coffee_rules Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/What-Muslims-were-to-BJP-Maoists-are-to-Cong-Arundhati/articleshow/5161506.cms What Muslims were to BJP, Maoists are to Cong: Arundhati NEW DELHI: Supporting unconditional talks with Maoists, Booker prize winning author and activist Arundhati Roy alleged that “economic interests” in mineral-rich states had driven the government and establishment to launch action against them. “My fear is that because of this economic interest, the government and establishment actually needs a war. It needs to militarise. For that it needs an enemy. And so in a way what Muslims were to BJP, Maoists are to Congress,” Roy said in an interview to a TV channel. Asked about talks between the government and Left wing extremists, she said, “There should be unconditional talks with the Maoists.” “If I was a person who is being dispossessed, whose wife has been raped, who is being pushed off his land and who is being faced with this police force, I would say that I am justified in taking up arms. If that is the only way I have to defend myself,” she said when asked whether armed struggle was justified. “We should stop thinking about who is justified... You have an army of very poor people being faced down by an army of rich that are corporate-backed. I am sorry but it is like that. So you can’t extract morality from the heinous act of violence that each commits against the other,” she said. ---------- With quotes like that, our media would hound her like moth near a flame. She wants to give out these quotes to be quoted in the media, I guess. She is a one-trick pony.
Lurker Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 She lost it a couple of years back. Should not be listened to her even by her ardent fans.
ViruRulez Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 She is an *****hole ... I mentioned about her in the maoist thread.. she is an insane aurat who proposes violence :wall: .. I was pissed off with her interview the other day and I mentioned about it in the other thread too.. these fecking human rights activists are the ones who should be jailed ... they are taking too much benefit of the word "democracy" and these human rights *****tivists make a big issue when a Kasab or a Maoist is even questioned but these *****holes are nowhere to be seen when Indian citizens are killed by Kasabs, Maoists and other anti-national elements
triam Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 She is an *****hole ... I mentioned about her in the maoist thread.. she is an insane aurat who proposes violence :wall: .. I was pissed off with her interview the other day and I mentioned about it in the other thread too.. these fecking human rights activists are the ones who should be jailed ... they are taking too much benefit of the word "democracy" and these human rights *****tivists make a big issue when a Kasab or a Maoist is even questioned but these *****holes are nowhere to be seen when Indian citizens are killed by Kasabs' date=' Maoists and other anti-national elements[/quote'] Please dont blame all human rights activists because of Ms.Roy, she has been already discussed in detail in this thread http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=134058&highlight=arundhati+roy
Ram Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Her insane sounding rhetoric should not blind us from the general message she is trying to convey – The govt. should stop viewing the Maoists as some sort of enemies of the state and use every branch of state machinery to crush them. Rather, they should try to negotiate with them and address their genuine grievances. History has shown that force does not quell a fundamentalist movement, but strengthens it. That’s exactly the mistake the most powerful empire in the history of mankind – America, did. George Bush and his misguided henchmen went on a relentless crusade dividing humanity, calling nations and groups of nations as evil, terrorists etc.. Now, even that empire is beating a hasty retreat, humbled by their realization that their confrontational attitude has won them more enemies than friends.
The Outsider Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I interacted with her off an on during a summer when she was in Pune for the Narmada movement - I was there on a 3 month research project at the Inter University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics and she was staying there and it's a very small place so you end up knowing everyone in a matter of days. She was motivated and good at that time, but has completely lost her mental balance now. Weren't the Kashmiri Pundits persecuted? Did they take up arms? What about Dalai Lama? It's unfortunate that our media is full of crap journalists as well who just look for soundbites and have no intention in putting to logical scrutiny the crap delivered by people by some cross questioning.
punjabi_khota Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Her insane sounding rhetoric should not blind us from the general message she is trying to convey – The govt. should stop viewing the Maoists as some sort of enemies of the state and use every branch of state machinery to crush them. Rather, they should try to negotiate with them and address their genuine grievances. History has shown that force does not quell a fundamentalist movement, but strengthens it. That’s exactly the mistake the most powerful empire in the history of mankind – America, did. George Bush and his misguided henchmen went on a relentless crusade dividing humanity, calling nations and groups of nations as evil, terrorists etc.. Now, even that empire is beating a hasty retreat, humbled by their realization that their confrontational attitude has won them more enemies than friends. LTTE, Khalistan movement in Punjab and Chechnya in Russia are counterexamples to your theory. All of these movements have been crushed by force. And these are more relevant to the case at hand because these were internal movements, as opposed to America's misadventures in global policing. We should surely talk to Maoists but at our terms, not theirs. I don't think any self respecting government should be open to unconditional talks to rogues like Maoists.
Ram Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 LTTE' date=' Khalistan movement in Punjab and Chechnya in Russia are counterexamples to your theory. All of these movements have been crushed by force. [/quote'] I think you should draw distinctions between insurgencies and fundamentalist movements that by and large has the grass-roots support. In my view, Khalistan and the rebel movements in Chechenya were more insurgent movements. LTTE was defeated sure, but only after 2 decades of war, during which the Sri lankan’s military was repeatedly pushed back. You should also not forget that combination of many factors (war weariness among the Tamils, infighting and factionalism among the LTTE ranks, drying up of foreign source of funds) let to the fall of LTTE. On the contrary, I can point you out to several instances when crude military intervention has fanned violence and bloodshed (Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, East Timor etc..) We should surely talk to Maoists but at our terms, not theirs. I don't think any self respecting government should be open to unconditional talks to rogues like Maoists. I am not advocating an open white-flag sort of approach. All I am asking for is flexibility. I am sure there are several moderate elements within the Maoists. But if we think we win this fight by merely the barrel of the gun, we will be sorely mistaken.
ViruRulez Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 I am not advocating an open white-flag sort of approach. All I am asking for is flexibility. I am sure there are several moderate elements within the Maoists. But if we think we win this fight by merely the barrel of the gun, we will be sorely mistaken. But what flexibility do you expect when they are attacking India every day.. just opened news channel and morning's breaking news is that maoists have blown down two school buildings in Jharkhand today.. so do you expect to treat them humbly if they continue such rogue activities .. there should be negotiation but it should be only be done through non-violence
ViruRulez Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Please dont blame all human rights activists because of Ms.Roy, she has been already discussed in detail in this thread http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=134058&highlight=arundhati+roy I agree that all human rights activists should not be generalized but at the same time, I have failed to see them make any protest etc. or open their human shop when terrorists, maoists etc. attack innocent Indian citizens .. they only open their human rights shop when a Kasab or a maoist is harmed or brought to court Even worldwide these human rights and animal rights activists have proved themselves to be more of a nautanki than any real concern.. PETA is a prime example .. they speak about animal rights and going vegetarianism but their ads with the skimpy or nude models dont show any seriousness at all :hatsoff:
Ram Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 But what flexibility do you expect when they are attacking India every day.. just opened news channel and morning's breaking news is that maoists have blown down two school buildings in Jharkhand today.. so do you expect to treat them humbly if they continue such rogue activities .. there should be negotiation but it should be only be done through non-violence Arre baba, you do realize that, within the Maoists themselves, there are different factions and groups don’t you? Surely, some of them maybe willing to negotiate with the government. The point I am trying to stress is that the central and state govts. should not treat this as a law and order issue, merely hoping that more force means better results. They should treat it as a social issue. Its obvious that the Maoists have some significant support among the local population in some isolated pockets.
ViruRulez Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Arre baba, you do realize that, within the Maoists themselves, there are different factions and groups don’t you? Surely, some of them maybe willing to negotiate with the government. The point I am trying to stress is that the central and state govts. should not treat this as a law and order issue, merely hoping that more force means better results. They should treat it as a social issue. Its obvious that the Maoists have some significant support among the local population in some isolated pockets. I agree that negotiation should go on but it should not be on their conditions but on our conditions. You cannot talk peace when they are attacking innocent civilians frequently. I agree that there are factions within them but at the same time, they are saying that they will only come to negotiation table if Indian security forces leave those all the maoist/naxalite areas completely. On the other hand, they are going on attacking and killing normal people. I dont think it is right to stoop down to come to negotiations but if they give up violence I would surely like negotiations to go on and peaceful and sensible solutions to emerge.
Guest Gunner Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 I think you should draw distinctions between insurgencies and fundamentalist movements that by and large has the grass-roots support. In my view' date=' Khalistan and [b']the rebel movements in Chechenya were more insurgent movements. LTTE was defeated sure, but only after 2 decades of war, during which the Sri lankan’s military was repeatedly pushed back. You should also not forget that combination of many factors (war weariness among the Tamils, infighting and factionalism among the LTTE ranks, drying up of foreign source of funds) let to the fall of LTTE. On the contrary, I can point you out to several instances when crude military intervention has fanned violence and bloodshed (Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, East Timor etc..) I am not advocating an open white-flag sort of approach. All I am asking for is flexibility. I am sure there are several moderate elements within the Maoists. But if we think we win this fight by merely the barrel of the gun, we will be sorely mistaken. I don't understand what you mean by that, are you saying the chechnyan rebels were external to the region?
Texy Posted November 7, 2009 Posted November 7, 2009 The other day....maoists hijacked the train but didn't harm a single passenger....their fight is with the govt and a lot of people associated with naxal were indeed forced into it by poverty, corruption and treatment by the local/federal govt.
The Outsider Posted November 7, 2009 Posted November 7, 2009 The other day....maoists hijacked the train but didn't harm a single passenger....their fight is with the govt and a lot of people associated with naxal were indeed forced into it by poverty' date=' corruption and treatment by the local/federal govt.[/quote'] All hail the Maoists :adore:
triam Posted November 7, 2009 Posted November 7, 2009 The other day....maoists hijacked the train but didn't harm a single passenger....their fight is with the govt and a lot of people associated with naxal were indeed forced into it by poverty' date=' corruption and treatment by the local/federal govt.[/quote'] WTF are you talking aboout? maoists are in brothers in arms with one of your fav organizations "SIMI". Their beginnings way back may have been justified against the zamindari system or whatevr, but now they are just another extremist organization. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1794302,prtpage-1.cms
Ram Posted November 7, 2009 Posted November 7, 2009 I don't understand what you mean by that' date=' are you saying the chechnyan rebels were external to the region?[/quote'] No, what i meant was the rebel movement in Chechenya was not a mass movement that was propelled by the large proportion of the populace, but more of a Kashmir type insurgency, where the militias would focus on attacked military targets and then withdraw back into their hideouts.
coffee_rules Posted June 2, 2010 Author Posted June 2, 2010 A Roy, spokesperson of the Maoists! http://news.rediff.com/special/2010/jun/02/arundhati-roy-on-war-of-people.htm Pakistan, which was never allowed to have a democracy thanks to the US, is craving for a democracy, while India, a democracy is fighting for a military state. The media, the middle class is begging for a military state, she says. I don't know what to say for the first comment. The second is partially true. I think the middle class wants to secure what they have and most affected by the law/order situation or unruly people trying to prove whatever ideologies they wear on their sleeves. For a state like India, a stronger govt is always good.
Recommended Posts