Take for example Arundhati Roy. It saddens me to think about what she has become. I remember reading her first (and only) novel, at one sitting, right through the night because I really couldn't stop mid way. She very deservedly won the Booker for that novel. When she started speaking out for various causes and for the victims of bone-headed government policies, I was truly glad she was passionately defending these people and these causes. But, like a fragrant and vibrant flower that withers away with time and turns into putrid crap if it happens to fall into a compost heap, the activist in her gave way to an intolerant polemicist with time and eventually turned into a conspiracy-mongering, race and caste baiting, shrill alarmist.
She was interviewed by some British radio program (BBC?) during the Mumbai attacks. Here's the audio. I couldn't believe what I heard. As I posted earlier, there is very clear evidence that the perpetrators of this crime came from Pakistan and that they belong to the LeT, whose main "grievance" is the Kashmir dispute. So the terrorist attack on Mumbai had nothing - whatsoever - to do with any religious or ethnic or socioeconomic issue within India. And yet, Roy rambles on, blaming the Mumbai attacks on a variety of things that she sees as the "diseases" that plague India, from its "politics of hatred" to "nationalism" to "ethnic nationalism", the "muslims [who] were massacred and slaughtered", and the "dalits" who "cannot expect justice". She says India is "one of the most brutal societies in the world" and so the Mumbai attack is just "chickens coming home to roost".
One of the most brutal societies in the world?
I believe that there is a lot of competition for that title and India is not even in the top 100. This is the willful ignorance - and distortion - of facts I am talking about. Does she really think India is as bad as North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, any number of middle-east petro-dictatorships, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and so on? Would she be willing to live in any of these countries? When I leave my home in the morning, I do see poverty and I see extreme hardship in the streets of my city but I don't see religious and ethnic minorities being persecuted. Sure, terrible things have been done to them and there are extremists who would like to turn India into an intolerant theocracy and autocracy like Saudi Arabia. But guess what Arundhati - there are a lot more secular, tolerant voices and people than these extremists and that's why we have a secular democracy instead of a fascist theocracy. And, we are still a democracy. So just like we let you make a thorough fool of yourself, we have to let those religious extremists express their opinion as well - that is the hallmark of a free society.
"chickens coming home to roost"?
This is the most despicable thing that has been said about these terrorist attacks - when did India, as a nation, or the 174 188 innocent people that were massacred by these terrorists - ever, ever do anything even remotely as vile as this act of terrorism? You are saying somehow this happened to them because of something they did? That is disgusting. No one in the Indian media - or the international media - should give this nitwit any amount of credibility after this stupid statement. She should of course apologize for pouting such filth and nonsense.
So, who or what is really to blame for these attacks? India? "nationalism" is India? the "most brutal society" that is India? What kind of a person or persons would commit such a disgusting act of cowardice? I believe John Oliver has the right answers to these questions:
1 comment:
really what are you so optimistic about??
pseudo-intellectuals...well who isnt that?
interesting post...you are right some people pander to western interests rather than .....
Post a Comment