[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru

[Gargi Sen]

Thanks Sudhha for one more considered reply. Now if only the raving and
frothing people on the Sarai list would send considered replies, even as
they rave and froth, which, incidentally I don¹t mind, I think the level of
the discourse would rise considerably. Unfortunately, instead, all they seem
to be posting in the way of arguments are a series of slurs, insults and
name-calling. Unfortunately, even the name-calling is left at such a tedious
and mediocre level that one despairs.
Where is the wit, the arguments crafted with diligence, the play of words,
all that that lead to the joys of engagement?
The colloquial Hindi proverb that an intelligent enemy is more desirable
than a mediocre friend is put to rest on the Sarai list.
I hope though not forever.
Gargi



From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:35:34 +0530
To: Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com>
Cc: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing
her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru

Dear Mr. Aima, I am writing this in response to your criticism of Arundhati
Roy's  recent statement published in the Hindu. You say, "the directive of
"Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari  Bagha" asks delhi police to "lodge
an FIR under relevant provisions  of the Indian Penal Code" against some
named persons (which includes  arundhati roy) for their speeches made in the
seminar on  21/10/2010  ........ it does not say anything about 'waging war
against the state' The Times of India, seems to have reported otherwise
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-court-calls-for-FIR-
against-Roy-Geelani/articleshow/7002100.cms The Times of India quotes the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Navita Kumari  Bagha as saying - "The Delhi police
is hereby directed to lodge an FIR under relevant  provisions of the Indian
Penal Code and file a report in this regard  on January 6, 2011, the next
date of hearing,'' metropolitan  magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha said,
pointing out that the court has  to step in since even after an offence was
disclosed, the police  failed to register an FIR. The sections include those
relating to  sedition, waging war against the state of the IPC and a section
of  Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)." If you read any other
paper's reports on the matter, you will see  exactly the same language.
Which in itself is not surprising, as the  complainant has sought remedy
under those precise sections, including  the one pertaining to 'waging war
against the state' and so, the  Magistrate, in instructing the Police to
look into the filing of the  FIR, has to instruct the police to file their
report with reference  to these specific sections. So, when Arundhati Roy
refers to the court asking the police to file  an FIR for 'waging war
against the state' against her and others  (including, incidentally, me) she
is not trifling by any means. What  she has said in her statement faithfully
mirrors the reports that  have appeared in the press. I suspect, that rather
than her, it is  you who seems not to have read the reports with care. Now,
as for your contention, that Nehru changed his position on the  need for a
plebiscite to ascertain the will of the people of Jaamu  and Kashmir
following the ratification of the accession to the state  of Jammu and
Kashmir to the Union of India by the Constituent  Assembly of Jammu and
Kashmir. This, unfortunately, is simply not true. I had published a posting
on this list on the matter of 23 statements  made by Jawaharlal Nehru on the
matter of ascertaining the will of  the people of Jammu and Kashmir on the
25th of August, 2008. The link  to the posting is as follows -
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2008-August/014098.html I don't
want to reproduce the contents of this posting in its  entirety, because
much of the matter is already contained in  Arundhati Roy's statement to the
Hindu. But since you have produced  the magic date of the 15th of February,
1954, as a threshold, let me  just reproduce two statements made by
Jawaharlal Nehru AFTER this date. In a statement in the Rajya Sabha (Chamber
of States) of the Indian  Parliament, Nehru says on the 18th of May, 1954 -
³But so far as the Government of India are concerned, every assurance  and
international commitment in regard to Kashmir stands.² 'Every assurance and
International commitment' includes the  commitment to hold a plebiscite, as
mandated by several United  Nations resolutions. If, Nehru believed that the
ratification of the  Maharaja's of J & K's accession to India by the
Constituent Assembly  of J & K was the same thing as an expression of the
popular will vis- a-vis the question of the integration of J&K into the
Indian Union,  then, he would not have needed to state that "international
commitments in regard to Kashmir stand". The international  commitments,
which can have been nothing other than the holding of  the plebiscite under
international auspieces, could have been said to  be 'standing' if, and only
if, they had not yet been seen to have  borne fruit. Clearly, here, Nehru on
the 18th of May 1954 still sees  the plebiscite as a possibility. Further,
On 31st of March, 1955, (which as you will notice, is a full  year and five
weeks after the 15th of Februrary, 1954), Nehru, in a  statement in the
Indian parliament, says -   ³Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about
between India and  Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an
individuality of its   own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and
consent of the    people of Kashmir.² First of all, Nehru makes a
distinction here between the wills of the  entities he calls India, Pakistan
and Kashmir. Which means that he  does not conflate the will of the entity
he calls India, with the  entity he calls Kashmir. Kashmir, in his eyes,
(these are his words,  not mine) is seized of a will and individuality of
its own, distinct  from India, and Pakistan. Next, Nehru says, "Nothing CAN
be done without the goodwill and  consent of the people of Kashmir".  Had
Nehru said - "Nothing HAS  BEEN DONE without the goodwill and consent of the
people of Kashmir",  your contention, that Nehru treated the ratification of
the  Maharaja's accession by the Constitutent Assembly of Jammu and  Kashmir
as the final word on the matter, would have had some weight,  because then
we would be arguing about whether or not the decision of  the constituent
assembly of J & K actually represented the 'goodwill  and consent' of the
people of Kashmir. But Nehru did not say what you  wish he had said. His
statement clearly implies that he believed that  as of 31st of March, 1955 a
year and a month after the J&K  Constitutent Assembly's so called
'ratification' that the "goodwill  and consent" of the people of J&K was yet
to be ascertained. So,  following from this, as far as Nehru is concerned,
it is very  difficult logically to assert that he believed that the
Constituent  Assembly of J&K's ratification amount to anything closely
resembling  the final statement of the "goodwill and consent" of the people
of J&K. Incidentally, this quotation, from 1955, was included in Arundhati
Roy's statement in the Hindu. I suppose, in your haste to indulge in  the
popular pastime of attacking people who say things that are not  comfortable
for Indian Jingoism, you had overlooked the fact that  March 1955 comes a
year and a bit, AFTER, February 1954. Mr. Aima, Your contention that Nehru
changed his public stance on the  question of a plebiscite post February
1954 is not borne out by these  two quotations. You say - "this is where
arundhati roy reveals her  stupidity and how little she knows about
kashmir".   I wonder who looks more stupid now, you, or Arundhati Roy. best
Shuddha On 28-Nov-10, at 3:57 PM, Aalok Aima wrote: > ARUNDHATI ROY : "My
reaction to today's court order directing the  > Delhi Police to file an FIR
against me for waging war against the  > state" > > has the court asked the
police to file an FIR against arundhati roy  > for 'waging war against the
state' or is arundhati trifling with  > facts? > > the directive of
"Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha" asks  > delhi police to "lodge
an FIR under relevant provisions of the  > Indian Penal Code" against some
named persons (which includes  > arundhati roy) for their speeches made in
the seminar on  > 21/10/2010  ........ it does not say anything about
'waging war  > against the state' > > it is another thing that arundhati
roy's utterance could be  > interpreted as 'waging war against the state' >
> as she did in an earlier statement, arundhati seems to find  >
unacceptable that someone should seek prosecution against her or  > that a
court of law should be approached with the complaint that  > delhi police
have not taken cognisance of the 'anti-india speeches'  > by arundhati
(amongst others) > > so arundhati roy issues yet one more statement (quoted
below from  > 'the hindu') > > she seeks to compare her statements on
kashmir with those of nehru  > on kashmir and suggests that delhi police
"should posthumously file  > a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too" > > (her
statement, giving quotes of nehru on kashmir, is a  > regurgitation of what
has since long been put forward as arguments  > by the secessionist and
secession supporting propaganda  > machines ...... geelani also used the
quotes just a few days back) > > this is where arundhati roy reveals her
stupidity and how little  > she knows about kashmir > > in comparing her
utterances with those of nehru, arundhati roy  > gives us a list of 13
quotes attributed to nehru (and 1 of krishna  > menon) > > what arundhati
roy overlooks, in her stupidity, is that the  > position of goi (and of
nehru as pm) treating the accession of j&k  > to india as confirmedly final
(in what goi considers as fulfilling  > it's part of the un resolution on
kashmir) is on the basis of the  > ratification of j&k's accession to india
by the constituent  > assembly of j&k on 15/02/1954 > > the nehru statements
nos 1 to 12, that she quotes, pre-date that  > ratification date of
15/02/1954 and are from a period when the  > status of j&k with respect to
india was subjected to a lot of  > questioning (including the un resolution)
and nehru acknowledged  > that as is reflected in his statements > > after
the 15/02/1954 ratification by the j&k constituent assembly,  > goi treated
the accession of j&K to india as being unquestionable  > and nehru did not
make any statement that carried the vein of the  > statements 1 to 12 quoted
by arundhati > > arundhati roy is being stupid in comparing her own
statements on  > kashmir with those of nehru prior to 15/02/1954 and on that
basis  > self-righteously suggesting that if she is to be prosecuted then  >
nehru (posthumously) should also be prosected > > ........... aalok aima > >
> http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/28/stories/2010112862661200.htm > > They can
file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too:  > Arundhati Roy >
> Arundhati Roy > > My reaction to today's court order directing the Delhi
Police to  > file an FIR against me for waging war against the state:
Perhaps  > they should posthumously file a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru
> too. Here is what he said about Kashmir: > > 1. In his telegram to the
Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian  > Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal
Nehru said, ³I should like to make  > it clear that the question of aiding
Kashmir in this emergency is  > not designed in any way to influence the
state to accede to India.  > Our view which we have repeatedly made public
is that the question  > of accession in any disputed territory or state must
be decided in  > accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this  >
view.² (Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of  >
Pakistan repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK). > > 2. In other telegram
to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said,  > ³Kashmir's accession to India
was accepted by us at the request of  > the Maharaja's government and the
most numerously representative  > popular organization in the state which is
predominantly Muslim.  > Even then it was accepted on condition that as soon
as law and  > order had been restored, the people of Kashmir would decide
the  > question of accession. It is open to them to accede to either  >
Dominion then.² (Telegram No. 255 dated 31 October, 1947). > > Accession
issue > > 3. In his broadcast to the nation over All India Radio on 2nd  >
November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, ³We are anxious not to finalise  >
anything in a moment of crisis and without the fullest opportunity  > to be
given to the people of Kashmir to have their say. It is for  > them
ultimately to decide ------ And let me make it clear that it  > has been our
policy that where there is a dispute about the  > accession of a state to
either Dominion, the accession must be made  > by the people of that state.
It is in accordance with this policy  > that we have added a proviso to the
Instrument of Accession of  > Kashmir.² > > 4. In another broadcast to the
nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit  > Nehru said, ³We have declared that
the fate of Kashmir is  > ultimately to be decided by the people. That
pledge we have given  > not only to the people of Kashmir and to the world.
We will not and  > cannot back out of it.² > > 5. In his letter No. 368
Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed  > to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit
Nehru said, ³I have repeatedly stated  > that as soon as peace and order
have been established, Kashmir  > should decide of accession by Plebiscite
or referendum under  > international auspices such as those of United
Nations.² > > U.N. supervision > > 6.In his statement in the Indian
Constituent Assembly on 25th  > November, 1947, Pandit Nehru said, ³In order
to establish our bona  > fide, we have suggested that when the people are
given the chance  > to decide their future, this should be done under the
supervision  > of an impartial tribunal such as the United Nations
Organisation.  > The issue in Kashmir is whether violence and naked force
should  > decide the future or the will of the people.² > > 7.In his
statement in the Indian Constituent Assembly on 5th March,  > 1948, Pandit
Nehru said, ³Even at the moment of accession, we went  > out of our way to
make a unilateral declaration that we would abide  > by the will of the
people of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or  > referendum. We insisted
further that the Government of Kashmir must  > immediately become a popular
government. We have adhered to that  > position throughout and we are
prepared to have a Plebiscite with  > every protection of fair voting and to
abide by the decision of the  > people of Kashmir.² > > Referendum or
plebiscite > > 8.In his press-conference in London on 16th January, 1951, as
> reported by the daily ŒStatesman' on 18th January, 1951, Pandit  > Nehru
stated, ³India has repeatedly offered to work with the United  > Nations
reasonable safeguards to enable the people of Kashmir to  > express their
will and is always ready to do so. We have always  > right from the
beginning accepted the idea of the Kashmir people  > deciding their fate by
referendum or plebiscite. In fact, this was  > our proposal long before the
United Nations came into the picture.  > Ultimately the final decision of
the settlement, which must come,  > has first of all to be made basically by
the people of Kashmir and  > secondly, as between Pakistan and India
directly. Of course it must  > be remembered that we (India and Pakistan)
have reached a great  > deal of agreement already. What I mean is that many
basic features  > have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is the
people of  > Kashmir who must decide for themselves about >  their future
externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that  > even without our
agreement no country is going to hold on to  > Kashmir against the will of
the Kashmiris.² > > 9.In his report to All Indian Congress Committee on 6th
July, 1951  > as published in the Statesman, New Delhi on 9th July, 1951,
Pandit  > Nehru said, ³Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for
> India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a  >
commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual  > existence and
its people must be the final arbiters of their  > future. It is here today
that a struggle is bearing fruit, not in  > the battlefield but in the minds
of men.² > > 10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N.  >
representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, ³The Government of India not  > only
reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of  > the
continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India  > shall be
decided through the democratic method of a free and  > impartial plebiscite
under the auspices of the United Nations but  > is anxious that the
conditions necessary for such a plebiscite  > should be created as quickly
as possible.² > > Word of honour > > 11.As reported by Amrita Bazar Patrika,
Calcutta, on 2nd January,  > 1952, while replying to Dr. Mookerji's question
in the Indian  > Legislature as to what the Congress Government going to do
about  > one third of territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said,
> ³is not the property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the  >
Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to  > the
leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide  > by the
verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I  > would have no
hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to  > United Nations and
given our word of honour for a peaceful  > solution. As a great nation we
cannot go back on it. We have left  > the question for final solution to the
people of Kashmir and we are  > determined to abide by their decision.² > >
12.In his statement in the Indian Parliament on 7th August, 1952,  > Pandit
Nehru said, ³Let me say clearly that we accept the basic  > proposition that
the future of Kashmir is going to be decided  > finally by the goodwill and
pleasure of her people. The goodwill  > and pleasure of this Parliament is
of no importance in this matter,  > not because this Parliament does not
have the strength to decide  > the question of Kashmir but because any kind
of imposition would be  > against the principles that this Parliament holds.
Kashmir is very  > close to our minds and hearts and if by some decree or
adverse  > fortune, ceases to be a part of India, it will be a wrench and a
> pain and torment for us. If, however, the people of Kashmir do not  > wish
to remain with us, let them go by all means. We will not keep  > them
against their will, however painful it may be to us. I want to  > stress
that it is only the people of Kashmir who can decide the  > future of
Kashmir. It is not that we have >  merely said that to the United Nations
and to the people of  > Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is borne
out by the  > policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but
everywhere.  > Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and
expense and  > in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if it
was  > made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go.  >
However sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay  > against
the wishes of the people. We are not going to impose  > ourselves on them on
the point of the bayonet.² > > Kashmir's soul > > 13.In his statement in the
Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as  > published in Hindustan Times New Delhi
on Ist April, 1955, Pandit  > Nehru said, ³Kashmir is perhaps the most
difficult of all these  > problems between India and Pakistan. We should
also remember that  > Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied between India and
Pakistan but  > it has a soul of its own and an individuality of its own.
Nothing  > can be done without the goodwill and consent of the people of  >
Kashmir.² > > 14.In his statement in the Security Council while taking part
in  > debate on Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on  >
24th January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon  > said, ³So
far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the  > statements that I
have made in this council which can be  > interpreted to mean that we will
not honour international  > obligations. I want to say for the purpose of
the record that there  > is nothing that has been said on behalf of the
Government of India  > which in the slightest degree indicates that the
Government of  > India or the Union of India will dishonour any
international  > obligations it has undertaken.² > > > >
_________________________________________ > 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/> Shuddhabrata Sengupta The
Sarai Programme at CSDS Raqs Media Collective shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net www.raqsmediacollective.net
_________________________________________ 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/>