Deconstructing Miss Roy.

There are few matters on which I have been unable to arrive at instant judgement. There have been matters that I have taken positions on only to revert later. However, with Miss Roy there is this peculiar element that she brings to the table which has in the past put some doubt as to where she stands or where I stand in relation to it. Is she is the Indian version of Noam chomsky trying to restore the rights of poor and the weak from the elitists who have continued to scour this country at the cost of majority who continue to survive in sub human conditions while the part of the country where India is shining is celebrating CWG medals ? or is she attention whore who would stoop to any level in her public discourse to maintain here anti India narrative which keeps her as an interesting prospect both for national and international media for different reasons.

Lately, regrettably, the opinion has swayed comprehensively towards the latter. Now, before anyone jumps on me for being a hardline nationalist, let me make it perfectly clear that I am no fan of Indian govt. and consider myself to be the one of the biggest critics of democracy as it is practised in India. So, it is not Miss Roy's anti-India rant per se that is troubling. It is the fact that she has not shown any more flexibility than Osama Bin Laden with her opinions. So, there might be times I might agree with her like I agree with Bin Laden when he talks about concerns of Global Warming. But the crux of the issue is whether a "fundamentalist" or a hardliner can ever be or should ever be taken seriously. Do they have any role in meaningful discussions ? Here is where you have to detach the opinions from the person who is giving it to understand where exactly is this person's modus operandi.

Miss Arundhati doesn't necessarily like to be on the left or the right of any discussions. She prefers the top from where she can have a "bird's eye" view and slur oall players involved. Take for instance: Mumbai attacks . Even the most hardline cynics would not have even remotely thought of Kashmir when the 26/11 attack took place, but Roy with her uncanny consistency saw a connection between Military action in Kashmir to justify 26/11. She will very conviniently not comment on the role of Pakistan, the insurgency and the terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits. She will shae stage with a certain Pro Pakistani seperatist who has unequivocally stated that he wants to impose Sharia law in Kashmir. Why? This is where we come to the Osama analogy, it doesn't fit here anti-India narrative.

Again here response after the massacre at Dantewada. One can site case after case of the blatant that the delusional chomskians are doing yet missing out on the most important principle that Chomsky believed in "Truth". She will not talk of the be-headings or the children kidnapped from the tribal areas or the villagers threatened by the Maoists. Why ? Because their missions alligns with hers, i.e. undermining and overthrow of the Indian state. She will come out and make a statement a knee jerk reactionary statement like this which immidiately rules out any reasonable intellectual discussion and reduces it to a shouting contest "I write this from Srinagar, Kashmir. This morning's papers say that I may be arrested on charges of sedition for what I have said at recent public meetings on Kashmir. I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I, as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice. I spoke about justice for the people of Kashmir who live under one of the most brutal military occupations in the world; for Kashmiri Pandits who live out the tragedy of having been driven out of their homeland; for Dalit soldiers killed in Kashmir whose graves I visited on garbage heaps in their villages in Cuddalore; for the Indian poor who pay the price of this occupation in material ways and who are now learning to live in the terror of what is becoming a police state."

So how do we deal with her ? The problem is that she does not fit within the usual image of a hardliner or extremist that we associate with. She is relatively rich, she is outspoken, she is eloquent, she is "booker" award winner which adds more weight to her portfolio and she has some important friends abroad who will magify her voice and reach. I think the best way is to ignore her. It is a test of democracy to handle elements which ar undermining its unity and integrity without stooping to the same levels. I also believe the recent news of action or FIR goes against the idea of free speech. Also, any kind of jail time would be exactly what the attention whore will look forward. If anything we have learnt from our neighbours, there is no substitute to playing a victim. It is ironic though that the democracy Miss Roy shuns is same one which is protecting her to right to free speech, considering that she would have been jailed under US sedition act, 1918.

Finally, to the media, grow up already. I know 24 hours are hard to kill but given a chance Congress will provide enough scams to keep everyone engaged. I know talking about a lunatic can make for some provocative discussions and better ratings. But please, ask yourself, would you give the same leverage to Osama if he makes some anti-US statements. Am I calling Miss Roy a terrorist ? No. But she is a fundamentalist and I reiterate they have no role is any meaningful dicussion or solution.