"Is corruption just a matter of legality, of financial irregularity and bribery, or is it the currency of a social transaction in an egregiously unequal society, in which power continues to be concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller minority? Imagine, for example, a city of shopping malls, on whose streets hawking has been banned. A hawker pays the local beat cop and the man from the municipality a small bribe to break the law and sell her wares to those who cannot afford the prices in the malls. Is that such a terrible thing? In future will she have to pay the Lokpal representative too?"
- Arundhati roy in an article she wrote in "The Hindu" dissing Anna Hazare's protest.
That in a nutshell is prototype of all the argument Arundhati Roy has put forward. Devoid of logic, an abundant use of the different words meaning poor people without suggesting even remotely good to them and the Anti India statement -though this time the last bit might not be true. Just this time.
What she essential says bribery is a great leveler in our unequal society because hawkers can pay bribe and like most sentences from Ms. Roy it doesnt even involve convoluted logic to break her argument - the big shopping mall owner can pay much larger amounts than the hawkers so corruption will ensure the hawkers get bull dozed out.
Infact, that would be the problem with corruption. That it ensures an "egregiously unequal society" remains so.
But Roy writes and has been writing with this sort of lack of logic for a decade and half and thinks she can get away by just including the word minority, people and a bucket load of flowery language and What more - She does get away.
Now, I dont know where I stand regarding Anna Hazare's protest for the Lokpal bill and I havent had time to even scrap through wiki entry but this piece makes me think may be it should be supported. You know the logic there? Anything Arundhati roy supports would be anti- India and reverse might also be true. If she rejects an idea it must be good for India.