Opinion
Why We Love To Hate Ms Roy
Deconstructing the complex Indian responses to Arundhati Roy reveals layers of prejudice. Apart from the macho male response, more intriguing is the Indian response to her at a personal level...
Arundhati Roy certainly has a stomach for controversy. By writing several articles and providing an introduction to a book defending Mohammad Afzal Guru (13 Dec, A Reader: The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament), the main accused in the December 13, 2001, attack on the Indian Parliament, she has stuck her neck out again. Ever since the lady made her views on the matter public, many furious friends have called. "Who does that woman think she is?" they have thundered, accusing her of "passing off conspiracy theories as investigations". As far as they are concerned, Roy should be the first citizen in their rogue's gallery of 'anti-national' elements. No other writer inspires as much anger and mountains of hate mail to publications where she writes as this 'petite woman'.

So when a foreign journalist recently asked me how Roy is perceived by Indians, the best reply I could come up with is that we have a love-hate relationship with her. I then checked the Net and found an old essay in the Observer, London. "Is India just jealous of Arundhati Roy," asked the paper which profiled her under the headline 'The Dam Buster'. The same day the Sunday Times carried a full-page article that somewhat absurdly equated Roy with Victoria Beckham, both described as "role models for young British women". Ridiculous as the comparison between a sexy footballer-wife-pop-star and a serious novelist-essayist may be, it does reveal that Roy has been an icon in the West for some years now.

But what of her status back home in India? She's certainly not the sort of role model that utters platitudes and makes us feel good about ourselves. On the contrary, she manages to ruffle many Indian feathers. Deconstructing the complex Indian responses to Roy reveals layers of prejudice.

First, there is the macho male response to a woman who is not just brilliant and beautiful, but is also blessed with a talent for turning out powerful prose. Roy would be adored by the Indian male if she had been content to sit prettily on a pedestal. Instead, she has repeatedly asked for trouble challenging the big boys when they are playing with their favourite toys: the Big Bomb, the Big Dam, the Big War and now the Big Terrorist.

Even more intriguing is the Indian response to Roy at a personal level. Despite her waif-like appearance, she does not fit the stereotypical Indian woman. If Indian men feel threatened by her, the average woman would probably be deeply confused by her personal carriage. Roy's sartorial tastes are like a bucket of cold water to a cash-rich middle-class pursuing polyester dreams. Ethnic chic, new-age hippie, Western vogue, all rolled into one. Her mix of colourful peasant style skirts with the casual Western T-shirt is devastatingly trendy, but also very individualistic.

Her haircut, too, is a case in point. Some years ago she changed to a close-cropped style to expose her slightly protruding ears. In one stroke, she challenged the conventional stereotype of beauty. The hair has now grown, but so has Roy's appetite for courting controversy.

The trendy style, impeccable articulation and high profile causes have certainly made Roy a romantic heroine in the West. In an article titled 'Grassroots gamine' the Guardian's Madeline Bunting wrote: "The next time someone asks you what happened to feminism, you know the answer. It moved south in search of the sun."

But an Indian summer is not a sun-bathing vacation. It is a long, hot, miserable ordeal. Roy's causes have all landed her in conflict with the Hindu Right that freely bandies the phrase 'anti-national'. It also portrays her as a lost soul in search of a cause; an individual who is raising issues that an emerging superpower cannot afford to engage with. To some extent, they have succeeded in projecting this image.

Self-absorbed as we are, most Indians are oblivious that Roy's forceful post-September 11 essay made her an icon not just in the West but also in West Asia. Yet, most of us still think of Roy as a Booker Prize-winning author of a novel we have never read, who inexplicably seems to enjoy slumming it with anti-dam activists and now 'Muslim terrorists'.

Indians would probably like Roy better if like VS Naipaul and Salman Rushdie, those other great writers they claim as their own (despite both of them living in the West), Roy made grand statements about Islam or Indian civilisation in rarefied writers' fora and then swiftly retreated from the public stage. Besides, shouldn't she learn some lessons from Naipaul and Rushdie, both of whom are now on the right side of the great 'clash of civilisations' debate?

Yet, Roy seems to prefer clashing with those who believe they know better. But Indians are a forgiving people and her critics would absolutely adore Roy if she moved to the West, where they believe people like her actually belong. Then every Indian heart would swell with pride whenever they recall their great galaxy of English language writers.

But if Roy insists on staying on in India, there are a few things she could do to soften the hatred she often inspires in some Indians. Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it.
 
Daily Mail
COLLAPSE COMMENTS :
HAVE YOUR SAY
Dec 30, 2008 12:00 AM
152
"She courts controversies only sell her books and for no other reason. "

May be. But her recent fiction book was a bomb I think.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 30, 2008 12:00 AM
151
Reminding me the old story, when a crow tried in vain to appear as a peacock !
dip
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Dec 30, 2008 12:00 AM
150
Any publicity is good publicity and Mrs. Arundati Roy knows this very well. She courts controversies only sell her books and for no other reason.
Shankar Shetty
Kuwait, Kuwait
Aug 27, 2008 12:00 AM
149
I never prefer to make comments over the intellects.But I am feeling comfortable in doing that because the comment is over an anti nationalist writer who is unaware of the complexity of the society she is living in and zero understanding over the concept of "Indian Union".

I acclaim her protests over the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

But Parliament attack and Kashmir issue are the ones she shouldn't have commented.
Suyash
Bangalore, India
Jul 15, 2008 12:00 AM
148
As an armchair communist myself, I wish Arundhati Roy would join the CPI(Marxist) and do some constructive work. Now is the time for that.
How would she solve the Kashmir Problem, for example?
daddycool
cdeg, colombo
Jul 15, 2008 12:00 AM
147
As an armchair communist myself, I wish Arundhati Roy would join the CPM(Marxist) and do some constructive political work. Now is the time for that. How would she solve the Kashmir problem?
daddycool
cdeg, colombo
May 27, 2008 12:00 AM
146
I love Arundhati.
But at times, it is diificult for me to comprehand that why she insists on certain things. I think she answers the question that why India and Hinduism are global in nature - because she feels that they deserve criticism and she knows that they can take it.
Ajay
Troy, usa
Sep 11, 2007 12:00 AM
145
"But if Roy insists on staying on in India, there are a few things she could do to soften the hatred she often inspires in some Indians. Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it."

...AND BE non-partisan, BE not anti-Hindu & anti-Indian.
Ashwin
Jersey City, United States
Apr 25, 2007 12:00 AM
144
keyen
winda candra
yogyakarta, Indonesia
Jan 19, 2007 12:00 AM
143
Ms.Bhaumik presents too trite and simplistic an analysis - in the end it is the "jealous indian" theory buried in layers of prose. The real point is whether Arundhati Roy is qualified to write about the things she does - beyond her powerful prose to the extent that is a qualification. It is unlikely her prose would get her the audience and fora she gets without that Booker.
That she and her cheerleaders pretend otherwise is the infuriating point.
R Shankaran
mumbai, India
Jan 19, 2007 12:00 AM
142
Ms. Arundhati Roy is a rare talent and courage India must feel pride to produce in her. She is like embodiment of the truth of the day. "Speaking truth brings unsurmountable odds." She is great. I love her the most.

Sincerely
Charan Shandilya
Charan Shandilya
Ghaziabad, India
Jan 19, 2007 12:00 AM
141
We love Ms Roy. She writes well and won the Booker-prize. Loved her book, well written. Neat. No controversy there only praise, adulation and limelight on India. She was awarded the Indian literary award, but turned it down. Why, because”… because of her opposition to Indian government policies.”
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/...1/16/arundhati-roy.html
Opposed to all of Indian Government policies?? That’s huge.
Now she is against death penalty to save Guru Afzal - The Indian Parliament Bomber, mastermind. Oh yes Afzal’s background sob-story.

Does she support the actions of the educated shoe-bombers and educated London train bombers and the Mumbai rioters/bombers (perhaps less educated)? Where does it stop?

Grow up Arundhati. Stop blaming the past and get real.

Or the next award might be from the Aussie Ralph Magazine.
http://www.news.com.au/...023150-5005361,00.html.

Ralph awarded the infamous Sheik Hilali the Comedian Gong. Thus ridiculing him to obscurity.
Now you don’t want that, do you?
Mini
Sydney, Australia
Jan 16, 2007 12:00 AM
140
Actually,we hate to love Arundhati Roy because she is hardly lovable by any standard.
Sarala Bhagavatula
Machilipatnam, India
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
139
>> Only it has not occurred in the context of India, as yet.

That is true. But if separatist movements in foreign countries look okay to us, our objectivity may be suspect.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
138

Yes, I have no problem with that. Only it has not occurred in the context of India, as yet. All the separatist movements, including Pakistan's creation, have been crass, crude, vulgar and gratuitously violent. If the Assamese, Naga and Kashmiri movements are struggling for higher forms of liberalism, democracy, openness, pluralism and modernity than what exists presently, they will succeed, at least in the long run. And India will be only too happy to have broad based realtions with these (putative) new states. That is, if India isn't already drawn into their vortex! So in a real sense, India cannot lose to a genuinely progressive movement.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
137
Varun,

If you take your argument to its logical conclusion, it would be that if a separatist movement was "progressive", it would have a greater right to exist and to succeed. Is that what you want to say?
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
136

Separatist movements that take place in the context of a country that is already democratic, pluralistic, federal and accomodating, should be judged far, far more harshly-and that too when they employ sick, gratuitous violence-than in the context of a totalitarian ,oligarchic, colonial,unitarian, monolithic, ethno-chauvinist one. Thus, the Tibetan, Tamil and Kurdish separatist struggles should, and usually do, invoke more support and sympathy than the Khalistani, Assamese and Kashmiri causes. Similarly, the responses of the aboriginals to European settlers in the 17th century, the slave revolts, anti-apartheid and anti-colonial were justified and/or progressive given their contexts.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
135
All I am saying is that all the separation movements that we know are based on race, religion, ethnicity or language, so to bring in things like "progressive ideas" is irrelevant. I never said we should not judge separatist struggles. Just don't bring in things that are not applicable.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
134

But here's the thing: If they had a progressive cause, they wouldn't be indulging in the kind of violence that they are! The very nature of this violence shows that the goal of the movement is to create an authoritarian, chauvinistic, ethnically pure state. Yes, I am making a judgement on that issue, as are many others. It is *not* a valid ,legitimate cause to fight for in this and age. Perhaps not in any day and age, but definitely not in the 21st century. This seems to be the point you are stuck on. You are basically saying "We shouldn't judge causes like Khalistan, Islamic separatism in Kashmir, or the drive to create an ethnically/linguistically pure Assamese state". Why not? Someone has to judge something, somewhere!
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
133
>> Ghulam is in a way saying that ULFA doesn't have to justify its massacres of Bihari labourers by reference to some progressive cause.

I have said umpteen times that I am against all separation movements. My point is that when judging the violence of a separatist movement, the question of whether they have some "progressive cause" or not is irrelevant.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
132
>> Bad anology with the "divorce" reference

Not if you see the point, namely bringing in irrelevancies to muddle an issue. Let me ask you to give an example of separation movements which are "good", since you have been bringing up this red herring for a long time. Which separation movements are motivated by democratic or some such higher principle. And I mean separation movements, not movements seeking independence from colonial rulers
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
131

So Ghulam is in a way saying that ULFA doesn't have to justify its massacres of Bihari labourers by reference to some progressive cause. All they have to say is "We speak Assamese, we are located far away from New Delhi, and we have a slight slant in our eyes, though not as pronounced as the Nagas". And voila, that is justification enough.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 09, 2007 12:00 AM
130

Bad anology with the "divorce" reference. States are not individuals, and asking for a divorce is different than waging a manical, terrorist movement against an already democratic state. There are more complexities involved, such as peace, democracy and stability in the region, and whether separation and the violence that goes with it is justified. In some cases, it *is* justified, or at least understandable. But it is utterly reprehensible in the context of Kashmir, Punjab, Assam and Nagaland. Compare separatist movements with separatist movements, not with unhappy people seeking to end a marriage.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
129
>> In that case, i will look into the History of wives asking for divorce and getting it in my community. How they perform after divorce. We have Pakistan and Bangladesh

That is exactly what I mean. Thank you.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
128
The very idea that separation movements could be judged by us on the basis of their high-mindedness is somehow bizarre. It is like when your wife is suing you for divorce, you contest the divorce on the grounds that she has no plans or ambitions either to marry someone else who is better than you are, or to perform any virtuous community service as a divorcee. As I have told you before, I don't like any separation movements, and most of them have to be fought with force, but bringing in irrelevancies does not elevate the debate.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
127

Well said, Chaitanya. Those movements "suck" puts it more succintly! There's nothing in them that elevates and inspires the human spirit. India's freedom movement( or "separation" from the Raj, if you will) did just that.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
126

Well, that's not good enough for the 21st century. I'm not saying those separation movements are wonderful, while the others are not. The separation movements you have mentioned, despite their sometimes gratuitous and unacceptable violence, at least rest on a real historical basis of degrees of persecution and/or suppression. The English in Ireland and the Tamils at the hands of the Sinhalese, from the 50's to the 80's- are good examples. The Kashmiri, Khalistani, Assamese and Naga movements have no basis in any persecution by the state,suppression of culture/language, colonisation, denial of democracy or ethnic inequality with other Indians.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
125
>> As far as I'm concerened, separation movements do have to pass a "progressive" test. They have to be struggling for more, not less, democracy, pluralism and secularism than what exists currently

None of the separation movements that one can think of, including IRA in Ireland, Basques in Spain, Chchyens in Russia, or Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, are struggling for democracy, pluralism and secularism. It is always about race, ethnicity, religion or mother tongue.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
124
In none of those movements you mentioned have there been as many relentless attacks on people who spoke a different language, and that too poor labourers! The Chechens did indulge in a few terrorist attacks. As far as I'm concerened, separation movements do have to pass a "progressive" test. They have to be struggling for more, not less, democracy, pluralism and secularism than what exists currently, otherwise it's not a freedom movement or a separation movement. It's a garbage movement. Think "massacres of brick kiln workers who speak Hindi" .
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
123
Any average Indian can easily understand the wrongs of Indian police when Ms Roy is arguing the case of Afzal. We, the common people, are caught in between the hatred of Muslim terrorists and corrupt and mean Indian police. Ms. Roy is arguing in favor of one by showing the true colors of the other. Agreed, Ms. Roy, you may feel satisfied that your argument is winning the case for Afzal but is it the right choice for us? I expect you to come out with better solutions or say better arguments.
Arun Prakash
Doha, Qatar
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
122
Okay I think I partially understand what Saba Bhaumik was trying to say.
She says we are all just too envious of the successful, beauteous, radical Ms Roy. That her loud, irrational, illogical positions have nothing to do with the reactions she provokes.
That the exposure she gets through promoting media and publications that love her for the precise reasons Saba says she is hated for, intelligence, radicalism, chic and so on is the reason she gets trashed because she really does not deserve the equal if opposite adulation from the press.
She is so colourful and saleable that the press find her irristable. But unlike the celluloid celebrities they condescend about while gushing about, ms Roy is an "intellectual" and possibly smarter and more articulate than some of those that write about her.Which is why the press writes peans to her.
And incidentally the other big Indian female A, "Ashwariya" of the Rai fame also has more detractors than attractors...though in my opinion she is bigger than the sum of her poor parts and though she comes across as a giggling ninny she is a sweet beautiful lady who has not found her voice.
I hope Ms Roy does not burn out under the weight of the contradicitions she espouses...as she is well likely to.
And poor Ms Rai survives the flops she routinely seems to suffer. Though admittedly both have received fame and name to last most people for a lifetime.
And please believe me I am not being condescending to either MS RAI or MS ROY because they are unique phenomenon who will be remembered years from now and be loved and hated in turn.
But Please Saba do not think Roy is hated because she is envied or misunderstood. Why? Because the people who respond to her, given her niche existence are too well informed and worldly to be threatened by her.
Spare us this condescension!
Bindu Tandon
Mumbai, India
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
121
Varun,

>> "don't imagine for a second that this is some progressive freedom movement

"Freedom" movements and "separation" movements do not have to pass any progressiveness tests. I think this applies also to the Irish IRA, the Basques in Spain, the Tamil Tigers and the Chechneyans in Russia.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 08, 2007 12:00 AM
120

The recent violence in Assam has absolutely nothing to do with a people's uprising against some tyranny. Assam has a democratically elected government, which came in to power in a free and fair election under universal adult franchise. These sick killings of mostly Bihari migrant labourers are not the people's will. It is a maniacal militant group which wants to show everyone that it is not a spent force. Okay, point taken, little boys of the ULFA. But don't imagine for a second that this is some progressive freedom movement directed against a brutal, colonial, anti-democratic entity called the government of India. And that ULFA are like the Indian nationalists( Nehru, Gandhi, Bose, Patel, Sarvarkar, Lajpat Rai) fighting against the British. That's garbage. This is terrorism in excelsis. Massacring migrant labourers! Are they sick bastards or what?
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
119
"I realize that Bangladesh is more crowded. I guess they must be collected and gassed in chambers or thrown into the centre of Indian ocean if they act smart and cross the border in millions more"

What's crowded and contaminated is our minds. Please wake up-We should be willing to give our lives, if necessary, to save even a single innocent life. How could any one be different from any other?

Regarding fighting against terrorist ideologies, it's a different matter. The US was founded on death and terror. Hindu caste structures are no less terrorist. Islamism is even worse.

Let's fight against ALL of the above ideologiesby forming the UNITED FRONT, while treating each human as inherently divine. How can we bring peace and harmony outside if confused and cluttered inside?

Please do not take this harsh statement as personal. This applies for all-myself, especially.
Raj Bodepudi
Oak Brook, United States
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
118
"W I N N E R for now and forever is the one and only A R U N D H A T I R O Y. "

Should Read "W H I N E R for now and forever is the one and only A R U N D H A T I R O Y. "
shankar
Mumbai, India
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
117
Thanks Saba for pimping about uppity Roy.

Wunder
dubai, United Arab Emirates
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
116
ARUNDHATI
ROY

BAPU

CULTURE

SADDAM
R>However, when I return after ten days, I still find that the W I N N E R for now and forever is the one and only A R U N D H A T I R O Y.


Come on! Why the fixation?

Let us talk A S S A M or is that worse than B A L O C H I S T A N?


Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
115
"Let her write on the issues she feels most strongly about. Let others write about the issues they feel most strongly about."

By all means - But when she spouts garbage like " I wont condemn Islamic terrorists because I didnt vote for them" ..The next logical question is " Lady , then why are you condemning Bush, Blair and Israel everyday ? Did you vote for them ? when and where ? do you hold all 4 passports by some "secular" logic ? "


Also please note - the Pandits masasacred in Kashmir for 4 years when the governments looked the otherway is not a state supported pogrom for her..but the 7 day gujarat riot is.

shame on you.
shankar
Mumbai, India
Jan 07, 2007 12:00 AM
114
Too long to write.

Read it here -


http://neurojava.wordpr...5/these-damn-feminists/
Arun Biswas
Boston, USA
Jan 06, 2007 12:00 AM
113
Why, oh why, is Arundhati Roy not writing a polemic on Saddam's hanging? Why, oh why? Why? Why? Why? Why why why why why why why why why why why?
Anil Chakradar
Hyderabad, INDIA
Jan 06, 2007 12:00 AM
112
Sure, no one writes about everything. And they needn't either. But one's credibility certainly comes under scrutiny when certain salient things are not even taken cognisance of. One is not asking for "objectivity" or "balance" even, merely a semblance of honesty and a minor trimming of hypocrisy. Worse are insinuations without ANY proof or even a credible case about Godhra or Parliament attack. Pankaj Mishra and Arundhati excel in this garbage yet they are treated as if they were the consceintious objectors.
Ajit Tendulkar
Seattle, United States
Jan 06, 2007 12:00 AM
111
"Let her write on the issues she feels most strongly about. Let others write about the issues they feel most strongly about."

That is what is happening for the most part in the media. Those who felt strongly about Godhra wrote about it (and only about it). Those who felt strongly about the aftermath of Godhra wrote about it and only about it, resulting in selective outrage. Saner voices who saw through the whole tragedy were few and far in between. Writing became wholly an exercise of "strong feelings", not of facts, root causes, remedies.
chandana
hyderabad, India
Jan 06, 2007 12:00 AM
110
>> "Where was she when state remained strangely mute and reclusive to the killing of thousands of civilians by Islamic terrorists? where was she when Naxalism stretched it's base in central and southern India in 90's? Sounds sweet BTW.

Let her write on the issues she feels most strongly about. Let others write about the issues they feel most strongly about. No one writes about everything. We can disagree with and criticize her views, but questioning anyone about why he/she did not write about other similar or different issues is neither a fruitful nor a valid question.

Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
109
the hooker with a booker has found a pimp.. in addition to the madame-saba
chester pester
timbaktoo, timbaktoo
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
108
>> "It seems only mommies are eligible for politics these days"

Perhaps because daddies have not done too well.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
107
The new feminist slogan appears to be "We love kids" and "We are moms". Nancy Pelosi flaunts her love for kids. She repeatedly reminded the audience that she was a woman, a mother and a grand mother.(Three in one!!).

Just a few weeks back, Hillary Clinton flaunted her motherly credentials. In essence she said she had a tough time being a working mom as she was not allowed to talk about her kid. So another mommy. None of the other democratic contenders for 2008 can compete with her on that score. She is a MOM!! Thats her USP.

And none of Sonia Gandhi's interviews conclude without reminding the viewers about how she is a woman, a mother and a grand mother and still a public servant. It seems only mommies are eligible for politics these days.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
106
Jaleel - "When the jihadis forcefully tried to impose Burqas on Muslim women, Arundhati encouraged Muslim women to throw away the Burqas. Her criticism against Jamat-e-islami, SIMI is well known. She time and again reiterated the facts that Osama Bin Laden is a curse to Islam and Muslims, and who supports and carries placards of Osama are sons of satans who are harmful to the modern world. Her jihad for true democracy in Muslim world is much appreciated by all."

Can we have some links on articles / statements , where Ms.Roy has said all these? Or is this something someone whispered in your ear , while you were sleeping.
shankar
Mumbai, India
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
105
"And there is a very big difference between a state-assisted pogrom against a people in a country and something that militants have done".

What difference does it make for the person who was attacked ? It is high time such intellectual bankruptcy is rejected wholesale.
chandana
hyderabad, India
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
104
Jaleel - "Who can forget her support for the half a million Kashmiri Hindu Pandits who were driven out by the friends of Afzal? Many times she stated that there is no solution for Kashmir if justice is not done for the unfortunate victims of Jihadi dogs in Kashmir"

Can you provide links to her articles saying this?
Looks like all the Indian media forgot to carry her article on pandits.


A Roy on Islamic terrorists.

http://72.14.235.104/se...&cd=48&client=firefox-a

We don't condemn "militants"

For those of you who wonder why Arundhati Roy does not condemn Islamic Terrorists here is the answer

Sandip Roy: People say you are not just anti-American, you are also anti-Indian. You complain about Muslims being killed in Gujarat but are mum on Hindu Pandits being killed in Kashmir.

Arundhati Roy: This is the standard Hindutva line: “You don’t condemn the burning of the train in Godhra where Hindus died.” But when I am a citizen of a democracy, I have to take responsibility for what the state I voted for does. And there is a very big difference between a state-assisted pogrom against a people in a country and something that militants have done. [An interview with Arundhati Roy]

That clears up everything. She did not vote for Musharraf or Saddam, so she does not have to condemn them. She did not vote for the terrorists, hence no condemnation. But when Iraqis died in American bombing, she condemned America. How can she do that if she did not vote in American elections ? As we all know the condemnation is always selective.

But then this is funny. Sometime back she told Democracy was a whore. Now she has become such a concerned citizen.

Also note Pandits systematically killed, raped and thrown out of their home, for 4 years when the state and central governments looked the other way is not "state sponsored pogrom" but gujarats 7 day riot is.

Lahori commi secular logic at its best.
shankar
Mumbai, India
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
103
Jaleel was being sarcastic! Many political commentators on the left side of ideological spectrum avoid mention of the fate of Kashmiri Pandits. That fact is too inconvenient and comes in the way of the neat ideological tale they are weaving. Commentators on the right have their share of omissions. All this selective outrage comes with the job. The so called intellectuals in India today care more about being part of a neat ideological/political camp than about seeking truth or solving problems.
chandana
hyderabad, India
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
102
Jaleel,
"She wrote many articles demanding justice for the displaced, unfortunate people in Kashmir. She also expressed many times that the slogans of Kashmiri jihadis "Kashmir me agar rehna hai, Allahu Akbar Kehna hai" as the most despicable utterances. "
This is all news to me. Where did she write these articles? I have never seen them anywhere. Can you post a link here? I would be very interested in reading these articles. Seems VEEERY out of character for the queen of charlatanry.
Adi
XXXXX, USA
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
101
I again repeat that Arundhati Roy is the most misunderstood writer-activist. Who can forget her support for the half a million Kashmiri Hindu Pandits who were driven out by the friends of Afzal? Many times she stated that there is no solution for Kashmir if justice is not done for the unfortunate victims of Jihadi dogs in Kashmir.
She wrote many articles demanding justice for the displaced, unfortunate people in Kashmir. She also expressed many times that the slogans of Kashmiri jihadis "Kashmir me agar rehna hai, Allahu Akbar Kehna hai" as the most despicable utterances. When the jihadis forcefully tried to impose Burqas on Muslim women, Arundhati encouraged Muslim women to throw away the Burqas. Her criticism against Jamat-e-islami, SIMI is well known. She time and again reiterated the facts that Osama Bin Laden is a curse to Islam and Muslims, and who supports and carries placards of Osama are sons of satans who are harmful to the modern world. Her jihad for true democracy in Muslim world is much appreciated by all.

Arundhati is the only writer/activist in India who openly supports liberals like Tasleema, Salman Rushdie etc.

May be because of all these, we love to hate Arundhati.
jaleel
luknow, India
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
100
>> "This is a typical feminist drivel. One victory by one woman somewhere will be touted as a victory for all women. Similary an attack on any woman is only because the critic is a male chauvinist-arguments be damned. A victory by one man is never a victory for all men. But a disgraced man is a representative of manhood"

Now,now, why be so unkind? Let them savor their milestone. Do we have to take victory speeches literally?
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 05, 2007 12:00 AM
99
This is yet another feminist drivel from the US. Nancy Pelosi has become the first women speaker. And this is what she said

"By electing me as speaker you have brought us closer to the ideal of equality that is America's heritage and America's hope," Pelosi said. "This is an historic moment — for the Congress, and for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited more than 200 years. Never losing faith, we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights"

So just because there has not been a woman speaker till now and obviously no woman President, woman are not equal to men in US. OK. Sri Lanka has had, what 2-3 women presidents. Have men and women become equal there? What about India? Israel? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Have men and women become equal in all these countries?

This is a typical feminist drivel. One victory by one woman somewhere will be touted as a victory for all women. Similary an attack on any woman is only because the critic is a male chauvinist-arguments be damned. A victory by one man is never a victory for all men. But a disgraced man is a representative of manhood.

Normal men and women never react this way. It is time feminists stop behaving like six year old and grow up.

Ganesan
Nj, USA
Jan 04, 2007 12:00 AM
98

That answers the question as to how Roy would view the violence on the NWFP in 1946-47. Since the killers, looters and arsonists were all Moslems, and their victims almost exclusively Hindu, she would have seen the Moslems as the aggrieved party, and hence acting out of a sense of injustice i.e a Hindu controlled political party having the audacity to administer a province with a 90% Moslem majority. So the Moslems were entirely justified in killing and looting all those Hindus in the NWFP in 1946-47.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 04, 2007 12:00 AM
97
I think Ms Roy has done commendable work in taking up and highlighting issues that we tend to take at face value-a point in case being the shoddy investigation into the parliament attack.
However,trying to paint the criticism against her(which in certain cases is just the other point of view) as male chauvinism is stretching things too far.She is a very good writer and an activist with a conscience.Any kind of activism does at times fuel controversy and even constructive criticism.Putting labels on such frank discussion and trying to make it seem like just a feminist issue does more harm .It also places the author of this piece in the same league as the "hindu fascict right",which she seems to (rightly)despise.
Prashant Malhotra
new york, United States
Jan 04, 2007 12:00 AM
96
Dear Saba,

what do you suggest. Kissing Roy's feet everytime she writes one of her, "all Hindus are scum bastards and India would be a much nicer place without them". Hmm is that what you would like?. Or should we kiss her feet when she writes along the lines of about how all "Hindus are a bunch of low life superstitous cretins". Hmm is that what you would like us to? Or should we kiss her feet when she writes along the lines of how Monkey worshing Hindus are the cause of every problem in India". Hmm? What would you have us do? Stay quite? Is that what you would like? Any suggestions? Please, please open your gob on this subject and teach us how not to hate someone who calls us Hindu scum
Raj Shah
New Jersey, USA
Jan 04, 2007 12:00 AM
95
Ms.Roy's support is only for Anti-Hindu and Anti-India terrorists. Her heart truly bleeds for these wonderful people who choose to murder innocent Hindu women, children and those that protect them becuase.... you guessed it right, the horrible Hindus who are all fundamentalist freaks are oppressing them. How dare we stupid Indians arrest and judge such Geelani and Afzal?
Adi
XXXXX, USA
Jan 04, 2007 12:00 AM
94
That close-up shot of Ms.Roy is one of the most cringe-inducing pictures I have ever seen. Someone, please change it!!
Adi
XXXXX, USA
Jan 03, 2007 12:00 AM
93
I cannot understand why Arundhati Roy jumps at controversial places/ issues only.There are so many more important issues to be addressed to in India at present.Why does she not take issues like health and education in India, popularising work culture, revising CPC 1898, status of police,corruption in all levels of govt and private functioning, places where rights of common people are violated at will etc. Why should there be so much for one Afzal Guru, who at least was involved.She or any other activist rushes to only those topics/ places which are being covered by media somehow.Millions suffer for diverse reasons without uttering a word or without any word being utterred for them.All they do is to speak about a Geelani, an Afzal Guru,probably they earn more name and fame and spotlight is on them.It is their view and they are entitled to have it and propagate it but I would request them to use their god gifted skill in doing some positive work .
Nikhilesh
Allahabad, India
Jan 03, 2007 12:00 AM
92
Helo Varun-Roy Mam will not know RED SHIRTS of NWFP .She knows Commies red shirts only!
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Jan 03, 2007 12:00 AM
91

I wonder what Roy would have said about the events on the NWFP in 1946-47. The Congress and its local associate, the Red Shirts, won an election fair and square, and hence became the governing party. But there was obviously widespread resentment toward this arrangement. Moslems under the obvious influence of the Moslem League started a violent agitation against the government, which soon became an orgy of looting arson and killing. Would Roy describe the Congress-Red Shirt government as being an occupational force, against which the people of the NWFP were waging a just liberation movement? And was that movement one that envisoned more democracy, secularism, openness, and pluralism than what the hated, tyrannical Congress-Red Shirt coalition was offering? If that were the case, then surely we should all join with Miss Roy in celebrating the end of a hateful, brutal, anti-democratic and anti-secular regime which tyrannized and brutalised the sweet, innocent Moslems of the NWFP, even if only for a brief period.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
90
Correction !
We do not love to hate Ms Roy.
She is a guerilla writer on social subjects.
No one has ever seen her on a debate. Odd is it not.
So she outpours and having poured moves on leaving poured upon people feeling like dung.
Lady stand up and fight.
Middle class debates would help .
Cos you certainly know how to fight.
As for Ms Bhaumik, is it necesssary for you to discuss matters at this rather infantile level.
Worthy of Stardust and Page 3 but not of serious discussion about a matter that really turns on the Outlook editor and you.
Bindu Tandon
Mumbai, India
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
89
Ghai,

Good article by Raman. The Baathists include the most experienced administrators as well as army officers. No wonder they are trying to bring them back.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
88
FARUKI-review if not read this analysis.Now talk of bringing in Baath party back ?


http://www.saag.org/papers21/paper2079.html
A K GHAI
MUMBAI, India
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
87
Ghai,

>> If USA is planning to leave Iraq now then it has to contend with Break up of Iraq :

This is being mentioned by a few influential people as a possibility, although Turkey will oppose creation of Kurdistan because of its own restless Kurd minority, and Sunni Iraqis will resist being separated from the oil rich Shia and Kurd regions.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
86
Faruki-Sadam hanging is more to remove him before USA leaves IRAQ ?? If USA is planning to leave Iraq now then it has to contend with
Break up of Iraq :
One Nation with Shia majority-this will align with Iran and thus will REINFORCE PERCIEVED enemy Muslim nation.Other Nation will be Sunni dominated one -another enemy for USA.Third will be Khurdsistan-problem for all Arabs and EU.Khurds loyality to USA is doubtfull.
Afganistan is another example the freinds inleague -USA and PAK are perrinially suspicious of each other.
FRANKLY NO BODY KNOWS WHICH WAY ?
REMEMBER EVEN INDIA HAD TO WITHDRAW FROM BANGLADESH POST HASTE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AFTER THE WAR TO AVOID BECOMING OCCUPATIONAL ARMY !
A K GHAI
MUMBAI, India
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
85
Correction!We do not love to hate Ms Roy.
She is a guerilla writer on social subjects.
No one has ever seen her on a debate. Odd is it not.
So she outpours and having poured moves on leaving poured upon people feeling like dung.
Lady stand up and fight.
Middle class debates would help .
Cos you certainly know how to fight.
Bindu Tandon
Mumbai, India
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
84
Satish,

>> Kurds' massacre was planned by CIA to tarnish image of peaceloving Saddam!

Saddam was a US ally at that time. You will find many references to this allegation if you do a bit of research.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
83
GHULAM:
"They hanged him before the charges of chemical warfare against the Kurds were brought to trial. According to many observers, the massacre of the Kurds was done with CIA connivance because the Kurds were aiding the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war."

Quite Right!!! Kurds' massacre was planned by CIA to tarnish image of peaceloving Saddam!

This was similar to other acts such as - 9/11 was masterminded by Bush, attack on Indian parliament was the brainchild of Advani and Vajpayee, 1993 and 2006 Mumbai blasts were carried out by Shiv Sena and BJP, terrorist attacks all over India are carried out by RAW and CBI, Godhra train burning was Modi's idea, 7/11 - London attacks were planned by Tony Blair and many more such attacks are carried out to defame peaceful persons.
Satish
Pune, India
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
82
>> "The main reason for hurried hanging was to suppress the connection between US government and use of chemical weapons by Saddam Regime" -

They hanged him before the charges of chemical warfare against the Kurds were brought to trial. According to many observers, the massacre of the Kurds was done with CIA connivance because the Kurds were aiding the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
81
Well said by Ms Reeta Sinha. She wrote 4 years ago and yet apparently 'lice didn't crawl' on outlookindia.com and Ms. Roy's respective ears.

Gandhiji said in July 1946
"Congressmen in general certainly do not know the kind of independence they want. They recite the formula almost parrot-like. Or, their notion of independence is fully expressed in saying that they mean by it Congress Raj. And they won’t be wrong. They have left further thinking to the Working Committee—a most undemocratic way. In true democracy every man and woman is taught to think for himself or herself. How this real revolution can be brought about I do not know except that every reform like charity must begin at home."

In this case, it must begin by certain writers respecting the right of every man and woman not to leave all thinking to those writers.
XYZ
Los Angeles, USA
Jan 02, 2007 12:00 AM
80
Anybody who critisizes Bush administration's policy of "War on terror" is a traitor. He/she is being "soft on terror". Anybody who questions/critisizes Indian state's actions in Kashmir is being unpatriotic and anti-national. Any body who critisizes Israel's actions in occupied territories is a Jew hator and Anti-semitic.
Similarly, anybody who critisizes a female celebrity is a male chauvinist, doing it out of misogynistic impulses. Well, one might ask what if the person critisizing the female celebrity happens to be a woman ? Then, she too is acting out of misogynistic impulses, she is a self hating woman, just like the Jews who critisize Israel are self-hating Jews and act out of Anti-semetic impulses.
Here is one such repsponse, right here on Outlook.

http://outlookindia.com...20116&fname=reeta&sid=1
chandana
hyderabad, India
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
79
But most funny thing was G W Bush's reaction to Saddam's hanging. As if the hanging was equivalent to providing food and shelter to all the starving homeless people on earth. He is undoubtedly the greatest dimwit president of America. He is the Mullah Omar in the White House.
jaleel
luknow, India
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
78
Saddam killed many and at last he got the same treatment. He would have been a Hitler if he was that powerful. Why should we talk about Saddam ? He is one of the dirty criminals getting punished in this world for their crimes. The greed for power turned the poor man into a blood thirsty creature and at last he got his due.
jaleel
luknow, India
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
77
I would have no problems with Ms. Roy if a) she had something meaningful to say, b)she didn't play to the usual sound byte gallery and c) if she presented both sides of an argument.

The fact that she is a woman should not allow all of us to let her hide behind perceived stereotyping.
Manu
Hyderabad, India
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
76
>> Then why was it mentioned?

An item of interest, rather than of relevance.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
75
" (In passing, one is reminded of the fact that as Governor of Texas, Bush presided over more executions than any other state governor in the United States, but that is not relevant here). "

Then why was it mentioned?
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
74
To mourn Saddam's death because one is a Muslim is as bad as to celebrate his death because one is a Hindu. His actions deserved the most severe punishment. One may cavil at the fact that the trial and the hanging were carried out by a puppet government orchestrated by an American Occupation Force, which itself is no less heinous than Saddam. (In passing, one is reminded of the fact that as Governor of Texas, Bush presided over more executions than any other state governor in the United States, but that is not relevant here).
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Jan 01, 2007 12:00 AM
73
Ghai says,

>> HELO FARUKI-HAPPY NOW ??
OMBUDSMAN WILL MONITER THE ACTION SO IT WILL BE TRANSPARENT ONE !

I shall be happy when I see the results.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
72
Great. We have one more author who has analyzed that Indians are a sexist society who just want their women to have kids and not careers. May be you should take a look around. We are not Taliban. And as far as Madam Roy is concerned, can't people oppose her for her ideas ? I feel that she is wrong on all the big issues. Before preaching to others, the author needs to grow up and start respecting the fact Indians are a lot more liberal.
gopikiran
Chennai, India
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
71
HELO FARUKI-HAPPY NOW ??


http://www.indianexpres...sunday/story/19789.html


OMBUDSMAN WILL MONITER THE ACTION SO IT WILL BE TRANSPARENT ONE !
A K GHAI
MUMBAI, India
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
70
Satish- have a poll by whatever method feasible YOU WILL FEEL MORE HINDUS THAN MUSLIMS ARE PRO-SADDAM .WHY ? BECAUSE SADDAM WAS TRUE FRIEND OF INDIA AND WAS THE ONLY MUSLIM RULER WHO SUPPORTED US AGINST PAK.
HINDU IS NOT A ungratefull RACE -Satish ji !
STRANGELY you will find many Muslim friends not speaking for Saddam in this forum !
A K GHAI
MUMBAI, India
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
69
AZEEM TAQI:
"Satish ji, I am an Indian Muslim and not supporting her in the least. I wish you,d read my earlier take on this very article (before I read your take) and you,ll appreciate what I mean.I assure you there are millions of Indian Muslims like me who too are die hard Indians and wish you,d not paint even most of us with the same brush."

Thanks AZEEM! I do appreciate your feelings. I have no doubts about you. My apologies, if I have offended you. I have used words - "Majority of Indian Muslims", I have not said "all Indian muslims". I do have lot of respect for some outstanding muslims personalities including late singer Mohammed Rafi, Music Director Naushad, well known Marathi author Yusuf Mohammed Pathan, our president Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam Azad and many more.

I feel sad when some Indian muslims support notorious muslims such as Afzal Guru. Look at how majority of Indian muslims protesting against death of Saddam. Many places, muslims prayed for his soul. Saddam was a notorious, blood-thirsty, cruel dictator. He should have been killed long ago. Indian muslims are supporing him just because he was a muslim. This is pathetic!
Satish
Pune, Algeria
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
68
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: female
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of femel, femelle, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French femele, from Medieval Latin femella, from Latin, girl, diminutive of femina
1 a : a female person : a woman or a girl
XYZ
Los Angeles, USA
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
67

XYZ, that's an excellent observation about Indian liberals, or left liberals. They don't present cogent, thoughtful arguments about wht their particular position is THE one and only correct or progressive one. They expect us to just lap it all up like mindless morons, and follow. Arundhati Roy is part of the tribe.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
66
Why intellect should have a runaway

ARoy started off with the Booker Prize where sex was written as an entertaining exercise. The West loved it. Then she wrote an essay on the Afghan invasion and the arrival of female Chomsky was announced. Then she started loosing the critical aspect ( the runaway required for intellect) and started shooting from the hip.

1)For example , her attack on Indian democracy is outrageously rocket journalism. India is one of the few democracies in the world , even though there is poverty, which allows ARoy to
stay there and write her puerile prose. She should be thankful to the functioning democracy.
2) Her jumping into issues after Medha Patkar and others do first, is sheer " burger" opportunism. One must be thankful she did not jump into the Neem issue with WTO after Vandana Shiva did a splendid job (This lady has a runaway for thinking critically. Here you require the Biology of evidence). Vandana Shiva does her homework well and the good work she is doing for the farmers, is not to be in the limelight like ARoy, but do some positive contribution.
4)Her article for clemency would have made Agatha Christie say " Putrid Arthur Conan Doyle stuff. Think well. Give the right data before you write"

gajanan
Sydney, Australia
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
65
Just thought I would point this out. The word female is an adjective although many Indians make the mistake of using it as a noun. Like when XYZ when she says that SHE IS A FEMALE. You can be a woman/girl ? But you can't be "a" female. Your gender can be male/female.
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Dec 31, 2006 12:00 AM
64
Bleah.
chandra
Portland, USA
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
63
I am a female and I find often it difficult to keep reading when Ms Roy writes because as I said I can't summon up the outrage she demands when she does not offer me much to better understand the issue.

The problem with Indian liberals is that they think they reside on a high moral perch where they do not have to explain their positions, they just need to give instructions to the proletariat about what to feel.
A writer should respect his/her readers and at least attempt to win them over with reason, point and counterpoint. What we actually get instead from Indian liberals sounds like rantings of cult leaders admonishing their flock and if we don't accept these mindlessly, we get more of the same ie how we are prejudiced/conservative/hindutvists etc. The so-called liberals have only been harming their so-called liberal causes with such attitudes.
XYZ
Los Angeles, USA
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
62
Then again, the problem with Indian conservatives on the net is also exactly that; they confuse reason with rage.

I just glanced through some of the other responses that this piece has attracted, and it makes me cringe. Hooker Prize winner? That's the best you guys can come up with?

Which leaves people like me in a strange situation. I definitely dislike the tone of Ms Roy's writings, in fact, I think she writes non-fiction rather poorly. She doesn't cite properly, her metaphors are clumsy and her narrative flow is awkward. I'd, however, like to see beyond her voice and engage issues that she raises with a less emotional, and more rational tone.

Unfortunately, believing so would mean that I'm just a prejudiced male who's can't stand the fact that a closely-cropped woman is standing up against my gender's hegemony. Not believing so would mean that I'm siding with anonymous online cowards who can't control what they type.

Pray, O ye divinity, why are we stuck between such a dichotomy?
Akshay
Hyderabad, India
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
61
Ms Bhaumik,

I really hope you've read this essay at least once after writing it.

You begin by quoting your anonymous friends, somehow equating their responses with _India's_, without telling us why you think that's a good idea. You then go on to claim that you are trying to deconstruct "complex Indian responses" by revealing "layers of prejudice", while spending the rest of your essay in elaborating just one single point, namely that she's being attacked for being a woman, perhaps for cutting her hair too closely.

At this point, my question to you isn't "Why do you think only Indian men attack Ms Roy?", or even, "Do you really think Indian men are such morons?". Rather it is, "Have you read what you've written?"

Because the question you quoted earlier, namely that Ms Roy passes conspiracy theories off as critically-thought investigations, neither addresses Ms Roy's hair, nor her rejection of the Indian sari for her attire.

The problem with Indian liberalism isn't that it's liberal, Ms Bhaumnik, --I'm as liberal as it gets, pro-social-health, pro-gay-marriage, anti-war etc -- it is that we tend to confuse emotion for rational thought.
Akshay
Hyderabad, India
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
60
There are many rational and cogent critiques of Ms Roy's public utterances. Here is one compelling case where Mr. Sankrant Sanu, a successful I.T. professional based in the U.S., systematically &
thoroughly decomposes Roy's comments at the WSF:


http://indiatogether.or...shi/issue134/empire.htm


Of course, Ms. Roy never did or was unable to respond effectively to these hard hitting questions.





sanjay
boston, USA
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
59
One really has to think hard before reacting about a person who should better be ignored. But that would cede the space to folks like Ms. Roy to represent us Indians - for that is how she is perceived in many influential circles.
Ms. Roy's (and her fans') problem is that she deals in fiction and maintains that it is otherwise. For most of us mundane folk who don't inhabit this twilight zone, it's tough to accept tho' Bollywood may be more welcoming (may be not - they are guided by the box office, a capitalist tool).
Somebody here compared her to Chomsky - please, the two are not even on the same planet (and by no means I am a leftist or any other kind of 'ist'). A torrent of words does not articulation make. Having a debatable view point and being understood does.
sudhi
mysore, india
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
58
It is not about male or female. it is definitely not related with the excuses feminists always take by using buzz words such as male dominated society

It is about National Interest and Safety.
Media in India is misused for personal gritification, creating controversy and becoming famous.

Public opinion and actions that the masses take shapes destiny of a nation. But public opinion is often formed by a few literates, leaders, visionaries. This class has additional responsibility for creating an environment of trust, truth , righteousness and justice for the masses to think and act in right direction for the country.
Ms. Roy's acts are one of creating controversy and getting reviews is western media and to win the comparisions with Victoria spcie.
I , after reading her articles, do not consider hes as a responsible person.
I think that we are assigning undue importance and focus to her, which she is not worthy of.


Pankaj Dubey
Indore, MP
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
57

What is her view, then, of how to deal with China and Pakistan? Simply say, Uh, we can't afford it? And what does she say about the *nature* of the Kashmir movement? Is it a progressive people's movement against a hideous tyranny, and hence, by its very nature striving for something far better than what exists today, namely a secular, pluralistic, federal democracy. Surely she should have intelligent and incisive answers to these questions, rather than just rants and raves about the Indian state.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
56
Actually, if you take her demands themsevles, there's nothing crazy or irrational about any of them: you should not display rural people en masse to build dams; you should hold judges and politicans accountable; india as a country cannot have its sovereignty sold off to the highest-foreign bidder; spending money to build nuclear bombs is stupid in a country where close to 50% are below the poverty line; you cannot endlessly brutalize the entire state of kashmir for ever and ever; you cannot have guilt-by-association to hang terrorists, there has to be solid proof; ...

it all sounds like so much basic common sense. I don't even see why one needs to be fiery and brilliant to make any of those points.

If you ask me, I would say it has to do with us being good indians and our historical "sheep"-like character. We have always been the reliable servants for others. Britain could not have built its empire without hundreds and thousands of loyal obedient indian soliders and civil servants. And now too, we churn out people from our IITs who go onto loyally row row row and make people like Bill Gates very rich. Even Bechtel and halliburton could not flourish if they did not have thousands of indian engineers to do all the work for them. Even our intellectuals measure their own worth by foreign degrees and foreign awards. I think its very frightening for a servant-class that always identifies with its master to suddenly be told to throw all that away and to specifically not to identify upwards. Or to be told that the 'higher-ups' to whom we've relegated our power are not worthy of that trust and that we should dig into it ourselves. That seems to be her basic message: dont just leave it to the CEOs, Judges and MPs - this is too important - they will make a mess of it - you have to get involved. I mean, she's a communist , in the good sense of the word. Which is pretty scary. Even someone like me who admires her - finds some of her suggestions pretty scary - I mean, she just rips apart the congress party and makes them seem as selfish and brutal as the BJP - I always had this mild good opinion or basic faith in the indian left parties so I found that pretty shocking.
Arul Francis
Clayton, California
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
55
The article pointedly makes remarks about and implicit gender perspective when criticism is made against Roy.

Here is my response despite the
I-will-face-crticism-for-being-a-male-in-writing-t
his-note.
I have few issues with Ms Roy's postions or the general direction of her writings.

I do have issues with her "style" of writing which to me is a meandering style that could be more to the point.

And off course, women would and have also considered the response I make as a typical gendered response and I am knowingly doing so.

zorro
nyc, usa
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
54
Much of the analysis done on Ms Roy here is true and correct. But I wonder if the composer of the essay has unwittingly said something else. Her constant male-bashing is an indicator that using Roy is is just a pretence. The real aim is just to spread the feminist 'bash men' gospel.
Suvrajit
Calcutta, India
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
53
Our Muslim brothers on this forum are giving us all extremely valuable education on liberalism, respect for working independent females, expressing opinions which might offend others and so on.. How touching! Let Ms Roy or another person say something less flattering about the prophet, Islam, or pious and nation-state loving Muslims. I am sure these liberal than liberalism, holier than holy, freer than free-speech individuals will be there standing in formation protecting Ms Roy's life.
Akhil
Chicago, United States
Dec 30, 2006 12:00 AM
52
The writer - by ennumerating "macho male response" and "response at a personal level" - seems to imply that there is no reasoned, level-headed responses to Ms Roy's written word and most of the opposition is spite, jealousy, chauvinism etc. I disagree, both with this insinuation and with many, if not all, of Ms Roy's views. This disagreement is based on differing viewpoints and has nothing to do with her being an articulate woman (which she certainly is) turning out unquestionably powerful prose. It is not personal. It is also well known and accepted that large parts of academia (in the west) tend to lean left of centre thinking and it wouldn't be too surprising if her works were well received in such quarters.
Bharat
Bangalore, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
51
A load of rubbish from a stereotypical secular journalist. Sensible people do not detest Roy because she is a female, or dresses in a non-Indian fashion. Other females of her genre such as Medha Patkar and Shabhana Azmi do not provoke the same hostility, because the latter are known to have spent decades of selfless service in furthering their causes. One admires their consistency and idealism, while disagreeing with thei views. Roy is a selfish, boorish, johnny-come-lately, a nasty self-promoter interested only in publicity.
arul bhaskar
new york, usa
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
50
Jaleel,
Good post.
Preyas
Chicago, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
49

It's a fair question: What does Arundhati intend to replace the modern nation state with- a collection of independent small communities? Is that feasible and viable?Does she feel India,led by herself, are going to be the first in the world to adopt this kind of political organization?
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
48
Satadru Sen,
Very good post. Liked your use of "anti national" and "small things".
Preyas
Chicago, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
47

Apart from her ravings against the "state"( and she never even hints what entity she would replace it with) another thing that is annoying about her is her lack of Indian heart and soul. She never drops references to India's rich cultural heritage such as the epics, drama(Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti) sculpture, architecture, science( Aryabhata, Brahmagupta) philosophy etc. She seems outright ignorant about it. Any person Indian in heart and soul is at least aware of this grand heritage, and is inspired and proud. She is likely one of the Christians who is casually dismissive of this canvas as "those Hindu things". She belongs in the same category as Praful Bidwai, Sanjay Subramanyam, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Teesta Setalvad, Ram Punyani, Nivedita Menon and several others.
Varun Shekhar
Toronto, CANADA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
46
Arundhati Roy is "anti-national" in the best sense of the term. She questions the claims of the nation-state upon our identities and political loyalties, and the impact of the modern state upon "small things" like the dignity of the individual. Even in her moments of rhetorical excess, that is a welcome palliative to the fetishizing of nationhood.
Satadru Sen
St. Louis, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
45
Arundhati Roy is often misunderstood.

Arundhati so vehemently opposed the BANNING OF SATANIC VERSES and wrote a very long article attacking the mullahs for the prehistoric mindset. She is still asking for the ban to be lifted. Why do we forget that ? That proves her intrepid nature.
While Rushdie visited India, Arundhati demanded adequate security for him. Thus she showed her support for Rushdie.

Arundhati's stand on Danish cartoon issue is known to all. She expressed her hatred for the protests against the Danish cartoons. Arundhati always believes in freedom of expression.

While most of Indian intellectuals were apprehensive of supporting TASLIMA NASREEN, Arundhati stood firm. She expressed her desire to take Taslima as her guest. Arundhati even told that Taslima can stay at her home as long as she wants.

While most Indian inetllectuals are afraid of speaking against the superstitions plaguing Muslim society, Arundhati Roy is vociferous against the bad practices of polygamy, triple talaq etc. She encouraged and inspired Muslim women to throw away the Burqas. Her support for Imrana cause is well known. Arundhati Roy is the only one to tell the Muslims that there are far more important things to do in the world than to make pilgrimages. We should not forget that.

jaleel
luknow, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
44
Satish ji, I am an Indian Muslim and not supporting her in the least. I wish you,d read my earlier take on this very article (before I read your take) and you,ll appreciate what I mean.I assure you there are millions of Indian Muslims like me who too are die hard Indians and wish you,d not paint even most of us with the same brush.
Azeem Taqi
Nashville, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
43
While not denying her genius, I often get the feeling that she intentionally touches on topics that will naturally cause a furore, a case in point being the Afzal Guru case. Which Indian is going to condone a man who attacks his very bastion of democracy, kills innocent security guards, has umbilical relations with the enemy ( and for Mr Joseph - a clear clarification) - only the the fundamentalist anti Indian among the Pakistanis, is proved guilty by the supreme law of our land and then you have Ms. Roy grandly citing human rights, as if the security people who lost their lives had no human rights. I wish Ms. Roy also spoke up for the human rights of the Kashmiri Pandits. At the end of the day,Ms.Roy does succeed in having attention firmly rivetted in her direction with many agreeing with her and many disagreeing.
Azeem Taqi
Nashville, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
42
thanks for the - should i say timely? - article, saba; in fact, it should have been longer and more forcefully argued; after all, whether one agrees or not with arundhati on all issues, it is always important to defend a dissident voice, especially a woman's voice in a third world situation; in a country full of amitav ghoshs and vikram seths, atleast she uses her literary skills to speak up!
avishek ganguly
new york, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
41
she has her political leanings a far too left for my taste, but still she is one of the gems india has produces. as far as the question of majority of indians hating her, i don't agree. i think it is only the urban upper class (some 10% of the population, but look like 80% because of their access to media and power) that despises her.
nits
nashville, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
40
This is truly revealing.

If one's writings reflect one's inner-self, then 90 per cent of the participants here have an Arundhati fixation which covers the entire gamut from absolute love to absolute hate and a few more balanced fixations in-between.

The Editor of Outlook India is indeed a wily old fox who seems to have extra-polated this trend for the rest of India and has made sure that Ms. Suzanne Arundhati Roy graces his pages as often as possible. Ms Roy is his USP.

Of course in all this love-hate exchange about Ms Roy, the usual suspects have not been forgotten. There are some pointed digs about Islam, Muslims, Pakistan, Mr. Vinod Mehta and his fantasies and a rather unsavoury dig about India's very own Bapu.

However, today for better of for worse, it is Ms Roy's day at the pilloring post. I am lucky.
Joseph
Karachi, Pakistan
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
39
what a truck load of bullshit this crappy piece of writing is.. looks like saba produced her work of genius while sitting on her potty.

the probem with roy is that the she interfers too much in things that are not even remotely her areas of expertise. nuclear energy/proliferation, global politics, kashmir strategy, iraq, israel-palestine, expertise on indian constitutin and law, journalism etc etc etc....
WTF... she tried reporting the ahmedabad riots and misreported irfan jafrey's murder.
she is a failed architecht.. and doesnt seem to be doing any good in other fields of self-porclaimed experstise.

if you remember, all this activism started only after winning the booker... where was all the fight for noble causes before then?

we wouldnt have had any problems if she had stuck to her area of proven expertise... writing fiction.. now it has been more than amply demonstrated that facts and roy dont go to gether.

booker winning hooker is what she is..


chester pester
timbaktoo, timbaktoo
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
38
1. Number of legal copies of "God of Small Things" sold in India
2. Number of legal copies of "God of Small Things" sold in the West > 1 million

That partly explains Roy's "manufactured politics" and capitalist instinct. An interesting question is: If Mrs. Roy had the same style of writing lyrical prose but was an Indian conservative (for example like Shobha De) would she still be as popular in London and New York? Actually she is great for India. She certainly is better looking than Noam Chomsky.
Sanjay Chawla
Sydney, Australia
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
37
#####:::::-NNNNN-:::::#####:
"Arundhati Roy must be doing something good - hence majority in india are against her. -:)"

Arundhati Roy must be doing something anti-national. Hence majority of muslims in india are supporting her. -:)
Satish
Pune, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
36
Once again, a pompous scribbler has shot off his mouth. What authority are you, Mr Bhaumik, to judge Indians? From your scribbles, you only come across as one among the band of 'ashamed to be Indians' Marxist apologists
ankush poddar
Kolkata, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
35
Arundhati Roy must be doing something good - hence majority in india are against her. -:)
#####:::::-NNNNN-:::::#####
Ranchi, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
34
Ms Roy's writings are like a comedy track in a movie. We need some relaxation in life among so many serious issues. I still did not get any good debate on why she has not uttered a word on more than half a dozen death sentences given since the Afzal Guru episode.
Ms Roy is utter selfish being, craving for popularity by writing only on topics that would get her to the headlines, without any care for what her writings does to the society or community.
The society instead of giving undue importance to her writings should just take it as a joker performing in a circus... laugh at it and forget....
Gops
Chennai, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
33
brilliant and beautiful - brilliant yes...but beautiful...huhhhh
Sanjay Choubey
chennai, india
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
32
"clarity of her thought, thorough research,"

May be these words have a new meaning for people who still believe

1. 9/11 was a conspiracy by Bush / Israel
2. Attack on Indian parliament was carried out by Indian army / BJP / RSS
3.Mumbai train blast were carried out by VHP / BJP etc..
clarity of thought and research....indeed ..wonders of commie and pinko vocabulary never cease.
shankar
Mumbai, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
31
""clarity of her thought, thorough research, her humanity, passion for justice and sheer brilliance of her prose"


Thorough research ??? LOL !!!

May be thats one english word she does not know..Example,,how she imaginatively got the Congress MP Jaffris daughter raped and killed in Gujarat riots by Chaddi mobs, when the baughter was actually staying in US!!

"thorough research" indeed..


Goddess of small lies! By Balbir K. Punj


http://www.organiser.or...showpage&pid=138&page=8
shankar
Mumbai, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
30
What a punishment -one week wasted on BAPU whose Ahinsa is out dated as it can't match Jehad ! If releally AHINSA is THE answere PLEASE ALL GANDHITES ARE WELCOME TO GO TO KASHMIR,IRAQ,AFGANISTAN .SOMALIA ,LEBNAN ,PHILISTINE --TO BRING IN JEHADIS IN MAIN STREAM.Welcome to go to Bush or MUSH too--.
Now Outlook has again second time brought in Mam Arunadhiti.
So Forum will waste on more week for MADAM too !
What a end to 2006 !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
29
Her general tone of 'oh look how bad my persecutors are and how brave I am' detracts from her arguments. Simply saying bad things about other people does not constitute a convincing argument or counter argument and quite often I stop reading because she very often does that and I am unable to summon the outrage as a substitute for understanding the issue. She does not help a reader understand the issue on his/her own, she just wants the reader to take her word for it that he/she should feel outraged. I think that style of writing in a so-called activist is counterproductive and exploitative.

For instance, in cases like that of Afzal Guru, it is just morally wrong for Roy to become the story and not put forward objective plain exact verifiable details of his prosecution for us to judge for ourselves whether justice was or was not done. But no, instead we get half-baked allegations about the heinousness of the police, the govt, the judiciary, the whole process, and we are asked to take Roy's word for it that all these are guilty and the man himself is innocent. This is a man's life on one side and a heinous attack on India's parliament on the other, so can she kindly refrain from grandstanding and becoming the story for once?
XYZ
Los Angeles, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
28
HARI CHATHRATTIL,

Enjoyed reading your post. Good to see someone swimming against the current. While Arundhati may at times seem to overstep the bounds, I agree with you about "clarity of her thought, thorough research, her humanity, passion for justice and sheer brilliance of her prose"

Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
27
Arundhati Roy's writings are filled with non sequitors. Her inability to be concise and her meandering kills whatever little sense they make.

Roy seems to lack an understanding of the rigour required to make intellectual arguments. Often, she is guilty of being swayed by emotions. And ironically, she betrays a profound inability to imagine the possibilities.

To be fair to Roy, she exhibits the same traits that characterize her fellow "Indian Intellectuals".

To put it gently, Arundhati Roy wouldn't know a well made argument if it came and bit her in the ass. Hate? no, perhaps, laughter and amusement.

Zaphod Beeblebrox
Betelguese, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
26
That Arundhati Roy gets under the skin of many people who post in these columns is obvious, and the author is well within her rights to speculate on why this happens.
I have yet to come across a detractor who has engaged substantively with Roy's arguments, resorting instead to vitriolic outpourings that inhibit serious debate.
Roy's responses to criticism from the likes of B.G. Verghese and Ramachandra Guha showcase the clarity of her thought, thorough research, her humanity, passion for justice and sheer brilliance of her prose.
Taking literally Saba Bhaumik's sarcastic, acerbic comment that Roy "could wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it" is symptomatic of this same inability to address the issue - that Roy's failure to confirm to notions and symbols of womanhood that
are venerated by patriarchal chauvinists and/or religious fundamentalists earns her a lot of irrational hatred.
Hari Chathrattil
Syracuse, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
25
Actually, the comparison with Victoria Beckham is not inappropriate. It is remarkably apt, but for the innate sense of limitation that the footballer's crooning spouse posesses and Ms. Roy lacks. Victoria ji sticks to her forte - food, music and clothes, or the lack of them. Arundhati talks - no - she raves about everything. And I mean everything.

Considering the kind of writing Arundhati produces, we poor Indians have paid a very heavy price for that booker. Could someone please take it back. Or, could she return that booker, please, to protest the conspiracy behind the hanging of Afzal, the factory at Singur, the riots at Gujjuland,... It would be a nice gesture from someone who contemplated that returning medals of valour by the families of those who died in the parliament attack would be 'just as well'.

For all her hysterics, she is very shallow in her logic and completely ineffective in her actions. That she is a woman with close cropped hair is, as Saba NB has so pertinently implied, the more interesting thing about her. Now, if we could just discuss the keratin on Roy's head rather than be forced to contend with essays that are symptomatic of the keratin in it.

If I were Afzal, I would be very worried. For every single cause that Arundhati has taken up, she has polarized opinion, destroyed the basis for compromise, poured vitriol and removed any chance for moderated opinion. She is an extremist, which is fine if one is logical or convincing. Ms Roy is simply an exasperatingly silly anarchist.

Afzal dude, Narmada, Singur, Gujarat,... all failures, the prognosis for you seems grim. I am all for a retrail for you, but with Arundhati by your side, I suppose you are destined to doom. She will rave about you for a few days, and then having extracted her inches of column space for the Pinki movement, she will move to raving about something else. But the people she will anger and the acrimony she will generate will hound you to the gallows. You probably have a better chance with APJ and Manmohan and Madam and Vajpayee and Advani. They understand the issues at hand much better.
Bhuwan
Gurgaon, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
24
Sorry Saba..we do not 'love' to hate Arundhati. Hating does not come naturally to Indian males. Go apply your Freudian logic to those who really love to hate others. Spare us. Do you seriously think Arundhati's sex appeal threatens Indian males? Boy o Boy! You need a vacation, Saba!
dcindia
Omaha, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
23
SABA-

Such a pile of 'cow dung' (the gender sensitive equivalent of bullshit). However, let me tell you I liked Arundhati on the Narmada Dam and the Nuclear issue, but not on Gujarat. Go back to the article on Gujarat published in the Outlook itself, and what do you find.
1. Miss Roy at her angry best at the news of (conveyed over the phone by her friend)of ripping of stomachs by the Gujarat goons.
2. And Miss Roy at her ecstatic best at the idea of Laloo ripping the hearts out of the 'communal elements' ( the exact expression by Laloo which sent Ms Roy to the seventh heaven of delight was, 'Chhati phar denge')

Well my reasons are very simple, whether it is said by some one in a Chaddi or in a Sari, I am equally squeamish about ripping of 'secular stomachs' and 'communal chhatis'.
vikas ranjan
gurgaon, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
22
Saba Naqvi Bhaumik says India has a love-hate relationship with Arundhati Roy. That is true of just every public figure. My estimate is that the majority of educated Indians think Arundhati is an over-rated nut at best and a dangerous anarchist at worst.
Anand
Santa Clara, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
21
Such an unimaginative opinion, Saba. Hope your next attempt is better. All you succeed in doing is exposing your prejudiced opinion of the Indian male in general and the "Hindu Right" in particular. You seem more obsessed with her physical appearance (past and present), than actually "deconstructing the complex Indian responses to Roy".
Fellow reader "Arindam" captures your disillusionment best.
Deepak Sharma
Philadelphia, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
20
Saba --- isn't she the one who always extolls Pakistan and demeans India? Jus curious, is she an Indian or Pakistani? Ah, who cares. Alas, the respected Ed himself is a Pakistani.

I will tell the reason why Ms. Roy is being hated so much. PEOPLE ARE FED UP OF COMMUNISM. THEY WANT ECONOMIC IMPROVEMENT (AKA CAPITALISM) AND ARE TIRED OF BRIBERY, INEFFICIENCY AND CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT-RUN ENTERPRISES. GOVERNMENT SHOULD ONLY TAKE UP THOSE INDUSTRIES WHERE THERE IS A HIGH ENTRY COST FOR INDIVIDUALS ESPECIALLY DUE TO CAPITAL COSTS AND TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. That said, here is the way I see it. Commies got two options. Either they can jus maintain the status quo and they do nothing in which case they will be "kicked out" permanetly in the near future. Or they can espouse "Chinese model of communism" aka AGGRESSIVE capitalism (Buddhadeb is wise to realize this but question is will others follow and the "party" agree to it). Time is running out.

One good thing is atleast this article didn't f***in extoll Pakistan. Only Gill, Puri and Raman and Saikat Datta (of course Mr. Ed at times, I especially like his literary style) seem to be writing quality articles. But Sabha and other Commies like Partha would get a fit and call them right-wingers (of course they are right).
ARVIND
ROCHESTER, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
19
I Sal's voice reflecting the intellectual passion of the left. This is primarily the reason why Arundhati is regarded as a fool .The left which started out supporting liberty & freedom moved to support Stalin ,Mao ,Castro ,and now the islamo-fascists . Arundhati's comment we have no choice but to support the "Iraqi resistance" despite the fact that they are bunch of Islamo-fascists !!
psuedo-secularist
Sydney, Australia
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
18

Sorry Saba, the macho Indian male is least bothered if Arundhuti is brilliant and beautiful and she is welcome to her sartorial choice. Her espousal of Afzal Guru is certainly indefensible. As an Indian woman Saba you are yourself a prisoner of wrong perception of what an Indian male wishes a woman to be ‘Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it.
arindam
kolkata, Iraq
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
17
The author starts with the assumption that Roy's liberal ideas are correct, and then goes on to postulate that those who oppose her do so for personal, as opposed to ideological reasons.

This is of course blatantly false. Roy is not the only far left liberal to invite such hatred, she just happens to be the most high profile. In that sense, it is only fitting and logical that she should be the lightning rod for the critisism spewing out of the other side of the political spectrum. To say this is happening because she is a woman or because of some other extraneous factor is, to put it mildly, BS.
vijay
Chennai, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
16
Since she is a woman, Roy shouts a lot. She lies left, right and center and barely bothers herself about facts. Why? Because she is a woman. If she represents the womanhood of India and if those who oppose her are against woman, where do I sign up to register as a woman hater?
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
15
Now I know why Roy's view are so childish and idiotic. Because she is a woman!! That explains the mystery of her stupidity.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
14
"Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it." Saba

For those who prefer style over substance Ms Roy is an icon-but not so for those who seek after the TRUTH.

One of the major highlights of the 20th century was the meltdown of the bureaucratic socialist model of the USSR under which tens of millions perished and many more with crippling starvation. The watershed of the 21st century was the 9/11 terror attack, unending since Islam's very founding.

Ms Roy is oblivious to TRUTH, and sincere investigation for its discovery is not her forte
Raj
Bowlingbrook, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
13
I feel we need more jokers like Ms Roy. They can then fight amongst themselves for the media space.
BTW she is always dressed immaculately whenever her pictures appear in the media.
Rajeev
Delhi, India
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
12
>>But if Roy insists on staying on in India, there are a few things she could do to soften the hatred she often inspires in some Indians. Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it.>>

Somehow, what started out as a defence of Roy, ended up bashing the Indian male! If what Bhaumik imagines were true, we wouldnt have had any of Indira Gandhi "dis-membering" Pakistan to "avenge 1000 years of humiliation" or Sonia Gandhi leading the Congress today or Medha Patkar or Jayalalitha or Mamta or Mayawati.

Ofcourse, now the debate would shift to how Indian males are sycophants.
shapra
Santa Clara, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
11
>>Arundhati, Saba, Shabana, Medha
>>and other women have been reviled in
>>this forum. It is possible that their
>>sex had nothing to do with their being
>>reviled often in very demeaning terms,
>>but I would not be so sure.

Old moron, Meenu Chatterjee, Ghulam Faruki, Joseph and other men have been reviled in this forum. It is possible that their sex (actually, should be gender) had nothing to do with their being reviled often in very demeaning terms, but I would not be so sure.

In stead of the male/female polarity, I would rather hold retardation responsible.

--
Ajit Tendulkar
Seattle, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
10
Ms Roy is an intelligent person and on some issues I agree with her, on some I don't.
There will always be those who attack people rather than ideas and such people are on both sides of the "left-right" divide.
That being said, I beg to differ with Saba on a lot of counts. I consider myself an old-school feminist but I think her disparaging sari clad middle class women is unacceptable. My maid-servant was an illiterate, 60 plus, 'nauwaarii' clad woman. But she earned her own living, beat the daylights out of her drunk, abusive son and called him names that I can't print here. I think she was far more liberated than some "modern" women I know.
Ms Roy is also a writer and as writers are wont to, she often covets attention ("I cut my hair so people wouldn't think of me just as a good looking writer/activist"). Medha Patkar fits the sari-braid description, so does that make her less liberated? Ultimately, ARoy must be judged by what she says; her gender and looks ought to be off limits.
Preyas
Chicago, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
9
Arundhati, Saba, Shabana, Medha and other women have been reviled in this forum. It is possible that their sex had nothing to do with their being reviled often in very demeaning terms, but I would not be so sure.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
8
Finally Prem Shankar Jha was as much ridiculed and reviled in this forum(BTW, what happened to the dude?) Never once did any say "People oppose him because he is a male. Or he is bald. Or he wears pants and not kurta".

But when a woman who does political commentary is criticised, it is because she is a woman, she does not wear sari, her haricut is too short". But she will never be criticised for her political commentary!!

Feminists are a breed by themselves. It is difficult to find a group with more nuttier views.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
7
What has haircut got to do with her views? But according to this feminist idiot(who wears what-swimsuits) that might be one of the reason we hate Roy!! Let me recount for what other reasons I hate Roy

1) The buses dont come in time
2) The trains always come in time(thanks to laloo!!)
3) Sea is blue in color
4) Land is not blue in color(discrimination by nature)

By that logic why is Ann Coulter so hated by the left? She rarely commits mistakes on facts. She rarely misquotes or gets her facts wrong(Roy is still learning how to spell fact and truth). Yet she is reviled. But here is the difference. No one on the right is going out whining "They are mean to Ann. They are mean to Ann". Because the right knows it is part of the process. If you cannot take the heat, dont come to the kitchen.

It is the same with the left everywhere. Both Reagan and Bush are maligned and are the worst things. Yet Reagan never went out once crying about the mistreatment he gets from the press. He was called an idiot who cannot tie his shoes. He did not go and whine. He simply ignored and moved on. Thats what real men do.

Bill Clinton got a relatively tough question from Wallace and all hell broke lose. "Vast right wing conspiracy","hating Clinton " and so on.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
6
"Wear saris, shut up, stay at home, have babies, grow her hair long and start plaiting it."

What is this idiot trying to say? My mother wears saris, she does not work and stays home, raised me and gave me a great childhood and has long hair. In what way my mom is inferior to this genius? Is that the case?

What arrogant bitches these feminists are!!
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
5
"First, there is the macho male response to a woman who is not just brilliant and beautiful, but is also blessed with a talent for turning out powerful prose"

Thats absolute BS. Any response to a female, when unanswerable is deemed a reflection of the male ego. Why should we more or less lenient or tough just because the person happens to be a women? I never saw any article by Roy which said "article written by a woman". Then why is the response divided between male and female?

By extending the logic, is it fair to say the female response has been positive? Or the females are also jealous about this modern day Joan?

Thats a standard trick with the feminists. Write something and the critics hit back hard, hide under the "woman cover" and accuse the critics of criticising out of the male ego.
Ganesan
Nj, USA
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
4
Women taking up unpopular causes are not tolerated by the political "right" in the West either. Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave are good examples.
Ghulam Y Faruki
New York, United States
Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM
3
Every time I see Arundhati, she seems to be wearing a sari. Well, mostly. How should it matter? Braiding the hair? Shutting up? Darkage-ignorant talk or plain non-sensical letters-put-togethers? Such suggestions, if you were not kidding, which I sincerely hope you were, will only serve to impart that image of a stagnant India. Change comes with time, and as I write, some of those "some people," those men will have come to accept and live with Arundhati. Go look. Perk up your ears. Try not to shut up.

Yours enraged
Kedar

P.S. I was always under the impression that the pool of Indian writers in English was more like a extended Solar System rather than a "galaxy".:)
kedar reddy
Sunnyvale, United States
Dec 28, 2006 12:00 AM
2
1. Ms Roy has not learnt any lessons from the TOTAL failure of the bureaucratic socialism. Bureaucratic socialism had created more poverty and consequent loss of human dignity than any other system.

2. She had DELIBERATELY neglected to see, owing to her ideological lenses, that Islam is a political, terrorst, demographic ideology infinitely more dangerous than the Third Reich
Raj
Bowlingbrook, United States
Dec 28, 2006 12:00 AM
1
I sincerely believe the hot air emanating from Ms. Roy's finger tips contributes more to global warming, poverty, dispossession of the poor and other myriad issues she seems to be advocating against. But then I may be wrong. She is only advocating hot air and its preservation in the personalized form of Ms. Roy. Am I jealous, or is my male libido threatened by Ms. Roy? Not sure, but certainly possible.
Akhil
Chicago, United States
COLLAPSE COMMENTS   
Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY