[Reader-list] Prosecute the anarchist for treason

[Inder Salim]

This is most shallow one...
I feel making a list of writers who criticize Roy and mark them X
and never read them again,

such a waste of time,


best
love
is



On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Aditya Raj Kaul
<kauladityaraj at gmail.com> wrote:
> *Prosecute the anarchist for treason*
> November 11, 2010   9:43:40 PM
>
> *Akul Nishant Akhoury*
>
> Link -
> http://www.dailypioneer.com/292727/Prosecute-the-anarchist-for-treason.html
>
> *Any leniency shown towards Arundhati Roy for espousing separatism in the
> garb of exercising her right to free speech will be an insult to the
> nation’s integrity and sovereignty*
>
> Arundhati Roy has clearly violated the Lakshman *rekha*and has mocked at
> Article 19 of the Constitution that gives her the freedom to speak. The same
> Article, however, puts reasonable restrictions and limits the ways, she can
> exercise it. With her latest barb on Kashmir issue, she has clearly crossed
> the limits, beyond which she cannot be allowed to enjoy the rights. Her
> statement portrays her as an anarchist, not the way political theories
> define an anarchist, but an anarchist in beliefs and ideas, who finds solace
> in chaos.
>
> Arundhati Roy’s statement on Kashmir has violated all the restrictions put
> upon Article 19. While her statement is not only provocative, it also
> espouses serious danger of hurting the sentiments of patriotic Indians and
> particularly patriotic Kashmiris. Her statement has damaged the public
> order, security of the state, decency and morality and challenges the
> integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
>
> By raising question upon the integrity of a state, she has not only hurt the
> popular sentiments but has also tried to legitimize the separatists’ ideas
> of Indian position on Kashmir. Her latest salvo that India has colonized
> Kashmir is not only derogatory to the ideals of Indian national movement but
> has also shattered the high moral grounds that India has always taken
> against colonialism and imperialism in any form. Her barbs echo Pakistan’s
> stand on Kashmir vis-à-vis India, and has the potential to weaken the Indian
> position.
>
> According to the provisions of the Constitution, read with the amended
> provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, even an advocacy of
> secession from the Union does not enjoy protection and those advocating such
> ideas can be penalised.
>
> Going by the provisions, Arundhati Roy has secured for herself a maximum of
> ten years of imprisonment.
>
> The successive Governments should be blamed squarely for patronising the
> pseudo-intellectuals and not dismantling the threats posed by them to the
> society. Arundhati Roy has seldom realised that an educated person like her
> commands certain respect and position in the society. Such a position comes
> with certain responsibility towards the country and countrymen. Their ideas
> are thought-provoking and carry weight. However, apart from damaging her own
> image, she has also made the common man to fear similar pseudo-intellectuals
> that each time they would open their mouth, would pour venom and damage the
> tolerant fabric of the nation.
>
> Legally speaking, the law may look into the grave nature of her statement.
> No legal expert can deny that her crime is grave. A person speaking in his
> house on such an issue may avoid prosecution, but a provocative speech at a
> public forum cannot be ignored by any ethical and democratic standards. If
> challenged, the court may look into the intensity of her advocacy for such a
> cause. The quantum of sentence would be decided on that ground.
>
> Constitution guarantees such a freedom of speech and expression so that
> people use the right and raise voice against the tyranny of the state and
> the individual. But Constitution never gives the freedom to misuse the right
> and wage a war against the ideals of the nation.
>
> By advocating the separatists’ line, Arundhati Roy has legitimised weeks of
> violent protests in Kashmir and has also questioned the idea of nation that
> India is. Defying long ago the two-nation theory, Kashmir had preferred to
> remain independent but later merged with the Union after finding threat to
> its ‘independent’ existence. Maharaja Hari Singh realised immediately that
> going with India was better than remaining independent as the State did not
> have the resources to remain independent against the nefarious designs of
> the neighbour.
>
> According to the Government of India Act, 1947, and agreed to by the
> Congress and the Muslim League, the dominion of India was to be divided
> between India and Pakistan, with the princely states given an option to join
> either of the two nations, but in no case could have remained independent.
> Sovereignty of either of the two states was to be exercised over the
> territory. Maharaja Hari Singh willingly signed the Instrument of Accession,
> against the maverick Pakistan’s misadventure to capture Kashmir in a bloody
> war. And the history is well known. *Azadi* for Kashmir in essence means *
> azadi* to join Pakistan, which has been rejected by the Kashmiris
> themselves, at least evident in over 50 per cent voting each time the State
> went to vote. Stirring the hornet's’ nest in such a situation is nothing but
> a move to gain cheap popularity.
>
> An unknown face until 1996, she rose to fame after winning Booker for *God
> of Small Things*(1992-96). She was fast enough to realise that road to quick
> fame or infamy is only by remaining in controversy and propagating ideas
> that run against the sovereign will of the nation. Henceforth, she never
> looked back.
>
> Be it contempt of court in Narmada rehabilitation case, advocating Maoists
> in their misadventure, or her views on 2001 Parliament attack case and
> 26/11, Arundhati Roy managed to remain in limelight by making politically
> incorrect statements all the time. In none of the instances she has conveyed
> any sense to the intelligentsia and the middle class that she has a bit of
> respect for the established idea of nation that India is.
>
> She calls India not a democratic nation. She supports Maoists who are avowed
> enemy of the state. She calls India a nation that has colonised Kashmir.
> With all the negative aspects of Indian state, she still prefers to stay in
> India, so that she can stay here and criticise the nation. Staying in India,
> Arundhati Roy is conspiring against the Indian state, and thus, should be
> prosecuted for treason.
>
> Any leniency shown towards her would not only be an insult to the idea of
> national pride and but also the motherland, for which freedom fighters laid
> down their lives. At the same time it would be warranted to deny her of all
> the platforms from where she could raise such ideas.
> _________________________________________
> 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/>



-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com