement of rhetorical questions through the course of the essay plays an essential role in the effective communication of the writer’s ideas and arguments. The topic ‘How deep shall we dig?’ itself is a manifestation of a rhetorical question put forward by the writer to make the reader reflect upon the stance taken by many Hindus over the Muslim invasion of the subcontinent, more than a millennium ago. With this single question the writer conveys the importance of the Muslim community to India and makes the reader analyze the oppressions faced by them in states like Kashmir and Gujarat. The clever placement of questions such as "So how can ordinary people counter the assault of an increasingly violent state?" (5) make the reader stop and reflect upon the arguments presented by the writer and unconsciously agree to them. Similarly the use of repetitive questions and epiphora during the discussion of fascism in the essay lay emphasis on an important point of the argument and convince the reader to agree to the author’s claim. On a similar note, Roy has strengthened her argument with ingenious organization of ideas and effective support of facts and statistics from credible sources. She first establishes the problems faced by the country and then cleverly connects them to the policies of the current ruling parties and fascism. With this link and the repetition of the problems in the middle of the essay she creates an image of a violent state requiring urgent action. After setting up the stage, she proposes her solutions and effectively convinces the reader that civil disobedience in the current election scenario is the only possible way out of the volatile situation of the country. Her logical flow of ideas is complimented by statistics and allusion to credible sources. Reference to facts such as "According to the records of the Association of Parents of Disappeared People (APDP) in Kashmir more than 3,000 people have been killed in 2003" (1) and "Utsa Patnaik, the well known agricultural economist.……. calculates that in the period between the early 1990s and 2001, food grain absorption has dropped to levels lower than during the World War-II years" (2) validate the claims made by the author and play a pivotal role in bringing the reader in agreement to the writer’s point of view. Hence, the smooth flow of ideas and strong support make the paragraphs coherent and the essay powerful. Despite presenting a well structured case, the arrogant tone used by the writer while referring to the middle class in the essay depicts bias in her argument. In paragraph 11, she mentions the middle class as the only sect of the country that accept India as a legitimate democracy despite the widespread violence in the country while at the end of the essay she arrogantly refers to them by saying "Not because of that middle-class squeamishness — `politics is dirty'" (6). With a sweeping generalization and a supercilious remark about a group that forms more than fifty percent of the essay’s audience, Roy has considerably damaged the credibility of her argument. Moreover, at the end of the essay she addresses to the Indian people and calls for a change in the system by massive non co-operation but by offending a class that represents thirty percent of the Indian population (Lanzeni, "The Middle Class in India”), Mrs. Roy might not be very successful in achieving her aim. Along with an arrogant tone, the presence of fallacious reasoning at certain instances in the essay deteriorates the strength of the argument. While discussing the privatization of state institutions and referring to the power these private companies hold, the author goes too far by saying "in India a few of these CEOs are more powerful than the Prime Minister" (3) and thereby commits a logical fallacy called the ‘slippery slope’. It is true that the heads of private companies running state assets hold a lot of power but it is illogical to conclude that they possess more authority than the head of the state- the Prime Minister. Similarly, the writer while emphasizing on the need of enhancement of human rights in the country, illogically concludes that India’s recent abstinence from voting for a human rights resolution in the U.N. will lead to an assault of human rights in the country. The author fails to explore other possibilities that could have led to India’s abstinence and makes a hasty conclusion which compels the reader to question the reasoning of the author and weakens the overall strength and impact of the argument. Concrete examples of violation of human rights by the government at this point in the essay would have consolidated the argument and made the claim of the writer more viable. Despite its shortcomings, Roy’s article highlights important issues like privatization and lack of intelligence sharing with the public which are pertinent to developing countries. Privatization of national institutions is a problem prevalent even in Pakistan and has been openly criticized. The recent privatization of KESC (Karachi Electricity Supply Corporation), Pakistan Telecommunications (PTCL) and Railways in the country has sparked extensive debate since the efficiency of these institutions has depreciated tremendously and the government has lost control over crucial state machineries. This can be exemplified by the long power breakdowns faced by Karachi at the hands of the privatized KESC which is not accountable for its inefficiency to anyone in the country. The fact that the economic capital of Pakistan can be held hostage by a private electricity company supports the argument laid down by Roy that privatization leads to the deterioration of a state. Along with privatization, lack of intelligence sharing over matters affecting the public is another common aspect between Pakistan and India mentioned in Roy’s article. The details of the attack on Mehran Base in May, 2011 and the abduction of Osama bin Laden from Abbottabad are sensitive issues about which the common man knows nothing beyond the immediate videos shown on television. These incidents had a huge impact on the image of Pakistan across the globe and affect...