Now we've democratically elected a totalitarian government- Arunadhati Roy

[Bang Galore]

She has a problem with the Indian state in general, and opposes every move it makes. She also has a very critical view of the dealings of the state with tribals, with poor peasants or fisherfolk displaced by huge dam projects, or by metal-ore mining projects, or by factory building projects, or atomic power plants. These are just a few of the issues on which she has published very strong opinions which are not always very pleasing to hear for the politicians in power, the bureaucracy and the police, the military or capitalists.

Lots of battles.

Including the ones she fights on behalf of Kashmiri separatists.

The above examples cited are ones where her view point while being overly simplistic & bordering on anarchist at times are not views that are totally unpalatable. Her views on supporting the maoists on the other hand, going as far as to call them gun-toting Gandhians is far more incomprehensible (considering the record of the maoists) & doesn't lend itself to easy understanding, Her stand on this probably influences the reactions of many to her views on other matters too.

He deserved it , he said Modi would start a holocaust which is absurd and should not be a part of "freedom of speech"
Firstpost being a dickhead closed the comment section

That's silly. That law is absurd. Half of Indian members in this forum would be in jail if someone from the UPA had pressed charges on similar matters. It is a lunatic law & must be seen as such. Nobody should go to jail making such remarks. The internet allows from comments from all over the world, to be seen all over the world. Having such a law applicable to Indian citizens (realistically) alone is pointless & a waste of time. That chap certainly doesn't deserve to go to jail for his silly remarks.

 

[Roybot]

Equally ironically, from that point of view, there are many who think that India's behaviour in forcibly occupying Goa, and destroying the independence of Sikkim, were grossly unethical. She is not alone in thinking hard thoughts about these two incidents.

You might like to read "Smash and Grab: the Annexation of Sikkim", by Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, a right-wing journalist. It is a sickening account.

I don't understand, one hand she advocates for the rights of tribals and maoists and "stands up" against the Indian state, and on the other she thinks that Indians kicking out European colonial powers was very hegemonic of India? Smells of hypocrisy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The above examples cited are ones where her view point while being overly simplistic & bordering on anarchist at times are not views that are totally unpalatable. Her views on supporting the maoists on the other hand, going as far as to call them gun-toting Gandhians is far more incomprehensible (considering the record of the maoists) & doesn't lend itself to easy understanding, Her stand on this probably influences the reactions of many to her views on other matters too.

Couldn't agree more. Very well put indeed.

However, my point was not about the soundness of her views, or about the reasons why many detest her. It was about the necessity to guarantee her the right of free speech. Even as many of us find her views on the Maoists incomprehensible, we need to give her the space to utter such views, while, of course, retaining the right to tear apart her views with logic and reason.

That's silly. That law is absurd. Half of Indian members in this forum would be in jail if someone from the UPA had pressed charges on similar matters. It is a lunatic law & must be seen as such. Nobody should go to jail making such remarks. The internet allows from comments from all over the world, to be seen all over the world. Having such a law applicable to Indian citizens (realistically) alone is pointless & a waste of time. That chap certainly doesn't deserve to go to jail for his silly remarks.

For those of us who remember, this was a law brought in by the sycophant Kapil Sibal to defend the Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, from the attacks of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. Ironic how it has been used.

 

[Bang Galore]

Even as many of us find her views on the Maoists incomprehensible, we need to give her the space to utter such views, while, of course, retaining the right to tear apart her views with logic and reason.

I'm all for unfettered free speech . However a law on sedition exists & while I'm not at all in favour of such an outdated law remaining on the books, I simply find it strange that someone advocating the over throwing of a democratically elected government by force of arms expects her views on the path that very democracy takes to be taken seriously. While she has a right to her opinion, she must then be equally willing to receive the reactions of readers, whatever form (verbal alone) that it takes. To argue that she is subject to abuse is pointless when she thinks nothing about abusing things (& people) that many others regard with fondness.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't understand, one hand she advocates for the rights of tribals and maoists and "stands up" against the Indian state, and on the other she thinks that Indians kicking out European colonial powers was very hegemonic of India? Smells of hypocrisy.

Well, look at this way.

Her advocacy for the rights of tribals is based on their natural right to the land and the contents of that land which is their habitat. She, and the very many supporting this point of view, believe that arbitrarily alienating this land and dispossessing the occupants is an act of cold-blooded economic exploitation of the relatively helpless and weak.

Her advocacy of the rights of Maoists is her own political belief, and explaining this stand will kill many trees, whole forests, in fact. I have no intention of even attempting it, considering my own hard views on the Maoists.

The defiance of international law, and the resort to force in re-occupying Goa stands in sharp contrast to the peaceful negotiation and the transfer of the territories of other colonial powers who were still in possession of Indian soil after the British left us independent. It is not defensible, even under the rubric of liberating Indian soil under colonial occupation. The PRC could have done the same very easily for Hong Kong or for Macau; they are reputed to be a far more violent power than India. They did not; they negotiated. I don't think this was the most savoury chapter in Indian diplomacy or Indian statehood.

 

[punit]

she looks at herself as Honorary White ( after winning Booker prize sponsored by MNCs ). And thus carrying the White man's Burden to preach the natives

 

[Yeti]

Can't someone shut this silly bitch up once and for all? she is one of the most annoying liberal fascist bitches who never tells the truth!

 

[Roybot]

Well, look at this way.

Her advocacy for the rights of tribals is based on their natural right to the land and the contents of that land which is their habitat. She, and the very many supporting this point of view, believe that arbitrarily alienating this land and dispossessing the occupants is an act of cold-blooded economic exploitation of the relatively helpless and weak.

.

And how is that any different from what the European colonial powers were doing in India and rest of the world

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm all for unfettered free speech . However a law on sedition exists & while I'm not at all in favour of such an outdated law remaining on the books, I simply find it strange that someone advocating the over throwing of a democratically elected government by force of arms expects her views on the path that very democracy takes to be taken seriously. While she has a right to her opinion, she must then be equally willing to receive the reactions of readers, whatever form (verbal alone) that it takes. To argue that she is subject to abuse is pointless when she thinks nothing about abusing things (& people) that many others regard with fondness.

Regarding laws, you just vented your justifiable feeling of indignation against a silly law which led to a person being jailed. I agree with your views there, and venture to suggest that those very proper sentiments might be extended to the law of sedition.

Again, what is in question here is not the tangles that she creates for herself, for instance, in advocating the overthrow of a democratically elected government by armed insurrection, and simultaneously pontificating on what that democratically elected government should or should not do. Yes, you are right in saying that this is illogical. How does that affect the right of free speech? Is that right available only to the logically consistent and defensible?

You mention that her bravado in attacking, even abusing things and people that others regard with fondness render her liable to similar attack. Of course it does. I merely pointed out that the counter-attacks were tasteless and vulgar. Has decency in public discourse no place any longer, then? Or is it your view that it is to be extended only strictly in reciprocal fashion?

And how is that any different from what the European colonial powers were doing in India and rest of the world

It is not different.

Now look at what you stated. You accused her of hypocrisy, and rightly so. When the Indian state does what it criticises European colonial powers for doing, in India and in the rest of the world, don't you find that hypocritical?

she looks at herself as Honorary White ( after winning Booker prize sponsored by MNCs ). And thus carrying the White man's Burden to preach the natives

One good example of a rational, logical reply.....

Can't someone shut this silly bitch up once and for all? she is one of the most annoying liberal fascist bitches who never tells the truth!

.....and another good example, again, of a logical and rational reply.

 

[Bang Galore]

Regarding laws, you just vented your justifiable feeling of indignation against a silly law which led to a person being jailed. I agree with your views there, and venture to suggest that those very proper sentiments might be extended to the law of sedition.

Again, what is in question here is not the tangles that she creates for herself, for instance, in advocating the overthrow of a democratically elected government by armed insurrection, and simultaneously pontificating on what that democratically elected government should or should not do. Yes, you are right in saying that this is illogical. How does that affect the right of free speech? Is that right available only to the logically consistent and defensible?

You mention that her bravado in attacking, even abusing things and people that others regard with fondness render her liable to similar attack. Of course it does. I merely pointed out that the counter-attacks were tasteless and vulgar. Has decency in public discourse no place any longer, then? Or is it your view that it is to be extended only strictly in reciprocal fashion?

No disagreement there. I did say that sedition law is equally silly. I also did seek an almost unfettered right of free speech. I have & do believe that decency in public discourse is absolutely necessary, however what I was suggesting is that those who seek it only one way in traffic direction can be accused of hypocrisy.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No disagreement there. I did say that sedition law is equally silly. I also did seek an almost unfettered right of free speech. I have & do believe that decency in public discourse is absolutely necessary, however what I was suggesting is that those who seek it only one way in traffic direction can be accused of hypocrisy.

Of course they can. And they should be so arraigned.

Would you go so far as to say,

Can't someone shut this silly bitch up once and for all? she is one of the most annoying liberal fascist bitches who never tells the truth!

My objection is only to this kind of excess. Would you consider it a misplaced objection?

 

[nForce]

It is very much necessary for the sake of greater good that Arundhati Roy meets an unfortunate accident quite soon.

Freedom of speech is one thing.She has abused that freedom so much that now she can be designated as enemy of the state.Something has to be done.

 

[Yeti]

Right at the end of her verbal diarrhea she said where would India's poor go? but if Modi can lift the economy by increasing FDI and higher growth figures it would help the masses which as China has shown by lifting over 100 million poor out of poverty and into the middle classes. At least she could judge Modi and the BJP after 2-4 years of being in power but no she rather be the silly liberal fascist bitch she was born to be!

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is very much necessary for the sake of greater good that Arundhati Roy meets an unfortunate accident quite soon.

Freedom of speech is one thing.She has abused that freedom so much that now she can be designated as enemy of the state.Something has to be done.

Utterly shameful.

There is no quota, no limit on our human rights, on our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, for instance. And nothing in what she has said qualifies her for designation as an enemy of the state. Not in the eyes of the law; it is quite another matter that she actively opposes the Indian state.

These issues are not determined by our individual exasperation but by a court adjudicating the rule of law.

It is worrying to read supposedly responsible people advocating lynch law.

Right at the end of her verbal diarrhea she said where would India's poor go? but if Modi can lift the economy by increasing FDI and higher growth figures it would help the masses which as China has shown by lifting over 100 million poor out of poverty and into the middle classes. At least she could judge Modi and the BJP after 2-4 years of being in power but no she rather be the silly liberal fascist bitch she was born to be!

This is by birth now.

Fascinating.

 

[Roybot]

It is not different.

Now look at what you stated. You accused her of hypocrisy, and rightly so. When the Indian state does what it criticises European colonial powers for doing, in India and in the rest of the world, don't you find that hypocritical?

So the UK government collecting taxes from Britons and any Xyz colonial power going over to the UK and collecting taxes from the Britons is the same thing? Are you suggesting that the tribal and Maoists are so alienated that for them the Indian government or any other European colonial power is essentially the same thing?

If she and her ilk are taking a moral stand regarding the "exploitation of the tribal and local people", how can they justify things like colonialism(Goa) and oppressive monarchy (Hyderabad). A moral stand should be unflinching, regardless of who your audience is or what your topic is. Its not like in India you speak for the plight of "oppressed", and once you are in the UK speaking to a European audience you change your moral stand. You start saying how evil and hegemonic of India it was to kick out the colonial powers and how it was against the so called "diplomatic rules of engagement", which mind you were formed by these very colonizers in the first place.

The fact that they brutally oppressed the local population looted and pillaged the countries wealth doesn't matter of course, we should have just left them to stay here as long as they wanted to say, cause you know this world is a Utopian lala land according to the Indian leftists. What a joke.