[Reader-list] Arundhati Roy has stirred up a debate, not about Kashmir, but about herself

[anupam chakravartty]

"For the university lefties in India, she confirms their worst fears of a
nation falling apart."

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=68127

(Prime Minister, Manmohan) Singh said, “running a government is not
difficult, building a nation certainly is. This is what our people expect of
us. We must never fail them”.

Singh's words seem fresh to me (may be I feel like that). Fresh as my ideal
young university leader who is telling his team to understand what is
expected from them and what would fail if the expectations are not
fulfilled. Critically thinking of building a nation could bring up
uncomfortable discussions, especially when memories forgotten or sidetracked
by the collective urban consciousness of India are brought back. These
memories were heaped on top of each other like files of a dilapidated Public
Works Department office, never numbered or organised. In between these
heaps, are trapped the souls who bear the testimony of the bloody past that
India as a nation has. I wonder, how is the author planning to deal with
such a bloody past we have? What is this fascination that the author has
about "picture of India"? If someone is painting a "bleak picture" of this
country, how is it there are real people who have died real deaths, either
for this country, or while defending their own rights, or crushed under
might of the state? Or shall I consider this to be a part of the "nation
building" exercise? Am i supposed to?

For the author's concern of who would want to live in Arundhati's India, I
would say that it is nothing but a rhetorical question posed to the readers
in a bid to build consent. Similar tactics are used by a very prominent
leader from Gujarat while addressing the rallies. I would suggest that the
author doesn't undermine the sentiment of a university "lefty". This is
where ideas take shape, and foundations are laid. The questions which are
raised now is important for the future generations. Perhaps, author forgot
about the future of this nation, while writing this piece.

Thanks
Anupam

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Who would want to live in Arundhati Roy's India? Who would even want to
> read about Arundhati Roy's India? The government of India has many faults,
> but even Roy has to admit that living in this country isn't entirely
> intolerable. Confronted with the relentlessly bleak picture she paints, one
> in which the only good guys are murderers and mercenaries, who can blame
> middle India for retreating into their iPods and tabloid newspapers?"
>
> "She is preaching to the converted. To the left-leaning publications of the
> west, she is an articulate, intelligent voice explaining the problems with
> 21st-century India. For the university lefties in India, she confirms their
> worst fears of a nation falling apart. But to any intelligent readers who
> may be sitting on the fence or for anyone from middle-class India taking
> their first tentative steps towards greater political involvement, her
> polemic serves to terrify and alienate."
>
> (i think, a truer expression would have been "For the university lefties in
> India, she CATERS TO THEIR FONDEST DESIRE of a nation falling apart" -
> aalok)
>
> "   "Initially her dissent was seen as admirable, then as a novelty, and
> now her view is largely marginalised." This week's shenanigans prove that
> debate about Arundhati Roy is, as ever, thriving. But her writing is rapidly
> becoming irrelevant in Indian public discourse."
>
> ........ aalok aima
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/arundhati-roy-kashmir-controversy
>
> Arundhati Roy has stirred up a debate, not about Kashmir, but about herself
>
> Roy has important things to say, but her tone and bluster ensure the only
> people listening are those who already agree with her
>
> Leo Mirani
> guardian.co.uk, Sunday 31 October 2010
>
> Arundhati Roy does what any good polemicist should do. She annoys people
> and forces them to take sides; she highlights an issue and gets people
> talking. Too bad that what she gets them talking about has nothing to do
> with the topic at hand. Inevitably, the debates she stirs tend not to centre
> around dams, or Maoists, or Kashmir, or even freedom of speech, but around
> Arundhati Roy.
>
>
> Speaking at a conference on Sunday, Roy said, "Kashmir has never been an
> integral part of India. It is a historical fact." The rightwing opposition
> BJP party, already in a mood over a similar conference last Thursday,
> decided enough was enough – this was their issue of the week, never mind
> that she has expressed similar sentiments before.
>
> The government of India, with its usual lack of backbone, explored the
> possibility of arresting Roy for the laughably archaic crime of sedition. On
> Monday, the Hindustan Times reported she "may be booked for sedition". On
> Tuesday, the Guardian decided she "faces arrest over Kashmir remark". By
> Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times was convinced that "the Indian government
> took steps to authorise the arrest". Come Thursday, and editorials and blogs
> appeared praising Roy. Somewhere amid the ruckus, Kashmir was forgotten.
>
>
> There are many things that are wrong with India. Its foreign policy is
> wishy-washy, its manner of handling internal security threats is dubious,
> the way India's powerless are treated by the state is despicable, and
> Kashmir – that great mix of the three – is an all-round disaster. All of
> these are worthy of essays, of debate, of balanced analysis and – as
> important – of partisan rants. There are plenty of rabid righties that need
> to be balanced by rabid lefties.
>
>
> In an India obsessed with shiny new shopping malls and expressways and the
> launch of the latest international luxury brand, in rapidly morphing cities
> where slum-dwellers are shunted out to the suburbs and even the raincoats on
> a policeman's back are sponsored, there is a desperate need for polemicists
> to remind the smug middle class about the 800 million-odd who don't get to
> partake in what the tourism department calls Incredible India. Palagummi
> Sainath, the author of Everybody Loves a Good Drought, did it with elegance.
> Arundhati Roy does it with infinite righteousness.
>
>
> Roy wrote a paean earlier this year to the cause of the Maoists – a group
> dedicated to the violent overthrow of the state and responsible for
> beheading policemen, murdering civilians and killing dozens of soldiers –
> while skewering the state for waging war on the poor. In her most recent
> essay before the Kashmir kerfuffle, Roy told readers of one of India's
> best-selling news weeklies that the government is a farce, the media is a
> shambles, the military is not to be trusted, the mainstream communist
> parties are a joke, and India's democracy is only nominal.
>
> Who would want to live in Arundhati Roy's India? Who would even want to
> read about Arundhati Roy's India? The government of India has many faults,
> but even Roy has to admit that living in this country isn't entirely
> intolerable. Confronted with the relentlessly bleak picture she paints, one
> in which the only good guys are murderers and mercenaries, who can blame
> middle India for retreating into their iPods and tabloid newspapers?
>
>
> Roy has important things to say, but her tone and bluster ensure the only
> people listening are those who already agree with her. She is preaching to
> the converted. To the left-leaning publications of the west, she is an
> articulate, intelligent voice explaining the problems with 21st-century
> India. For the university lefties in India, she confirms their worst fears
> of a nation falling apart. But to any intelligent readers who may be sitting
> on the fence or for anyone from middle-class India taking their first
> tentative steps towards greater political involvement, her polemic serves to
> terrify and alienate.
>
>
> As Salil Tripathi writes over at the Index on Censorship blog, "Initially
> her dissent was seen as admirable, then as a novelty, and now her view is
> largely marginalised." This week's shenanigans prove that debate about
> Arundhati Roy is, as ever, thriving. But her writing is rapidly becoming
> irrelevant in Indian public discourse.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>