Arundhati Roy on Writing, Dissent and Why She Won't Stay Silent

Since her debut novel won the Booker Prize in 1997, Arundhati Roy has built a public identity that extends well beyond the world of literature. The internationally celebrated author has become one of the most prominent voices challenging the government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, using her fiction, nonfiction and political essays to confront what she views as deeply rooted social injustice.

Roy's willingness to engage with politically charged subjects was the focus of a recent episode of Al Jazeera's "Talk to Al Jazeera," in which she discussed her body of work and her refusal to avoid controversial topics. The program highlighted her long-standing commitment to addressing inequality and her role as an outspoken critic of India's political establishment.

At the heart of Roy's approach is a simple conviction: a writer must follow what genuinely moves her. The title of the episode captures that philosophy, suggesting that suppressing her own instincts would amount to a form of self-imprisonment. For Roy, silence is not neutrality — it is a constraint she is unwilling to accept, even when her views provoke fierce backlash.

That backlash has been considerable. Supporters portray Roy as relentless in holding those in power accountable, praising her for refusing to soften her criticism of the Modi administration. Her detractors, by contrast, label her divisive and anti-India, arguing that her attacks on the government undermine the country's image and unity. The divide reflects a broader tension in contemporary India over the boundaries of acceptable dissent.

Roy's criticism of the Modi government is wide-ranging. She has described India as an extremely poor nation whose government disempowers its own citizens and works to silence those who speak out. In her view, the machinery of the state is directed less at serving the public than at consolidating control and suppressing opposition — a charge the government and its supporters reject.

Her activism is not confined to the page. Roy has taken part in demonstrations against Modi's policies, translating her written critiques into direct public action. This combination of literary acclaim and street-level protest has made her a uniquely polarizing figure: admired by many as a moral compass, denounced by others as a destabilizing force.

The interview program situates Roy within a broader series of conversations with influential global figures. Other episodes have featured climate activist Vanessa Nakate, who argued that Africa bears no responsibility for the climate crisis, and Nigerian business magnate Aliko Dangote, who discussed refining his country's oil and creating wealth across the continent. The strand also includes discussions on Guyana's oil boom and the Rohingya humanitarian crisis, reflecting a focus on power, inequality and global justice.

For Roy, the personal and the political are inseparable. Her fiction, including her Booker-winning debut and her later novels, weaves together intimate human stories with sweeping critiques of caste, class and state power. Her nonfiction and essays, meanwhile, function as direct interventions in public debate, tackling topics ranging from environmental destruction to militarization and civil liberties.

Critics who call her anti-India often point to her harshest statements, but Roy's defenders argue that patriotism and blind loyalty are not the same thing. In their view, holding a government to account — especially one with a strong electoral mandate — is a democratic duty rather than an act of betrayal. This argument places Roy at the center of a much larger debate about nationalism and free expression in modern India.

Roy's characterization of India as a "super poor" nation is a pointed inversion of the country's aspirations to great-power status. While India's economy has grown rapidly and its global influence has expanded, Roy emphasizes the persistent deprivation faced by hundreds of millions of citizens. She argues that this gap between image and reality is obscured by a government more focused on its reputation than on the welfare of the people it governs.

Her reference to "scandal after scandal" reflects her view that India's political culture is riddled with failures of accountability. Despite this, she remains optimistic that political change is on the way — a striking position given her unsparing assessment of the current landscape. That optimism appears rooted in her belief that citizens, particularly younger generations, will eventually demand a different kind of leadership.

The tension between Roy's optimism and her critics' hostility illustrates the stakes of her work. If she is right that change is coming, her writing may be remembered as part of the pressure that made it possible. If her critics are right that she is a destructive influence, her legacy will remain contested. Either way, she has ensured that the questions she raises cannot be easily ignored.

The Al Jazeera episode also underscores how Roy's influence extends beyond India. Audiences around the world encounter her as a global public intellectual, someone whose arguments about power and injustice resonate far beyond South Asia. Her willingness to appear in international media, and to restate her views in unflinching terms, keeps those arguments in circulation.

In an era when journalists and writers face growing pressure in many countries, Roy's stance carries symbolic weight. Her insistence that she must write what moves her, regardless of the consequences, is both a personal credo and a challenge to others in public life. It implies that fear of offending the powerful is itself a form of captivity.

Ultimately, the portrait that emerges is of a writer who has chosen confrontation over comfort. Roy's career demonstrates that literary prestige and political dissent can coexist — though rarely without cost. Whether one agrees with her or not, her determination to speak, as she puts it, rather than imprison herself, defines both her work and her place in the debate over India's future.