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

[Aditya Raj Kaul]

Quite interesting to see people here maintaining silence on the provocative
and seditious speech by fiction-writer Arundhati Roy at the Delhi seminar.
They still tend to live in the dark ages. Hope a lantern helps such people
with some light or perhaps a sudden magic. The Court has already set the
tone. Perhaps, now the 'real' engagement will begin.

Let the mediocre people live in peace, finally.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, geeta seshu <geetaseshu at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/>
> >
> _________________________________________
> 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/>
>



-- 
Aditya Raj Kaul

India Editor
The Indian, Australia <http://www.theindian.net.au/>

Blog: http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/