The Arundhati Roy thread

[Ram]

The question is not of having an opinion against the state. The question is about being a fundamentalist. Even the most hardline cynics would not have even remotely thought of Kashmir when the 26/11 attack took place, but Roy with her uncanny consistency saw a connection between Military action in Kashmir to justify 26/11. Another instance "I salute the people of Dantewada who have stood up against such a mighty state. Arundhati Roy after the massacre of CRPF personnel by Maoists Despite the deadliest Naxal attack ever in nearby Dantewada now, the resolve of these men and women to join the police force remains unaffected — to some extent driven by the few options available to them in the vastly forested tribal district, but to a large part motivated by anger against Naxalites, their empty promises and the reign of terror they have come to symbolise. They are even willing to risk the wrath of the Maoists that may follow. [From the Indian Express]" She supports an organization whose aim is to overthrow the state. She is an anti-national, not for a "specific" opinion against the state, but a rigid anti-national position on a whole host of issues. Egs:-Kashmir. First to jump on the military's role but very smartly leaving out the predicament of Kashmiri pandits and the great support provided by our beloved neighbours. I am very critical of the state. Atleast I would like to believe so, but fundamentalists serve no purpose in any meaningful discussion.

I am not a supporter of Arundati Roy. I know she has said a lot of nutty things. But I also know this – She’s the one of the ground, fighting for the rights of the people, not the e-warriors here who pass judgments even as they sip on their lattes. She has probably seen a lot of injustice first hand and that probably affected her. I am not trying to defend her on anything, but its hard to keep you cool and composure when you see so much suffering in front of your eyes. My issue is not with Arundati Roy – I am not her supporter, nor am I against her. But there’s a group that roams around here, parading themselves as die-hard nationalists, calling out people for their words and actions, oblivious to the sheer hypocrisy of the situation. Plus, I am not a subscriber to the philosophy that the ‘State is always right’. If people are discriminated against, they have an inherent right to rebel, that is just basic human tendency. Obviously, there has been a lot of discrimination and suffering going in the rural parts of India, which has fueled the Naxal movement. Of course, there are parts of that movement that is actively supported by foreign elements and whose agenda is more than just fighting for the rights of the people and I condemn them and hope they're crushed. But my point is, if there’s a movement out there, fighting for the rights of oppressed people, then it has my sympathies.

[achilles]

Hmm... I would recommend reading 'Shape of the Beast...' which is a series of interviews with Arundhati Roy. She talks very clearly about this and other subjects which have raised controversies over the years. Do people know that she faced legal charges of 'obscenity' in her home state after her book 'The God of Small things' became popular?!

Hmm. Sometimes, Diplomacy is the best option. If you can't beat them, join them.

Not only maoists' date=' she also supports terrorists in Kashmir. She is agaist "[i']India's occupation" (in her words) of Kashmir as well. She is basically biggest hypocrite you would ever come across who made her name in west by drawing bad images of India over there.

She needs to let her work do the talking. Not every battle is won with the tongue. Sometimes, if you don't agree with someone, you shouldn't publicly state that, especially not when there are a billion people who would get annoyed by it. Ms. Roy needs to work on her books. She's awesome with them.

[straight.drive]

Ms.Roy is as impractical as the ideology she leans on. Most of her work hinges on protest and anger and never on logical solution. She better stick to her main stay i.e., writing novels.In addition she has a very thin skin and often answers in pointless hate to all the individuals that dare to question her political stands. Her out burst on Ramchandra Guha is a point in this case.

[someone]

I think as it was mentioned before, the worst thing about Roy is that she is treated as the single real voice of India. Whatever she says, is listened by the western or any other foreign dia and treated as a great insight to real India. Now, with that, Roy knows that she has a advantage as she can say whatever she likes and get good publicity.

[ina_jawaan]

Some excellent contributions here I must say especially from marirs_mania . I would only add on a personal note that my initial objection was not to anyone expressing a view on Ms. Roy per se but that they should go off-thread in order to do so. An online forum would very soon degenerate into a babbling simian cacophony if any and every thread was abused to give vent to one's pet hates and prejudices. To hijack a thread on SANJAY MANJREKAR in order to bray moronically about Ms. Roy's alleged misdemeanours is an outrageous self-indulgence at best, and an unpardonable offence against the faculty of human reason at worst. The mods were therefore right to move aforesaid contributions to this thread although paradoxically that makes it appear as though the original instigators of this vile practice are only contributing to a pertinent thread and that I was taking a position of unconditionally defending every single statement Ms. Roy has ever made about any topic under the sun. Nevertheless, despite these misgivings, I will address myself to Ravi's contribution (s) - or rather the greatbong blog which he rehashes verbatim with dreary monotony. The blog revolves around the accusation that Ms. Roy is a "fundamentalist". What "fundamentalism" might mean is left a bit fuzzy - something to do with seeing everything "ideologically", having "tunnel vision" and justifying violence against those you hate (only “implicitly” mind you – he does acknowledge that Roy has actually condemned religious fundamentalists!). Oh....and finding "sinister conspiracies everywhere" and being "hysterical". What is the "strict, unyielding ideology" Ms. Roy is enslaved to? Is it Maoism, Stalinism, environmentalism? We are never told, it is the ideology with no name because the accuser has no idea what it might be (except that it involves hating governments and corporates and loving the "oppressed"). A self parodying statement she made about being "hysterical" is turned into a confession of the accused (which Nikolai Bukharin, when he was being tortured by Stalin's henchmen in 1936 to extract a confession, called "a medieval principle of jurisprudence") - 'Aha look she admits to being hysterical'! Of course "hysteria" has a long provenance as a brush with which to tar uppity women - 'there she goes again being hysterical, must be those hormones kicking in'! There is in fact a nasty undercurrent of misogyny throughout the article - Ms. Roy is also asked to be "man enough" to take criticism on the chin. An opinion she expressed about a scumbag businessman justifying the communalist slaughter of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat is used to show how "fundamentalists" use lies (or "half truths", he is not sure which) to make their point - like, what, the power crazed politicians and corporate magnets she reserves her ire for don't lie through their teeth every single day? OK so he didn't literally say "Modi is God" (he was only giving us the “views” of his driver and the other common folk he hobnobs with you will understand, this man of the people) - the whole tenor of what he was saying was pretty much sanctifying Modi if not deifying him though. Moreover "fundamentalists" (we are hectored with a pretentious schoolmasterly air) have double standards (are they the only ones? Or do more everyday folk, like politicians and businessmen, get a look-in as well?). The evidence for this is Ms. Roy pointed out that a television channel referred to her as "disgusting" and stated that in some countries this would cost the person making such a statement on television their job. This is portrayed as the shrew shrilly accusing the journalist of a "crime" - excuse me did she actually say he should be locked up?! Did she even say he should lose his job (or only that he would under certain circumstances)? Actually the whole “fundamentalism” argument is simply a way of smearing someone with a label, with guilt by association with “mad mullahs” and the ilk, little more than childish name-calling to scare the children. If fundamentalism means anything, it is an essentialism which refuses to engage with complexity and reduces a multi-faceted reality to what is considered an ontologically more “pure” or “natural” level unadulterated by cultural conventions. Classic forms of fundamentalism are the mythologies of race and nation and of course of religion, but also the Hobbesian myth that we are naturally greedy, selfish individuals who can only be coerced into accepting social responsibility by the fetishes of the market and the state. It is no accident that it is the nation-state which most often resorts to such mythologies as it is the institution most in need of constructing such myths in order to legitimate its existence in the eyes of its population. Such myths also play a vital role in keeping populations subservient and distracting people from the real distress caused by government policies by diverting attention instead to manufactured external threats to the cohesion of the indigenous population (neighbouring countries, immigrants, minorities of all kinds and, of course, those such as Ms. Roy who refuse to meekly toe the line). The real fundamentalists are therefore those who keep telling us that we need to go on fighting wars, policing dissent, and unleashing the terrorism of the nation state in defence of the interests of a small minority who own and control most of the resources of the world. “There is no alternative” is their mantra and anyone refusing to be brainwashed by TINA is naturally a threat. It is not self-loathing, but the self-critical responsibility of any socially aware human being to insist on subjecting one's own country and community to analytical scrutiny and to refuse to play the game of sheltering behind the banal platitudes of alien threats to security. The case for the prosecution, then, is a flimsy edifice peeping out from underneath a ramshackle scaffolding of petty prattling and tedious tittle-tattle. What of the case for the defence? Arundhati Roy is an iconoclast. She could have taken the easy route from her global celebrity as the artist who gave us “The God of Small Things” to have carried on writing novels, a sequel here, a film script for her book there, easy money for old rope. Instead she devoted herself to a less comfortable but more meaningful calling in life, using her writing skills to articulate a more inclusive, less dogmatic vision of human development than the one currently on offer from the New World Order. She has cogently identified a great big lie at the gaping centre of the political landscape – the lie that the military power of the state and the economic clout of speculative finance should be allowed to dictate how people braid the collective tapestry of their lives. In doing so she is the very opposite of a fundamentalist – for she relies on no mystifying, supra-human dogmas – all she insists on is the creative and unbounded capacity of human agency to actualise itself in institutional transformation. Of course it would be absurd to try and defend every single statement any human being makes. It is noteworthy, however, that in the case of Dantewanda she never actually said what was attributed to her. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article454401.ece?service=mobile In any case, on the big issues of the day – Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, the dispossession of local populations to make way for prestige white elephant projects, the insanity of two poor South Asian countries engaging in a nuclear arms race – I have no hesitation in nailing my colours uncompromisingly to Roy's mast. Hic rhodus, hic salta! Patriotism, as Samuel Johnson truly observed, is the “last refuge of the scoundrel” and “anti-national” is little more than the inchoate and resentful mumbling of a proto-fascist. What we need in the world today is more scepticism about the motives of governments and corporations, more questioning of the dogmas of economic development, more exacting interrogation of the norms within our own communities and more expansive horizons of popular emancipation from the fetish of legalised violence which is the ambit of the nation-state. In her art of magical storytelling, and in her radical activism in support of the disenfranchised majority, Arundhati Roy bears witness to the Promethean effulgence of the utopian visionary and the subaltern intransigent.

[ViruRulez]

This lady pisses me off immensely as I mentioned in this thread a year ago. Now she has left all acceptable limits of Indian democracy and starts calling for secession and calling us all Indians bhookha-nanga people. One of her statement yesterday as mentioned in news sources is: Kashmir should get Azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan This should shut up all the Arundhati supporters in this forum. She is a bloody b*tch and wont be surprised if she is a paid agent of some foreign country too. No Indian however corrupt or pathetic with even a single patriotic bone in his/her body would make such a statement. She is NOT an Indian and is even worse than separatist dogs.

[kumble_rocks]

About time she got "The Nishan-e-Pakistan".....Let's all split India !

[ravishingravi]

Frankly I take her only as seriously as this lady

[ravishingravi]

Arundhati ka Insaaf Yahaan bhi hoga wahan bhi hoga Ab to saare jahaan mein hoga Kya… tera hi jalwa You have seen her at many international forums, performing verbal item numbers for honorariums, regurgitating Chomskian rhetoric at fashionable venues, going around in the forests of Dantewada as part of the “Is Jangal Se Mujhe Bachao—the sponsored edition” and in general being bindaas in front of any open mic that she can get hold of (as long as there is a pressman with a notebook present). Now India’s greatest reality intellectual queen, the darling of the classes, sedition-uctress supreme Arundhati is coming to your Brahminical Hindu 46 inch flat screen. Arundhati ka Insaaf. Music: Kar faislaa kar faislaa….kar jhooth aur sach ka faislaa…. Cutscene 1: Arundhati shouting, brandishing muscular arm: Duniyaan thukegi India pe, aur har desh ki ma uska naam India rakhne se ghabrayegi.….. Crowd consisting of bearded jholawalas (both men and women) shout: Chi Chi India, Chi Chi India….India badi minorities ke dushmaan Hai Hai Hai... Cutscene 2: Arundhati on screen makes her eyes round as saucers: Bhai life main taang kheechne waale bahoot hote hai (pointing to the Indian flag) lekin haath pakadne waale bahot kam (pointing to a red Communist flag), dhoka dene waale bahot hote hai (pointing to an Indian flag once again) par mauka dene waale[sly wink] bahot kam (pointing to the Pakistani flag). Lekin abh kisi capitalist-imperalistic ki dadagiri naheen chalegi, kyon ki bhatke huye Maoist aur Islamic terrorists ko rasta main dikhayoongi, Kashmir ko azaadi dilwaane ki solution main dhoondongi, kyon ki yahaan pe insaaf hoga.. Crowd shouts: Arundhati ka insaaf hoga… Arundhati smiles smugly. Cutscene 3: Arundhati shouting yet again: Maroongi pakadke chata, aadmi naheen tu, hain tu Birla-Tata. India se shaadi aur Israel ke saath suhaagraat ! Helped in her mission of justice, will be her chaar mushtande bouncers— Navlakha (Mujhe navlakha maanga de re o saiyyan deewane), Geelani (Geela Geela Paani), Yasin Malik (video of Yasin Malik dancing to Jashn-e-Azadi [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yynHT4LoaJY]YouTube - Pakistani Men[/ame]) and Kobad Ghandy (Sab Ghandy Hai Par Handy Hoon Main). Cutscene 4: Arundhati gently to Maoist terrorist: Kitna pyara hai tu, gaale naheen miloge mujhe [holding pose for a few seconds for camera] So hold on tight to your seats. All Bramhin Hindus, all Indians and you effin bourgeois be scared very scared. Arundhati and her freakshow are in town. And this time they are handing out liberally their brand of insaaf. Dont arrest her please. Cause that’s what she wants. Then the Nobel Prize for Peace is assured. So just tune in. And try not to laugh. Too much. http://greatbong.net/2010/10/26/arundhati-ka-insaaf/

[ViruRulez]

I pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice: Arundhati Roy

Writer Arundhati Roy, who is in the thick of a sedition controversy over her speeches on Kashmir, issued this statement from Srinagar: "I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning's papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state. Yesterday I traveled to Shopian, the apple-town in South Kashmir which had remained closed for 47 days last year in protest against the brutal rape and murder of Asiya and Nilofer, the young women whose bodies were found in a shallow stream near their homes and whose murderers have still not been brought to justice. I met Shakeel, who is Nilofer's husband and Asiya's brother. We sat in a circle of people crazed with grief and anger who had lost hope that they would ever get 'insaf'—justice—from India, and now believed that Azadi—freedom— was their only hope. I met young stone pelters who had been shot through their eyes. I traveled with a young man who told me how three of his friends, teenagers in Anantnag district, had been taken into custody and had their finger-nails pulled out as punishment for throwing stones. In the papers some have accused me of giving 'hate-speeches', of wanting India to break up. On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians. It comes from wanting to live in a society that is striving to be a just one. Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice, while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free." Arundhati Roy October 26 2010

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/I-pity-the-nation-that-needs-to-jail-those-who-ask-for-justice-Arundhati-Roy/articleshow/6814239.cms She is now directly challenging the nation and the govt. and really proving to be a b*tch. Hope that she goes to her foreign masters directly from Kashmir who are paying her to voice her support for anti-India people like Maoists and separatists.

[ravishingravi]

Guess who is love with her. Like some of our resident posters http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Editorials/26-Oct-2010/Arundhati-exposes-India

[ravishingravi]

Deny Arundhati claim to fame Swapan Dasgupta If the aim of those who organised the convention of secessionists in Delhi on October 21 was to court both notoriety and publicity, they can look back with satisfaction on a very successful venture. Middle India may have been absolutely appalled and horrified at the spectacle of pro-Pakistan Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani preaching his divisive message in the heart of the national capital, flanked by the intellectual cheer-leader of the anything-to-offend brigade, Arundhati Roy. However, the organisers weren’t interested in winning over Indian opinion. Their objective was propagandist. First, the convention on azadi organised by the Committee for the Release of Political Prisoners — which seems a Maoist front — was meant to signal a grand unity of those seeking the vivisection of the Indian Union. They included the Kasmiri secessionists, the rump of the Khalistani movement, the separatists from the north-eastern States and, of course, the Maoists who are trying to create the conditions which will allow the secessionists to succeed. The event was a gathering of political rogues and was meant to be that way. Second, it came as no surprise to the organisers that a convention of this nature held in Delhi attracted vocal opposition. I can fully sympathise with those Kashmiri Hindus who were agitated by the presence of someone who created the conditions for the horrible ethnic cleansing of Hindus from the Kashmir Valley in 1990. However, it is also a fact that the organisers were banking on spirited protests against Geelani to elevate a vicious message into a debate over free speech and democracy. The ease with which some TV channels fell into the trap was indicative of the larger gullibility of India’s liberal establishment. In a lucid intervention on the subject, Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley has argued that the freedom of speech is not absolute but also governed by other laws. The Indian Penal Code, for example, does not extend the principle of free speech to utterances calculated to provoke enmity between castes and religion and undermine the integrity of the state. In the past, the latter offence used to be called sedition but in the contemporary world that usage is rare, but in essence the secessionists and their supporters seem to be guilty of that horrible offence — if prosecuted and convicted by a court of law. Following Jaitley’s intervention, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram said that the authorities are examining the speeches to see whether they violated the law. In principle this is right. If Varun Gandhi can first be jailed and prosecuted for his alleged hate speech during the 2009 election campaign, there are grounds to press for charges against Geelani and Arundhati Roy. According to the report in The Pioneer, the Booker Prize winner told the gathering: “India needs azadi from Kashmir and Kashmir from India. It is a good debate that has started. We must deepen this conversation and I am happy that young people are getting involved for this cause which is their future.” It is a different matter that the “conversation” consisted mainly of treacherous elements shouting slogans, including, “Azadi ka matlab kya? La ilaha ilallah.” Actually, the speech of Arundhati Roy was more incendiary than that of Geelani who repeated the hoary line about “self-determination” and tripartite talks to hammer out a solution. In fact, Geelani stressed he wasn’t against India but wanted a “free” Kashmir where — and he was at pains to spell this out — Islamic strictures against consuming alcohol would not apply to the minorities. Whether the policemen who examine the transcripts of the ‘convention’ will also feel that Arundhati Roy crossed the Lakshman rekha between the acceptable and unacceptable is unknown. The irony is that a publicity-conscious pamphleteer would love to be prosecuted for sedition and, preferably, even arrested. The spectacle of a small, innocent-looking, soft-spoken woman who is a celebrity in the Noam Chomsky-loving classes in the West being led away by burly, pot-bellied policemen will make for wonderful TV and is calculated to whet the appetites of all who believe that India’s democracy is counterfeit. It will have a global impact and may even bring forth a petition calling for her release signed by the who’s who of the Manhattan establishment. Maybe President Barack Obama will also chip in. An Arundhati Roy charged with sedition for daring to question India’s ‘occupation’ of Kashmir will be the best thing to have happened to a movement that never quite succeeded in putting the stone throwers on par with the Palestinian intifada. The attempts to transform the disturbances in Kashmir into an international human rights issue has failed mainly because India has too many better things to offer. The last thing we now need is to make Arundhati Roy into India’s Liu Xiaobo and Geelani into the Taliban-loving Amnesty International’s ‘prisoner of conscience’. Jaitley is right about the law and the Constitution but he is wrong about the political wisdom of prosecuting secessionists for non-violent offences. Geelani routinely makes speeches in Srinagar that are far more provocative than the one he made last Thursday in Delhi. The fact that he made it in Delhi doesn’t worsen the offence. Both Srinagar and Delhi are, after all, in India. Secessionism has to be countered both militarily and through arguments. An argumentative environment is India’s best advertisement against intolerant Maoism and Islamism. http://www.dailypioneer.com/291828/Deny-Arundhati-claim-to-fame.html

[achilles]

Arundhati exposes India??? What is this "expose"? The paki article's title sounds like some fashion show gone wrong :hehe:

KNOWN for her objective and unbiased approach to issues that concern human existence and for upholding the cause of the oppressed, India’s noted writer, Booker Prize winner and human rights activist Arundhati Roy has, in a few words, not only demolished New Delhi’s contention that Kashmir is its integral part, but also castigated it for replacing ‘British imperialism with Indian colonialism’. Speaking at a seminar, “Whither Kashmir: Freedom and Enslavement”, held in Srinagar on Sunday, she said, “It is a historical fact” that “Kashmir has never been an integral part of India.” And with the courage of conviction that not many in India would display, especially when it comes to movements against Indian oppression and for freedom, she lashed out against her own country’s policy of oppressing “the people of diverse culture” and praised the Kashmiri struggle for increasing “consciousness in India about the oppression you face, but you must decide what type of society you have in mind once you are allowed to decide your future.” And for solution of the problem, she referred to the only right and proper way: the right of self-determination. Should one hope that Roy’s outspoken espousal of the Kashmiris’ cause would reverberate in the political and intellectual circles of the country long and forcefully enough for its leadership to make a turnaround of its position on the disputed state? For that would pave the way for durable peace in the subcontinent and accelerate the process of development in both Pakistan and India, as well as other countries in the region. That Pakistan cannot be kept out of the equation is stressed by Dileep Padgaonkar, the head of India’s panel of interlocutors for Held Kashmir, who did not mince his words about the need to involve Pakistan to find a solution to achieve lasting peace there. Hurriyet Conference leaders have rightly boycotted and declined to have any talks with the panel. Whatever Mr Padgaonkar might have had in mind about our involvement and, notwithstanding that his remark has raised BJP’s hackles, Islamabad’s participation is indispensable. It is for our leaders to press home the point, and while bringing in the US for exercising pressure on India, should firmly adhere to our principled stand of a solution as envisaged in relevant UN resolutions.

:hysterical: Only those guys can believe all that propogandish bullcrap.

[ravishingravi]

I am not a supporter of Arundati Roy. I know she has said a lot of nutty things. But I also know this – She’s the one of the ground' date= fighting for the rights of the people, not the e-warriors here who pass judgments even as they sip on their lattes. She has probably seen a lot of injustice first hand and that probably affected her. I am not trying to defend her on anything, but its hard to keep you cool and composure when you see so much suffering in front of your eyes. My issue is not with Arundati Roy – I am not her supporter, nor am I against her. But there’s a group that roams around here, parading themselves as die-hard nationalists, calling out people for their words and actions, oblivious to the sheer hypocrisy of the situation. Plus, I am not a subscriber to the philosophy that the ‘State is always right’. If people are discriminated against, they have an inherent right to rebel, that is just basic human tendency. Obviously, there has been a lot of discrimination and suffering going in the rural parts of India, which has fueled the Naxal movement. Of course, there are parts of that movement that is actively supported by foreign elements and whose agenda is more than just fighting for the rights of the people and I condemn them and hope they're crushed. But my point is, if there’s a movement out there, fighting for the rights of oppressed people, then it has my sympathies.

Two points here. While I am in agreement with your basic position and I would like to believe I am largely on your side. However, one cannot de-link an opinion with the person who is giving it. Now, even if fundamentally she is right about the tribals and the oppression, it is not a position that necessarily comes from "objective" ground realities. It comes from embracing a "fundamentalist" ideology that promotes anti-state agitation within which you can imbibe some of the atrocities and incidents. To give you a parallel in order to explain my point, Osama Bin Laden recently showed great concerns for the flood in Pakistan and the global warming cause by the imperialist west. Now, while I am in complete agreement on global warming and the "imperialist" west, I cannot de link this opinion from the man himself who has a fundamentalist position and will go to any extent to achieve his ends. So what is Osama's really agenda ? Rising sea levels or antagonizing West. What is Arundhati Roy worried about? If it is plight of Kashmiris, then it should also include the Kashmiri Pandits who have been consistently slaughtered over last 2 decades, about the involvement of Pakistan, about the muslims like Geelani wanting to impose Sharia etc. So, again what is her true agenda ? Freedom of Kashmiris or further provocation of the State and the media. What is most sad to me, is that some people are using Chomsky's name to define likes Miss Roy's movement. Either they have failed to understand what Noam Chomsky represents or are just using his name to give their position more validity. If Noam Chomsky took a poition it was based on facts with which he could back up every single opinion of his, while fundamentalists like Miss Roy pick and choose issues which fit their prejudiced narrative.

[don_corleone840]

Plzz !! Some One Kill Arundhati Roy!! What makes people like Arundhati Roy feel that they are always right and millions out there are wrong is very hard to understand. They keep doing this for cheap publicity and always find fault with Indians and our Government. If she dares, as she keep babbling about freedom of speech, write about the suffering of women and other communities just across the border. Just ask her to shut up. It is a shame that we keep quite and our government is spineless. :finger::finger:

[ina_jawaan]

What is most sad to me' date=' is that some people are using Chomsky's name to define likes Miss Roy's movement. Either they have failed to understand what Noam Chomsky represents or are just using his name to give their position more validity. If Noam Chomsky took a poition it was based on facts with which he could back up every single opinion of his, while fundamentalists like Miss Roy pick and choose issues which fit their prejudiced narrative.[/quote'] Evidently Chomsky himself doesn't agree with you. Chomsky and Roy have of course appeared at numerous platforms together including this one in Puerto Allegre in Brazil http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/noam-chomsky-6579.html and this one in New York earlier this year http://vimeo.com/10819418 Roy wrote the foreword to Chomsky's book - “For Reasons of Stateâ€. In his book “Nine-elevenâ€, on page 99, Chomsky calls her “that wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activistâ€. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E5NoWOUhcpYC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=chomsky+arundhati+roy&source=bl&ots=x72pF3msfQ&sig=FGa5_EPcEdaWlrAIck6IdwgiNTM&hl=en&ei=lZ_ITIqaAc2s4AbHvODlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCTi-AQ#v=onepage&q&f=false And here is what Chomsky wrote about her book “An Ordinary Person's guide to Empireâ€: "In her Ordinary Person's Guide, Roy's perfect pitch and sharp scalpel are, once again, a wonder and a joy to behold. No less remarkable is the range of material subjected to her sure and easy touch, and the surprising information she reveals at every turn. Another outstanding contribution." Time for you to start a new thread abusing Chomsky perhaps?

[ravishingravi]

Evidently Chomsky himself doesn't agree with you. Chomsky and Roy have of course appeared at numerous platforms together including this one in Puerto Allegre in Brazil http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/noam-chomsky-6579.html and this one in New York earlier this year http://vimeo.com/10819418 Roy wrote the foreword to Chomsky's book - “For Reasons of State”. In his book “Nine-eleven”, on page 99, Chomsky calls her “that wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activist”. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E5NoWOUhcpYC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=chomsky+arundhati+roy&source=bl&ots=x72pF3msfQ&sig=FGa5_EPcEdaWlrAIck6IdwgiNTM&hl=en&ei=lZ_ITIqaAc2s4AbHvODlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCTi-AQ#v=onepage&q&f=false And here is what Chomsky wrote about her book “An Ordinary Person's guide to Empire”: "In her Ordinary Person's Guide, Roy's perfect pitch and sharp scalpel are, once again, a wonder and a joy to behold. No less remarkable is the range of material subjected to her sure and easy touch, and the surprising information she reveals at every turn. Another outstanding contribution." Time for you to start a new thread abusing Chomsky perhaps?

I wouldn't. He has also shared platform with Hugo Chavez and Hizbullah whom I don't think much of. I am not interested in his social circle, but his opinions and the validity of it. I was quite aware of their acquaintance but did not necessarily infer it as an unconditional association or even validation on Chomsky's part for every single position that Miss Roy takes. In fact, you could take a closer look through the thread. I have also stated admiration for her as a writer and naturally she commands some respect among the literati circles. The fact that she has a tag of "social activist" along with being "Booker prize winner", being relatively eloquent and opinionated also doesn't hurt to enter into any of exclusive clubs. It also helps that no other Indian of any note is so actively entertaining the foreign media which makes her network abroad completely understandable. So Chomsky is more than justified in praising her in certain context. Noam Chomsky has enough on his plate to actually study specific the incidents in Dantewada or her preposterous statements on 26/11 or Kashmir. So, he does the next best thing "be nice" to her. And her sharing the same platform with Noam shouldn't necessarily override my right to have opinions on her or even Chomsky for that matter. Sure there must be issues that both agree on like I agree with Miss Roy and they might share a certain mutual admiration. But I also agree with Osama Bin Laden on Global Warming or even "imperialist" west or even the "oppression of muslims" to a certain extent. But the difference is that he wouldn't provide me with the factual precision like Miss Roy wouldn't and reduce the arguments to mere rhetoric. So, I feel I am more than entitled to discount their opinions. Now where is the "issue of abuse". In a free society, where likes of Miss Roy can form "opinions" about the nation in extremely offensive, nonchalant and "abusive" terms, then surely those on anonymous internet forums have a right for their opinions on her. For all her talks of "authoratarian" govt , she could have been jailed in US under the "sedition" act of 1918. But I am not surprised how people often pick and choose what is or isn't offensive. Even there, they are absolutely entitled to. Btw here is an 8 part video with both of them [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA9IobRZSO0]YouTube - Noam Chomsky & Arundhati Roy - Democracy's Endgame? - 1/8[/ame] that you would enjoy. Again not to pour cold water over the pre-mature "gotcha" moment, when you probably read the word "Chomsky", overlooked the context ala Miss Roy . I am re posting "What is most sad to me, is that some people are using Chomsky's name to define likes Miss Roy's movement. Either they have failed to understand what Noam Chomsky represents[ or are just using his name to give their position more validity. If Noam Chomsky took a position it was based on facts with which he could back up every single opinion of his, while fundamentalists like Miss Roy pick and choose issues which fit their prejudiced narrative." Some people:- Both for or against Miss Roy in reference to the blogs and articles I have posted who use term "Chomskian" rather loosely. Noam Chomsky is not about being anti-state, it is about knowing the truth, stating the truth and backing it up with specific facts with the context. The last statement was the critical one to my argument. I reiterate even if Osama Bin Laden shares the same opinion as Chomsky on Palestine, by implication he doesn't command the same respect in my eyes. The idea of pointing out Chomsky was to demonstrate the lack of articulation of "facts", lack of respect and clinical understanding for history, inability and in some cases "deliberate" negligence to state verifiable "sources" and lack of ability to make a concisive, definitive arguments on part of the self proclaimed social activists i.e. "On the contrary, what I say comes from love and pride. It comes from not wanting people to be killed, raped, imprisoned or have their finger-nails pulled out in order to force them to say they are Indians." which merely a personal rhetoric intended purely for provocation that can be provided by any propagandist politician. Ofcourse, it comes as no surprise that those whose interests allign with her will hold on to and glorify the rhetoric. What "A Noam Chomsky" offers, unlike a layman or a politician, is the ability to reduce an "issue" to a verifiable set of facts which can be deflected but not argued with. What a Arundhati Roy offers is nothing more substantial or relevant than 9/11 truthers. Putting (1) and (2) together and claim conspiracy. What I find more disturbing is that the people at the centre of this current issue i.e. common Kashmiri's cause is represented by self appointed loons like Miss Roy. If I adopt your rational, since she shares the stage with Geelani, a pro Pak. seperatist who wants sharia law in the valley, she must shares his opinion. India with all its problems, paradoxes and complexities is not remotely in the same league as the neighbour which is a "borderline" failed state, an epicentre of war on terror with more recorded suicide bombing than any nation on the planet over the last 5 years, was given "6 months" till complete failure by a noted Intelligence operative only an year or so back, an economy and a political system which is in shambles and whose track record with minorities which are currently almost non existent is as bad if not worst than India. I would much rather hear them out. In a free society, someone like Miss Roy should have the right to make lopsided or unsubstantiated claims and be "found out" time and time again and it is up to the people to neglect her, agree with her, criticize her or even abuse her.

[ravishingravi]

Evidently Chomsky himself doesn't agree with you. Chomsky and Roy have of course appeared at numerous platforms together including this one in Puerto Allegre in Brazil http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/noam-chomsky-6579.html and this one in New York earlier this year http://vimeo.com/10819418 Roy wrote the foreword to Chomsky's book - “For Reasons of Stateâ€. In his book “Nine-elevenâ€, on page 99, Chomsky calls her “that wonderful and courageous Indian writer and activistâ€. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E5NoWOUhcpYC&pg=PA99&lpg=PA99&dq=chomsky+arundhati+roy&source=bl&ots=x72pF3msfQ&sig=FGa5_EPcEdaWlrAIck6IdwgiNTM&hl=en&ei=lZ_ITIqaAc2s4AbHvODlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEIQ6AEwCTi-AQ#v=onepage&q&f=false And here is what Chomsky wrote about her book “An Ordinary Person's guide to Empireâ€: "In her Ordinary Person's Guide, Roy's perfect pitch and sharp scalpel are, once again, a wonder and a joy to behold. No less remarkable is the range of material subjected to her sure and easy touch, and the surprising information she reveals at every turn. Another outstanding contribution." Time for you to start a new thread abusing Chomsky perhaps?

I wouldn't. I was quite aware of their acquaintance but do not necessarily infer it as association or even validation on Chomsky's part for every single position that Miss Roy takes. In fact, you could take a closer look through the thread. I have also stated admiration for her as a writer and naturally she commands some respect among the literati circles. The fact that she has a tag of "social activist" along with being relatively eloquent also doesn't hurt. So Chomsky is more than justified in praising her in certain context. Care to elaborate how is this ipso fact an attestation of her "positions" by Chomsky. And her sharing the same platform with Noam should necessarily override my opinions about her or even Chomsky for that matter. Sure there must be issues that both agree on like I agree with Miss Roy. But I also agree with Osama Bin Laden on Global Warming or even "imperialist" west or even the oppression of muslims. But the difference is that he wouldn't provide me with the factual precision like Miss Roy wouldn't and reduce the arguments to mere rhetoric. So, I feel I am more than entitled to discount their opinions. Now where is the "issue of abuse". In a free society, where likes of Miss Roy can form "opinions" about the nation is extremely offensive, nonchalant and "abusive" terms, then surely those on anonymous internet forums have a right for their opinions on her. For all her talks of "authoratarian" govt , she could have been jailed in US under the "sedition" law. Btw here is an 8 part video with both of them [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA9IobRZSO0]YouTube - Noam Chomsky & Arundhati Roy - Democracy's Endgame? - 1/8[/ame] that you would enjoy.

[seedhi]

Watch Madhu Kishwar perfectly summarizing what is the agenda of Arundhati Roy in this video - http://www.timesnow.tv/Debate-National-interest-vs-attention-seekers-1/videoshow/4356982.cms . It starts at 2min. That Arundhati has a pretty blatant moral double standard should be clear from her unequivocal (and ignorant) stance on deaths caused by security forces in trying to control stone pelters, contrasted with her views on the 26/11 attacks which, according to her, should be understood as a consequence of India's atrocities on minorities. It amazes me that she is showered with this much credibility. She has the audacity to call for azaadi sharing the dias with a man who is responsible hundreds of deaths in Kashmir, including those of other leaders. How I wish she was in China, her tongue would have been ripped out before she uttered the first syllable.

[The Outsider]

^ I think the only ones giving her credibility and news space are either sansaneekhej news channels or right wing loonies.