BLAME ON THE BODY, GUILT IN THE SYSTEM: STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE AND NECROPOLITICAL POWER IN ARUNDHATI ROY’S THE MINISTRY OF UTMOST HAPPINESS

Abstract

This study investigates the intricate dynamics of structural violence, necropolitical power, guilt displacement, and ethical resistance in Arundhati Roy’s The Ministry of Utmost Happiness; moreover, it situates the novel within broader socio-political contexts where marginalized bodies—such as those of Hijras, Dalits, Muslims, and political dissidents—are systematically exposed to harm, while institutional mechanisms obscure responsibility. The primary objectives of the study were to examine how Roy’s text represents structural violence through embodied suffering, analyze the functioning of necropolitical power in determining whose lives are grievable, explore how guilt is displaced onto vulnerable individuals, and identify forms of ethical resistance and alternative community formations. To achieve these objectives, the study employed a qualitative, interpretive methodology, drawing on close textual analysis combined with theoretical frameworks including structural violence theory (Galtung, 1969; Farmer, 2004), necro-politics (Mbembe, 2003), and postcolonial ethics (Butler, 2009), while integrating discourse analysis to trace how institutional power operates within the narrative; furthermore, conjunctive adverbs were used in the analysis to maintain logical coherence across complex socio-political themes. The findings reveal that structural violence is normalized through institutional neglect and social exclusion; in addition, necropolitical power governs life and death, selectively determining whose suffering is acknowledged and whose is ignored. Guilt is displaced from institutions onto marginalized bodies, thereby preserving state authority, while ethical resistance emerges through relational practices such as care, mourning, and informal community solidarity, which, although provisional, contest the logic of disposability. The study concludes that Roy’s novel functions as both a literary archive and a socio-political critique, demonstrating that literature can illuminate systemic oppression and foreground ethical responsibility; moreover, it recommends that policymakers, scholars, and institutions recognize the human cost of bureaucratic and militarized systems and foster care, inclusion, and relational solidarity to mitigate the effects of structural and necropolitical violence.