In Support of Arundhati Roy

By Anjum Altaf

Like Vijay Vikram, I too am glad Arundhati Roy exists. I wish, however, to take this discussion beyond her role as a public intellectual and focus instead on her work as a political activist, which has opened a space for us to leverage, provided we broaden our understanding of the political process. It is our failure to see the political process in its entirety that leads many to dismiss Roy as an extremist divorced from reality, and in our aversion from her “shrill” voice and alleged “extremism,” we overlook the vital systemic issues she demands we consider in our capacity as concerned citizens.

Roy’s essential point is that there is a deep structural flaw in Indian governance, which has left the majority of its citizens poor and a significant minority actually oppressed. In a democracy charged with protecting and enhancing the equal rights of all its citizens, this is not supposed to happen, and unless we subscribe to a utopian idea of everything turning out well on its own, the fact that the systematic problem exists should force us to ask some difficult questions. Patting ourselves on the back for being the “world’s biggest democracy” is unpardonable – to use the term applied to Roy’s alleged advocacy of violence – when more than half the population “survives” on a starvation diet. Roy’s question must be asked: what is the flaw in Indian democracy that has brought us to this point and that now promises no sure path out beyond a nebulous and credulous statement of faith?

On violence as well, Roy’s underlying point bears listening to: she says that this failure of governance has brought us to the point where millions of marginalized people are expected to roll over and die, simply because mineral wealth has been discovered in their habitats. Why are we surprised when they won’t, and instead resist such exploitation? And, given that there is no credible political process to mediate the conflicting claims – what form can that resistance take? Force is used to resolve what should be a political difference, and once that begins, the conflict is bound to spin out of control, as external agents on all sides muscle in to advance their own unrelated agendas.

Each side commits acts of violence against the other; the point is not to support either, but to ask, instead, how we have to come a point where the state is arrayed against its citizens. This is supposed to happen in the brutal dictatorships of Central America – not in the largest democracy in the world. Roy asks if this Central American route is the one we really wish to pursue now, and if anyone believes, now, that any kind of violence can spawn justice.

It is illogical now to believe in the power of ragtag jungle armies to overthrow the might of modern states. But once the state has vanquished its enemies, then what? If we believe that democracy is about people’s welfare, not just about the freedom to accumulate, we must face this question as well.

The principal concern of this post is the issue of the political process – let me address it by means of an anecdote narrated by a friend many years ago; the details have faded, but the gist remains imprinted on my mind.

This friend living in Washington, DC, was in the process of shifting houses and had a moving crew in the house. Not unusually, the crew was comprised exclusively of African-Americans. During a break, the host got talking to them about the struggle for Black rights in the US, and one of the crew confided that he had participated in the riots in the District in the 1960s. The host asked why he had chosen that path as opposed to the one advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr.

The response struck a chord with the host, and it did with me, too, when I heard the story. The man asked, essentially, Do you believe Dr. King would have succeeded if we had not rioted in the cities? What was it that made Dr. King acceptable as the best (or least worst) of the bad options?

Thinking about this response made me realize that the struggle for Black rights was strung out all across the political spectrum, stretching from Malcolm X and the Black Muslims at one end, passing through Angela Davis and the Black Panthers, to Martin Luther King, Jr. at the other. It was the pressure generated at the extreme that made Dr. King’s alternative appear moderate by comparison.

Of course, the situation of the African-Americans was different from that of India’s tribals in one important respect: the African-American population was distributed in such a way that it could bring cities to a standstill but not be crushed by the use of force. The tribals are concentrated in isolated forests. They have no such leverage or strategic advantage. They are closest in kind to the rebels in Central American forests, who were all ultimately subdued – which does not mean to suggest that they should have been, or that the tribals should be now.

The political point, though, remains. If Arundhati Roy is indeed the Malcom X or Angela Davis of tribal politics in India, where is the Dr. King? Instead of merely dismissing her as an extremist, should we not fill the political spectrum with an alternative proposition to Roy’s – a proposition more moderate, yet capable of alleviating the injustice that it is now impossible to deny?

Or we could just believe that such injustice could not occur, not in the world’s largest democracy – perhaps this is all a myth, dreamt up by Arundhati Roy exclusively to disturb our peace and contentment.

Many thanks to Hasan Altaf for a major contribution to this post.


Tags: , , , , ,

30 Responses to “In Support of Arundhati Roy”

  1. Hasan Abdullah Says:

    A good piece. But, to explain Arundhati, and the explanation of Maoist phenomenon by Arundhati, is one thing, and supporting those is another. And, this difference is crucial.

    We need to build mass struggles in all walks of life, as that can possibly serve the interests of the Indian majority – which is disadvantaged/ dispossessed/ discriminated – and save us from further worsening of the situation.

  2. yayaver Says:

    While I have not followed her social commentary and had read only few articles so can’t debate in detail her opinions with you; She is just another person, maybe a little strongly opinionated than others. Not many prominent people are willing to come out against powerful forces, this is the tragedy of this nation; that’s why the whistle blowers like her are so crucial; Government is deaf to non violence movement if it doesn’t affect its status quo politically or economically. But, how can one justify violence either by government in the name of patriotism or naxal in the name of Maoism ?

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Yayaver: To some extent you have answered your question. If the state is deaf to non-violent demands and no prominent persons are willing to support the victims (real or perceived) of injustice, what are the latter to do? What does one realistically expect them to do? By posing the situation in terms of violence and granting a moral equivalence to the two sides one ends up evading the real question. How did we arrive at the point where the outcome is an expression of violence by a side that has no hope of success?

  3. Clarence Maloney Says:

    Yes, Arundhati Roy’s voice is essential, and basically correct. But neither she nor most of government face up to the real terrible issue of India: 1.3 billion people on 2% of the earth’s surface, trying to provide all with a lifestyle of consuming petroleum and chemicals and plastics and metals and household energy and cotton. China has done this more widely by rampaging the earth for resources, which India has not been willing to do. Even if society and politics reforms to try to promote socio-economic equality, all these goodies cannot be provided to India’s population increasing 1.5% a year so doubling in 60-70 years. I want to see Roy’s forecast of how 2 billion people will live moderately well on India’s resources in the lifetime of our little children.

    • Anjum Altaf Says:

      Clarence: This is an important issue but at a different level. It involves a discussion of global justice and Roy has addressed it with her critique of global capitalism which one may agree or disagree with.

      Whether this global justice is realized or not, the point remains that the available resources within India are not fairly distributed. This forms the crux of Roy’s advocacy on behalf of the excluded in India and of her critique of Indian governance.

      Whatever lifestyle Indian citizens manage to achieve, there has to be some semblance of equity in its distribution. To ask for global justice while refusing it locally does not make for a credible position.

  4. Keluvardhanam Says:

    In certain respects, history is a little different from many traditional sciences like physics and chemistry and more like some parts of geology where it may be difficult to do experiments to test theories and explanations. Historical events are more or less unique so it is difficult if not impossible to replicate the situation in a laboratory and test alternative theories.

    I have often wondered about explanations of the type in the post above where it is said that both X and Y were present in a situation, X was calling for more radical change than Y, and so Y succeeded. In other words, if X had not been present Y would not have succeeded. This explanation is often given for Indian independence (e.g. without Subhashchandra Gandhi could not have succeeded).

    I find such explanations problematic. As said above, there is no way to test what would have happened if X was not present. At best, one can look at other situations where social change occurred and ask if some more radical factor X was always present to make the corresponding Y succeed. I am sure there are many such examples but they do not refute this type of explanation because the events and conditions in other situations might have been different in significant ways.

    One could also ask the counterfactual question what would have happened if Arundhati Roy had behaved more like Dr. King from the start? Could she have been more successful or would the state have simply ignored her? Whatever the content of her strategy in different situations, the form of her interventions has always been oppositional rather than one of discussion and conflict resolution. This is because her underlying framework is that capitalism is structurally incapable of delivering the goods. So she does not want to work “within the system.” If instead her root beliefs had been different maybe she could have emerged as the Dr. King of the tribals and other oppressed people in India.

    It is clear that the state has taken an extreme approach in this situation as well. There are a lot of voices in the middle – especially human rights groups as well as various individuals – who have said unambiguously that the state has erred in grievous ways not only recently but since independence. Hopefully some middle ground will emerge. On the side of the state, Sonia and Rahul Gandhi seem to favor such an approach but so far their voice has not been heard. I think there is too much public opinion against the extreme view of the state so I do not expect that view to prevail.

    From the standpoint of science the question will still remain: did a middle ground (i.e. Y) emerge because there was a more extreme X? Or did it happen independently of X?

    • Anjum Altaf Says:

      Kelu: I agree with you that counterfactuals in history pose problems of inference. Let me present the thoughts that came to mind on reading your comment:

      I take your last point first: “From the standpoint of science the question will still remain: did a middle ground (i.e. Y) emerge because there was a more extreme X? Or did it happen independently of X?”

      We live in a world characterized by asymmetries (of power, authority, legitimacy, wealth, information, etc.). I have rarely come across a situation in which the more powerful party has conceded anything of its own accord; every advance towards a balance has had to be wrested.

      I infer from this that our framework for interaction is contractual and competitive and devoid of morality. Given that framework, the opening demand in any negotiation is the maximal one hoping that the settlement would be somewhere between the opening positions of the two sides. If this model is correct, the middle ground cannot happen independently of the extreme one. [We even buy cars like that, which infuriates many I know.]

      So, we should not be saying that Roy ought to have been the Dr. King. Rather, we should be asking where is the Dr. King with a more acceptable position relative to that staked out by Roy as Malcolm X? The position of Roy does not rule out the emergence of more acceptable options. But where are they in this situation?

  5. Agha Says:

    I wish I had any capacity to write…too dumb or lazy…but in any case…will give it a shot.

    Yes, AR is an Essential voice which is able to provide us with the information about the dynamics of the powerful exploiting the less powerful in the modern world. She is not only able to give us a running commentary about what is happening at the local level, but she also translate the language used by the state spin docs.

    Obviously, the army of high paid mercenaries and house niggers who are in the service of the powerful, the ones who are highly educated, well articulated, do their best to sow doubt, on that.

    And at the same time, she is also not able to cover everything or for that matter in the best of ways for as Pink Floyd says..

    ‘And when they’ve given you their all
    Some stagger and fall, after all it’s not easy
    Banging your heart against some mad bugger’s wall.’

    However, despite whatever shortcomings, I believe that a massive global initiative such as David Cameroon ‘Avatar’ gets inspiration from the works of people like AR. That is no mean effort. What effect that actually has on mass mobilization or awareness raising, what can be said ? The problem is not how or what she is saying , the problem is that we dont want to be disturbed…as Anjum pretty much sums it up.

  6. Vikram Says:

    The parallels with the Civil Rights movement are interesting but I would like to make some observations. No one on the political spectrum of that movement had an idealogical motivation to ‘overthrow the American state’. My knowledge of Civil Rights era is not that great, but I think even the most extremist view was unbridled anger at the whites, not usher in ‘black rule’.

    The Maoists are different. No doubt, a large chunk of their cause are the legitimate grievances and injustices faced by the tribals. But there is a very strong ideological angle to their movement. They want to usher in a Communist revolution, not just for the oppressed people of Dantewada, but also for Keralites, Mumbaikars, Assamese and Punjabis. I think this prevents a powerful moderate voice from emerging.

    I think a better parallel is the civil war in Sri Lanka, where the legitimate grievances of the Tamils were consumed by the megalomania of Prabhakaran. The result was a terrible devastation and humiliation of the Tamil people of Sri Lanka. I think the ideological angle of the Naxal movement condemns the tribals of Central India to a similar fate. One can only pray that the Indian state and the Naxal leadership see the light.

    • Vinod Says:

      but I think even the most extremist view was unbridled anger at the whites, not usher in ‘black rule’.

      The Nation of Islam (the early Malcolm X) had developed a theology where God was black and black men were to rule over the whites, who were the progeny of Satan.

    • Anjum Altaf Says:

      Vikram: I accept the difference you have pointed out. I also think the Sri Lanka parallel is a useful one to think about.

      However, I am not convinced that the ideology of the Maoists prevents a powerful moderate voice from emerging. My reasoning is as follows:

      Both the tribals in India and the Tamils in Sri Lanka had real grievances that were ignored by the respective states. In both cases, extremist forces emerged to champion the cause of the aggrieved (let us leave aside whether these forces are/were genuine or opportunistic). What is it that prevented the states from addressing the grievances to the point where the ‘champions’ would have become a liability to the aggrieved?

      Unless we argue that the aggrieved parties were irrational, we do not have a good explanation for the path chosen by the states.

      • Vikram Says:

        “What is it that prevented the states from addressing the grievances to the point where the ‘champions’ would have become a liability to the aggrieved?”

        I had tried to raise the inverse of this question earlier in the Ask a Question section. I think that to influence the state any group needs a reasonably large urban elite. For eg., Dalits started leveraging their political power only after a Dalit middle class emerged in the cities, with reservations being one factor in their emergence.

        There is no urban elite with tribal origins. Also the different Dalit groups had Ambedkar as their common hero, someone who played a key role in the actual setup of the Indian state. No such figure exists for the tribals. They are a rural, backward and relatively fragmented group of Indians. It is hardly surprising that they remain vulnerable.

        The Indian state is not a monolithic entity and one cannot really claim that the state did this or that. Without a party and some kind of urban leadership every group of Indians stand to be exploited, in many ways even middle class Indians are exploited.

        • Vinod Says:


          If urban leadership – I suppose that means English speaking leaders – is required to be heard by the state, it does confirm the claims of the left that the Indian state is bourgeois and capitalistic in character.

          • Vikram Says:

            Vinod, yes sadly this is the case. Although, I wouldnt call the Indian state’s behaviour capitalistic, I am not sure of the exact words, but Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s words “open to ‘negotiation’ at every level” come to mind.

            If English speaking Indians today seem to be on the side on the corporates, the reasons are more complicated than their alleged bourgeois nature. This is an important topic and I could write a longer comment, but I will just say that there are powerful urban Indians who should (and in some cases are) standing up for the marginalized but are not, due to both contingent and structural reasons.

            One example would be Mamata Banerjee, here is an English educated Indian, well versed in legal matters, who seems to be standing up for those victimized by the authoritarian capitalism of the West Bengal Left. There are quite a few politicians in Kerala who also stand up for the victimized.

            The great tragedy is that a plethora of politicians who rely on the masses for their power (Lalu, Mayawati, the Left in Bengal) have thoroughly discredited themselves through their corruption.

            Civil society is trying to fight back, but cant seem to work with the influential English media in the case of tribals and the farmers. Note that they seem to work well in certain cases like the Ruchika case, Jessica Lall etc.

        • Vinod Says:

          One wonders if there are lessons from the impact of the urban-rural divide on Thailand’s democracy for India.

          • SouthAsian Says:

            Vinod: This article highlights all the key issues. The following paragraph is particularly relevant:

            “What the Thais have come up against is what the Brits came up against in 1832, when the aristocracy of Britain had to decide, ‘Will we enlarge the franchise to give people who are not like us some real power in society?”’ Mr. Jackson said. “The Brits made the right decision. Will the Thais make the right decision? Unless Bangkok finds a compromise method for sharing power, political instability and even violence may continue.”

            The difference is that in Britain (and all other early democracies), the franchise was extended is small, controlled doses. The late democracies started with universal suffrage and are trying to figure out ways to deal with the consequences. This is not an easy undertaking as we can see. When Vikram makes the observation that you have to be urban to get anything out of the system in India, he is indirectly pointing out the big dilemma in the mode of governance we have – the same as in Thailand.

            This issue was addressed on this blog a while back in the post Democracy – A Historical Perspective.

        • SouthAsian Says:

          Vikram: I agree what you are saying is the reality but I find the implications somewhat disconcerting. In a democratic country, especially one with a rural plurality, should a government only be responsive to urban voices? Isn’t there something very wrong in this state of affairs? Should we not relabel it the dictatorship of the urbanites (along the lines of the dictatorship of the proletariat)?

          Dalits were always present in cities. So it is understandable that their voice has begun to carry weight. But do we expect a forest community to make a new life in cities before their rights can be recognized? Are we saying that the exploitation of fisherfolk is inevitable unless they start residing in cities? But, then they would not be fisherfolk any longer. Is there no one in Indian civil society who can speak on behalf of non-urban residents? Is it relevant to make the point that most countries have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals presumably because animals do not have political parties or urban leadership? Is that too far-fetched an analogy?

          I agree that the Indian state is not monolithic but on the issue of the tribals do you see any significant differences of opinion amongst the various institutions of the state?

  7. Keluvardhanam Says:

    Anjum: Do please use my full name as I rather like it. Thanks.

    Before I respond, I have a general suggestion. For the last couple of posts, you have been like a chess grandmaster playing multiple “games” simultaneously against the various people who have been commenting on your posts. This is a great feat of course but I think you might want to encourage all participants to join the fray so the “game” becomes multi-sided rather than two-sided.

    I have no real answer to your negotiation model. Perhaps you are right that social change always occurs according to this model where the final resolution lies in the middle of two extremes. But one should at least look for instances of change that happened without the presence of extremes just to test the model. For example, Subhashchandra Bose’s army was too ragtag to do any real damage and so probably did not pose any real threat. What about the greater scope of voting in various democracies? Were these events (e.g. women’s right to vote) triggered by extremes? Etc.

    Conceptually, the model could be enriched in the following way. Maybe you are right that the powerful do not give in without a fight. But the state has a special position. It is at least in principle supposed to be a neutral arbiter among social forces and an upholder of the constitution. So this complicates the model from a negotiation between two parties to one among three. In such a situation, is an extreme force always essential?

    In other words, can the state be made to “behave” in a fair way vis-a-vis the tribals by non-violent means alone?

  8. Anjum Altaf Says:

    Keluvardhanam: Sorry for the abbreviation in my previous comment.

    The ideal would indeed be a multi-voice conversation – they are much richer than one-to-one exchanges – but that has not been attained yet on this blog. Hopefully readers would pick up on the suggestion and take the discussions to the next stage.

    My sense is that we have found ourselves in a bargaining format where it just doesn’t make sense for anyone to put their final offer on the table at the outset. Many people don’t like it but that’s how it is.

    Pure bargaining situations have to be distinguished from struggles for rights but there is some overlap. Such struggles have been protracted with small concessions extracted one at a time. The struggle for representation or self-representation (think of the Boston Tea Party and the various wars of independence) was a particularly extended one. There was a post earlier on the blog that summarized the history of the franchise (Democracy: A Historical Perspective).

    The state is clearly a player in the game but the assumption of it being a neutral umpire (as in neoclassical economics) is invalid. The state has its own interests and objectives. It can be modeled as a special player that has the authority to stipulate and change the rules of the game. Therefore any game that involves changing the rules has to engage the state as a player.

    The use of force or violence is not essential to the model. Any demand that can command a mandate that the state cannot deny could lead to a change of rules. The Magna Carta could be a good example. And we might finally be moving towards proportional representation in the UK after the Liberals found sufficient leverage in a hung parliament.

  9. Keluvardhanam Says:

    Anjum: Not necessary to apologize. I just like the sound of long names and I am fortunate to have one so why not enjoy it?

    I agree that the state is not neutral but has its own interests. I meant to say that in theory it could act neutrally in deciding between tribal and corporate interests. Currently, it is on the side of corporates. I was wondering if its stance could be made to shift so it represents the tribals more.

    If Arundhati Roy were to write more responsibly and if others in the media were to join in, do you think it could alter the state’s outlook? She is a prominent novelist and has a following, couldn’t she transform public opinion? She seems to be squandering a great opportunity.

    I think Arun Pillai was harping too much on practicality in the last post on Arundhati and Vinod seemed to have a similar mindset. Instead, the idea should be to build up public opinion in a strong way first. Then the government will not be able to be so unilateral.

  10. Anjum Altaf Says:

    Keluvardhanam:Thanks. My question is that if the government is supposed to represent the people why is it so much on the side of the corporations? Public pressure is the only way to redress the balance but that leaves the question unanswered.

    I feel we are missing the point by wishing Arundhati Roy to be more responsible. She has staked out a position for herself that accords with her sense of outrage. This does/should not prevent other voices from emerging. India is a very big country with a large number of prominent personalities. Any number of them could espouse a different approach. My question is where are they? Why should Arundhati have to carry the entire burden and fill every role that is needed?

    Dr. King had something insightful to say about the preference for practicality. I will look for it to share.

  11. Keluvardhanam Says:

    Anjum: Why others have not come forward is a mystery.

    The Maoists are already presenting an extreme front. My view still is that if Arundhati were to articulate Martin Luther King-like demands rather than condone violence, it could have a great impact. And her lone voice would grow in strength because multitudes would join her. This is what I mean by creating a “media uprising”. There should be widespread outrage at how the tribals have been and are being treated. The government would have to concede.

  12. Arun Pillai Says:

    I think you are both mistaken. The problem is that activists representing the tribals have not come forward with practical demands. By “practical” I do not mean “expedient” but demands that are reasonable and that take all interests into account. In my view, the state would listen if such demands were made. Vikram has made the telling point that there is no urban elite with tribal origins. I myself made a similar point earlier that no leader has emerged from their midst. So the activists are doing great damage to their cause by adopting extreme stances because they seem to be too concerned with how the corporates will benefit. The point is to secure how the tribals can benefit. Keluvardhanam is too enamored of a media uprising. The more important issue is what the outraged will say when they write or speak in the media. If what they say is like Arundhati’s misplaced romanticism then it will not get anywhere. To his credit, Keluvardhanam wants her to make Matin Luther King-like demands but this is completely unrealistic.

    • Anjum Altaf Says:

      Arun: There is a central question that we are failing to address and to answer with any conviction. Why is the representation of the tribals been ceded to the extremists? Why are no other, more moderate, groups emerging from civil society to better represent the tribals? Why indeed is the much more powerful state not being able to prise the tribals apart from the extremists?

      Condemning the extremists and hoping they would become more moderate is not a viable strategy. We have no idea why the extremists are doing what they are doing – they may well have the aim of crippling the state. If so, there is all the more reason to separate out the two issues – addressing the needs of the tribals and confronting the contenders for state power.

      One has to admit that there is a serious failure of governance if a legitimate claim only gets attention when it is raised in such a violent fashion. What are the causes of such a failure of governance? And what are the causes of such a non-political response?

  13. Keluvardhanam Says:

    Arun: You don’t seem to be getting a key point Anjum has been making throughout. This point is that the government’s current stance – which is belligerent – will prevent it from “listening” to even reasonable demands. That is why there first has to be widespread public outrage at this inhumanity. Only then will the government be willing to change its behavior.

  14. Vinod Says:

    What is wrong with the way economics is taught today?

    • SouthAsian Says:

      Vinod: There are two separate issues: What is wrong with economics and what is wrong with the way it is taught. In my view, there are huge gaps in economic theorizing. In the early period of the discipline there were political and moral economy but the politics and the morals were jettisoned when economics modeled itself on physics as a science. The resulting model of human behavior amenable to mathematical analysis became so weak it is nothing more than fiction. It is useful only when the situation is in equilibrium but as soon as there are deviations from the equilibrium the predictive weaknesses of the behavioral model are exposed. When theory is really needed – in a crisis – there is nothing that works. There has always been a strain of behavioral economics on the margins and it is now getting more attention after the recent financial crisis which once again showed that the micro-foundations of macroeconomics are very weak.

      Economics is taught badly (most of the time) because it is taught top-down from a very unrealistic model. It is not taught bottom-up where students are exposed to problems and allowed to figure out how well the theory captures the reality of the problems. And then no economic history is taught which makes people feel as if they can start from scratch every time a problem arises.

      I find economics more akin to ideology than a scientific discipline. Practitioners rarely start from the facts and allow them to suggest a conclusion (in the way a detective might work). Rather they start with a given systemic preference (free market, state dominance, religious framework) and look for the facts that would support their pre-determined solutions. This is one explanation for the faddishness of economic policies.

  15. Vinod Says:

  16. SouthAsian Says:

    I am sure readers will be divided sharply on this perspective:

    “Australia’s recent decision to give up uranium mining on aboriginal land in Koongarra stands in sharp contrast to the Manmohan Singh government’s dithering and double-speak on the forceful acquisition of tribal lands. This also highlights Indian officialdom’s shallow and insensitive understanding of the land and life of tribal communities.”

  17. SouthAsian Says:

    This message from Alan Gorg is valuable in the context of the rights of indigenous peoples:

    Please accept my respectful suggestion that all be aware of these potential situatons which continue for many Native Americans, as well as for indigenous peoples worldwide.


    The ultimate fine cut edit of the historical docudrama EARTH SPIRIT (82 minutes) is at last now available for download to own, as well as rental, on Pivotshare. All the bothersome sequences have been removed. Based on the half-century of resistance by the Hopi, Dine’, Havasupai, and other indigenous American peoples against oil and mining exploitation and pollution of their lands, this story of a city teenager drawn home to defend the land of his ancestors won the Neptune Award at the MoonDance International Film Festival.


    Neptune Award, MoonDance International Film Festival
    Official Selection, GreenScreen Environmental Film Festival
    Official Selection, Green Lens International Film Festival
    Official Selection, S.U.R.G.E. International Film Festival
    Official Selection, Third World Indie International Film Festival

    The continued oil and mining on lands of indigenous peoples produced a sequel: the educational video

    PROPHECY&POLLUTION, with documentary exposes’ of exploitation and pollution all around the Third World:

    download on the watchbox:

    See also:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: