For those of you who wonder why Arundhati Roy does not condemn Islamic Terrorists here is the answer
Sandip Roy: People say you are not just anti-American, you are also anti-Indian. You complain about Muslims being killed in Gujarat but are mum on Hindu Pandits being killed in Kashmir.Arundhati Roy: This is the standard Hindutva line: ??You don??t condemn the burning of the train in Godhra where Hindus died.? But when I am a citizen of a democracy, I have to take responsibility for what the state I voted for does. And there is a very big difference between a state-assisted pogrom against a people in a country and something that militants have done. [An interview with Arundhati Roy]
That clears up everything. She did not vote for Musharraf or Saddam, so she does not have to condemn them. She did not vote for the terrorists, hence no condemnation. But when Iraqis died in American bombing, she condemned America. How can she do that if she did not vote in American elections ? As we all know the condemnation is always selective.
But then this is funny. Sometime back she told Democracy was a whore. Now she has become such a concerned citizen.
Comments (10)
whats galling is that she does not exhibit even an ounce of compassion for the killed hindus. So much for her "I am a world citizen" spirit..
Posted by uspeed | November 1, 2004 10:19 AM
Posted on November 1, 2004 10:19
Sudeep, That is called "secularism"
Posted by JK | November 1, 2004 10:27 AM
Posted on November 1, 2004 10:27
Remember she said "state-assisted pogrom". Now I may not agree with everything she says but here she is right. What happened in Gujarat was state-assisted. What happened in Kashmir (to the pundits) was not.
If a state behaves like terrorist, which the Indian state has often done, it is our duty to point it out. You do not elect Mussarraf or ISI or other terrorist but you do elect the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister.
And let me remind everyone that the troubles for Kashmiri pundits did not start in 1948 or even in the 60s or 70s. It started in the 1990s. The problems in Kashmir (or the north east) is the outcome of idiotic policies of Indian governments since 1948. Pakistan merely took advantage of the dissent of the people.
Posted by Preetam Rai | November 8, 2004 4:01 AM
Posted on November 8, 2004 04:01
Preetam, So when Kashmiri Pundits were being massacred by the terrorists, the state Govt did not do anything to protect them.
Posted by JK | November 8, 2004 8:27 AM
Posted on November 8, 2004 08:27
Yes, surely, and just like Gujarat, the central govt. had no clue to what was going on.
It is not about Hindus getting killed or Muslims. And who are these Hindus ?? given half a chance they are happy to slaughter each other ?? I first hand observed the Kannada-Tamil riots in Mysore in the mid 90s, both groups were Hindus there.
Most of the Hindus who participated in the killing in Gujarat were probably motivated more by the desire to shed blood, loot property and rape. They know or care nuts about Hinduism.
Posted by preetamrai | November 9, 2004 12:27 AM
Posted on November 9, 2004 00:27
Preetam, in one comment you say that it was state-assisted and in the next you say that the government had no clue about what was going on. Dude, make up your mind!
And frankly... I cannot fathom what point you're trying to make by saying that Hindus slaughter Hindus.
Posted by Sameer | November 9, 2004 3:08 AM
Posted on November 9, 2004 03:08
Central Govt. had no clue while the state govt. carried on with the terrorism.
Posted by Preetam Rai | November 10, 2004 3:22 AM
Posted on November 10, 2004 03:22
The point I am making is that every time someone mentions terrorism, it is always the Muslims who are blamed. Refer the no 1 comment there "she does not exhibit even an ounce of compassion for the killed Hindus". Are muslims the only terrorists.
So what about compassion for the Tamils that were killed by the Kannada speaking people or vice versa? Why aren??t they terrorists? Why isn??t the mob that destroyed a several hundred year old mosque terrorists? We even elected the leader of the mob to be the deputy prime minister.
And there are far more blatant cases of state terrorism like air raids in Mizoram. That was the only place where the IAF planes were used to bomb "Indian citizens".
You see when no one says sorry for these things, or a more recent example no one raises the voice to protest against the road building in Andaman Islands (totally destroying the lives of the natives) then within a couple of generations the natives there will start targeting others and you will call it terrorism.
For whatever she is, Arundathi Roy is one of the few people who actually bring up these issues so I guess we owe her one for at least keeping us awake.
Posted by preetam rai | November 10, 2004 3:39 AM
Posted on November 10, 2004 03:39
My point is why is not Arundhati Roy condeminng all such incidents ? Why only Gujrat and America ? Why not anything else ?
She is selective in her condemnation which shows an agenda behind it. This takes out whatever ounce of morality she has.
I would have more respect for her if she condemned all incidents of state violence as she says, but she does not. Her statements show she is just a anti-Hindu, anti-American racist.
Posted by JK | November 10, 2004 7:06 AM
Posted on November 10, 2004 07:06
And there are far more blatant cases of state terrorism like air raids in Mizoram. That was the only place where the IAF planes were used to bomb "Indian citizens".
Which incident are you talking about ?
Posted by JK | November 10, 2004 9:35 AM
Posted on November 10, 2004 09:35