For the record, I despise Ms. Roy's politics, but for the sake of argument, allow me to try to turn the tables. During the Cold War, didn't the US have support the Mujahideen (which later transformed into the Taliban) in Afghanistan in order to defeat the communists. In other words, they had to support a lesser evil in order to defeat a greater one. Or before that, the US allied with the USSR in order to defeat the Nazis.

Obviously, Roy's premise that the US/liberal democracy/Capitalism/globalization/neo-colonialism is a great evil is where she goes wrong...but if one accepts the premise then her logic is understandable. It's just a form of realpolitick...an acknowledgment that the world is imperfect.

It's just a form of realpolitick...an acknowledgment that the world is imperfect.

It's sad that for Arundhati being "strung up" by someone who shares none of her beliefs about the role of women, freedom of speech, etc. is somehow less than something associated with the USofA....

In the case of Mujahaddin vs. the Soviets, it's pretty clear that the Muj were the lesser. After all, they didn't have nukes pointed at us.

How many Haditha massacres have not even been reported yet?

Massacre children and women - the brave armed forces of the USA.

Remember My Lai?

The great American civilisation in full effect. Blasting heads off children with machine guns.

Mrs.Roy's views are devoid of any understanding of politics or a nation under duress. She has made numerous speeches against the Indian government and their tough measures in Kashmir. She does not need a moment's hesistation to lash out at the army's activities, However what i find lacking is an appreciation of the sacrifices made by Indian and American soldiers to terrorism. Its easy for her to make all these passionate left wing statements or join a crowd censuring President Bush while a strategic alliance is being made. She even pointed out that she was 'worried' about the way the India media,sports and entertainment supported their nation during the Kargil War http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~peer/arundhatiRoy.html. I haven't seen any statement yet where she acknowledges sacrifices made by the Indian army during the Drass-Kargil operation. Mrs.Roy apparently has a vision of an utopian India where policemen do not spit betel on the sidewalks or peace in Kashmir can be achieved by a bollywood song and dance number and cheers and kisses everywhere. Mrs. Roy wake up and smell the roses that are not there! During an insurgency measures have to be taken to control it. First Kashmir, then Bihar, then Arunachal Pradesh maybe even Kerala. Violence and force sometimes are a necessary evil to control violence.

I despise Ms. Roy's literary efforts for its sophomoric wordsmithing and her politics for its pseudo-intellectual anti-establishmentarianism. Wow! My writing is getting infected by her now.

Anyhow, to quote a street back-talk, "Who died and left you King?" It is a question one should ask America. However, since a country is not its politics, we should ask this question of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. What moxie, or to give these guys the benefit of doubt - naivete - to go into Iraq to "civilize" the country by deposing its ex-American stooge dictator and foisting democracy on its public with the might of the military. Ridiculous! Collateral damage? God knows how many innocent women and children.

To be against the American mistakes in Iraq, one does not have to share Ms. Roy's ultra left politics. One only needs common sense.

How many Haditha massacres have not even been reported yet?

Massacre children and women - the brave armed forces of the USA.

Remember My Lai?

The great American civilisation in full effect. Blasting heads off children with machine guns.

Well said Floridian. Arundhati Roy is extremely mixed up. But American policy cannot be allowed to be

The right wing maniacs in the White House have not only killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in their 'shock and awe' campaign, they also gave every Islamist fundamentalist a target to fight against and invited them to strike and kill Iraqis even further with their 'draining of the swamp'. Now they blast the heads off children in Haditha and God knows how many other unreported places, living up to the honorable reputation of My Lai. But it's the idiocies of Arundhati Roy that are the real threat, not the obscenity of Americans blasting the heads off children in the name of freedom and democracy. Craven hypocrites to a man.

So Vinod, why don't you campaign for America to send in its armed forces to every nation that carries out tyrannical murder? What about Zimbabwe, Congo, China? What about the tens of thousands of children and women and men slaughtered by American missiles? At what point does America become the bad man? After what death count of Iraqis killed by Americans bombing civilians do you actually start to introspect? I understand that the American right are full of blood thirsty racists and cowboys and maniacs who don't think of 'Eye-Rakeez' as fully human - that is why they carried out sado-masochistic tortures on peanut sellers in Abu Ghraib and continue to sanction torture. But I know that you are not cut from that cloth. So at what point do you introspect Vinod? How many children need to get their heads blown off by American GI's before you understand the crassness of this whole sorry and dirty squalid war?

All the while, Iran builds up her nuke and laughs at the old boots and garbage cans found in the bunkers where Saddam's imaginary weapons lay hidden.

In a democratic set-up, we should accept differing world views and encourage dissent. The mainstream media is completely dominated either by big multinational corporations in "democracies" or by governments in dictatorships. So alternative radio and television programmes like Amy Goodman's show "The war and peace report", where Arundhati Roy was interviewed is an absolute necessity. Arundhati Roy is not a leftist because she is against the war in Iraq. She is an intellectual who speaks out fearlessly against against all forms of violence all over the world; military violence, government violence, feudal violence, "development" violence, media violence , etc.. We need more people like her to take anti-establishment perspectives. Otherwise, what is the meaning of democracy ? In the cradle of Western democracy, Athens, Socrates was willing to die for his right to dissent.
For those interested, here is the link to the TV show:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/23/1358250

It takes someone as gifted and compassionate as Arundhati Roy to tell us what we need to know about our own country. Her voice is compelling enough that the main stream media will actually cover her once in a while.
Read her book, An Ordinary Person's Guide to Empire. The thesis is sobering: All governments are corrupt. The media and businesses own them and do their bidding through them. Public education follows in step. We can expect nothing more. The only way to effect change is through global boycotts that can dent a multinational corporation's bottom line. Hopefully the internet will help us organize them more effectively.
The sad thing is that it's everybody's dream in India to move to the US. Their culturally and spiritually incomparable country of soulful people is being decimated by our materialism.
Arundhati Roy speaks the truth beautifully, brilliantly, and without fear. May we strive to emulate her.

>>The thesis is sobering: All governments are corrupt.

Hell yeah! So, why doesn't she fight for reducing the size of Government in all spheres of life?

M. Nam

India and the USA have a lot in common: fake elections giving fake results, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, the leaders stage-managing mass murder in warfare and stage-managed mass media all contrived to benefit the rich and dissing the poor. No wonder the India/USA leaders get along so well: it's because both nations are run by racketeers at the top of the governments. Impeach or otherwise get rid of all these illegitimate and savage leaders.

AR is entitled to her beliefs. She definitely is a great speaker and articulates her views well, but I have never understood what she stands *for*, and not stands *against*.

Have you wondered why things are the way they are? I have thought about it a lot and conculded that it is because of our collective apathy. We have allowed those who we call crooks to hijack our governments. If you did not want Bush to be elected again, did you really do all you could to make it happen? Did you take time off your busy schedule and go campaigning against him in places he was strong? Why is it that we, who think that we know better, have no power? It is because we only talk and do little. Money is power. If those of us who are business leaders spent 20 to 30% of our working hours doing something that is of no direct personal benefit to us, things would be very different indeed. Roy is doing great work. We should strive to do more than her. And we must start today.

Arundhati says: "But now it's happening in India, and the rhetoric of democracies in place, because they have learned how to hollow out democracy and make it lose meaning. All it means, it seems, is elections, where whoever you vote for, they are going to do the same thing."
Sounds very familiar, huh? A lot like the US.

Truly a wonderful person. She has a view of the big picture, knows where we've been on a large scale and can see where the world is going. She is a true visionary that understands the mistakes of history to try to make a positive impact on the future.
Predatory national and corporate practices are killing us all, inside as well as outside. A cleansing of the mind against intolerance , predatory practices and a patriarchal system predicated on power is necessary for us so that we all can speak to one another as human beings.

"We have such a litany of the history of incineration when you embrace the government of the United States." A. Roy

And these aren't the first Indians to discover this truth about this Christian nation. I would just advise them not to sign any treaties with us or accept any blankets from the American people either unless they've been autoclaved sterile. You fuck with the bull, be prepared to take the horn.

"He visited Gandhi's grave, and first his dogs visited Gandhi's grave. Then, you know, Gandhians were, like, wanting to purify it. And I said, 'Look, I don't mind the dogs. I mind Bush much [more] than the dogs.' " A. Roy

Me too. This speaks for itself. The lesson for Hindus? Some life is not only not precious to anyone and would not be missed. Yes, I'm talking about insects and parasitic life forms, but not the innocent ones in the ground, rather, those of the Republican persuasion.

>> I have never understood what she stands *for*, and not stands *against*....

Why technophobicgeek, she stands for peace, justice, equality, environment, freedom, democracy... and she stands against dams, Bush, BJP, Congress, Coke etc etc.

Detect a pattern? Once side of the equation is made up of only generics and the other side of only specifics. It's a classic dualistic smoke-n-mirror which most despots pull out when they need to seize control and ruin a country.

She's the kind of person who you would show to your niece/sister/daughter and say: "See - if you don't study hard and learn to think rationally, you will end up like that."

M. Nam

Arundhati has the clearest vision since I don't know who. She, more so than any thinker and political commentator just seems to get it, to see through the foggy bullshit of spin, of corruption, of misspeak and administration lies. The fact that she does, and the fact that she is unapologetically vocal and committed when expressing these crystalline views should be an example to all of us: hold fast to your convictions. Find out exactly which side you ought to be on (hint: there will most usually be a gun pointed in that direction) and fight for it, for justice without violence, for the rights of all.

"You pick your side, and then you fight, you know? But in a country like India, I'm not seeing that many radical positions taken by writers or poets or artists, you know? It's all the seduction of the market that has shut them up like a good medieval beheading never could." says Arundhati Roy.

This is a very insightful comment. Back in the 60's, they say that pop music was a big catalyst for social change - everyone from the Doors (Unknown Soldier, Peace Frog, etc.) to the folkies (all we are saying, is give peace a chance...) was anti-war. Now pop music has been completely absorbed into the corporate system, homogenized, and endless regurgitated - political protest is not the corporate mantra. Underground hip-hop and punk music has replaced that role - but can these artists get airplay, promotion, etc. by the corporate music system?

Take the hip-hop group, Dead Prez. Will these lyrics get played on Clear Channel?

"You can't fool all the people all of the time
But if you fool the right ones, then the rest will fall behind
Tell me who's got control of your mind? your world view?
Is it the news or the movie you're taking your girl to? (uh)
Know what i'm sayin cause Uncle Sam got a plan
If you examine what they tellin us then you will understand
What they plantin in the seeds of the next generation
Feeding our children miseducation
No one knows if there's UFO's or any life on mars
Or what they do when they up in the stars
Because i don't believe a word of what the president said
He filling our head with lies got us hypnotised
When he be speaking in cold words about crime and poverty
Drugs, welfare, prisons, guns and robbery
It really means us, there's no excuse for the slander
But what's good for the goose, is still good for the gander
See...

Chorus:
I don't believe Bob Marley died from cancer
31 years ago i woulda been a panther
They killed Huey cause they knew he had the answer
The views that you see in the news is propaganda"

Not likely!

This is so delightful! I am jumping with joy to kick some first class ARoy ass and ARoy ass lickers. In my humble opinion, she needs some real good spanking!

Manish, you have my gratitude for this post. Too much of collectivism and compassion on SM was making me feel nauseated for quite some time.

Bring it on, boys! Lets see what you got.

Regards,

Mmm well, it's obvious that she's fully aware of the irony of her position! At least she's admitted as much - far more than the people who claim to be fighting for freedom while constructing Orwell's worst nightmare.

It's sad that for Arundhati being "strung up" by someone who shares none of her beliefs about the role of women, freedom of speech, etc. is somehow less than something associated with the USofA....

So you think that the US is doing what its doing in Iraq for "the role of women, freedom of speech, etc" ??
Isnt that a little naive??

My heart goes out to Roy for her courage to speak out on India's inequalities, which are getting worse by the day. News blackout of the wave of governmental violence exacerbates the dilemma. Usually most news about India is generally about "Bollywood" and outsourcing of jobs to Bangalore, etc. and the tension in Kashmir-Dodge City with skiing.
Thomas Friedman obviously only saw (and reported) on what he WANTED to see. That is lousy journalism. Therefore, he Potemkinized his reports. It's a case of "parachute journalism"- being a place at short length of time to report on an topic without fully grasping the larger picture of the assignment. Ergo he's misleading his readers.
India has a long way to go to solve its pressing problems as we do in the United States. To Indians, don't become like us, ruled by a bunch of right-wing fanatics running roughshod over our civil liberties and by the invasion of big-box retail outlets like Wal-Mart.
Your traditions are being threatened. Resist being drawn into the American sphere of influence, although it might be too late.
You were dominated by the British; now you're about to be dominated by the United States. Heaven help India.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
VOLTAIRE, French philosopher.

Arundhati Roy proves that there are intelligent, articulate, inspiring people with a progressive vision who are deeply committed to something beyond narcissistic self-promotion.

It is true and at the same time ironic that very few people will raise issues related to dalits, poors, womans and farmers in India like Roy. Indians are hardwired in their brain about castes (one human humiliate the other in the name of caste, and it is multi tiered), myths and religious stupidity.

Actually mon frere, to paraphrase your good self, Mme. Roy's thesis can be summed up as:

"I approve of what you say, even if it kills me."

That is the essential Fiskiness of her stance.

Speaking of Arundhati, has anyone seen "We"? It's a great documentary featuring one of her wonderful speeches. I love it!

You can download it for free at this site: http://www.weroy.org

Oui, DesiDudeInGotham, voici la réponse de Voltaire:

"A witty saying proves nothing."

I think the real reason Charlie Rose decided not to broadcast that interview is that Arundhati unwittingly touched the Red Button of American politics : Israel's nuclear weapons. It is a taboo to say or admit that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. That's why he was annoyed at Arundhati , that she had the nerve to mention it. If a politician mentions that Israel has nuclear weapons, the Israeli lobby will use its money to defeat the politician by giving money to his opponent; and if a writer talks about Israeli nuclear weapons, then the lobby will work to silence him/her.

But what is AR's solution to the problem's involving militancy whether it be Kashmir, Iraq or any of the eastern states? The rest of India is relatively peaceful albeit with social problems. Can you imagine the scenario if America left Iraq or India left Kashmir to its own devices ? Don't these nations have a responsibility to the occupied states. The presence of the military is the only reason there is not a power vaccum in the region which would probably be filled by terrorists.

Yesh,

Maybe you skipped TiVo-ing the episode where he interviews Amre Moussa, Secy-General of the League of Arab States. So I guess that the real reason he decided that the interview was not worth showing because of it didn't have anything sensible to add.

The thing about Arundhati Roy is that like most neo-Marxists, she is quick to find fault rather than provide ANY constructive means of finding solutions.

Keshbhai,
How can you compare Kashmir and Iraq ? Kashmir is part of India or at least a neighbouring "lost" state/country?
Iraq like Vietnam before, has nothing to do with the U.S.A. The only reason the Americans are there is to dominate the Gulf countries and counter Iran and Russia!

Moornam:

Re: Post # 18---`She's the kind of person who you would show to your niece/sister/daughter and say: "See - if you don't study hard and learn to think rationally, you will end up like that."'

Arundhati Roy has made a lot of money and no longer needs to earn a living. I wish I could end up like that.

Yesh Prabhu

Good point. Very perceptive. I'm always amazed at how Israel's big nuclear stash is conveniently ignored by so many.

Arundhati Roy may have her weaknesses, but she at least stands up and speaks out on behalf of the things she believes in ...AND puts her money where her mouth is as when she donated her entire cash prize for her book to the Narmada andolan.

Arundhati Roy has been nominated for the prestigious Spanish Prince of Asturias Prize for 2006.
The award given to eight people every year in several identified fields carries a cash prize of 50,000 euro and a sculpture by Catalan artist, Joan Miro.
A foundation named after Spain's Crown Prince Felipe, who is also known as Prince of Asturias, chooses the winners in diverse fields such as communications and humanities, social sciences, international cooperation, scientific investigation, arts, harmony and sports.
The Prince gives away the prizes in the northern city of Oviedo each fall.
Others nominated for this year's award with Ms. Roy include Amos Oz of Israel, Ismail Kadare of Albania, Philip Roth and Margaret Atwood of the United States, Elena Poniatowska of Mexico and Turkey's acclaimed novelist Orhan Pamuk.
Even if we don't agree with each and every stand taken by Roy, we should be proud of this international recognition. There aren't so many Indian women who are able to attract such a world wide audience.

>>Arundhati Roy has made a lot of money and no longer needs to earn a living

So have many drug-dealers, crooked politicans, scamsters, shysters and bugaboos.

I'd rather make money doing something productive.

M. Nam

Yes, may we strive to emulate Arundhati Roy, as this person who commented so clearly does with her/his beautiful summation.
Yes, so sad that the richness that is India is undergoing such butchering, and results in mutiny.
When will we ever learn?

Maybe our skepticism plays into the hands of part of a larger conservative effort to de-legitimize voices other than so-called 'authorities.'
In other words, the conservative mind frame wants to limit the number of voices in a discourse.
Our government and the corporations that pander to it could have a vested interest in keeping us dumbed down and focused on pure entertainment, immediately moving to discredit anyone -- celebrity or not -- who steps up to try and actually make a difference.

I think the real reason Charlie Rose decided not to broadcast that interview is that Arundhati unwittingly touched the Red Button of American politics : Israel's nuclear weapons.

I'm always amazed at how Israel's big nuclear stash is conveniently ignored by so many.

Yesh & Fink:

What world are you living in? Israeli nukes are widely know, as a quick search of the moderately left leaning "paper of record" shows, the subject is routinely discussed. The reason few are up in arms about it is the same reason few are up in arms about India having nukes. Both contries are relatively free. But when nations or people that despise freedom posses nukes, we should then be concerned...like pakistan or the palestinians.

as far as...

if a writer talks about Israeli nuclear weapons, then the lobby will work to silence him/her.

this goes, i don't like to silence people as bigots (unless they are one) but this one so closely resembles anti-semetic stereotypes that I would at least like to give you an opportunity to cite examples of this before asking you to explore your own prejudices.

As far as...

If a politician mentions that Israel has nuclear weapons, the Israeli lobby will use its money to defeat the politician by giving money to his opponent

this goes. it's called democracy Yesh. And all of us should work to expell such hate mongerers as Cynthia Mckinney from congress.

Here is an interesting article.

Here is a snippit from an interview w/ Roy about the Charlie Rose incident. No mention of Israeli nukes being the reason it was never broadcast. But maybe the Jews ...er... "Israeli lobby" got to Roy too.

AG: I remember when you were last here, you were headed off to an interview with Charlie Rose. And so I looked to see you on Charlie Rose, and I waited and I waited, and I never saw you. What happened?

AR: Oh, it was interesting. He -- well, when the interview began, I realized that the plan was to do this really aggressive interview with me, and so the first question he asked was, "Tell me, Arundhati, do you think that India should have nuclear weapons?" So I said, "I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons. It's something that I have written a lot about." He said, "I asked you whether India should have nuclear weapons."

So I said, "Well, I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons." Then he said, "Will you answer my question? Should India have nuclear weapons?" So I said, "I don't think India should have nuclear weapons. I don't think the U.S. should have nuclear weapons. I don't think Israel should have nuclear weapons."

And I asked him, I said, "What is this about? Why are you being so aggressive? I have answered the question, you know, clearly. And I think I made my position extremely clear. I'm not some strategic thinker. I'm telling you what I believe." So after that it just sort of collapsed into vague questions about world poverty and so on, and it was never shown. I mean, I wouldn't have shown it if I were him either, but -- because it was, you know, I don't know, treating me like I'm some kind of politician or something.

Abhi:

Thanks for the link. I'm familiar w/ the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper and that they have been labled ant-semetic. I too like to default on the side of free speech. And the truth is the paper was published and widely discussed. Some think it ani-semtic b/c this (Jews controlling the media and Washington) is a stereotype (i'm open to the possibility that sterotypes may have a basis in reality) and they also have free speech rights to express their opinion.

If someone printed a paper saying blacks are lazy I think it would get the same reaction. The point is this does not prove that Blacks control the media anymore than it proves Jews do in the Mearsheimer & Walt incident.

Voltaire:

Oui, DesiDudeInGotham, voici la réponse de Voltaire:

"A witty saying proves nothing."

I am glad you are tacitly retracting your previous quip as well. I agree that quips are perfectly useless. And a waste of bandwidth.

I get the feeling she knows she's a target and she speaks her mind still. No one is saint and after all these years, she does it because she cares about people. I disagree with positions she takes but she's a hero to many

Particularly for an Indian Woman to take a stand, she relies on her ideas and her language to make her arguements, whether right or wrong

Bob Marley One Love

I don't think you're putting Roy in the proper context. (And, starting with a link from Andy Sullivan doesn't exactly inspire confidence.)

Roy is, I think, making the case for democracy in actuality and not just as rhetoric. At times, we may not be in agreement with what others choose. But, hey, the majority wins in a democracy.

And, I don't think she's saying that Islamic fundamentalism is better than liberal secularism. But, she is saying that the American rhetoric is hypocritical given our actions.

If an invester had a choice between "democratic" India and "communist" China for a long term investment, which would he/she pick? Taking current conditions into account, probably India. Thats where it hurts the most to Indian communists. And the counter attack is: "India is not a democracy"!! Ideological slaves, "you know"!

The sad thing is that it's everybody's dream in India to move to the US. Their culturally and spiritually incomparable country of soulful people is being decimated by our materialism.

I like this comment.. :-)..

But sorry. no thanks.. Indians would rather have materialism than being culturally and spiritually incomparable with soulful people.. Indians can decide it later.. Come out of the "Gandhi" movie and other Satyajit Ray movies . Will ya??.

I sense such pettiness amongst many towards Roy. It's amazing. Someone mentioned that "Mrs.Roy's views are devoid of any understanding of politics or a nation under duress". Really? So, extraordinary measures are needed to curb threats to a nation from within, that might spring from legitimate abuses? How many of you know about TADA? Indira Gandhi's despicable emergency? 1984 state sponsored riots against Sikhs in New Delhi? And the fact that no one has ever been sentenced for those riots(Delhi)? Don't even take me to the extrajudicial killings of thousands of Sikhs in Punjab, most of whom were not militants(as the propagandists would have you believe), but regular Joes, like my own uncle. Check this out: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss15/kaur.shtml

Many Indians I have met in NY over the years seem to have this strong sense of Indian nationalism. But that is the norm amongst expatriates, unless they are ones who sought political asylum in the US to get away from all the BS. Anyone on this forum affected during/by the bombay, gujarat or delhi riots? India overall, holds a disgusting record on human rights issues. But oh, it must all be necessary! Lets do our research and shed some of that ethnocentric nationalism, before we are critical of those who speak for the voiceless. Roy is fantastic, and has done more for pressing causes than most of us.

KM, you also need to research a little more before making rhetorics. Roy is a five star activist without any qualitative input on many issues.

Two Awards, Two Authors, Two Activists Arundhati Roy refused the Sahitya Akademi award. Mahasweta Devi is 'overwhelmed' by the Padma Vibhushan. One takes pride in being called a writer-activist, the other says the term makes her flinch.

Mr. Hammer, since you mentioned Mahasweta Devi, may I suggest 'Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Maa' as a must-see film, based on one of her books, that deals with how the government dealt with the naxalites...no surprise there. Devi works with tribals and I met her a few years ago myself when she was brought over by Gayatri Spivak, a professor at Columbia. There is no doubt that she is doing what few others have done. But what is the point in comparing and bashing who is doing a shade more/less?
I believe Roy has stated in the past, that it is a dubious distinction to be a famous writer in a country with millions of illiterates. I believe that by talking about caste, race, injustice through a literary text, 'The God of Small Things', she has contributed vastly and qualitatively to "issues".

The problem w/ Roy is that this is 2006, not 1929. I mean we have already gone down this path many times, where great artists or intellectuals flirt with and become apologists for totalitarianism because of their disdain of capitalism. I think Roy would be taken more seriously if she could find it in her heart to say a word for the millions of victims of the Mao, Stalin, Lennin, or Castro and how she has learned from this history.

The time when we assume that artists who speak the language of justice that Roy does are motivated by good will should have ended with the collapse of the berlin wall. I'm afraid that if one pulls back her mask of social justice, one will see the ugly face of totalitarianism.

Manju,

In fact Roy was the one who with the recent rise of leftists in Latin America said that she wished she could tell people who were cheering the left in these countries, that it's only two minutes of celebration and then it's over, because invariably most of these leftists in power will turn into dictators! So, there. I think her politics is not what some of us are interpreting it to be...she IS skeptical of the left/communists. Wasn't that obvious in her book?

In fact Roy was the one who with the recent rise of leftists in Latin America said that she wished she could tell people who were cheering the left in these countries, that it's only two minutes of celebration and then it's over, because invariably most of these leftists in power will turn into dictators! So, there. I think her politics is not what some of us are interpreting it to be...she IS skeptical of the left/communists. Wasn't that obvious in her book?

intersting. I'll have to look into it. Now, I wonder what she is for.

"the Western hegemony responsible for her material well being, freedom of speech and physical security"

The last I checked, Arundhati Roy was a citizen of India, and it was India that was responsible for her in various ways.

"the Western hegemony responsible for her material well being, freedom of speech and physical security"

The last I checked, Arundhati Roy was a citizen of India, and it was India that was responsible for her in various ways.

Arun:

I think you make a good point. I think it is a mistake to use the term "western" when reffering to liberal democracy or capitalism, after all socialism and communism are "western" values too. But I think vinod was using Roy's own language against her.

But the main point is liberalism and Capitalism are universal values that all socities--and individuals w/i those societies (like roy)-- benefit from. given that she's gained so much from the free market, it's ironic that she wants to deny these gains to others.

Ahhhh.... still love Arundhati Roy.

I believe that by talking about caste, race, injustice through a literary text, 'The God of Small Things', she has contributed vastly and qualitatively to "issues".

What one has to realize is that most of the communist crusades are "anti" campaings rather than constructive, qualitative work. They form a bottleneck in every developmental issue that will probably help most of the people they are defending, at least in the long term. For e.g.

NBA defines itself mainly through negative agendas – anti-dam, anti-liberalisation, anti-globalisation, anti-WTO, anti this, anti that. The alternative development paradigm Medha Patkar claims to represent has not yet offered any practical and positive worldview or agenda for action.

So, it seems she’d rather cast her lot with the barbarians who’d “string her up” than implicitly support the Western hegemony responsible for her material well being, freedom of speech and physical security.

Thanks! Statements like this make me like her more.

I saw her speak in person a couple weeks ago, and contrary to what is being voiced by most of the people objecting to her, she was fully prepared to discuss complicated issues. I didn't agree with everything she said, but I did find that she was trying, at least, to come to grips with a number of important issues: the complications of being an outsider-activist working with people affected by an issue; what it's like to place yourself on the side of people who wouldn't necessarily place themselves on your side in other contexts; what to do when all strategies seem to fail; etc. But these are things that are lost on people who are too busy fixating on random statements that she makes here and there, rather than the substance of what she does and who she is. Give her (and the rest of us) a break.

Manju:

Thanks for the link. I'm familiar w/ the John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt paper and that they have been labled ant-semetic. I too like to default on the side of free speech. And the truth is the paper was published and widely discussed. Some think it ani-semtic b/c this (Jews controlling the media and Washington) is a stereotype (i'm open to the possibility that sterotypes may have a basis in reality) and they also have free speech rights to express their opinion.

If someone printed a paper saying blacks are lazy I think it would get the same reaction. The point is this does not prove that Blacks control the media anymore than it proves Jews do in the Mearsheimer & Walt incident.

You may be familiar with the paper but it doesn't seem like you have read it all. It has nothing to do with the media and everything to do with the leverage certain lobbying groups have towards America's relationship with Israel.

Arundhati Roy carries her Far-Left Post-Modernism to its logical suicidal ends

Wow, that's the best you can do? Smear Roy by pretty much calling her a communist, while draping yourself in the American flag and rehashing the bankrupt rhetoric of "Western values"? Now that's old.

Israel has a nuclear stash. Big deal. That isn't the crux of the issue. It is having political maturity while possessing such destructive weapons. Actions have shown India and Israel possess it. Fundamentally, people don't trust the Islamic states because they haven't show political maturity. This isn't about a country's right. Every nation has the 'right' to do what it wishes. Doesn't mean it will be positive or beneficial.

So, it seems she’d rather cast her lot with the barbarians who’d “string her up” than implicitly support the Western hegemony responsible for her material well being, freedom of speech and physical security. So be it.

Yup. She is an Indian national and guess what? India is a liberal representative republic, with a government and constitution based on western philosophy. Doesn't mean it undercuts India's own cultural heritage. It simply allows it to function, grow, and evolve in a far more stable society with consensus, better than previous empires under Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, British, et. al.

A. Roy and many of her colleagues make wonderful speeches with poetry like prose flowing through their vocal chords and letters. Yet, they are intellectuals who don't have an ounce of pragmatic common sense and grounded logic.

There are many things one can rant about the United States and the faults of western nations/superpowers. The biggest one would be its inability to study and understand foreign cultures for what they are, not what they expect them to be. Patience is a virtue of the wise, which is sorely lacking here at times. But the flipside can be said about nations that are way to patient and don't act when time is ripe to be decisive.

Life is a balancing act and all fail at it at times. The world is more prosperous today than it ever was. People do have opportunities they never had before. There are threats - ecological, cultural, political, and above all ideological. If there is something that makes me groan about A. Roy AND GWB is that both are ideologues who get the cart ahead of the horse. BOTH. There are many similar to them. In this day and age when people are striving for sweeping change and great ideological peaks, one forgets that re-inventing the wheel isn't necessary. Inventions and great ideas will come along from the most unexpected of individuals. Case in point: Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Benjamin Franklin (and other founding fathers) and many more. Vicious ideas and men come along, too with Hitler, Stalin, Osama, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Socialism isn't bad, neither is capitalism. People are good and bad. Most successful nations in the world, including the United States use a bit of everything to attempt a balanced lifestyle and future for its citizens. Ones that do not have always suffered. First and foremost by suppressing the voice of the people said governments/movements try to represent.

Iraq has become a mess because pragmatic truths (basics of war doctrine, psychology of warfare, aka Sun Tzu art of war type stuff was put on the backburner for 'ideas') Iraq can still pull through this. Whatever one's position on the war in Iraq, one cannot deny that a significant population did vote multiple times even in hardship conditions. Let them have a chance. Hold the United States accountable for its actions (good and the bad, there has been good, read Michael Yon). But in trying to feel rebellious and significant, don't wish doom upon this experiment that is Iraq. I like what Michael Yon wrote because it had emotional honestly. As he says, Iraq is better than what the media portrays, and Afghanistan far worse than what the Government says.

Life is a bitch, so are leaders many times, yet things do work out despite them. In these war of ideas, people have got caught up in the big romanticized ideas and visions, yet forget to see that it is basics like honesty (which both sides lack), sound governance (which they lack again), and accepting responsibility for one's actions and correcting the wrong and maybe even learning a thing or two from others that allows growth in life.

Watching the History Channel special on George Washington (not too happy with it since it wasn't 'deep' enough for me) one thing stuck out to me. He made many mistakes. Accepting responsibility immediately. Grew and learned. He evolved. The man took those lessons and applied them and above all showed humility and a humble attitude that earned him the title of the First President of the United States of America. Abe Lincoln had such humility, so did Gandhi, MLK, Buddha, JC, etc. Men of ideas who talked and convinced people BY LEADERSHIP, not by scaring or preaching or belittling them (As the so called neo-Marxist 'intellectuals' or neo-con 'tough guys' like to do).

The pragmatic reality is Iraq and its fledgling government needs help and support. That government is far more legitimate, despite foreign occupation than Saddam's ever was. People actually voted for an assembly. Give it a chance and lend your ideas and hand to them. Understand the practical reality that Israel has possessed nuclear weapons for decades, yet not called for the destruction of ANY of its neighbors who have attacked directly and failed, so they've pumped their money to Palestinians to kill. Instead, they could have used ALL the oil wealth to better educate and arm said people with the pen, rather than the sword. Made them a mighty financial force, once that could negotiate a way in. Pragmatic reality is that Bush, who basked in the glory of the 3 week maneuver warfare masterpiece into Iraq, stopped and basked in the glory of the ball he hit, only to realize it wasn't a home run and only a double/triple and now hustling to make his way through the bases.

Goddamn. I apologize for the long post/rant. Not my home and I'm only a guest. I'm not looking to argue specifics; A beer, nice warm grill, tasty grub, and a group of individuals face to face is far more pleasant and emotionally honest. A nice deep conversation about philosophy and practical truths that would ensue is a welcome thought. One thing is true about all of these folks. They ain't leaders. Preachers and intellectuals, but not leaders in the true sense. Very few are and I always hold hope that there is one somewhere around that you wouldn't expect who'd change the course of history for the better. Life is dynamic and change is the only constant. One needs to adapt and leaders recognize this before others do. They can navigate the turbulent nature of change. They are adaptable, powerful, humble, and practical.

As Bruce Lee said, "Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way round or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.

Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend."

GujuDude out.

Manju,

intersting. I'll have to look into it. Now, I wonder what she is for.

what to do when all strategies seem to fail; etc. But these are things that are lost on people who are too busy fixating on random statements that she makes here and there, rather than the substance of what she does and who she is

And her writer-activist stance is half assed since she is no longer a writer. Her last novel was published about 8 years ago. Now that she is just an activist, she has chosen to interpret the word to merely mean dissenter. And that often means dissenting on all issues and taking contrary stances. It is the natural illogicality of these stances that lead her to statements like the one cited. In fact there are times, like Manju, when I wonder what exactly she stands for.

There is inherent uncertainty about celebrities taking up humanitarian or political causes. As a rational human being, I know luminaries have brains like everyone else and are certainly capable of embracing a cause passionately. The current climate is obviously ripe for involvement. Stars themselves have become a big part of this phenomenon -- prolonged human suffering (including but not limited to famine, poverty and that wrought by natural disaster), it seems, is the sexy celebrity cause du jour. Moreover, in a day and age of digitized and global media, it probably (hopefully?) becomes a lot harder for high-profile people to turn a blind eye to misery, especially for those who call themselves "role models."
There are even basic training camps for celebrities who want to get involved in something worthwhile but need a hand in understanding the issues. For example, the "Creative Coalition" brings together artists and celebrities to learn about causes, eventually enabling them to do things like lobby on their behalf in D.C. Similarly, "Participate" is a group linking up big films (and presumably their stars) with like-minded grassroots organizations. Associations such as these, of course, do wonderful and important things. But the little devil perched on my shoulder is whispering that they also shroud the celebrities involved from the get-go with disingenuousness.
And to a certain extent, that's fine. It's a phenomenon that increases the awareness of people who might otherwise simply might not have too firm a grasp on what's going on out there in the (increasingly complex) world. But when does the trend stop and real knowledge and action take root? In other words, when will the average citizen who takes note of a celebrity endorsement actually absorb it into her consciousness and translate it into activity, even on the most micro of levels -- perhaps the true litmus test of celebrity involvement in anything?
In a scathing op-ed in the "New York Times", author Paul Theroux (who spent many years teaching in Africa under the auspices of the Peace Corps) derided the propensity (especially of celebrities, but specifically Bono, whom he says shouts "so loud people trust his answers") to advocate, for example, the "more money platform" in Africa. He says it's both patronizing and a mistake, "donors enable embezzlement by turning a blind eye to bad governance, rigged elections and the deeper reasons these countries are failing." What Africa needs, he says, is home-grown citizen involvement, a stopping of the continental brain drain -- not the computers Bono's One campaign cohort Bill Gates wants to send to places that not only don't have electricity, they don't even have pencils and paper for schools.
Kanye West shocked the entire world when last year at a Red Cross event benefiting Hurricane Katrina victims, he looked right into the camera and said live on national television, enunciating each word, "George Bush doesn't care about black people." His outcry against the wrenching inequalities exposed by that disaster was raw, angry and emotional. But could anyone ever accuse him of being insincere? Hell, no.
Given all of the evidence, especially within the celebrity-industrial complex scenario, I suppose what each and every one of the celebrities -- even the vapid or the stupid -- do is, as previously pondered, give rise to some sort of awareness, which is (even when I am only grudgingly admitting it) in and of itself vital.
That's where the blogs come in, forcing the hand of the print magazines (across the board, most certainly not just in the celebrity sector) to become increasingly competitive in offering and breaking important news. According to blogcount, almost 1/3 of Americans regularly read blogs, and interestingly enough, while political blogs like Daily Kos (500,000 hits a day) and Talking Points Memo (150,000 hits a day) are increasing their readerships exponentially, especially among the young and internet-savvy, so are the more gossip-oriented blogs such as Gawker and Perez Hilton.
The popularity of these blogs suggests the confluence of celebrity and news in the same way that politicians are morphing into celebrities, and vice versa. Maybe we young people are inundated by the merger of the cause-driven and the celebrity-driven issues in our society and are frankly weary from trying to tease them apart. Maybe it doesn't, at the end of the day, matter to us whether a celebrity is invested in something important or something stupid, because the next hour, day or blog-post will bring another set of circumstances for us to ponder for ourselves.

Why we need more people like Arundhati Roy :
*** while TV and radio news reports tell the latest about corporate fortunes, vast numbers of real people are struggling to make ends meet -- and many are in a position of choosing between such necessities as medicine, adequate food and paying the rent.
*** superficial news reports and commentaries, routinely describing war in flat phony antiseptic terms, are helpful to the U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq -- where the deaths of American troops, while horrific, are small in number compared to the civilian deaths as a result of daily slaughter catalyzed by U.S. military activities.
*** each war death takes a precious life, and media outlets rarely convey more than surface accounts of the actual grief of loved ones left behind.
*** many Americans have lost their limbs or their lives in on-the-job accidents that might have been prevented if overall media coverage had been anywhere near as transfixed with job safety as with, say, marital splits among Hollywood celebrities.
*** each war death takes a precious life, and media outlets rarely convey more than surface accounts of the actual grief of loved ones left behind.
*** no matter how much glorious rhetoric and how many chronic euphemisms are brought to bear on public opinion, most of war's victims are not -- by any definition -- combatants or enemies. As New York Times reporter Chris Hedges, a former war correspondent, has pointed out, "In the wars of the 1990s civilian deaths constituted between 75 and 90 percent of all war deaths."

Not every guy or girl can tell their parents or their friends stories from Iraq. They won't understand. Or they don't want them to know what they did. And it's really rough. It's really rough for veterans to come back and find themselves, and especially when they're out of the service or even when they're in. You are like the alien. You have your own type of language. Even still, at work, I'm around all these people, and they're not like me. They don't understand.
As an Iraq war veteran, I feel Ms. Arundhati Roy helps us to open the eyes of our American brothers and sisters who don't understand the untold pain and sufferings we undergo and how it affects our lives and also our families! We make the civilian people of Iraq suffer and we also suffer deeply at a later stage. We have learnt nothing from the Vietnam war and the pain and trauma it brought to the war veterans and the poor Vietnamese people.

"We're forgetting the past, because neither our educational system nor our media inform us about the past. For instance, the history of the Vietnam War has been very much forgotten. I believe this amnesia is useful to those conducting our present foreign policy. It would be embarrassing if the story of the Vietnam War were told at a time when we are engaged in a war which has some of the same characteristics: government deception, the killing of civilians through bombing, scaring the American people (world communism in that case, terrorism in this one)."
says historian Howard Zinn, author of "A People's History of the United States".
http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060528427

Depoliticizing our culture is a media necessity in a society driven by consumerism. Every programmer knows the drill. It's a market logic called KISS: Keep It Simple and Stupid.
A national curriculum, "Lessons From History," on the teaching of the past realizes that this phenomenon threatens democracy, warning, "Citizens without a common memory, based on common historical studies, may lapse into political amnesia, and be unable to protect freedom, justice, and self-government during times of national crisis. Citizens must understand that democracy is a process -- not a finished product -- and that controversy and conflict are essential to its success."
So even as this dialectic is deplored, it is, sadly, quite functional.
More people vote for the best performer on American Idol than for our presidents.
The architects of TV news know this from their market surveys and studies. It is this very media effect that they hype to lure advertisers to their real business: selling our eyeballs to sponsors, not deepening our awareness.

The function of propaganda in a democratic society - well, maybe Noam Chompsky is the person to read on this one, perhaps "Necessary Illusions". The illusions are necessary, because if the general public knew what our fearless leaders have actually been up to for the past few decades (if not longer), there would be a lynch mob chasing them down the street.

All american wars have been set up the same way. In order for Americans to really appreciate your ideas, you need to hook them to a pattern of behavior. People can understand a pattern--it makes more sense to them. Otherwise, all the people see is "partisan politics." You social activists right here are quite guilty of this same thing. You endlessly attack Bush when you should really be attacking the overclass. Because you have failed to do so, you have lost credibility with most people.
Imagine the overclass as a filter that either rejects or accepts ideas that have political content. You might envision the overclass as environmental forces in an ecosystem (such as climate, food supply, parasites, etc). These forces allow some animal mutations to survive and flourish, while others are killed off. THe overclass kills of ideas that harm it. Thus the political amnesia.
Note that the American Left has consistently failed to put the crimes of the Bush Admin into context in American History (you continually fail to show how the Iraq War has parallels, and so many other things).

The best and most valuable memorial to those who have died in service to our nation is a vibrant democracy. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen & Marines don't serve & fight for flag, god or country-- they fight for the future of their loved ones at home. Like everyone else they want their families and friends to live in a peaceful world with an opportunity for a better life. Like everybody else they value their privacy and other civil liberties. I know because I served--fortunately in a more peaceful time.
The very people sending our troops in harm's way have made a mockery of all that these people hold, or will hold, dear in life. Most of America has or is awakening to the reality that we have been conned from day one. We had no business going into Iraq and no just cause. The people sending them are not in harm's way and few of their children serve. The common people that this bunch has screwed 10 ways from sunday are the ones paying the price-- today & tomorrow. Today in lives, separation and pain. Tomorrow under the crushing burden of an almost $10 trillion debt.

It's enough to make me want to throw up.

The reason for the political amnesia has been well studied. When watching TV, the brain very quickly slips into Alpha brainwave mode. Alpha brainwaves are associated with daydreaming, not learning or analytical thought.
This has been even more extensively studied by the advertising industry.
The site would not accept this link, so go to
http://www.leaonline.com
and do a search for: television+alpha
In fact television commercials are designed to speed up the brainwaves at certain points. The brainwaves are still in Alpha mode, but a little bit faster so that people can at least remember the product.
For an excellent overview of TV and Alpha read this Scientific American Article:
http://www.wu-wien.ac.at/usr/h99c/h9951826/television.PDF
Americans watch (on average) over 4 hours of TV a day. This means that Americans are spending (on average) over 4 hours in Alpha Brainwave mode per day. And once you stop watching for the day, your brain takes a little while to completely leave the Alpha Brainwave state. That's why after watching TV, people tend to feel sluggish and apathetic.
That's why it is especially important for young children to not watch TV as their brains are still forming. There is evidence that these extended Alpha brainwave sessions are especially harmful to the developing brain.
"The Plug-In Drug : Television, Computers, and Family Life" by Marie Winn is an excellent book that describes the issues and scientific research.

It is the natural illogicality of these stances that lead her to statements like the one cited.

DesiDude, I think that the statement that she made is contentious but it's still thought provoking. It raises the issue of the extent to which politics and social change are about people as social beings and the extent to which they're about the ideas that people hold. She evidently operates on the first idea, which poses this problem for her: People--including dispossessed people--rarely have perfect politics, if ever; how then, does the outsider activist--who has different politics--deal with the choice between "supporting" people who wouldn't support her and standing idly by while watching a serious wrong done to them. In essence, it's a clash between self-interest and solidarity both stemming from similar values, and I think you can see that tension if you read the whole passage rather than just the one line at the end.

Now that she is just an activist, she has chosen to interpret the word to merely mean dissenter. And that often means dissenting on all issues and taking contrary stances....In fact there are times, like Manju, when I wonder what exactly she stands for.

This is a fair criticism. I just don't think you should look to her for a policy platform. Her raison d'etre is pretty simple: to affirm the right of people who are less powerful to resist.

she is no longer a writer. Her last novel was published about 8 years ago.

All writing is not fiction in book form, but even setting that aside you have very high demands of your fiction writers :)

No one is exempt from taking sides in crises such as the ones that have engulfed the entire planet now. By "taking sides" I don't mean--and I don't think Arundhati Roy means--embracing an ideology or maintaining somebody else's position. I mean taking the side of people and the planet. But beware: if you take the side of people, of living things, you will almost always be setting yourself up in opposition to large corporations and the governments that cover for them.
I can already hear some people saying: but there have always been these crises and there always will be. Fair enough. Then: no one was ever exempt from taking sides, and no one ever will be. Perhaps there will always be affronts to social justice, to peace, and to environmental sustainability. But can anyone honestly believe that as a consequence people should ignore such affrontery?
"Exempt" implies rules, or authority, and is therefore an unfortunate word choice on my part. Everyone is "exempt"; there is no single moral code, and I (like you perhaps) simply do not trust the makers and executors of laws, disembodied, corrupt, and unable to reference in their work what it feels like to be human. And yet: failure to take sides is a taking of sides. How can an artist (or an accountant, or an architect, or an advertiser...) not take a position when confronted with the dangers and injustices of the world? How can that position not manifest itself in an individual's work?
Let me correct myself: not the dangers and injustices of the world, but those of one's own culture, and so, to some extent, one's own making.
It seems to me that the person who asks "but what can I do?" has yet to realize the need for something to be done.

SepiaMutiny is a particularly good blog with many compelling thought lines. To be brief, I believe we are ALL artists - in one way or other. Some express via music - and writing; some via movement and dance; me, through the design of buildings, environments, neighborhoods, and the like. On a small scale, EVERY new assignment poses the question and challenge as to "what can I do?" For me, it is HOW the approach to the answer is formulated that is most meaningful. We all answer in one form or another. I like to think that my responses are more global perhaps and more encompassing of solutions dedicated to NEEDS as opposed to purity of form and space just for the sake of.....being. Like many, I LIKE what I do. Perhaps like many, I do get joy in people enjoying my stuff. Perhaps unlike many, I do NOT create out of any sense of anger. Rather, to assist and to help others with things of beauty is simply sublime. Good posts here; very provocative. Nice to discover this place!

Arundhati Roy has said the Government these days was neither respecting nor listening to those raising their voice via non-violent means. Instead, it was inviting those leading violent struggles for talks.
Ms. Roy also said:
"All such tactics are sending a dangerous message to those who are fighting peacefully."

"The Government is taking undue advantage of the situation, but it must realise that it is doing so at its own peril," the author warned. Poor people diplaced by dams had no option but to fight for their rights like many others who were now finding a common cause with them, she said, referring to families displaced by the removal of slums in Delhi and Mumbai.

"People are being displaced in millions, but they cannot go to cities, slums or villages. Then where will they go? There has to be an answer to this. In India, unlike other developed countries, those in majority are affected due to wrong Government policies and planning. If this continues, there will be some kind of a breakdown. It would be better if it happens because of a political struggle or due to an apolitical movement," she added.

"i'll stay political" - arundhati roy
"I believe in political writing whether it is fiction or non-fiction. When you place yourself in it and try to make an honest declaration it is difficult. You can't function like some government ministry with certain policies here. It is a very delicate writing. I write about the most politicised class in India which is the poor."

"When I wrote 'God of Small Things', I wasn't sure if it will work with anyone. It was five or six years of working, completely alone. I won the Booker and became darling of the middle-class. I won the national pride. Then, I wrote non-fiction. I wrote about nuclear tests and realised that speaking out is as political as keeping quiet. People who once were supportive and liked me, started looking at me as an enemy."

Not for Arundhati Roy any of that arm-wringing about whether or not writing should be political.

I’m in love with Arundhati Roy. Not just because she is one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen. Not just because she has written one of the world’s greatest novels, “The God of Small Things”. Not even because she is an activist. No. I’m in love with her because she does something that very few people do these days. She brings hope. She brings Hope even. And Hope, or even hope, is a commodity that is rare at best. But that is what she gives to the world.

It is somewhat strange the way she does it. She does it by criticising the US. By criticising India, by criticising war et cetera. I’ve heard people say that the left is just criticising, never positive. That is not true when it comes to Arundhati Roy. She is the living walking talking exemple of what Derrida calls l’à venir - the to come - as in a justice, world or democracy to come. And when you read or listen to her, you really believe that it is to come. Really.

Perhaps she is best known for her views on Globilisation. Or as the powers like to call us, anti-globalists. Well, she attacs nationalism fiercely. She tells the story about global companies attacking democracy. She talks about how the market takes away peoples livelihood. “The Invisible Hand is not open, it is an Invisible Fist”, as Arundhati Roy herself would say, perhaps.

Andy Sullivan's Moore Award nominee is Arundhati Roy, due to a quotation from an interview of her on Democracy Now! that I've actually seen, and I think Andy's misinterpreting it.
Andy Sullivan obviously thinks some parts of the interview to be apologism for Maoist terrorism. I wouldn't take it that way. Taken in context, this is part of Roy's discussion of the abuse of poor and rural areas of India by the government - particularly the case of dam development that causes both environmental damage and human displacement. I think Roy should be interpreted as saying that all movements opposing the current order in India - Maoists included - should be seen as resistance to the current order, which I think is right. Now, I'm no fan of Roy. Her anti-globalist writing are as frustrating as they are popular. Tom Frank said it best: "Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy."
But painting her as a modern day Weatherwoman isn't fair.

P.S.: Weatherman, known colloquially as the Weathermen and later the Weather Underground Organization, was a U.S. Radical Left organization consisting of splintered-off members and leaders of the Students for a Democratic Society. The group referred to itself as a "revolutionary organization of communist women and men." Their stated purpose was to carry out a series of militant actions to achieve the revolutionary overthrow of the Government of the United States (and of capitalism as a whole).

http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin01312005.html

I am aware of the hostility to Arundhati Roy in India. Why is that so? Is it because she keeps bringing up uncomfortable truths and is a bit of a dramatic diva or is it because she is seen as a limousine liberal who made millions from her blockbuster first novel and yet goes around bemoaning the plight of the poor? Is there also some envy involved in putting her down?

But I don't think that being rich disqualifies one from speaking up for the dispossessed. By that standard, no one from the Gandhi family should be in any position of power in India. Nor should a Kennedy (or a Bush) run for office in the US.

I am not in total agreement with every one of Roy's political positions. But I do find her an outspoken and very smart advocate of the positions she espouses. Criticizing one's own government's failings is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it should be required in a democracy. After all, many blogs main purpose is to point out the faults of the ridiculous government that is currently in power in the US.

Whenever I go to India, I am amazed by the newspapers - their format, their content and their tone. If I sat at home and just read the papers and looked at the TV programs, I would come to believe that India is a country inhabited only by the super rich, super chic and ultra glamorous people cavorting at clubs and resorts. The front page of most major newspapers look like tabloids. I was in Delhi last February when Clinton was in town. The papers went on and on for a week about the grotesquely ostentatious Chatwal wedding which Clinton attended. It was distasteful enough to turn one's stomach. I guess Roy is critical of that attitude of denial in the Indian media. While India is doing wonderfully on so many fronts, it is not right to pretend that it is going equally well for ALL Indians. One of the biggest culprits in presenting a one sided "shiny" Indian story is our own Thomas Friedman of The New York Times whom too Roy takes to task.

To have jumped from first time author to political activist is not a small feat. I respect Arundhati Roy for the genuine passion with which she speaks out, reminding us of the unwelcome costs of globalization/corporatization of India.
To be sure, I don't agree with her on all her stances. She can be a 'Drama Queen' of sorts, with her penchant for mild exaggeration. While many would like to dismiss some of what she brings up as pandering to the Western exoticizing of India and taking India's image from shining bright tech-savvy economy back to dark ages of bullock carts, she is still giving India and the world a necessary reminder that the poorest segments of the Indian population aren't benefitting from the riches, though there is a little trickle down.
Arundhati is consciously using her celebrity for a greater goal, rather than sitting on her laurels after paying lipservice to the causes she supports. That's more than 'armchair liberals' like me have been able to do.
I loved her writing in God of Small Things- it was the most creative transmutation of Malayalam idiom into English that added a tremendous charm to a plot which I didn't particularly care for.

On the state of our national media, just thinking about it is enough to give me apoplexy. I returned to India earlier this year, after spending 5 years in the U.S., where I was pursuing graduate studies and I feel I've returned to an entirely different country, if I was to go by what I read in the papers. Some good people at the Hindu and to an extent Tehelka are fighting the good fight, but for how long? The odds are stacked terribly against them. Times of India, the main villian, doesn't differentiate between news reports and advertisements anymore. This is their *official* policy now. Some time back, they carried an ad, very cleverly camouflaged as copy, for a private institute for higher education, right next to an article on the 12th board results, with the aim of conveniently tying them together in the mind of the reader. The more I think of these developments, the more I depressed I get.
Ms. Roy has very good reasons to be critical of the mass-media in India!

Ms Roy does have a tendency to speak in hyperbole and take artistic liberties in her political statements. That is dangerous. Let us remember what happened to Dan Rather of CBS news when he reported about Bush's absence from Texas National Guard duty and his source turned out to be spurious? Everyone knows that the essential content of the report is true but because of the factual lapse, the whole story got discredited and no further enquiry took place.
When the message is important, the messenger needs to be very careful.
In case of a "diva" like Roy, she becomes the story and the content even when entirely accurate, gets dismissed as dramatic ranting. A pity.

The "infomercial" type of reporting by major Indian newspaper is a relatively recent development and very alarming. I find thoughtful discussion missing both from the print as well as the broadcast media. The entire mood among middle and upper middle class Indians seems to be one of denial and casual laissez faire. Which is why Arundhati Roy is to be commended for sticking her neck out. Perhaps I too would have been the same way if I had stayed on in India. But as a member of a minority community in the US, my antenna has become finely tuned to social and political improprieties. As Sujatha said, perhaps I too am mostly an armchair liberal. But I do my bit by participating in the process - writing in this blog is a large part of that.

Actively campaigning for suitable political candidates is another.

Voting my conscience rather than my own pocketbook is the most important.

I dont mind Bushbashing but Ms.Roy has become a pain...I think being contrary was cute for a whle and for me,'small things' carried her a goodwll from me,now I find her her enjoying her role as a permanent fly in the ointment..no matter what ointment!!

I "googled" Arundhati Roy and the first result shows this..

http://website.lineone.net/~jon.simmons/roy/tgost2.htm

Suzanna Arundhati Roy was born on the 24th November 1961, the child of a marriage between a Christian woman from Kerala and a Bengali Hindu tea planter. It was not a happy marriage and she is unable to speak of her father without difficulty. "I don't want to discuss my father. I don't know him at all. I've only seen him a couple of times, that's it," she told Sunday Plus when pressed.

I din't know about this. It is interesting..

Ok, further info. from that website.. sorry if you folks know of this already..

Arundhati Roy has been no stranger to controversy, from her mother's campaigning through to her own article on Shekar Kapur's celebrated film 'Bandit Queen', about Phoolan Devi, in which Roy charged Kapur with exploiting Devi and misrepresenting both her life and its meaning. That ended with a court case, and her giving up the world of film.

She's kinda against the tide even before she became famous.. I am beginning to like Arundhati Roy..
She is into anarchy.. :-)

I’m no fan of Roy’s political writings, but if she were looking for fame & fortune (aside from having achieved it with her novel), writing anti-imperialist essays for a western audience isn’t really the way to go.
Could you imaging the fat fellowships and advances that would hers if she were to write apologias for imperialism?
Her income would rival that of the manager of a small hedge fund.

my core problem is that she professes a rather cheap anti-globalization (which to her is synonomous with Westernization or American Hegemony)

And yet, it's PRECISELY because of that process that she (an Indian) can get a UK book award, that her books are mass produced in the west, sold on the Internet, can be read by a growing pool of literate Afghan women, can be imported into Iraq, that she can easily jet over to the USofA to deliver her invectives, and yet all the while loathe that process that has lifted 100 M out of poverty in the last decade in India alone.

and now, she publicly sides with the folks who would deny all of those advantages to nearly 100M in the Middle East, turn back the clock a few centuries, and, as she eloquently admits, would readily "string her up".

all out of spite for the US. Roy may be able to turn quite a phrase, but far from lifting anyone out of poverty (well, except for herself & her publicists), she'd rather cast them all back but feel good about herself while doing it. Pathetic.

Our political dialogue has become appalling restricted if you cannot criticize an illegitimate war, the dispossession of people from their land and livelihood, the destruction of the environment and the erosion of democracy and civil liberties without being cast as a Leninist! Such paronoia is hardly becoming for those who flaunt the values of western liberal democracies. Democratic debate is surely a more involved process than mere name-calling. Engaging with concrete problems, difficult ideas and abstract concepts takes real intellectual effort. Let's not foreclose the debate with mud flinging before it even begins.

A point about the recurring notion in this thread that leftists lack practical solutions and live in the airy fairy world of abstractions and theory. All perspectives on politics/society/economy are born as theory. You begin in theory, not in practice. Capitalism itself is based on creative theories - the invisible hand, trickle down effect, assumptions about human nature. It tooks 500 yrs to mould us into creatures who produce, accumulate and consume, produce, accumulate and consume. 500 yrs of 'practice'.

Perhaps then, it's not surprising that in 2006 we are finding it so hard to even conceive 'practicing' any other way of life, especially those of us who are reaping the benefits of ceaseless production, accumulation and consumption. Not all of us can be self-satisfied with our 'gains' as millions plunge into the oblivion of poverty.....so we write, imagine, protest, speak out, demonstrate, campaign, cry, sing, struggle with the contradictions of our identity and try to fight the pervasive cynicism of mainstream society.

You try being a five star activist.

I’m in love with Arundhati Roy. Not just because she is one of the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen. Not just because she has written one of the world’s greatest novels, “The God of Small Things”. Not even because she is an activist. No. I’m in love with her because she does something that very few people do these days. She brings hope. She brings Hope even. And Hope, or even hope, is a commodity that is rare at best. But that is what she gives to the world.

It is somewhat strange the way she does it. She does it by criticising the US. By criticising India, by criticising war et cetera. I’ve heard people say that the left is just criticising, never positive. That is not true when it comes to Arundhati Roy. She is the living walking talking exemple of what Derrida calls l’à venir - the to come - as in a justice, world or democracy to come. And when you read or listen to her, you really believe that it is to come. Really.

Oh Puleeeeeeez

This kind of Idol worshipping cluelessness hysteria and hyperbole is hilarious!

She's the messiah! Worship her! She gives HOPE! Wooo hooo! She is like a God! Beautiful, but she will save us, she bashes America, she gives us hope, let us suckle on her teat of hope! Goddess! Hope Goddess! The Goddess of Hope!

This kind of hyperbole shows how bereft of intellect and perspective some people on the left are. It also accounts for the pant-wetting when her ideas are criticised and mangled and ripped apart for what they are, why some people sulk like cry babies or religious fanatics who have had their God blasphemed against.

Get a life! The Left needs to move beyond stupid and inane fetishising and hero worshipping! Roy's arguments don't stand up!

She can be a 'Drama Queen' of sorts, with her penchant for mild exaggeration.

In one of her essays she compares the displaced people of the Narmada Dam to Jews being herded into the gas chambers. That is not 'mild exaggeration'. That is an obscenity of comparison and hysteria that makes you believe the woman's brain is dislodged. It's plain and simple stupidity, emotionalism run rampant, idiocy to the millionth degree. That is just one example. The woman is an egotistical hysteric. So are some of her 'fans' - just read the description above of how she glimmers with a halo and gives HOPE to the masses and will heal the sick and cure the lepers.

PLEASE! GIVE ME A BREAK!

The Left deserves better than this emotionally incontinent who sups and sides with extreme right fanatics like Hamid Gul, and kisses the ass of fascist suicide bombers. Doesnt the Left have any perspective of ability to work through this dilemma? Doesnt the left have an intellect?

so we write, imagine, protest, speak out, demonstrate, campaign, cry, sing, struggle with the contradictions of our identity and try to fight the pervasive cynicism of mainstream society.

You try being a five star activist.

Oh! The trials of being a five star activist! The horror! The strains! The ordeal of being Arundhati Roy, dreaming and scheming and protesting and crying and singing for HOPE!

Oh, you have no idea about what life is like for a five star activist, you brutal and unthinking wretches. Just you try it, just you try to imagine what life is like for five star activists. The oppression! The difficulty of thinking! Somebody help me before I faint!

In the meantime, let me kiss suicide bombers ass - how is that for a dream?

Pathetic.

Scout, good points.

Anyone have a count of the death toll in Afghanistan, post-Soviet withdrawal and prior to 9/11?
Anyone here have any clue as to Hamid Gul's and the like (the Pakistani establishment's) role in that carnage?

If Arundhati Roy was truly a moral person, she would not be seen with them.

Let's remind ourselves of what Arundhati Roy, Joan of Arc, the Messiah and Goddess of HOPE, the dreamer, the five star activist saving the world with her grace, the wonderful beautiful savior of humanity, who dreams and gives hope to us all, let's remind ourselves of who she supports.

She supports men who strap bombs to their bodies, blowing themselves up in markets killing children, women and men, in order to spark a sunni-shia war, in order to oust the Americans and make Iraq fall apart.

ARUNDHATI ROY SUPPORTS SUICIDE BOMBING!

Get it?

She supports mass murder, as long as it is targetted at the Yanks! It doesnt matter that civilians are murdered and blown to shreds, as long as the Yanks are the targets. Yahoo! The Goddess of HOPE!

Oh the Goddess of Hope she dreams and sings and dreams for us all to rescue and save humanity! She is the five star activist who dreams of kissing the ass of suicide bombers! It doesnt matter who they kill as long as their objective is to kill Americans, lets kiss their ass and destroy globalisation!

And all her fans and disciples who fall to her feet for her beauty and hope, in their safe comfortable homes in San Franscisco and London and Delhi shall love her for her wonderful dream of supporting suicide bombing fascists!

Because she gives us HOPE!

LEFTISTS! You used to have some sense of morality! But you have dissapeared so far up the anus of your own contradictions that you are fully supporting FASCIST SUICIDE BOMBERS!

Of course, anyone calling such people spineless hypocrites is a fascist stooge of the Zionist-American-Globalisation conspiracy, right?

Oh Arundhati Roy, Joan of Arc, you shall die for our sins, you are the messiah.

Vinod --

Your critiques of the AR comment you quote seem to take the ostrich approach.

[1] So, it seems she’d rather cast her lot with the barbarians who’d “string her up” than implicitly support the Western hegemony responsible for her material well being, freedom of speech and physical security.

[2] she professes a rather cheap anti-globalization (which to her is synonomous with Westernization or American Hegemony)

And yet, it's PRECISELY because of that process that she (an Indian) can get a UK book award, that her books are mass produced in the west, sold on the Internet, can be read by a growing pool of literate Afghan women, can be imported into Iraq, that she can easily jet over to the USofA to deliver her invectives, and yet all the while loathe that process that has lifted 100 M out of poverty in the last decade in India alone.

and now, she publicly sides with the folks who would deny all of those advantages to nearly 100M in the Middle East, turn back the clock a few centuries, and, as she eloquently admits, would readily "string her up".

Er, "India Shining" much, Vinod? Millions of people are getting pushed further behind in the process as well, and your "barbarians" are simply a symptom of that, not the fundamental problem itself. Cure the disease and the symptoms will go away; pretend the disease doesn't exist, and the cancer will metastasize.

And if we're turning from India to Iraq, the Keystone Kops, Where-Are-The-WMDs War that is taking place over there is not the "process that has lifted 100 M out of poverty in the last decade in India alone" -- I should think that as an advocate of globalization you'd want to keep your theories about global economic progress free and clear of that debacle.

Although I do admit, what's happening in Iraq has been best described by Stephen Colbert:

I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

So maybe the pretty picture over there appeals to your libertarian sensibilities. ;)

(Sigh. You primitive humans with your 18th century ideologies.)

PLEASE! GIVE ME A BREAK!

Cure the disease and the symptoms will go away

So how do you cure the disease of poverty? Wallow in the mud of poverty from your five star activist academic post and jet set lecturing circuit, or create wealth and incentivise business? So maybe you campaign for re-distribution, instead of declaring a HOLY WAR against capitalism? You mean, you want to scream and scream against the capitalists until you are sick?

Has anyone noticed how these Arundhati Royists resemble Hindutvadis? The idea of a virginal and pure India that must not be tainted by the outside world, that all Indians must be kept poor and protected from contamination, either Muslims/Christians, in the case of the Joan of Arc/Arundhati Royists, the poor are to be rescued by them by screaming and screaming until they make themselves sick against the evils of the disgusting capitalism as represented by hook nosed Uncle Sam come to rape the virginal peasents who the five star activists in their India Habitat debating chambers and prosperous creature comfortable lives are to defend?

Hmmmmm? Anyone noticed that? Anyone?

It is of course just one short step away to outright support of fascist murder - Hindutvadis to support Gujarat carnage and Arundhati Royist maniacs to support extreme right wing fascist suicide bombers as long as they target the yanks and Tony Blair and of course, the chief architect of the deaths of thousands of Indians Hamid Gul, who is also a hero to these geniuses of compassion.

Funny that, isnt it?

Oh Arundhati, Messiah and Goddess of HOPE, these horrible nasty people are being cruel about our five star activism, what can we do?

"Why of course the people don't want war...That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Goering, Hermann (1893–1946), German Nazi leader and politician. He was responsible for the German rearmament program, founder of the Gestapo, and director of the German economy.

Yes, all of the above, capitalism is a cancer, and it is better to whine and moan and support suicide bombers for their resistance rather than support modification and campaign for re-distribution.

But that takes nuance and real sweat and hard work - there is no glamour or international attention to be ganied by doing that, working at the coal face.

No - it is better to fight against the evil Satanic capitalism as represented by hook nosed Uncle Sam come to rape our virginal Indian culture and poor, better to stomp our feet than work to do something CONSTRUCTIVE at the coal face of Indian politics and life, better to scream and scream and thrill middle class Marxists fat from the cream of American and British society who get a thrill at the whiff of revolution. And of course, doing practical, constructive politics and coalface campaigning to ammeliorate the excesses of business and ensure wealth is distributed and invested in health, litearacy and infrastructure programnmes, that is not going to get you invited to San Fransisco, is it?

No it isnt. Better to rant like Don Quixote at the windmills of global-capitalism, because doing something constructive would involve using an INTELLECT, which only Arundhati Roy of Arc possesses.

Lets cheer the suicide bombers! Hooray for the suicide bombers and their resistance!

Bless us Saint Arundhati of Roy, give us HOPE from your halo and beauty, let us worship you and save us from the disgusting grubby capitalists, only you can save us! Our five star activism is being mocked!

Maybe the suicide bombers can rescue us?

So how do you cure the disease of poverty? Wallow in the mud of poverty from your five star activist academic post and jet set lecturing circuit, or create wealth and incentivise business? So maybe you campaign for re-distribution, instead of declaring a HOLY WAR against capitalism? You mean, you want to scream and scream against the capitalists until you are sick?

Well, fair enough. But maybe the right answer, in that case, is to have that discussion in a constructive, vigorous and yet open, civil way, rather than to respond by "screaming and screaming at [people like Arundhati Roy about barbarians and five-star activists] until you are sick."

"Why of course the people don't want war...That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

Goering, Hermann (1893–1946), German Nazi leader and politician. He was responsible for the German rearmament program, founder of the Gestapo, and director of the German economy.

Yes! More hysterical lack of perspective! Criticising Joan of Arc Arundati Roy is EXACTLY analagous to the Nazis! There is no difference!

Who says this is emotionally incontinent hysteria? Not me! I worship the Goddess of HOPE our Mother Arundhati!

Anyone who disagrees is a feckless NAzi!

And we support suicide bombing of markets in Baghdad, London, Haifa and New York! Because they are the 'resistance'!

What next?

Sorry, my Cylon computer didn't format the block quote in cmt #100 -- do-over:

So how do you cure the disease of poverty? Wallow in the mud of poverty from your five star activist academic post and jet set lecturing circuit, or create wealth and incentivise business? So maybe you campaign for re-distribution, instead of declaring a HOLY WAR against capitalism? You mean, you want to scream and scream against the capitalists until you are sick?

Well, fair enough. But maybe the right answer, in that case, is to have that discussion in a constructive, vigorous and yet open, civil way, rather than to respond by "screaming and screaming at [people like Arundhati Roy about barbarians and five-star activists] until you are sick."

William Blum: "From 1945 to 2003, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements fighting against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US bombed some 25 countries, caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair."

Well, fair enough. But maybe the right answer, in that case, is to have that discussion in a constructive, vigorous and yet open, civil way, rather than to respond by "screaming and screaming at [people like Arundhati Roy about barbarians and five-star activists] until you are sick."

Oh come on, constructive? What is constructive about anointing a hysterical egotistical half wit who supports suicide bombing? What is constructive about suicide bombing? What is constructive about configuring those who support busines in India and the creation of wealth as lackeys of Satanic global forces out to rape and destroy India and claim that they are forcing poverty to be perpetuated when every impulse of those people is to lift Indians out of poverty? To construe every failure and vulgarity of that process to some mythical and intellectually moronic conspiracy against the weak? That is bad faith. That is not debating in good faith to begin with. That is nothing but intellectual petulance, juvenile, cosseted petulance.

Plus Arundhati Roy supports suicide bombing. Her stance is morally despicable, and she is the handmaiden to extreme right wing fascism, and she has a track record now of supping with these fascists. She and her 'disciples' are so devoid of moral compass, and it's time they were called on it.

But it's OK - she is 'one of the most beautiful women in the world' and she 'gives us all hope'.

This is laughable lunacy!

Incidentally, Scout, I didn't say that "capitalism is a cancer," as you perhaps are implying above. Extreme poverty and widening group-based inequality gaps are a cancer, something that invariably affects even the most wealthy and privileged in all kinds of ways.

Also, why doesn't Arundhati Roy advocate Gandhian resistance to the American occupation in Iraq? Why is suicide bombing an acceptable form of resistance according to her?

William Blum: "[American leaders] are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... the same that could be said about a sociopath. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ...
Then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home - the ones who make it back alive - with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. American leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things."

Scout, your face is going to turn fire engine red and explode any moment now.

Whether or not you think Arundhati Roy is constructive (wait, don't tell me, I think I know the answer) my point wasn't that she is or isn't, but that a more constructive response from *you* would be not to respond to her in kind, but to actually engage the underlying issues at stake here at a more constructive level -- if not with her, then with everyone else in this thread.

But maybe you are all too human for that.

Also, why doesn't Arundhati Roy advocate Gandhian resistance to the American occupation in Iraq? Why is suicide bombing an acceptable form of resistance according to her?

Good question Arun! Why doesnt the suicide bombing supporter of fascist movements support peaceful 'resistance'?

Hmmmm?

Anyone out there, any disciples of Our Lady Fatima of Roy have any idea why the most beautiful Goddess of Hope supports men who strap explosives to their body and kill women and children as long as they are resisting capitalism and empire?

Can anyone explain? Herman Goering? William Blum? Anyone?

Carl Boggs:"The U.S. record of war crimes has been, from the nineteenth century to the present, a largely invisible one, with no government, no political leaders, no military officials, no lower-level operatives held accountable for criminal actions...
Anyone challenging this mythology is quickly marginalized, branded a traitor or Communist or terrorist or simply a lunatic beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."

Also -- what Saurav said.

I am addressing the issues Number Six! Read through all of my replies and you will see that they are measured and calm and excellent responses. Read my post number 99 - and check to see if Goddess of Hope and her school of airheads do ANYTHING to engage with the real underlying issues. I am talking about their stance which distracts from what matters, what is important, their feckless petulance and head-in-the-clouds narssicistic egotism masquerading as 'concern' and 'activism'.

Anyone challenging this mythology is quickly marginalized, branded a traitor or Communist or terrorist or simply a lunatic beyond the pale of reasonable discussion."

Anyone supporting suicide bombing and the murder of innocents as a mode of 'resistance' is labelled an hysterical lunatic and handmaiden of fascist murder - and so they should be. Can you differentiate between one thing and the other? Or are you only able to cut and paste the thoughts of others? Do you have an original thought? Or just a cut and paste button in your head?

Joan of Arc is being persecuted for supporting suicide bombers! The most beautiful Goddess of Hope is being taunted! By taunting her they are taunting all of us! Herman Goerring and Carl Boggs say so!

Oh brother where is your INTELLECT?

Robert Jensen: "The United States is a society in which people not only can get by without knowing much about the wider world but are systematically encouraged not to think independently or critically and instead to accept the mythology of the United States as a benevolent, misunderstood giant as it lumbers around the world trying to do good."

So Arundhati Roy sat next to Hamid Gul.....and Winston Churchill shook hands with Adolf Hitler. What's ur point?

And this makes her support suicide bombers how?

Yeah - The God of Cut and Paste!

Our Lady of Suicide Bombing Resistance, whoops, sorry, Joan of Roy, Arundhati of Arc, the Goddess of HOPE, the most beautiful woman in the world, the five star activist, her honor is saved by cut and paste.

Sad, sad, sad.

And this makes her support suicide bombers how?

Read the above statement right at the top of Vinod's post Anuja.

Arundhati loves Hamid Gul, he was sitting next to her fluttering his eyelashes as she smiled like the Goddess of Hope and signed her book for him in Islamabad - I wonder how she dedicated it? To Hamid, with explosive Love....

Only kidding. Look if she wants to have a photo opportunity with an extreme right wing fascist that's her decision. But it makes her the moral equivalent of one who sups with a Hindutavadi scum. And Anuja, you really should keep up with Our Lady of Arundhati's words - scroll up, scroll up and read her love for the suicide bombing 'resistance'!

"You cannot say I'm taking away the livelihood of 200,000 to enhance the livelihood of two million. Imagine what would happen if the government were to take the wealth of 200,000 of India's richest people and redistribute it amongst two million of India's poorest? We would hear a lot about socialist appropriation and the death of democracy. Why should taking from the rich be called appropriation and taking from the poor be called development?"
Arundhati Roy

Comment #99 is your example of "measured and calm"?? Dear lord. I'd watch your blood pressure, dude.

Mr Cut and Paste

I think I saw a halo around her head once - and she was bleeding from her stigmata - and she is the most beautiful woman on Earth and the Goddess of Hope, and everyone else is horrible horrible Zionist-Globalisation capitalist rapists......

Right. Vinod's quote. I jumped in the deep end. Apologies.

Iraq is being occupied illegally. American soldiers are legitimate targets. The situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we're likely to see an attack on Iran, we're likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important. The resistence is inevitable.

Mark Crispin Miller: "Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth."

"(A country) cannot be run like (a corporation). All policy cannot be guided by commercial interests and motivated by profit. Citizens are not employees to be hired and fired, governments are not employers. Newspapers and TV channels are not supposed to be boardroom bulletins. Signing over resources like forests and rivers and minerals to giant corporations in the name of `efficiency' and GDP growth only increases the efficiency of terrible exploitation of the majority and the indecent accumulation of wealth by a minority -- leading to the yawning divide between the rich and the poor and the kind of social conflict we're seeing."
Arundhati Roy

Number Six

Trust me dude, my blood pressure is fine! I had it checked last week. I just type fast and speak bold. Every sentiment in that post #99 is a call to the middle ground, if you can't see that I cannot do anything, maybe mind your eye prescription, dude. Read it again dude, it is about responsibility, commitment to the coal face, realism, working hard to support the poor, against idiotic posturing and empty sloganeering against the 'evil capitalist rapists'

In the meantime, the amount of pompous, feckless, stupid posturing that arises out of the personality cult of Lady Arundhati of the Assumption needs puncturing. Especially when she starts supporting suicide bombing, and manoeveurs as the sole truth teller in between cheering when another bomb goes off.

Now, why hasnt anyone addressed why Saint Arundhati supports suicide bombing and the tactics of the 'resistance'?

Iraq is being occupied illegally. American soldiers are legitimate targets. The situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we're likely to see an attack on Iran, we're likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important. The resistence is inevitable

What about the Iraqis who want peace and stability so the Americans can leave and are against the bloodshed of innocent people?

Have you developed a clinical suicide bomb yet Anuja? Let us know the recipe and the chemistry for that.

Let's support right wing fascists in the name of 'resistance'!

"Media manipulation in the U.S. today is more efficient than it was in Nazi Germany, because here we have the pretense that we are getting all the information we want. That misconception prevents people from even looking for the truth."

Yeah! More hysterical incontinence! America is WORSE than Nazi Germany! Get that? America is WORSE than Nazi Germany.

I have been following the arguments of folks like Roy for quite some time now, and I feel that what she says does have merit (ignoring her great prose, BTW).

My view is that
a) unbridled globalisation harms the indigenous people
b) capitalism without adequate safeguards is not a good thing either, and in the absence of policies that protect the people who cannot take advantage of the system, the rich-poor divide keeps getting wider and
c) businesses are notorious for misusing their power to bend the rules to suit their motives [which are profit, profit and profit], fair play and rule of law be damned.

Regards,

Rajesh

"The International Coalition Against Terror is largely a cabal of the richest countries in the world. Between them, they manufacture and sell almost all of the world's weapons, and they possess the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction-chemical, biological and nuclear. They have fought the most wars, account for most of the genocide, subjection, ethnic cleansing and human rights violations in modem history, and have sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and despots. Between them, they have worshipped, almost deified, the cult of violence and war."
Arundhati Roy

Why don't you guys answer a simple qs as to would you happily get out of your house if tomorrow you come to know some dam is going to wash away your home?
No, not at all. you'll be writing new blogs, taking on the streets, contacting the politicians, etc. to get this dam out of your way.
You guys are such hypocrites. You guys are too selfish to understand any rationale. You want to serve your own selfish end and could care less about the displaced persons in any part of the world.
You never ever mention how these guys are going to be rehabilitated.
Don't lecture us about Arundhati and her politics, first give us solution about the displacement problem and then talk about anything else.

Jinnah, I'm not saying that Kashmir and Iraq are the same, but what do you think would be the scenario if coalition forces left Iraq? The country would erupt and it would be in the hands of Zarqawi and his cronies. Guess what, Osama found a retirement spot. The US made a mistake by going into Iraq but now that they are in Iraq they have a responsiblity to set up a new goverment, help bring killers to justice and try to bring back the country to the fringes of stability.

KM,
I wasn't even born when the Emergency occured but by all accounts i know it is a shameful event and one that will stain the country's history forever. Whenver there is a large presence of an army in any region Human rights abuses are bound to happen. Dr. Manmohan Singh acknowledged the fact and promised to work on it. There is no excuse for the rape of women or the killing innocent people. But tough measures are the only way to prevent more bloodshed, do you think that we can expect the same from the militants?
Remember the attack during the congress meeting ? And now we have a Sikh PM and a Muslim President. Have you taken a look at China,Saudi Arabia, Sudans human rights ??? In a militarised zone these tensions are bound to happen. Look at the furore being made because of the boat capsizing, what would the navy gain by killing schoolchildren ? Removing the army is not an option but stricter punishments for human rights violations is. Arundhati Roy seems to be on a quest to paint India as a major abuser of human rights.

and yet all the while loathe that process that has lifted 100 M out of poverty in the last decade in India alone.

100 % agree with you there, Vinod !!! I dont understand what is the deal with this ideological anti-globalizationists (I made that word up). They will never see the positive aspect of globalization. A tell tell sign of extremist/ideologue.

all out of spite for the US. Roy may be able to turn quite a phrase, but far from lifting anyone out of poverty (well, except for herself & her publicists), she'd rather cast them all back but feel good about herself while doing it. Pathetic.

Depoliticizing our culture is a media necessity in a society driven by consumerism.

Saurav,

All writing is not fiction in book form, but even setting that aside you have very high demands of your fiction writers :)

But more to the point Saurav, if she has to make a point about how complex the situation at hand is, or how the fundamental rights of people are being violated in Iraq every day, she should find a less strident tone. I guess my biggest gripe with her is the *way* in which she expresses herself. Her teenage angst. It was cute for the first few pages in GoST. The melodramatic 'I am doomed' bit is not working for me. Or blather like this,

on the other hand, you support the resistance, but you may not support the vision that they are fighting for

One wishes that someone that gets as much media attention as she does would use it more effectively. Rather than express herself quite this way.

Vinod, I'm not sure you're reading Roy right. She isn't taking sides on ideology nor is she pushing herself to some strange logical conclusion. She's taking the American rhetoric to it's logical conclusion and exposing ts contradictions and hypocrisy.

And, also, just because someone benefits from something doesn't mean they have no right to critique it. I find that argument shallow.

thoughtcriminal

... Noam Chompsky...

Lets ruminate on that, shall we? =)

Noam Chomsky: "The media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner supportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly."

Arundhati Roy is a beautiful person, inside and out. She is imensely talented, brilliant, compassionate, and articulate. Actress, author, activist. I love watching her speak. She is one of my all time favorite activists, combining just about everything I love about the human race in one person.

I believe before she is done she will have won every major award, including the Noble Peace Prize. She’s already won things from the Booker Literary Prize to the Sydney Peace Prize. She deserves them all and so much more. I have read elsewhere a nice phrase in relation to her: “A life of beginnings with no endings.” Amen. She is a new Tolstoy-Gandhi-Martin Luther King, Jr., only thankfully much more easy on the eyes. About time we had some compassion in action that looks the way you wish compassion in action would look. Or to put it another way, about time we heard the female side of the same argument.

She is just as great a leader as they ever were. Roy urges us all to take action. “We have to become the global resistance,” to the New Imperialism. Furthermore, she sees beyond simple resistance to all our untapped potential to build something better. “Another world is possible,” she teaches us. She is correct.

In a recent writing she explains why Bush is not welcome in India. Took the words right out of my mouth. About the Iraq War — which she correctly terms “the most cowardly war in history” — she distills this unequivocal statement: “The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, our intelligence, and our future.” This fact, this appalling rape of human nature, is what really angers and alarms me most about the whole Bushite version of the fascist NWO (New War Order). Because it truly was an all-out assault on us all.

Of course all her outspoken opposition to war and greed and hatemongering has brouht her the wrath of the greedy, hateful, warmongers. Tom Frank tossed some of their usual brand of loving Christian compassion with this comment last year in The New Republic, “Maybe sometimes you just want to be on the side of whoever is more likely to take a bunker buster to Arundhati Roy.”

Ahhh, Jesus loves the smell of napalm in the air.

But that’s fine. She is attracting their attention because she is a very real danger to their New War Order. Bring it on! as I heard a famous idiot once say. Let the hatemongers expose the blackness of their own souls. Nothing is sweeter than when evil destroys itself.

Trust me dude, my blood pressure is fine! I had it checked last week.

Hmmm, in that case, maybe you should have your sanity checked instead.

Mark Hertzgaard: "Americans cannot escape a certain responsibility for what is done in our name around the world. In a democracy, even one as corrupted as ours, ultimate authority rests with the people.
We empower the government with our votes, finance it with our taxes, bolster it with our silent acquiescence. If we are passive in the face of America's official actions overseas, we in effect endorse them."

Are celebrities qualified enough to support such causes which involve political-social-economic-humanitarian concerns?
From my part EVERYONE is. The logic is simple I have never been to the Narmada, I haven't spent years reading about the agitation against the dam except for an article by Arundhati Roy. Yet with this current media barrage on the Narmada, I have formed an opinion that I blog about.

So if a writer or an actor is using their famous situation to stand up for a cause which is debatable, I think we should applaud them. For they make us think about what causes to stand up for.

"On the one hand, it is seen as a war between modern, rational, progressive forces of 'Development' versus a sort of neo-Luddite impulse - an irrational, emotional 'Anti-Development' resistance, fuelled by an arcadian, pre-industrial dream.

Both interpretations put a tired spin on the dispute. Both stir up emotions that cloud the particular facts of this particular story. Both are indications of how urgently we need new heroes, new kinds of heroes, and how we've overused our old ones (like we overbowl our bowlers)."
- Arundhati Roy

Howard Zinn: "We were not born critical of existing society. There was a moment in our lives (or a month, or a year) when certain facts appeared before us, startled us, and then caused us to question beliefs that were strongly fixed in our consciousness-embedded there by years of family prejudices, orthodox schooling, imbibing of newspapers,radio, and television."

thoughtcrimminal...big up on the dead prez post..We need a new album soon!

The Roys or the Medhas or even the Amrtya Sens do not have a right to talk on behalf of the Adivasis (and which I dont think they claim to be doing), but are the Adivasis included in the decision making processes?
If Coke decides to build a plant in Plachimada, as much as all of us in the cities say that it is good for the country and makes revenue, if the people of Plachimada say that they dont drink coke and they dont want Coke to take their water, their wishes should come first. They decide how their resources get used and not some few "intellectuals" or "technocrats" sitting in Delhi.
Anna Hazare's Ralegaon Siddi, Bablu and Mary Ganguly's Timbaktu, Rajendra Singh's projects in Rajasthan and Haryana are examples of successful sustainable projects even though they dont fall under the "high GDP==economic development" paradigm.
Coming to the dams arguement,in the US, many believe the possibilites to be exhausted. The fact that there had been increasing opposition to the dam lobby, due to dam bursts in parts of Western Mass, and other siltation probelems, the previously unquestioned technology was being scutinized when the industry moved South to Latin America .
The Hoover dam , down the years, has created huge salination problems downstream rendering a lot of previously fertile land unusable. Due to large amount of silt deposition, the power generation capacity of larger dams reduces drastically (in terms of electricity dams provide diminishing returns). The World Bank has been the main player in all the projects that were promoted in Latin America. These however were met by a lot of protests (not by the Arundhati Roys and the Medha Patkars, but the people who live there). The anti-dam movement in Latin America is one of the strongest.

I'm of very mixed opinions about Roy. The only book I've read of hers is The God of Small Things, which I thought was ... not dreadful, but very trite. Banal. Unimaginative. I was reading it for a South Asian literature class, and maybe I just didn't like how poorly she handled the idea of sexual abuse, when there were all these amazing writers who could write about it well. Untrivially.
I only wondered why we couldn't put up a better writer than that. (I know, I know, I'm ignoring all of her strengths, and many political and historical facts that put her in the position that she's in today.)
The War Talk book isn't half bad. A little polemical, very depressing, but all over not as hideous as I was expecting, which is code for enjoying it.

I have long been an admirer of both Ms. Roy's writing and her political stance. I enjoyed The God of Small Things, but think her non-fiction is a lot better.
I was recently talking to a graduate student in English literature who referred to Algebra of Infinite Justice as 'reductive' in its politics. I happen to think it is incredibly important, courageous and exceptionally well-written. I think it asks some very important questions about the relationship between people and their governments - and, as such, raises issues that everyone should be concerned with it. They are polemical, certainly - but if to espouse a certain political position is necessarily reductive then there can be very little that can escape that charge.

You don't have to agree with me or Ms. Roy. Go on and read the book, and then make your own minds up. But let us applaud someone who is prepared to stand up for what she believes in.

In the world we live in, such examples are all too rare.

Neil Postman: "Television is altering the meaning of "being informed" by creating a species of information that might properly be called disinformation... Disinformation does not mean false information.
It means misleading information - misplaced, irrelevant, fragmented or superficial information - information that creates the illusion of knowing something, but which in fact leads one away from knowing."

What is the resistance if it is not the vision? Or has she neatly compartmentalized the two?

Well that was precisely the point I was trying to raise. There is a social movement analysis--large groups of people who are mobilizing around something (whether their treatment derived from race/class/immigration status or the U.S. occupation of their country) that focuses on the people and there is one that focuses on the people. And ideally, one would focuse on both to varying degrees--but the question for an activist is to what degree and which visions to support. I agree that I found some of the thinking that she is currently doing too simplistic, but I also think that the points that she raises are extremely important and lead to conversations like this. As opposed to someone like Bono, who is all wonderful and clearly a beneficent human being, but he never really tackles the fundamental power inequities in the world.

One wishes that someone that gets as much media attention as she does would use it more effectively. Rather than express herself quite this way.

Well, I can understand your frustration. But a question of effectiveness for me is secondary to where she's coming from--I think/hope that her ideas will continue to grow as she learns over time. Or maybe she'll become embittered and cynical. The point is that she's open and trying and not Christopher Hitchens, thank god.

There's also involved in "effectiveness"--"effectivess at what?" How do you measure the amount of influence she's wielded in legitimizing and publicizing the people she writes about, like those flooded by the damns? How do you measure the impact she may or may not have had on the people she met and worked with. I don't know firsthand, but I do know that those people ought to have some say as well as to whether she's been "effective."

Further, as noted before, she is just one person and, I imagine, conceives of herself as such. The idea that a leader is the be all and end all of a struggle is among the best ways to dismantle it.

Hello,

Not a great fan of this blog but from today, thanks to this posting I will read this more regularly...
This woman needs someone to kick her butt..she is incredibly stupid and she feels that just by composing sentences she can cause a furor..more like a guffaw...she is stupid and the booker committee needs to be kicked in the groin....

This woman needs someone to kick her butt..she is incredibly stupid and she feels that just by composing sentences she can cause a furor..more like a guffaw...she is stupid

Boo hoo...shut up and mind your own comments.....I did not come and comment about you...so quiet...

KESH: 'Whenever there is a large presence of an army in any region Human rights abuses are bound to happen.'

That may be true, but there is a LOT more to the story than the presence of the army. That is the tip of the iceberg. It wasn't the army that killed thousands of young sikh men in fake, staged encounters in Panjab. There is more information on this than I can possibly summarize here. Amnesty was not allowed into Panjab for over a decade. Democracy eh?

SCOUT:
I really enjoyed your rants...for some reason your hysterical theatrics reminded me of Bill O'Reilly. And once that happens, it's hard to take what you are saying seriously.

Terry S, your post about the research on political amnesia was most informative.

There is a documentary entitled 'Advertising and the End of the World', by Sut Jhally, that speaks to the same issue. It really drives the point home and is very evocative. Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent' is another one, though it covers a broader ground.

KM,

I come from an Indian Army family - dad, uncles, big bro - all Indian Army officers, past and present, and will probably end up joining the army or airforce myself after my graduation. So the Indian Army is very much a part of my identity.

Thing about Indian Army is , if you shoot at us, we will shoot back. If you strike at us, we will strike back. We make no apologies. We know lot of you people hate us, so be it. It is in our blood to give up our life for our country if required.... (although of course , needless to say we would much rather prefer to kill than be killed.).....so bring on your hate , its no big deal to us. Our loyalty is towards our country, towards our regiment, towards our families , towards our fellow soldiers. We for fight them , we fight for ourselves. We fight so India exists. We kill so Arundhati Roy exists and is free to shower her hatred on us. Thats okay. No big deal.

Wow. Looking over the comments, I had no idea that Arundhati Roy had been so reviled and detested.

Her book "God of Small Things" wasn't as impressive as the accolades. Perhaps part of the reason why the book recieved a great deal of acclaim had to do with the fact that she was an "ethnic" writer whose subjects were South Asians; and both "ethnic" writers and South Asian literature were hot on the market in those times. This is not to detract the fact that the book did handle certain important issues. But I think those topics could have been handled with much more force. In any case, I just wasn't able to appreciate her prose in that book. Her fictional writing is not my style, I suppose.

However, her non-fiction writing-that is, her political and social commentaries-- is absolutely fantastic and right on the target. She has given voice to the opinions that many people around the world think, but do not have the means or access to express them. Granted, her discomfort at being labeled as a "writer activist" somewhat perplexes me, but this is certainly a minor and inconsequential detail to the concepts, facts, and arguments that she puts forth.

If only more writers similar to the likes of Arundhati Roy were widely read and appreciated.

Arun:

Also, why doesn't Arundhati Roy advocate Gandhian resistance to the American occupation in Iraq? Why is suicide bombing an acceptable form of resistance according to her?

I wasn't able to read all 152 comments, so forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly, but you're joking here, right? About Gandhian resistence to the American occupation in Iraq? Tell me you are being facetious.

Kesh:

However what i find lacking is an appreciation of the sacrifices made by Indian and American soldiers to terrorism.

Oh please, give me a freakin' break. American soldiers are NOT making any sacrifices for "terrorism", that elusive, phantasmic enemy everywhere and nowhere. If anything, they have been engaging IN terrorism. Not only in Iraq, but elsewhere. And not just of late, but for a long time now.

I won't get into the situation of what Indian soldiers in Kashmir have been doing. The Indian government is not innocent of having participated in boiling the cauldron of what is otherwise known as Kashmir.

Scout:

Have you been listening to Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh a little too much?

CAD : "I won't get into the situation of what Indian soldiers in Kashmir have been doing. The Indian government is not innocent of having participated in boiling the cauldron of what is otherwise known as Kashmir".

Oh no - please do. Please dont feel shy to say exactly what you think Indian soldiers are doing in Kashmir. I would love your perspective. You know - half of my family was/is stationed there at one point or another. I would love to know what you think my folks were doing there.

Amit wrote:

I would love to know what you think my folks were doing there

CAD:

I won't get into the situation of what Indian soldiers in Kashmir have been doing. The Indian government is not innocent of having participated in boiling the cauldron of what is otherwise known as Kashmir.

The GOI and the Indian Army are, regrettably, not without taint in J&K. Indeed the GOI itself acknowledges this--witness the PM's recent statement while in J&K during the 2nd roundtable conference, urging the Army to hold to the highest possible human rights standards.

However, this doesn't entail that Kesh is mistaken in urging that the contribution of the Indian Army in the fight against terrorists in Kashmir be recognized. One can well disapprove of (and condemn) human rights violations by the Indian Army, while yet recgonizing the valuable role they play in holding the line against jihadis in J&K.

Certainly I, a Kashmiri Pandit, am grateful to the Indian Army (Thank you to Amit's family members and others like them serving in J&K). Our community was forced from the Valley in J&K by jihadi violence. If the Indian Army were asked to retire to the barracks in J&K before the jihadis are defeated many other patriotic communities (both Hindu and Muslim) are likely to suffer a similar fate (here, I am thinking of communities in the outlying regions of Doda district).

Regards,
Kumar

Kumar:

However, this doesn't entail that Kesh is mistaken in urging that the contribution of the Indian Army in the fight against terrorists in Kashmir be recognized.

I understand your viewpoint. However, I do think Kesh is mistaken in urging that we "recognize the sacrifices" that these soldiers are making. Personally, I sympathize more with people who are living under military occupation rather than the soldiers themselves (soldiers who are ordered by their governments, as brown_fob rightly points out) who are facilitating and maintaining military occupation. To be honest, I do not have any sympathy for Israeli and American soldiers and their respective governments. I just don't.

One can well disapprove of (and condemn) human rights violations by the Indian Army, while yet recgonizing the valuable role they play in holding the line against jihadis in J&K.

Whether "they are playing a valuable role in holding the line against jihadis" is purely a matter of opinion, and mine differs from yours. So we'll just agree to disagree here. However, let me ask this question: were all of 34,000 + Kashmiris (both Muslim and Hindu, but overwhelmingly Muslim) that have been killed "terrorists", "jihadis"?

Amit:

Oh no - please do. Please dont feel shy to say exactly what you think Indian soldiers are doing in Kashmir. I would love your perspective. You know - half of my family was/is stationed there at one point or another. I would love to know what you think my folks were doing there.

Just for the record, I have a couple of cousins who have been in Iraq and are now back. And I STRONGLY, CATEGORICALLY disagree with them on every single point. I have found that speaking to veterens and their relatives (not all, but a good number of them), there is generally the tendency (but not always) to have a circular argument because those individuals have been so thoroughly brainwashed so as to make it easier for them to one, comply to their superiors' orders and and two, somehow feel that they are not putting their asses in the frontlines for nothing, and as such, vehemently believe in what they are told-- ie they are fighting against "terrorism" and for "democracy","freedom", "liberating the oppressed", etc.(when I speak of returning soldiers and veterens being brainwashed, I am speaking of the people that I know, have met, or have come across. I don't mean you and your relatives specifically, obviously-- since I don't know you and I cannot permit myself to say such a thing.)

brown_fob:

Armies don't make decisions..its the government who makes these decisions. If someone is anti-war, then it doesn't automatically mean that he/she is against their own army.

I agree with you on this point.

CAD :

Whether "they are playing a valuable role in holding the line against jihadis" is purely a matter of opinion, and mine differs from yours. So we'll just agree to disagree here. However, let me ask this question: were all of 34,000 + Kashmiris (both Muslim and Hindu, but overwhelmingly Muslim) that have been killed "terrorists", "jihadis"

CAD- it is very difficult to argue with people who are ignorant. I dont have the time or inclination to educate you - an anonymous internet guy.But perhaps you should consider the possibility that the 34,000+ Kashmiris that were killed , were actually killed by the terrorists ? The Indian Army only kills people who carry a gun and shoot at them. Sure , some people die in crossfire - but as they say sh!t happens.

And please - dont you dare equate Kashmir with Iraq. Kashmir has always been a part of India. Iraq was never a part of US. Just because some Islamic thugs take over Kashmir and ethnic cleanse all non-Islamic elements - does not make it any less a part of India.

The Indian Army is there to get rid of these Islamic thugs and we do our job with pride. Kashmir is my country. My land. Lot of my brothers have shed blood there. We wont let their sacrifices go waste.

----
Regarding 'human rights violations' - its very difficult to worry about human rights of people who want you dead. No apologies at all.

The thing about India is that we are a democracy. The Indian Army is a volunteer force. We fight because we want to, not because we are forced to.We fight for our family, our fellow soldiers, our regiment and our people. Not because some politician who is in power in Delhi wants us to. We dont even like politicians.

Let me give you a hint. The politicians in Delhi wanted us to evacuate from Siachen - the world's highest battlefield. But they were forced to retract. You know why ? Because the Army said nothing doing. We dont let politicians tamper with our national integrity and security. People of India are too self-centred to understand this or even to care...but it is because of people like us that they get to live their life in peace and enjoy. To argue and debate. Or whatever.

But dont you dare tell me that we fight for some government or some politician. We fight for our country. We fight for ourselves.

Amit:

some people die in crossfire - but as they say sh!t happens.

shi!t happens.

it is very difficult to argue with people who are ignorant................ Kashmir has always been a part of India

"Why do you think that GoI was ready to recognize LoC as an international border?"

GOI historically always effs up , and we are left to salvage the situation.Indian Army doesn't mind either if LOC is made into IB. But no way are we gonna give away even an inch of what we got right now. Mistakes were made in the past , and those mistakes will not be allowed to be repeated.

Amit:

The thing about India is that we are a democracy

ause the Army said nothing doing

In a democracy, the army is not the legislative wing!

Amit:

CAD- it is very difficult to argue with people who are ignorant. I dont have the time or inclination to educate you - an anonymous internet guy.

It is very difficult to have a discussion with someone who accuses and insults others by calling them "ignorant" and implying that they need to be "educated" just because their opinion differs from yours.

Don't stoop to insulting people and branding them as "ignorant" just because they disagree with you. Especially when you do not even know them.

"In a democracy, the army is not the legislative wing!"

Matters concerning national territorial integrity cannot be left to the whims and fancies of politicians. The Indian Army has learnt bitter lessons from being too loyal to people like Nehru. In case things go wrong - it is always Indian soldiers who are at the frontline who take the bullets. So basically these days the Indian Army exercises the right to say 'NO WAY' if it believes a decision taken by the politicians in Delhi may affect national security and endanger the lives of our soldiers.

The Siachen case I mentioned is a recent example of this.

Besides, the Indian public holds way more respect for Indian Army than for politicians. And the politicians know this.

Besides, the Indian public holds way more respect for Indian Army than for politicians. And the politicians know this.

If you plan to enter the Indian Army, then you'll have to ace a written exam too (NDA or CDS). You may want to start preparing for it...'cos the last time I checked, they did have a few questions on Civics and Public policy.

CAD:

Whether "they are playing a valuable role in holding the line against jihadis" is purely a matter of opinion, and mine differs from yours.

It is indeed a matter of opinion, but not "purely" so. All opinions are not equally well-grounded, certainly not yours on this point. Do you think that the political situation in J&K is uniquely unamenable to rational argument (an epistemic 'black hole' of some sort)? Or is that your view of politics in general?

Personally, I sympathize more with people who are living under military occupation rather than the soldiers themselves

My sympathy is certainly with the soldier in J&K, but not exclusively (or even mostly) so, of course. I sympathize with the plight of those threatened by murderous jihadi violence. Certainly the plight of Kashmiri Pandits moves me, but also that of (say) the (Muslim) Gujjar communities in Doda district who have been targeted by the jihadis. Or the (Muslim) members of the regional parties (National Conference, PDP, Congress) murdered by the jihadis. Or the (Hindu) families in outlying Doda villages who have been targeted by the jihadis.

And, yes, I also grieve for those who suffer at the hands of errant Indian Army soldiers (more below).....

So we'll just agree to disagree here.

Uh, okay....

However, let me ask this question: were all of 34,000 + Kashmiris (both Muslim and Hindu, but overwhelmingly Muslim) that have been killed "terrorists", "jihadis"?

....I thought you'd agreed to disagree, but I have no hesitation in answering your question. Of course, the Army has committed human rights violations (as I wrote in my earlier post), and far too much! However, the nature of Army violations simply doesn't match that of the jihadis (ethnic cleansing of our community was just the beginning of their depredations). Those violations by some members of the Army happened in the course of fighting jihadis--inexcusable, but it's important to keep in mind that the Army would not have been called out from its barracks if the jihadis had not been active in J&K.

If the scale of jihadi activities is curbed, then the Army will certainly be called back to barracks. The Indian Army is not at all happy to be engaged in internal CI-ops. Indeed the Army high command has often expressed its unhappiness to the GOI, since such actions tend to take away from its primary mission (and degrades the battle-readiness of its units).

If, however, the jihadis aren't curbed and the Army withdraws to its barracks I think the result will be mayhem for those of us who are patriotic Indians. And, yes, that includes both Muslim and Hindu (and Buddhist and Sikh). Indeed, even the limited unilateral ceasefire initiated by the Vajpayee govt. proved disastrous, since the jihadis merely used it to regroup and plot even further assaults. This is not 'pure' opinion, but opinion based on the nature of jihadi groups and their paymasters across the border (as well as their past behavior).

Regards,
Kumar

CAD:

were all of 34,000 + Kashmiris (both Muslim and Hindu, but overwhelmingly Muslim) that have been killed "terrorists", "jihadis"

I forgot to add that the jihadis do not only or mostly target non-Muslims. No, they mostly target Muslims who are loyal to India (or affiliated in some way with India). The 76 year old party worker in Srinagar(from the National Conference) or the Gujjar shepherds of Doda district arouse the wrath of the jihadis precisely because they are Muslim and aligned with India. The jihadis are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Muslims over the years.

Who do you propose protect these brave people, if not the Army? What do you suppose will happen to people like this, without the Army presence?

Regards,
Kumar

Amit:

Last comment to you, because I see that it is going to be a stalemate with you.

Just because some Islamic thugs take over Kashmir and ethnic cleanse all non-Islamic elements - does not make it any less a part of India.

The Indian Army is there to get rid of these Islamic thugs and we do our job with pride. Kashmir is my country. My land. Lot of my brothers have shed blood there. We wont let their sacrifices go waste.

If the job is getting rid of "Islamic thugs", what are you fighting on behalf of? Hindustan?

Regarding 'human rights violations' - its very difficult to worry about human rights of people who want you dead. No apologies at all.

!!!!

But dont you dare tell me that we fight for some government or some politician. We fight for our country. We fight for ourselves.

We dont let politicians tamper with our national integrity and security.

So basically these days the Indian Army exercises the right to say 'NO WAY' if it believes a decision taken by the politicians in Delhi may affect national security and endanger the lives of our soldiers.

All of your assertions here-- that the Indian Army doesn't let itself be controlled by the "whims" of politicians up in Delhi, that you don't let politicians tamper with national security, and that you don't fight on behalf of the government, are refuted by your own bizarre and contradictory affirmation below:

The thing about India is that we are a democracy. The Indian Army is a volunteer force. We fight because we want to, not because we are forced to. We fight for our family, our fellow soldiers, our regiment and our people. Not because some politician who is in power in Delhi wants us to. We dont even like politicians.

How can India be a democracy, but the Indian Army not be beholden to the government? Um, I think it is. The Indian Army, thankfully, is not like Pakistan, ie a military regime where the army is the government. So no, as much as you would like, the Indian Army can't do whatever well it pleases. It does have to answer and take orders from your despised Delhi government, whether you like it or not.

Good night.

In a democracy, the public elects its representatives..who in turn take decisions.

And fact is the Indian Army holds a veto over some of these decisions -as in matters of the nation's territorial integrity . Nothing official about it , but thats just how it is.

Personally, I sympathize more with people who are living under military occupation rather than the soldiers themselves (soldiers who are ordered by their governments, as brown_fob rightly points out) who are facilitating and maintaining military occupation. To be honest, I do not have any sympathy for Israeli and American soldiers and their respective governments. I just don't.

a) Are you living under occupation?

b) Are you a member of the armed forces ordered to perform you duty (what you SIGNED up to do?).

If you are neither, you are making far fetched statements just like your 'skin cancer is BS' type 'informative' arguments. Fundamentally speaking, the only way a military can function is under order and discipline. That is the only way a logical resistance to any occupation can achieve the most positive benefits, too.

You aren't a member of either group. So, screw your high horse. I respect RC even though he/she has had several arguments with me on this site because he/she will/does reevalute things as I do. Making such a blanket statement saying you don't respect Israeli or American troops because of occcupation is probably one of the more stupid arugments I've heard. How many have you talked to? How many do you know? Have you heard their stories first hand? You'll gain far more depth in your opinon (not slanted towards right or left, but towards the truth) than you'll ever comprehend. I am proud to call some former Marines my friends. They are good, honorable, well thought individuals who will give you a whole list of what THEY believe needs to be done. Some of it goes agianst the right, some of it against the left. IT really ruffles the feathers of powerbrokers because they can't capitalize on it.

Again. Screw you and your high horse. You have lost all crediblilty in my viewpoint (which people here may give to shits about) when you make such a statement such as "To be honest, I do not have any sympathy for Israeli and American soldiers". Visit some military messageboards and see the logical arguments that pursue. It may surpsise you that these people in uniform represent a more compreshensive segement of society than you'd 'assume'. They are left, right, center, hippy, reactionary, fundamental, atheist, etc. But they TRUST US in making decisiosn for them, hence military is ruled over by civlian establishments.

God bless those who decide to trust their lives and future to the unkown - the desire of their own nation, good or not.

I wasn't able to read all 152 comments, so forgive me if I am reading this incorrectly, but you're joking here, right? About Gandhian resistence to the American occupation in Iraq? Tell me you are being facetious.

Not that it was orginally intended towards me, but Gandian resistance is VERY applicable. Bottom line, if you don't cooperate on ANYTHING, shit doesnt move. Post, power, water, TV, etc. Problem is that the middle east doesn't have a a LEADER than can help galvanize any kind of POWERFUL resistance agaisnt their own, more oppresive, governments. (yes yes, the US supports them, only because they have consiladted power rather than being puppet govts.) The US has made mistakes.

Gandhi's resistance was based on truth, strength, and the conviction do to what he asked others to do himself. The hallmark of a leader (military or civilian) is one who would do something himself before asking others. YOU lead the way.

Nonviolence is applicable and strong. Just not enough people to actually pursue its true goals to the end (as hardcore about it Gandhi was, not that I agree, but I can RESPECT that.

GujuDude OUT.

CAD:

If the job is getting rid of "Islamic thugs", what are you fighting on behalf of? Hindustan?

The 'job' is to get rid of jihadi thugs, a menace to both Muslims and non-Muslims. The fight is on behalf of India--both what it is right now and what it could be (a far from perfect democracy but one which holds promise of flowering into something even better). And more concretely, the fight is for the right of that old NC worker to not be shot in the head. And the fight is for the right of my family to reclaim its home in Srinagar....

Regards,
Kumar

If the job is getting rid of "Islamic thugs", what are you fighting on behalf of? Hindustan?

Sure. 'Hindustan' is one of the names of the country we fight for.I am a half-Sikh by the way.

When I said 'we are a volunteer force, we are a democracy, we dont fight for a government , but for ourselves etc.'...I meant we ARE India.We fight for our country. Not the elected representative in charge. We fight for India. Not for Nehru, Indira or Rajeev etc. Is that so difficult to understand ? Politicians come and go , Indian Army and India are permanent.

A soldier may take orders from his commanding officer, but he fights for his country, not for his commanding officer. And when he fights for his country , he ultimately fights for his friends, family and mainly himself. We dont just fight for India. We ARE India.

By the way CAD , I find your sympathy for the Islamic thugs so touching.....

Of course, the Army has committed human rights violations (as I wrote in my earlier post), and far too much!

Sure some human rights violations may have taken place- but thats not much at all. Indian Army is the most disciplined force in the world. We dont go about killling or raping innocent people as is claimed by our enemies.

The enemy is a lying hateful thug. Only last week, the whole of Kashmir Valley came to a stand still because they accused Indian soldiers of raping a 14 year old girl. Truth was a patrol of Indian soldiers only asked for water and for some reason the girl shyly ran away. The people there put 2 and 2 together and accused the soldiers of rape. This is just how things are in Kashmir.

The people there - the same sort who ethnic cleansed the non-Islamic elements , hate us too much. And they got a lot of support. Its not a easy fight for Indian soldiers , but it was certainly more difficult in the early 1990s when my dad was stationed there.

....in early 1990s the Kashmiris used to fire at us with guns. And got shot dead in return. Now they have changed their strategy and wage their war through media ,propaganda and through some useful idiots......

GujuDude:

Making such a blanket statement saying you don't respect Israeli or American troops because of occcupation is probably one of the more stupid arugments I've heard. How many have you talked to? How many do you know? Have you heard their stories first hand? You'll gain far more depth in your opinon (not slanted towards right or left, but towards the truth) than you'll ever comprehend.

You are making such a blanket, emotional, and uninformed opinion here. How the hell do you know that I haven't had the experiences of meeting those living under occupation, or even been to a place under occupation? And how do you know that I don't know any US soldiers? I have three cousins who just came back from Iraq.

I certainly don't need to lay out my qualifications to you, of all people, as to why I have the opinions that I do.

a) Are you living under occupation?

b) Are you a member of the armed forces ordered to perform you duty (what you SIGNED up to do?).

This is the stupidest logic. Presumably, one can only have an opinion if only living under military occupation. By the same logic, you can only defend Israeli and US soldiers only if you are the one flying the Blackhawk military helicopters.

You aren't a member of either group. So, screw your high horse.

Are you a member of the military establishment? Are you living under military occupation? According to your logic, then, you have no right on speaking out on these issues either, so screw your high horse too!

(BTW, you are talking about my being on a "high horse", but how do you think your posts read like?)

Not that it was orginally intended towards me, but Gandian resistance is VERY applicable.

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Gandhian non-violence in a place like Iraq?

Hey, do you think that if the Jews would have put up nonviolent resistance during the Holocaust, they might have been saved?

Again. Screw you and your high horse. You have lost all crediblilty in my viewpoint (which people here may give to shits about) when you make such a statement such as "To be honest, I do not have any sympathy for Israeli and American soldiers".

GujuDude, to be honest, your opinions of political affairs that I've read here and there have NEVER had any credibility in my eyes. Your opinions on politics and IR are all nutty, nationalistic, and visceral. I have stayed away from addressing your previous posts on other issues because of this. So I could give two shits about what you think about my opinions, especially when you think that one doesn't have the right to criticize Israeli and American soldiers. That to me, is the stupidest argument, but alas, it's ubiquitous, so it seems like you and your kind have it good. If you think I make stupid arguments, I am certainly not offended given what your opinions are like.

Amit:

By the way CAD , I find your sympathy for the Islamic thugs so touching.....

Tell me where I said, "I support Islamic thugs".

Don't put words in my mouth. And, if you are going to post comments, at least make them logical, ie "India is a democracy" but the Army is in total control, outside of the reach of the government.

Good night--

God Bless America and
Mera Bharat Mahan

Hi Guys,
I thought this post was about Arundhati Roy ?
Regards

Very well said DW. Bravo.

I interpret DW's assessment as the "micro" critique of Roy; but, discounting some of her shortcomings, I think she is absolutely necessary in the "macro" sense-- for every Roy, there are eleven Larry Kudlow's, CNN's, Fox News and other disingenuous outlets with a larger voice and tendency to advance groupthink.

AR's moving speech addressing the Indian diaspora rubbed me the wrong way. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but her statements regarding the support of 'Iraqi resistance' is plain dumb. There is no iraqi resistance, just extremist sponsored attacks and a growing schism between Sunni and Shia factions. These 'resistance fighters' who killed a top UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello and the two reporters from CBS. Am i supposed to take a hammer to my piggy bank and fill their coffers so that they can buy some more fertilizer ? Is she insane ? Arundhati Roy needs to watch as a poor villager in Kashmir gets his throat cut because his son-in-law's sisters uncles cousin is in the Indian army. Or maybe take some time of and go to Sudan where woman are being raped and families are being wiped out by the militia. Indian, Israeli and American forces would look like the peace corps by comparison. And these armies atleast make an effort to try to be more humane in their actions. I was in the West bank a year back and i've witnessed a raid on a suspected militants house. The officer in charge pleaded with the family inside to leave and the militant to surrender, instead the family had to be dragged out by soldiers while they were being fired on by the militant. The house was finally bulldozed and militants shot and killed. The story that was put out by Al-Jazeera was that the soldiers stormed the house and beat up the family and killed the militants without offering him a chance to surrender. None of the actions by the Israeli army was even given a mention.

Kesh:

'Indian, Israeli and American forces would look like the peace corps by comparison. And these armies atleast make an effort to try to be more humane in their actions.'

Do you say this with the knowledge of the most recent revelation of the Haditha killings? You know the killing spree that out good ole' boys from the heartland went on. Shooting women and children in their beds because they were pissed off about the killing of their comrade and according to them being 'humane' meant that one American life is worth 24 Iraqi lives. I guess it's okay to vent out sometimes and kill the people you have been deployed to liberate and protect. Yes siree, we will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

Great quotes TheTruth.

There's something going on here on this board, something well orchestrated - we have a bunch of newcomers with verrry similiar writing styles, supporting S.A.Roy blatantly to cautiously, and deflecting any legitimate criticism as the handiwork of bigots.

An Indian environmentalist I know was involved in the initial stages of the Narmada protest. S.A Roy was not even on the horizon, and one day she suddenly came on and started making press statements. Most of the people on the agitation did not like this, and the unanimous view (including that of Medha Patkar) was that Roy's shrill style would do disservice to the cause, and that she would use the agitation to further her own agenda and interests. No one knows what happened, but suddenly all those who opposed were in effect discredited and left the agitation within months. "They" even tried to get to Medha, but she stood steadfast and is still the undisputed leader of the Narmada movement.

S.A.Roy has a PR army working for her (a small battalion is at work on this board). She is much more powerful than she projects. It's not easy to thumb your nose at the Indian Supreme court and get away with it. It's not easy to get quoted in every newspaper in the world which wants to opine on India.

S.A. Roy is a shrewd, powerful media moghul. In business, she would have been a Ted Turner. In politics, she would have been a Hitler. Like all tyrants, she is very careful how she projects herself in public. Like all conmen, she is very charismatic. And like all celebrities, she clings to power tenaciously.

But she has weaknesses that will bring her to doom. I know them, but why would I list them on an open forum? After all, I am shrewd, charismatic myself, and like her I have an agenda too.

M. Nam

There's something going on here on this board, something well orchestrated - we have a bunch of newcomers with verrry similiar writing styles, supporting S.A.Roy blatantly to cautiously, and deflecting any legitimate criticism as the handiwork of bigots.

Moornam was correct. I have banned the troll and deleted all 36 of his comments.