What do you think?
Rate this book
The Greater Common Good
Non fiction piece on Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) Project published in 1999.
76 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
7 people are currently reading
600 people want to read
About the author
Arundhati Roy
100 books13.9k followersArundhati Roy is an Indian writer who is also an activist who focuses on issues related to social justice and economic inequality. She won the Booker Prize in 1997 for her novel, The God of Small Things, and has also written two screenplays and several collections of essays.
For her work as an activist she received the Cultural Freedom Prize awarded by the Lannan Foundation in 2002.
For her work as an activist she received the Cultural Freedom Prize awarded by the Lannan Foundation in 2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
May 1, 2020
Preamble:
--May 24, 1999: Roy’s original essay (“The Greater Common Good”) critiquing the Sardar Sarovar mega dam
--July 5, 1999: B.G. Verghese’s rebuttal (“A Poetic License”)
--July 12, 1999: Roy’s response (“The Greater Common Good II”)
--May 8, 2000: more from Roy (“A Venal, Dangerous Lie”)
--You can find all these and more here: https://antville.org/static/sites/swe...
--The original essay is good, but it’s the back-and-forth that is most illuminating with Roy shining bright.
Highlights:
--Before we go any further, it’s important to note:
1) The aim is not anti-development; it is anti-development failure. There are other more community-centered alternatives that do not require building a massive, high-cost, high-risk mess of contradictory promises.
2) While Roy is not an engineer, she is unearthing the political power relations that cannot be resolved by technical wizardry (in fact, such apolitical assumptions further entrenches unequal power)
--Roy’s original essay highlights how mass displacements are overwhelmingly externalized from the project; with the official numbers marred by such omissions and secrecy, Roy demonstrates the need to stay critical by considering previous dam costs, cash crops dependency, water-logging/salination, etc.
--This is broadened to consider the World Bank’s initial eagerness to provide a loan while mega dams are going out of style in the West, and more generally the perverse flow of “development aid” money back to the rich lenders in the form of loan interest payments and costs: according to the World Bank's own annual reports, India paid the World Bank $1.475 billion more than it received (from 1993-1998)!
--Verghese’s rebuttal is that Roy poetically makes false claims.
--Roy’s response zeros in on Verghese’s fallacious assumptions, i.e. accusing Roy of being anti-development and believing in a romanticized “noble savage” myth, while Verghese disregards alternative community-based development (as if there is no alternative) and literally says “why not wait and see?”.
Further reflections:
--This essay caught my interest on several levels:
1) Having visited the Three Gorges Dam, and recently taking a course in political ecology, the topic of mega dams and energy infrastructure was fresh on the surface.
2) A deeper paradox is how “economic social development” should be conceptualized:
…on the one hand, I have strong agreements with using “underdevelopment” (or, better yet, maldevelopment) to describe the effects of the one-sided exchange of imperialist violence on communities and their social relations. Cultural relativism cannot be used to brush aside famine, disease, illiteracy, etc., further emphasized by the long histories of these civilizations: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.
…on the other hand, post-colonial modernist development can be misdirected, in part because many of these nationalist movements were popular fronts where domestic power structures were left intact (see The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World); it’s no surprise then that Western capitalist development was often mistakenly used as the model for modernization. To use the US as a model for “economic development” primarily serves the interests of a certain class; massive profits can be reaped for the few, while the masses still lack social services and the most outcast languish in prisons/ghettos (slums in the global south).
…furthermore, it is true that even in non-capitalist imaginaries, the complex dialogue between contending views on “development” continues to be challenging.
--May 24, 1999: Roy’s original essay (“The Greater Common Good”) critiquing the Sardar Sarovar mega dam
--July 5, 1999: B.G. Verghese’s rebuttal (“A Poetic License”)
--July 12, 1999: Roy’s response (“The Greater Common Good II”)
--May 8, 2000: more from Roy (“A Venal, Dangerous Lie”)
--You can find all these and more here: https://antville.org/static/sites/swe...
--The original essay is good, but it’s the back-and-forth that is most illuminating with Roy shining bright.
Highlights:
--Before we go any further, it’s important to note:
1) The aim is not anti-development; it is anti-development failure. There are other more community-centered alternatives that do not require building a massive, high-cost, high-risk mess of contradictory promises.
2) While Roy is not an engineer, she is unearthing the political power relations that cannot be resolved by technical wizardry (in fact, such apolitical assumptions further entrenches unequal power)
--Roy’s original essay highlights how mass displacements are overwhelmingly externalized from the project; with the official numbers marred by such omissions and secrecy, Roy demonstrates the need to stay critical by considering previous dam costs, cash crops dependency, water-logging/salination, etc.
--This is broadened to consider the World Bank’s initial eagerness to provide a loan while mega dams are going out of style in the West, and more generally the perverse flow of “development aid” money back to the rich lenders in the form of loan interest payments and costs: according to the World Bank's own annual reports, India paid the World Bank $1.475 billion more than it received (from 1993-1998)!
--Verghese’s rebuttal is that Roy poetically makes false claims.
--Roy’s response zeros in on Verghese’s fallacious assumptions, i.e. accusing Roy of being anti-development and believing in a romanticized “noble savage” myth, while Verghese disregards alternative community-based development (as if there is no alternative) and literally says “why not wait and see?”.
Further reflections:
--This essay caught my interest on several levels:
1) Having visited the Three Gorges Dam, and recently taking a course in political ecology, the topic of mega dams and energy infrastructure was fresh on the surface.
2) A deeper paradox is how “
…on the one hand, I have strong agreements with using “underdevelopment” (or, better yet, maldevelopment) to describe the effects of the one-sided exchange of imperialist violence on communities and their social relations. Cultural relativism cannot be used to brush aside famine, disease, illiteracy, etc., further emphasized by the long histories of these civilizations: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.
…on the other hand, post-colonial modernist development can be misdirected, in part because many of these nationalist movements were popular fronts where domestic power structures were left intact (see The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World); it’s no surprise then that Western capitalist development was often mistakenly used as the model for modernization. To use the US as a model for “economic development” primarily serves the interests of a certain class; massive profits can be reaped for the few, while the masses still lack social services and the most outcast languish in prisons/ghettos (slums in the global south).
…furthermore, it is true that even in non-capitalist imaginaries, the complex dialogue between contending views on “development” continues to be challenging.
March 1, 2017
Something written during Narmada Bachao Andolan probably wouldn’t have much significance now; but after hearing P.Sainad’s excerpts on tribal population displacement, I decided to give the past a go. Though mockings and rhetoric narratives in this non-fiction felt detestably annoying, which this essay isn’t any short of, they didn’t alleviate my emotions towards the plight of project affected people.
I am not so aware of the conditions as of now, nor the credibility of the data author so colorfully dishes out, but I really appreciate the effort for putting the numbers in perspective. And the fact that very little has been done to the displaced tribal people, mostly by negligence, is acceptable without any debate, everything from Naxalbara till now stands as definite proof.
I am not so aware of the conditions as of now, nor the credibility of the data author so colorfully dishes out, but I really appreciate the effort for putting the numbers in perspective. And the fact that very little has been done to the displaced tribal people, mostly by negligence, is acceptable without any debate, everything from Naxalbara till now stands as definite proof.
May 21, 2021
The title "The Greater Common Good" is obviously a bit of acid irony here. I feel like Roy is doing a very good job of "show don't tell." She goes into meticulous detail chronicling all the ways that dam projects generally and the Sardar Sarovar project specifically crush people's lives. The justification is that these lives must be ruined for the greater common good. Roy obviously has a lot to say about how morally bankrupt and false such assurances are, but I felt like she could have "told" a little more.
The proof is here, the villagers who happen to live anywhere near one of these dam projects are completely out of luck. They just have no hope of fair recompense in the face of a government determined to make such a thing happen. Lives are ruined and lost without a second thought.
I just wish that Roy could have perhaps meditated more on the "common good" theme, which is why I wanted to read the book. She's not saying that the common good is bad - she is saying that it is the oldest trick in the book to characterize something as common good when it manifestly is not. I feel like she makes her point - dams are terrible - but missed an opportunity to meditate perhaps on what the common good should actually mean. Perhaps that's too old. Perhaps ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have already said enough. But I wanted to hear what she had to say about it, and I'm sad that she didn't.
The proof is here, the villagers who happen to live anywhere near one of these dam projects are completely out of luck. They just have no hope of fair recompense in the face of a government determined to make such a thing happen. Lives are ruined and lost without a second thought.
I just wish that Roy could have perhaps meditated more on the "common good" theme, which is why I wanted to read the book. She's not saying that the common good is bad - she is saying that it is the oldest trick in the book to characterize something as common good when it manifestly is not. I feel like she makes her point - dams are terrible - but missed an opportunity to meditate perhaps on what the common good should actually mean. Perhaps that's too old. Perhaps ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle have already said enough. But I wanted to hear what she had to say about it, and I'm sad that she didn't.
March 3, 2018
A worthy issue described by the wrong pen.
Though Narmada's tragic devastation by the greedy is well-known, it's not very well-argued in this unbalanced, research-slim book. A great essay presents both sides of a topic equally, allowing readers to conclude for themselves. No such luck here. Roy's fiction writing is fantastic... but her angry voice smacks of a yen for celebrityhood, overall undermining her credibility in an arena best recounted by journalists.
.
Though Narmada's tragic devastation by the greedy is well-known, it's not very well-argued in this unbalanced, research-slim book. A great essay presents both sides of a topic equally, allowing readers to conclude for themselves. No such luck here. Roy's fiction writing is fantastic... but her angry voice smacks of a yen for celebrityhood, overall undermining her credibility in an arena best recounted by journalists.
.
October 4, 2016
Arundhati roy spins a nice tale on her half knowledge and biased world view.
Her god of small things is a must read. But this one, is pretty short on facts. one needs to read BG Vergheese's rebutal of various so called 'facts' of arundhati.
http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/...
Giving two stars because whatever she writes can you make you believe. Facts be damned!
Her god of small things is a must read. But this one, is pretty short on facts. one needs to read BG Vergheese's rebutal of various so called 'facts' of arundhati.
http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/...
Giving two stars because whatever she writes can you make you believe. Facts be damned!
July 22, 2012
A paradigm developmental tale, which shows that how someone has to defoliate,for others to survive.An unequivocal obstinate struggle of the poor against the primacy of hegemony. Unravels scads of discursive corrupt practices, yet it shows that how they remain important than the environment and some "low-class" people.Because it is all about the Greater Common Good.
Let me sum it up just in a matter or few extracts of the book itself.
"If you are to suffer, you should suffer in the interest of the country."
Jawaharlal Nehru
"People say that the Sardar Sarovar Dam is an expensive project. But it is bringing drinking water to millions. This is our lifeline. Can you put a price on this? Does the air we breathe have a price? We will live. We will drink. We will bring glory to the state of Gujarat."
- Urmilaben Patel
"Why didn't they just poison us? Then we wouldn't have to live in this shit-hole and the Government could have survived alone with its precious dam all to itself."
Our leaders say that we must have nuclear missiles to protect us from the threat of China and Pakistan. But who will protect us from ourselves? What kind of country is this? Who owns it? Who runs it? What's going on?
Big Dams are to a Nation's 'Development' what Nuclear Bombs are to its Military Arsenal. They're both weapons of mass destruction. They're both weapons Governments use to control their own people. Both Twentieth Century emblems that mark a point in time when human intelligence has outstripped its own instinct for survival.
Bhaiji Bhai, Bhaiji Bhai, when will you get angry? When will you stop waiting? When will you say `That's enough!' and reach for your weapons, whatever they may be> When will you show us the whole of your resonant, terrifying, invincible strength?
When will you break the faith? Will you break the faith? Or will you let it break you?
Build a dam to take water away from 40 million people.No, Build a dam to pretend to bring water to 40 million people.
December 4, 2015
Brilliance - her name is Arundhati Roy.
October 8, 2025
Read as part of Roy’s collection “My Seditious Heart” in which she describes this essay as the foundation of pretty much all her later works. And it’s easy to see why. My words can’t do it justice, but this is why capitalism and democracy (as we know them) are fallacies and just additional tools of oppression. Make this the only required reading in every high school government class.
November 18, 2025
A sharp and emotional Book...
Arundhati Roy exposes how a big dam project destroyed the lives of thousands of villagers in the name of development.
The book is short but hits hard. It made me understand how the poor are usually the ones who pay the price.
Worth reading...
Arundhati Roy exposes how a big dam project destroyed the lives of thousands of villagers in the name of development.
The book is short but hits hard. It made me understand how the poor are usually the ones who pay the price.
Worth reading...
March 25, 2020
How I read this book
April 4, 2021
Written with compelling logic and a piercing sarcasm
Read
November 27, 2025Incendiary and brutally honest piece on the dark side of industrialization in India, which also rings true around the world of displacement, ecological disaster, and capitalist fervor.
Read
January 12, 2015Rhetorically audacious essay on the staggering damage of and official sophisms surrounding dam building in India and, in particular, the (for a time) World Bank funded Sardar Sarovar dam. Roy eviscerates the logic behind these dams (and similar, massive wet infrastructural projects) by pointing out the drastically uneven distribution of costs and benefits--how massive economic, environmental, social, and human costs are inflicted upon the longest tenured local peoples (if such projects do not totally erase them) while the projects themselves deliver only a fraction of what they promise to these communities. And of course, the financiers and corporate stakeholders and state of such projects make out just fine. Nixon discusses the essay at length in Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. It's curious he doesn't fully confront the implications of Roy's holocaust rhetoric. Would pair well with Mike Davis' Planet of Slums for insight into the developmental forces that push people into slums by the millions.
July 13, 2015
The essay is certainly the best essay on Narmada bachao andolan. The book gives very good insights to the life of the people living near the dams and their displacement and resettlement. And again as usual the best thing of the book is its language. The way she write about any thing is so beautiful that its make grip on you and your mind.Her writing gave me insight to the real world. I confess 'I Love you Arundhati Roy'.
November 4, 2007
A brilliant, if short, essay on the topic of dam building in India and the resultant internally displaced persons. Not nearly as dry as the topic would indicate...It lashes out cogently at development programs, nationalism, and state-condoned oppression through "the greater common good". An alarming, insightful, and damning piece.
September 29, 2013
Have always been a lover of words. Arundhati has got a style that quiet can tingle your nerves.
Likes: Words. Words. And best words.
Dislikes: A little too communistic; a lot of rationalised speculation, even if true, raises the concern, but lacks suggestive solutions.
Likes: Words. Words. And best words.
Dislikes: A little too communistic; a lot of rationalised speculation, even if true, raises the concern, but lacks suggestive solutions.
Read
October 31, 2007This book is a compelling book on the impact of the Narmada Vally Dam and nuclear testing in India. It is not very long and quite informative
September 14, 2016
I read this book when recommended by a relative on mine.
A great read and the title for me rings true as to why some societies fail to progress.
Brilliant writing from a brilliant writer.
A great read and the title for me rings true as to why some societies fail to progress.
Brilliant writing from a brilliant writer.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews