[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru
geeta seshu
geetaseshu at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 12:26:47 IST 2010
I do agree with Gargi Sen. The level of debate is truly pathetic. As someone
who reads discussions/ debates (but rarely intervenes), I used to get some
insights into differing points of view. Please make an effort to bring it
back to a more intelligent, even if combative, level.
Geeta
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/>
>
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
>
More information about the reader-list
mailing list