The Outsider Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Shwetabh, I trust you will believe me I empathize with the situation the tribals face ? Aside frm that I have a few questions to you I don't have any doubts on that. Nor am I trying to justify any kind of violence. Finding and analyzing reasons for violence is a different exercise to justifying it. 1. Do you believe this is a grass root organization completely home grown , without any support (financial or otherwise) from china? The grass root organization is more or less home grown. They would be getting some form of help in the form of arms and finances from China through Nepal, but the roots of dissent are indigenous. I am a part of this NGO, Eklavya, which aims at tribal education and had spent a summer or two in Chattisgarh (at that time still MP) more than 10 years back. We were very well received by the local population. There were pockets of dangerous areas, but more or less you were safe. Since moving to US, I haven't been able to contribute by spending much time in the field with them, but am aware that they have had to cut out most of their operations in Chattisgarh and Jharkhand. The locals don't want us there anymore, and there is no guarantee of safety. They have become very resistant to any kind of change and no doubt some of them have turned to violence. But I don't see how China can bring about this change in mindset. 2. Do you believe Communism in any frm (be it Maoist or Marxist) is really a valid political solution? No, it's not. But neither is blind capitalism. We have to move from the blind exploitation of natural resources and people to an inclusive growth model of a social democracy. Empower the locals, educate them, involve them in the growth. Putting an arbitrary price on their lands, emotions, and way of life is going to breed resentment and ultimately violence. 3. Our national political leaders (a lot of local political leaders are thats another story) to the major part are corrupt for sure but not evil, to the extent they will order or back mass slaughter of innocent civilians to make more money (for example a PC or Manmohan Singh), would you agree to this statement or not? That's too simplistic a question. It's not about 'good' and 'evil'. It's about a complete lack of understanding of the ground situation by our political leadership. With an expanding economy, the tribal areas were seen and earmarked as huge potential areas of growth to support the demand of a rapidly growing middle class and country. The region is flooded with natural resources. The government saw it as an ideal opportunity to tie up with industries to 'modernize' the region. As with every government plan the common man is the last on the list of priorities. Moreover, given the unorganized nature and small scale of the existing Naxalite movement, the government would never have thought it to burgeon into an organized catastrophe. It was not a deliberate slaughter of civilians, rather yet another short sighted plan by the government like the Narmada dam. Or to go back a bit more in history, the mass rigging of the Kashmir elections in '87 with the two largest parties in the state Congress and National Conference fighting in coalition making a sham of democracy. None of these things were meant to slaughter innocent civilians, but were gross misunderstandings of the situation. 4. Same question as earlier one of the industries that is being blamed is Tata, do you believe Mr.Tata would be involved with something so vile (actual murder albeit indirectly) to further his already huge empire? Tata is an exception, but I have certainly not seen any other industries in India taking major social responsibilities. Some IT companies are starting to do that, but they have very little to do with the Maoist issue anyways. You can tell that you are entering Kanpur blindfolded, because of the stench and unregulated waste that the leather and tanning industries have left there(it's not a tribal area, but just making a point about social responsibility of industries). Just a train journey through Jharkhand will let you have a glimpse at the manner in which mountains are being ravaged for minerals with state of the art machines while the local population is living in almost inhumane conditions. As I said, Tata might be the exceptions, but the biggest culprits are the industries with no social responsibility and their lobby groups and power circles in the government to cut corners and push things through to earn every extra dollar. 5. All of Roy's sarcasm in that article towards big government, industries and other theories is justifiable? Of course, it's not. I have already said her views are too cynical and radical. But that does not take away anything from the underlying truth about the region and it's problems. What are the locals supposed to do with the inadequate compensations they are handed out anyways? Let's take the best case scenario of them having got some monetary compensation and a small home. They wouldn't know what to do with it at their new location. They are not educated, they have not lived a life outside of their hills and forests. The money will be gone very soon - either wasted away on alcohol and drugs or swindled away by other people. Where does it leave these millions of people likely to be effected over the next 10-20 years?
coffee_rules Posted June 4, 2010 Author Posted June 4, 2010 One thing which is to be admired about her is the manner in which she conducts her journalism. She spends time with locals at the grassroots and then writes about them, which is a lot more than can be said for the vast majority of our Jholaachaap journalists who are into the profession because they couldn't do anything better. Remember, after her Booker Prize she could have easily chosen to sign up multi million dollar book deals and keep churning out books from some villa in France. Here is a long article she wrote about the time she spent in the Maoist heartland : http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264738 One might find her views too radicalized, but there is a lot of truth to what she says. That's positive side of her work. But, I feel, she milked the booker prize fame long enough without working on any thing substantially. This way she is getting more fame and celebrity status, but only BSing her way through without spending any effort on what her writing talent credentials claim. I think more are following her footsteps now. After winning the booker prize, Adiga is now an expert critic of Indian pro-capitalistic economy and is fastly becoming a quote-machine like ARoy.
Lurker Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 That's positive side of her work. But' date=' I feel, she milked the booker prize fame long enough without working on any thing substantially. This way she is getting more fame and celebrity status, but only BSing her way through without spending any effort on what her writing talent credentials claim. I think more are following her footsteps now. After winning the booker prize, [b']Adiga is now an expert critic of Indian pro-capitalistic economy and is fastly becoming a quote-machine like ARoy. Only book I ever bought because it mentioned my home-town. The premise was great really but ended up slaughtering India and celebrating most things non-Indian. Like Arundhati Roy the book came across to me as a jilted guy. Oddly it was encompassing enough that I finished it in entirety in a flight and on the Airport.
triam Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 Shwetabh, Social democracy is the way to go atleast until there exists gross differences between the rich and the poor, I agree to a big extent. I completely agree with you regarding the existence of problems in that area, but if the industries are regulated in a proper way(this is where the Indian govt is in cohorts with industries in a big way to ignore most of the regulations that already exist) with respect to environmental impact and other stuff, wont they actually create a huge source of employment and a way forward for the tribals to move above the poverty line? The real problem I have with Ms.Roy is simply this, every struggle in this planet can be humanized and every struggle has two sides, and for being a proclaimed part of the intellectual elite in the country, she reduces these conflicts to some cheap melodrama albeit with her excellent writing skills. I respect someone like Dilip Dsouza a million times more than Ms.Roy booker prize or not.
Brainfade Posted June 4, 2010 Posted June 4, 2010 I am a part of this NGO' date=' Eklavya, which aims at tribal education and had spent a summer or two in Chattisgarh (at that time still MP) more than 10 years back. [b']We were very well received by the local population. There were pockets of dangerous areas, but more or less you were safe. Since moving to US, I haven't been able to contribute by spending much time in the field with them, but am aware that they have had to cut out most of their operations in Chattisgarh and Jharkhand. The locals don't want us there anymore, and there is no guarantee of safety. They have become very resistant to any kind of change and no doubt some of them have turned to violence. Great insights. What has changed for locals that they once welcomed the NGO, but don't anymore? Is it just that they are jaded; lost their patience with the inevitably slow pace of change? Or are there other forces like politicians & local goons who undermine the work of the NGOs? Thanks!
The Outsider Posted June 17, 2010 Posted June 17, 2010 Great insights. What has changed for locals that they once welcomed the NGO' date=' but don't anymore? Is it just that they are jaded; lost their patience with the inevitably slow pace of change? Or are there other forces like politicians & local goons who undermine the work of the NGOs? Thanks![/quote'] Sorry, just saw this post! I have personally not spent any time worth mention in the field for the last 10 years, except for two short 1 week stints, so all that follows is based on the personal experiences of others involved. Jaded is perhaps an understatement, they are more disillusioned. One of the biggest challenges an educational NGO faces is to convince the local population that learning and knowledge is a good thing. Going out there and teaching rudimentary Hindi, English, and Math is obviously not a challenge. The ground work has to be done beforehand by people more involved in the organization than I ever was. Things like establishing local contacts, basic safety measures, and develop a student population. One of the ideas sold to the locals in doing so is that their lives will improve once they are educated. Now you would realize it more than 99% of the population that education, specially one which is very basic, is not a passport to wealth and prosperity. However, what education offers at the very least is to be able to do the same tasks better than the uneducated souls in the same profession - the idea of what timber costs, how much does a pound of refined granite cost etc. An educated farmer is more likely to strike a better selling price for his crops than an uneducated one. The moderate Naxal organizations were always supportive of efforts like ours. Remember the Naxalite movement has had some very well educated and thoughtful people behind it - the idea of which had trickled down. As of today, there are very few proverbial St. Stephen's graduates involved in it. It has turned into a proper militant movement and one of the ways they adopt to draw the local population away from NGOs like Eklavya is through growing distrust. An old friend of mine - she works in Citibank and used to spend her entire alloted vacation in Chattisgargh much to the chagrin of her husband - told me that she and her husband were literally dragged out of their thatched hut in the middle of the night and asked to leave within 24 hours. There were some more incidents like this and ultimately Eklavya had to close out on the areas where the threat levels were high and the local authorities or other people of influence could in no way guarantee our safety. Every political party is of course trying to gain a stronghold on this population, because this has been a voting block which has either been too unaware to vote or has voted according to their 'leader's' influence and desire. Put all these together and you've got yourself a heady cocktail of power, politics, and people! I don't think I answered any of the questions you posed, because I don't know definitive answers myself, but narrated some facts and anecdotes which I use to form an opinion on a pretty opaque part of our society.
ravishingravi Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 The Arundhati Roy thread What are the board's thoughts on this woman? I have tried to give her time and the benefit of the doubt. I have tried to question my own degree of intolerance in addressing a contrarian view point, when she remarked that 26/11 happened because India's actions in Kashmir. I have tried to rationalize the legitimacy and the necessity of having an anti-state voice. But after cutting through all the BS, to me, she is just another fundamentalist looking for attention. I would like to know your thoughts on her. I came across this blog that mirrored my thoughts "The Algebra of Infinite Fundamentalism A few years ago, I was having a telephonic conversation with one of my best friends from high school and the topic turned to Arundhati Roy. She asked me why I never said a kind word about her on my blog and told me to write a post explaining what exactly I found so objectionable about her, something she felt I never clearly articulated even though it was obvious I was not a fan. So dear friend if you still follow the blog, this is it. The answer to that question asked. Many years ago. The single line answer to why I do not like her is that Arundhati Roy is that she is a fundamentalist. And I have an aversion to fundamentalists. Of all forms. Now normally when we think of “fundamentalist” the image that comes to our mind is that of a religious nut, foaming and frothing, preaching hatred, divisiveness and often violence directed at the “other”. A frail middle-aged woman, a Booker prize-winner of undoubted erudition who extensively uses rhetoric that could be classified as “pacifist” doesn’t quite fit that mental mold. However just the fact that she physically does not conform to the stereotype and her use of words and language, more cerebral than that of the garden-variety “hell and brimstone” demagogue should not divert from the fact that there is little that distinguishes her, in principle, from the fundamentalists whom we can easily recognize. For one, fundamentalists like Ms. Roy are guided by a very rigid, unyielding ideology that becomes the prism through which they interpret all events. Anything that the prism does not illuminate is assumed not to exist. The ideology of a fundamentalist is typically simple. Of course the fundamentalist, especially if he/she is also an intellectual, would like you to think that there are many subtle nuances and complications in his/her world view and it has been arrived after much deliberation, but that alas is all part of the game of delusion. The simplicity arises from a black-and-white identification of villains —-for the religious fundamentalist the villain is anyone who does not accept his God(s) as their savior(s). For Roy, the principal evil agents are the “oppressors”—— USA, UK, Israel ,India, and corporations (not specifically in that order) with her animus being directed specifically towards upper-class so-called “Brahminical” Hindus and the party that she thinks represents them—the BJP. She does recognize other agents of malevolence like Islamic fundamentalists but their actions are implicitly justified as “reactions” to the depredations wrought by the oppressors. So the massacre at Mumbai is regrettable but is an inevitable result of “partition” (a legacy of the West–one of the “bad men” in her pantheon of villains), the oppression of minorities in Kashmir, Gujarat 2002 and supposed institutionalized prejudice against minorities in India. (things for which another of her “bad men” India can be blamed for) In making this argument, she betrays another defining characteristic of the fundamentalist—–violence that damages the “evil men”/the “other” always has a justification, typically of the sort “The evil men through their evilness brought it upon themselves”. A fundamentalist has tunnel vision in that he/she can only see the sins of those he/she hates. There is no concept of applying the same standards fairly to everyone. So while India is castigated ad nauseum as having suppressed and discriminated against its minorities , almost no attention is given to the far more egregious and unapologetic genocide of Hindus in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh and in Kashmir (though if left to her, that would also be a neighboring country). If a few Hindus mirrored the crime of the Kasabs and sailed to Bangladesh to take “revenge” for the government-sanctioned rapes and murders of Hindus by killing innocents in Dhaka would Ms. Roy be so accepting of their motivations as she has been for the Pakistanis? Would she then just make a passing condemnation of Hindu fundamentalists and keep the lion’s share of her wrath for the government of Bangladesh for their treatment of Hindus? The truth is simple. Terrorism against anyone cannot be justified. Never. Not in any sneaky round about way. Now if only the fundamentalists understood this simple truth. A fundamentalist finds sinister conspiracies everywhere. According to some, the Mumbai incidents were Zionist-Hindu plots to discredit Muslims. So was 9/11 except there the stupid Hindus were not part of the plan. According to another class of loony fundamentalists, there is a grand conspiracy to alter the demographics of India by Muslims with every member of the community working in perfect synchrony to attain this objective. And according to people like Ms. Roy, most acts of terrorism in India have sinister shadows of government design where the culprits arrested are not the perpetrators, where every act of urban violence is suspected to be a wound intentionally inflicted on the self to further the oppression of minorities. Questions always remain in her mind about every person picked up by the police if they belong to the rank of those she identifies as the “oppressed”. The reason for her eternal skepticism is not difficult to understand. The evil men/the other always lie. The “oppressed” never do. Fundamentalists are typically hysterical. Not for them sober debate and reasoning. They like the sensationalism, the sweeping generalizations. A fundamentalist will never accept that their hysteria is an inevitable consequence of the fact that what they say often does not stand the test of reason. Which is why they have to take recourse to shrillness of tone and the thumping of chests to transfer the hysteria to the audience. Ms. Roy, in the true fundamentalist tradition, is hysterical. And she is proud of it. I am hysterical. I’m screaming from the bloody rooftops! But I want to wake the neighbours, that’s my whole point. I want everybody to open their eyes. [link] I think the mad Mullahs and the Togadias would say the exact same thing if asked. Fundamentalists, once in the throes of hysteria, have no compunction in adhering to the truth. If an untruth needs to be said in order to make the point more dramatic, no matter. Addressing large crowds with voice trembling, it is easier to get away with half-truths. And lies. Not so when you write. In an article after 26/11, Ms. Roy writes: So the man who presided over the Gujarat genocide was reelected twice, and is deeply respected by India’s biggest corporate houses, Reliance and Tata. Suhel Seth, a TV impresario and corporate spokesperson, recently said, “Modi is God.” The policemen who supervised and sometimes even assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs in Gujarat have been rewarded and promoted. [link] Suhel Seth is a corporate spokesman. Which puts him firmly in the group of evil men. Which also automatically means he can be lied about. This is what Suhel Seth said in reality. When I sat in the car, I asked my driver what he thought of Modi and his simple reply was Modi is God. [link] and After I finished talking to the YPO (Young President’s Organisation) members, I asked some of them very casually, what they thought of Modi. Strangely, this was one area there was no class differential on. They too said he was God. [link] Very different from saying that Suhel Seth himself said that “Modi is God”–right? Accepted that Seth’s article was immensely pro-Modi but when one misrepresents an opinion (“Modi is good for the country”) with an expression of blind idolatry (“Modi is God”), what one seeks to do is to disingenuously tarnish the opposition (in this case a member of the wicked corporate class with whom the Hindu Brahminists are in bed with) by painting him with the “crazy” brush in front of an audience who will not know what Seth actually said. And the final characteristic of the fundamentalist is that he/she will have two standards—one for the self and one for everyone else. While the Sangh Parivar does not seem to have come to a final decision over whether or not it is anti-national and suicidal to question the police, Arnab Goswami, anchorperson of Times Now television, has stepped up to the plate. He has taken to naming, demonizing, and openly heckling people who have dared to question the integrity of the police and armed forces. My name and the name of the well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan have come up several times. At one point, while interviewing a former police officer, Arnab Goswami turned to the camera: “Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan,” he said. “I hope you are watching this. We think you are disgusting.” For a TV anchor to do this in an atmosphere as charged and as frenzied as the one that prevails today amounts to incitement, as well as threat, and would probably in different circumstances have cost a journalist his or her job. [link] So let’s get this straight Ms. Roy. According to you, calling you “disgusting” is sufficient reason for a journalist to lose his job. What’s Goswami’s crime here? Finding you disgusting? Expressing his opinion? Well Ms. Roy, you regularly call the Indian government several uncomplimentary things, to put it politely. You say that Kashmir should be given independence. So if we go by your line of reasoning about Mr. Goswami, what if some Indians start saying that your advocacy of the cessation of an integral part of India should be considered a “threat”, an incitement for the more violent “freedom-fighters”, reason enough to cost you your freedom ? If people actually did that, then you would be on TV shouting how India is characterized by a tendency to “criminalize liberal space”. Which in any case you do, even though noone in India would deny you your right to speak for Kashmiri independence. After all we are not the country of the “oppressed”—Pakistan or China for example. But even a champion of free speech and dissent like you draws a line when free speech becomes too much. When it is directed at you. As to openly heckling people who disagree with your point of view, let me quote from one of Ms. Roy’s own interviews if only to show things are done the “Arundhati” way. He (Ramachandra Guha)’s become like a stalker who shows up at my doorstep every other Sunday. Some days he comes alone. Some days he brings his friends and family, they all chant and stamp… It’s an angry little cottage industry that seems to have sprung up around me. Like a bunch of keening god-squadders, they link hands to keep their courage up and egg each other on. [link] Again, Ms. Roy is free to be vitriolic about Ramachandra Guha and his “smug friends”. But they, and anyone who is not impressed with Ms. Roy, should also be free to express their opinions and Ms. Roy should be man enough to take it without crying “Look look they are threatening me” as if calling someone “disgusting” is a threat. Many of you would be wondering why are we devoting so much time to Arundhuti Roy, whose influence in India is marginal at best and non-existent at worst. The problem is that what she says does have an influence on the “foreign” audience because Ms. Roy, through clever marketing, has positioned herself as “India’s voice of dissent” helped no doubt by her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack. [she currently is on the front page of Huffington Post]. While it may be argued that so extreme are her positions that much of her propaganda has marginal effect as she mostly “preaches to the choir”, some of her bluster does get into the international mainstream, gets quoted and then becomes part of “general knowledge” about India. The battle for “international opinion” is a critical one in today’s world and Ms. Roy works long and hard to make sure that India is always on the wrong side of it. Hence the need to devote some time to deconstruct her methods if for nothing else but to provide a clean answer to the question “What do you find objectionable about Arundhati Roy” next time a good friend comes asking." http://greatbong.net/2008/12/16/the-algebra-of-infinite-fundamentalism/
Sachinism Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 There are a few threads about her http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=225596 http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=187047 http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=118148 and probably some others
saurabh2602 Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 What are the board's thoughts on this woman? I have tried to give her time and the benefit of the doubt. I have tried to question my own degree of intolerance in addressing a contrarian view point, when she remarked that 26/11 happened because India's actions in Kashmir. I have tried to rationalize the legitimacy and the necessity of having an anti-state voice. But after cutting through all the BS, to me, she is just another fundamentalist looking for attention. I would like to know your thoughts on her. I came across this blog that mirrored my thoughts "The Algebra of Infinite Fundamentalism A few years ago, I was having a telephonic conversation with one of my best friends from high school and the topic turned to Arundhati Roy. She asked me why I never said a kind word about her on my blog and told me to write a post explaining what exactly I found so objectionable about her, something she felt I never clearly articulated even though it was obvious I was not a fan. So dear friend if you still follow the blog, this is it. The answer to that question asked. Many years ago. The single line answer to why I do not like her is that Arundhati Roy is that she is a fundamentalist. And I have an aversion to fundamentalists. Of all forms. Now normally when we think of “fundamentalist†the image that comes to our mind is that of a religious nut, foaming and frothing, preaching hatred, divisiveness and often violence directed at the “otherâ€. A frail middle-aged woman, a Booker prize-winner of undoubted erudition who extensively uses rhetoric that could be classified as “pacifist†doesn’t quite fit that mental mold. However just the fact that she physically does not conform to the stereotype and her use of words and language, more cerebral than that of the garden-variety “hell and brimstone†demagogue should not divert from the fact that there is little that distinguishes her, in principle, from the fundamentalists whom we can easily recognize. For one, fundamentalists like Ms. Roy are guided by a very rigid, unyielding ideology that becomes the prism through which they interpret all events. Anything that the prism does not illuminate is assumed not to exist. The ideology of a fundamentalist is typically simple. Of course the fundamentalist, especially if he/she is also an intellectual, would like you to think that there are many subtle nuances and complications in his/her world view and it has been arrived after much deliberation, but that alas is all part of the game of delusion. The simplicity arises from a black-and-white identification of villains —-for the religious fundamentalist the villain is anyone who does not accept his God(s) as their savior(s). For Roy, the principal evil agents are the “oppressorsâ€â€”— USA, UK, Israel ,India, and corporations (not specifically in that order) with her animus being directed specifically towards upper-class so-called “Brahminical†Hindus and the party that she thinks represents them—the BJP. She does recognize other agents of malevolence like Islamic fundamentalists but their actions are implicitly justified as “reactions†to the depredations wrought by the oppressors. So the massacre at Mumbai is regrettable but is an inevitable result of “partition†(a legacy of the West–one of the “bad men†in her pantheon of villains), the oppression of minorities in Kashmir, Gujarat 2002 and supposed institutionalized prejudice against minorities in India. (things for which another of her “bad men†India can be blamed for) In making this argument, she betrays another defining characteristic of the fundamentalist—–violence that damages the “evil menâ€/the “other†always has a justification, typically of the sort “The evil men through their evilness brought it upon themselvesâ€. A fundamentalist has tunnel vision in that he/she can only see the sins of those he/she hates. There is no concept of applying the same standards fairly to everyone. So while India is castigated ad nauseum as having suppressed and discriminated against its minorities , almost no attention is given to the far more egregious and unapologetic genocide of Hindus in neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh and in Kashmir (though if left to her, that would also be a neighboring country). If a few Hindus mirrored the crime of the Kasabs and sailed to Bangladesh to take “revenge†for the government-sanctioned rapes and murders of Hindus by killing innocents in Dhaka would Ms. Roy be so accepting of their motivations as she has been for the Pakistanis? Would she then just make a passing condemnation of Hindu fundamentalists and keep the lion’s share of her wrath for the government of Bangladesh for their treatment of Hindus? The truth is simple. Terrorism against anyone cannot be justified. Never. Not in any sneaky round about way. Now if only the fundamentalists understood this simple truth. A fundamentalist finds sinister conspiracies everywhere. According to some, the Mumbai incidents were Zionist-Hindu plots to discredit Muslims. So was 9/11 except there the stupid Hindus were not part of the plan. According to another class of loony fundamentalists, there is a grand conspiracy to alter the demographics of India by Muslims with every member of the community working in perfect synchrony to attain this objective. And according to people like Ms. Roy, most acts of terrorism in India have sinister shadows of government design where the culprits arrested are not the perpetrators, where every act of urban violence is suspected to be a wound intentionally inflicted on the self to further the oppression of minorities. Questions always remain in her mind about every person picked up by the police if they belong to the rank of those she identifies as the “oppressedâ€. The reason for her eternal skepticism is not difficult to understand. The evil men/the other always lie. The “oppressed†never do. Fundamentalists are typically hysterical. Not for them sober debate and reasoning. They like the sensationalism, the sweeping generalizations. A fundamentalist will never accept that their hysteria is an inevitable consequence of the fact that what they say often does not stand the test of reason. Which is why they have to take recourse to shrillness of tone and the thumping of chests to transfer the hysteria to the audience. Ms. Roy, in the true fundamentalist tradition, is hysterical. And she is proud of it. I am hysterical. I’m screaming from the bloody rooftops! But I want to wake the neighbours, that’s my whole point. I want everybody to open their eyes. [link] I think the mad Mullahs and the Togadias would say the exact same thing if asked. Fundamentalists, once in the throes of hysteria, have no compunction in adhering to the truth. If an untruth needs to be said in order to make the point more dramatic, no matter. Addressing large crowds with voice trembling, it is easier to get away with half-truths. And lies. Not so when you write. In an article after 26/11, Ms. Roy writes: So the man who presided over the Gujarat genocide was reelected twice, and is deeply respected by India’s biggest corporate houses, Reliance and Tata. Suhel Seth, a TV impresario and corporate spokesperson, recently said, “Modi is God.†The policemen who supervised and sometimes even assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs in Gujarat have been rewarded and promoted. [link] Suhel Seth is a corporate spokesman. Which puts him firmly in the group of evil men. Which also automatically means he can be lied about. This is what Suhel Seth said in reality. When I sat in the car, I asked my driver what he thought of Modi and his simple reply was Modi is God. [link] and After I finished talking to the YPO (Young President’s Organisation) members, I asked some of them very casually, what they thought of Modi. Strangely, this was one area there was no class differential on. They too said he was God. [link] Very different from saying that Suhel Seth himself said that “Modi is Godâ€â€“right? Accepted that Seth’s article was immensely pro-Modi but when one misrepresents an opinion (“Modi is good for the countryâ€) with an expression of blind idolatry (“Modi is Godâ€), what one seeks to do is to disingenuously tarnish the opposition (in this case a member of the wicked corporate class with whom the Hindu Brahminists are in bed with) by painting him with the “crazy†brush in front of an audience who will not know what Seth actually said. And the final characteristic of the fundamentalist is that he/she will have two standards—one for the self and one for everyone else. While the Sangh Parivar does not seem to have come to a final decision over whether or not it is anti-national and suicidal to question the police, Arnab Goswami, anchorperson of Times Now television, has stepped up to the plate. He has taken to naming, demonizing, and openly heckling people who have dared to question the integrity of the police and armed forces. My name and the name of the well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan have come up several times. At one point, while interviewing a former police officer, Arnab Goswami turned to the camera: “Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan,†he said. “I hope you are watching this. We think you are disgusting.†For a TV anchor to do this in an atmosphere as charged and as frenzied as the one that prevails today amounts to incitement, as well as threat, and would probably in different circumstances have cost a journalist his or her job. [link] So let’s get this straight Ms. Roy. According to you, calling you “disgusting†is sufficient reason for a journalist to lose his job. What’s Goswami’s crime here? Finding you disgusting? Expressing his opinion? Well Ms. Roy, you regularly call the Indian government several uncomplimentary things, to put it politely. You say that Kashmir should be given independence. So if we go by your line of reasoning about Mr. Goswami, what if some Indians start saying that your advocacy of the cessation of an integral part of India should be considered a “threatâ€, an incitement for the more violent “freedom-fightersâ€, reason enough to cost you your freedom ? If people actually did that, then you would be on TV shouting how India is characterized by a tendency to “criminalize liberal spaceâ€. Which in any case you do, even though noone in India would deny you your right to speak for Kashmiri independence. After all we are not the country of the “oppressedâ€â€”Pakistan or China for example. But even a champion of free speech and dissent like you draws a line when free speech becomes too much. When it is directed at you. As to openly heckling people who disagree with your point of view, let me quote from one of Ms. Roy’s own interviews if only to show things are done the “Arundhati†way. He (Ramachandra Guha)’s become like a stalker who shows up at my doorstep every other Sunday. Some days he comes alone. Some days he brings his friends and family, they all chant and stamp… It’s an angry little cottage industry that seems to have sprung up around me. Like a bunch of keening god-squadders, they link hands to keep their courage up and egg each other on. [link] Again, Ms. Roy is free to be vitriolic about Ramachandra Guha and his “smug friendsâ€. But they, and anyone who is not impressed with Ms. Roy, should also be free to express their opinions and Ms. Roy should be man enough to take it without crying “Look look they are threatening me†as if calling someone “disgusting†is a threat. Many of you would be wondering why are we devoting so much time to Arundhuti Roy, whose influence in India is marginal at best and non-existent at worst. The problem is that what she says does have an influence on the “foreign†audience because Ms. Roy, through clever marketing, has positioned herself as “India’s voice of dissent†helped no doubt by her undoubted ability to string together sentences into an entertaining paragraph, a quality that the Mullahs and the Saffron crazies sorely lack. [she currently is on the front page of Huffington Post]. While it may be argued that so extreme are her positions that much of her propaganda has marginal effect as she mostly “preaches to the choirâ€, some of her bluster does get into the international mainstream, gets quoted and then becomes part of “general knowledge†about India. The battle for “international opinion†is a critical one in today’s world and Ms. Roy works long and hard to make sure that India is always on the wrong side of it. Hence the need to devote some time to deconstruct her methods if for nothing else but to provide a clean answer to the question “What do you find objectionable about Arundhati Roy†next time a good friend comes asking." http://greatbong.net/2008/12/16/the-algebra-of-infinite-fundamentalism/ What an absolute B.I.T.C.H she is, why doesnt someone go n ****** her, it will be good riddance....
ravishingravi Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 There are a few threads about her http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=225596 http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=187047 http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=118148 and probably some others They seem rather old. I think a new one is warranted
Gunner_Mania Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 They seem rather old. I think a new one is warranted If you are goign to talk about a particular news item for which she is making headlines now yes a new thread is warranted, but if you wanted the views of the board about her, there is no need for a new thread. You can just read people's views that already exists and bump it up by adding yours.
someone Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Good article, Seems up my feelings towards Roy, another attention seeker.
yoda Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 wow great writeup. thanks for posting. I wonder if she has anything good to say about anything.
coffee_rules Posted September 17, 2010 Author Posted September 17, 2010 wow great writeup. thanks for posting. I wonder if she has anything good to say about anything. extreme left types are like that only. they feel bad about anything good and good about all things that are bad.
straight.drive Posted September 17, 2010 Posted September 17, 2010 Ms.roy is a test case of a demented leftist loonie. Most of arts and sociology departments of our universities are full of such nut-cases.
thevortex Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Arundhati Roy Why would somebody hate Arundhati Roy?!
punjabi_khota Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Why would somebody hate Arundhati Roy?! Because she is a ***** ? :dontknow:
achilles Posted October 6, 2010 Posted October 6, 2010 Why would somebody hate Arundhati Roy?! People are annoyed that she supports Maoists, whatever they may be.
Recommended Posts