Arundhati Roy‘s 31-page essay Walking with the comrades in Outlook* has attracted several well-argued and well-deserved critiques (Kafila, Mint, Outlook). But this one by a former newspaper and magazine sub-editor*, in Radical Notes, takes the cake and the bakery for what it does to the English language.
Sample paragraph one:
“There is no doubt the Indian Maoist movement – which has erupted in the sense of pure socio-occupational and physical geography in the agrarian-tribal location – has rendered the externalised imposition of a given Marxological/communistological historiography to define (in discourse) and articulate (in the materiality of lived practice) its struggle uniquely determinate to the specificity of its historico-geographic location redundant. But to assert that it has done so by claiming something that is purely autonomous tribal aspiration and struggle would be equally fallacious. For, tribal identities as they exist and pose themselves in and through struggles – both in areas of Maoist influence as also in sangh parivar-infested tribal areas of especially Orissa and Madhya Pradesh – are formed by being inscribed within the determinate, if not discursive, mode of capital. Those identities and their movements are thus either articulated by the specific configuration of dualised and hierarchised capitalist power, or are responses to the respective historico-geographic specifications of such a general configuration of power.”
Read the full article: On the Kafila debate
Also read: George Orwell’s six rules for better writing