[Reader-list] Arundhati Roy in Karachi

Mon May 18 20:00:08 IST 2009

Dear Inder

1. When I wrote "AR does not want her 'Taliban Boy' dealt with", it was directly taken from the words ascribed to AR " Unless we deal with that factory, dealing with the boy does not help us" 

So, do not ask me but ask AR what she meant by "dealing with the boy". Ask yourself why your interpreted "dealing with" in the manner you did. 

Do not credit authorship to me for your own inferences and extractions of meanings. Your delusional interpretations or suspicions about "nuances" are a product of your mind alone. If your mind is delicately balanced on the thin edge of your own pre-concieved notions (about others), pre-judgements and suspicions then it will topple down into any depths of making unethical statements.

I was not 'reflecting' upon anything. I asked a simple question that if AR does not want her "Taliban Boy" to be "dealt with" and wants to first go about understanding the Taliban-Factory, what does she propose should be done about the "Taliban Boy" in the meantime. Should we ask the "Taliban Boy" in the meantime to " kill some more; behead some more; rape some more?"

You seem to have missed out on the crux of my criticism of AR "NO SOLUTIONS TO OFFER":

"""A rebel with many causes to whine about with no solutions to offer. Since her grip on realities is uncertain, all that she can indulge in is vague intellectualising. That has always been in demand. Greater the obtuseness, easier it is to be highly thought of by unthinking minds."""""

2. You can 'tease' as much as you want if that what you get your kicks from. It does not bother me. What does bother me is your (seemingly malicious) habit of misrepresenting another person's words.

3. You are free to tell me that I myself cannot 'find the obvious' in what I myself speak about. You are free to don the robes of Mind-Reader, Diviner and Prophet. Look within yourself too.

4. Very frankly I do not much care for your 'deep regards' and 'respect' for whichever facet of mine. I would value it only if I respected your honesty (irrespective of whether we agreed or disagreed in our comments on topics and issues).

Kshmendra

--- On Sat, 5/16/09, Inder Salim <indersalim at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Inder Salim <indersalim at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Arundhati Roy in Karachi
To: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, May 16, 2009, 9:14 PM

Dear KK

i quote you again,

AR (on the 'Taliban Boy'): "He was made in a factory that is
producing this kind of mind(set). (The question is) who owns that
factory, who funds it? Unless we deal with that factory, dealing with
the boy doesn’t help us."
>
> KK: So what should be done about the 'Taliban Boy' while AR indulges in her vaguness of 'who owns the factory, who funds it?'? AR does not want her "Taliban Boy" dealt with. Should we in the meantime invite her 'Taliban Boy' to kill some more; behead some more; rape some more?

please explain what KK is reflecting on the above by AR, ( KK is
Kshmendra Kaul )  there are other finer nuances in your mail where one
can extract meaning they way i have. just tell me,

you write " AR does not want her ' Taliban boy' dealt with.

now what is the meaning, if not the way i interpreted,

what is other meaning, please let me know,

yes, if  you feel that i tease you too much, please spare the  reader
list, and come straight with me, i dont have any fears

it amuses me, that a well informed person like you cant find the
obvious in what he himself is speaking about

i remember De Bono

he gave example of two dogs
one who has a sharp smelling nose, and the other whose nose is dull to
reading smells.

they both suddenly are in front of a old castle with hundred os rooms.
in one of the room there is some dead animal, some food for the two
dogs, both them go in ,

the dog with a sharp smelling power quickly goes in the finds the
food, and eats it too, but finds it difficult to find the way out,

while the other dog, takes his own time,  because of his vagueness,
his stupid nose, had to check all the rooms,

but finally  manages to  find the food, and also finds the exit door, too,

This is without any malice towards you or anybody else on the list,

with love and regards

needless to say that i have deep regards for your above average, a
shap zeal to reflect the mails which are often potent with thought, so
my respect for that at the same time,

inder salim
Dear Kshmendra

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Arundhati Roy (AR) is in fashion. Rebel in fashion. A rebel with many causes to whine about with no solutions to offer. Since her grip on realities is uncertain, all that she can indulge in is vague intellectualising. That has always been in demand. Greater the obtuseness, easier it is to be highly thought of by unthinking minds.
>
> Zubeida Mustafa knowingly or unwittingly brings out the vaguness of AR when she says "Roy’s advice to avoid being ‘with us or against us’ has implications she didn’t elucidate". Zubeida goes on to say "In times when action is needed and a position has to be taken — even if verbally — inaction or neutrality unwittingly props up the status quo."
>
> How shallow minded AR is, gets highlighted in what are ostensibly quotes from her speech(es) at the WAF meet.
>
> AR: "In India, there are two kinds of terrorism: one is Islamic terrorism and the other Maoist terrorism. But this term terrorism, we must ask, what do they mean by it. "
>
> KK: Note the word "they". Who is this "they"? Why did AR fail to mention that there is also public discourse on 'Hindu terrorism' and 'Economic terrorism'.  Even on 'State terrorism' to some degree. What is this "they" she is trying to create? Or, is she trying to say there is no 'terrorism' in India and that it is just a figment of the imagination of the "they"?
>
> AR: "I’m here to understand what you mean when you say Taliban."
>
> KK : AR also spoke about a Taliban Boy. How did she know the boy was "Taliban" if she is yet to understand what they mean by "Taliban" in Pakistan? She seems to have her own understanding of that term "Taliban". Why doesnt she tell us what she means by "Taliban"?
>
> AR (On Taliban): "Do you mean a militant? Do you mean an ideology? Exactly what is it that is being fought? That needs to be clarified.
> I think both needs to be fought. But if it’s an ideology it has to be fought differently, while if it’s a person with a gun then it has to be fought differently."
>
> KK: Is AR such an ignorant idiot that she cannot see that militancy finds it's justifications and reassurances from the ideology? What is shameful about AR is that she uses the term 'militant' for those who have indulged in the most heinous of acts as Taliban and that has gravitated many women in Pakistan (under threat to their lives) to step-out and speak-out against the Taliban.
>
> AR: "In India, they have been fighting insurgencies military since 1947 and it has become a more dangerous place."
>
> KK: Note the "they" word again. But, what would AR have India do with those that she herself calls "insurgencies"? AR vagueness without any solutions. And, some doublespeake. In India she often hints at support for separatists. Why does she not espouse for India similar attitudes that she advocates in Pakistan where she proclaims "I think both needs to be fought" (whether militant or ideology)?
>
> AR (on the 'Taliban Boy'): "He was made in a factory that is producing this kind of mind(set). (The question is) who owns that factory, who funds it? Unless we deal with that factory, dealing with the boy doesn’t help us."
>
> KK: So what should be done about the 'Taliban Boy' while AR indulges in her vaguness of 'who owns the factory, who funds it?'? AR does not want her "Taliban Boy" dealt with. Should we in the meantime invite her 'Taliban Boy' to kill some more; behead some more; rape some more?
>
> AR: "The RSS has infiltrated the (Indian) army as much as various kinds of Wahabism or other kinds of religious ideology have infiltrated the ISI or the armed forces in Pakistan."
>
> KK: Note the words "as much". AR seems to know much more about the Indian Army then the rest of India knows for her to bring about an equivalence in the 'religion infiltration' into the Armed Forces of India and Pakistan. More likely is that she knows very little about the anxieties in Pakistan about the extent to which there is widespread suspicion (in Pakistan and elsewhere) about the continued influence exerted within the ISI and the Armed Forces of Pakistan by hardline religious ideology inspite of major efforts (especially by Musharraf) to unshackle them.
>
> Kshmendra
>

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-arundhati-roy-and-the-waf--02

AND

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/arundhati-roy-sal-02