The Roy of representation

People don’t need anyone to represent them…but she’s not just anyone

But you know that Suzanna Arundhati Roy, a writer of fiction, and a rebel of every cause, is anti-national, apologist, sympathiser and champion of armed struggle and all that.

But did you know that she suffers from multiple irony deficiency disorder too? She attends one big rally in Srinagar and declares that “People don’t need anyone to represent them; they are representing themselves.” And then she declares, presumably speaking for all Indian citizens “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India.”

So since the good people of India don’t come out on the streets and represent themselves, choosing to deviously exercise their right to vote instead, they have to thank Mrs Roy for representing them.

24 thoughts on “The Roy of representation”

  1. Huvishka,

    She claims to represent us this time…so it is necessary to clarify just where she stands.

  2. Ignore this pompous fool, Nitin, she’s not worth a post. As for me, whenever her silly comments rankle me, I reach for my copy of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel or Sam Harris’ End of Faith.

  3. Huvishkha, Oldtimer, RF,

    Maybe it is just as well that she said what she said. If right-thinking people find that Swaminathan Aiyar, Vir Sanghvi and Pratap Bhanu Mehta are taking a position that Mrs Roy supports, then they’ll know just how good the ideas are.

  4. A concerted campaign both in media circles and at lal chowk suddenly demanding India and kashmir valley free themselves of each other…. how much of a coincidence is required for that to happen?

    Good that the jammu folks’ agitation put paid to a smooth ride to these untenable dreams of azadi.

    BTW, the best counter to Roy’s brain f@rts are clippings of Geelani’s speech where he all but unmasks the role fundoo islam and not kashmiriyat plays in seeking separation frm yindia. If these untellectuals can agree that religion is sufficient basis for separation, then they’ve already betrayed their country.

  5. The thing to do in the 21st century is sweet domination while talking politically correct. So what if kashmiris have their own flags and send their own olympic team to the London olympics? The important thing is money and resouces- India should talk independance of kashmir (keep talking for the next ten years) and let some power hungry fellows claim themselves president, prime minister and stuff. India should be able to remote control these politicians without much problem instead of taking on jihadis- the british did it beautifully with their puppet kings- why cant we do the same?

  6. Doesn’t matter whether Roy represents us or not. It is obvious, even with the limited coverage in Indian media, that what is happening in Kashmir right now is no different from what Gandhi & co. did in India 70 years ago. I don’t think India can hold on to it against such massive public opinion anymore with force. We shouldn’t try to either.

  7. Besides, I don’t know how one can interpret her statement as representing India. She is simply stating her opinion that India needs freedom from Kashmir.

  8. She seceded from India long ago. http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1998/08/00_roy_end-imagination.htm “If protesting against having a nuclear bomb implanted in my brain is anti-Hindu and anti-national, then I secede. I hereby declare myself an independent, mobile republic.”

    Mobile republic, during its peregrinations, looks and finds potential fellow mobile secessionists in Srinagar. Wonder why the republic wants to roost in Delhi. Wish it will float away over the great ocean and leave us poor, not so mobile, dependent non-republics alone.

  9. >>She seceded from India long ago.

    That makes this situation even more interesting. Not an Indian, by choice, and still claiming to speak for India.

    A drunkard who has no intention of kicking the habit representing the local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous would be just about as interesting.

  10. Dear Mohan,

    Doesn’t matter whether Roy represents us or not.

    Why not? I would say it matters immensely.

    It is obvious, even with the limited coverage in Indian media, that what is happening in Kashmir right now is no different from what Gandhi & co. did in India 70 years ago.

    If the coverage is limited, the obviousness of your conclusion is also limited. Therefore it’s not obvious. Gandhi & Co didn’t do what they did after a conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing of all White British people.

    I don’t think India can hold on to it against such massive public opinion anymore with force. We shouldn’t try to either.

    Why not? India was able to hold onto it in the face of a proxy war for so long. So there’s no question about the capacity to hold it. As for whether we should, it’s another debate, on another post, and you are welcome to explain your case there.

  11. Oldtimer,

    I urge you not to insult drunkards. They play a valuable role in society and can by no means be called anti-national.

  12. I cant wait for the week to get over, when Outlook will publish madame’s 12 page tosh on Kashmir. That should constitute good reading material in the toilet for about 3 days.

  13. “I urge you not to insult drunkards. They play a valuable role in society and can by no means be called anti-national.”

    I second Nitin here. They are the only ones who pay taxes even when they are not in their senses.

  14. “India needs azadi from Kashmir as much as Kashmir needs azadi from India”

    India needs azaadi from “concerned citizens” likes Arundhati first and foremost.

  15. Irony. People who cannot give a single reason why she is wrong, humor themselves with loose talk in a blog post and think it is, she who is crazy 🙂

  16. Oldtimer, Nitin: I urge you not to insult drunkards. They play a valuable role in society and can by no means be called anti-national.

    Yes, Feroze Khan’s drunken rant against the Pakistan (in Pakistan) was Bharat Ratna-worthy …

  17. >> She is simply stating her opinion that India needs freedom from Kashmir. >>

    Actually, it seems India needs freedom from all big ticket issues.

    The Indian state is nothing but the collection of human beings in parliament.If the folks in parliament represent smaller interests, well, then thats what counts as INDIA. Kashmir, Khalistan, Assam, Tripura, Terrorism, Nuke deals, Maoists, are all irritants.

    If the folks who represent smaller interests spend their energy on big ticket items, they will be punished by their voters.

  18. I dont know how this woman manages to get all her articles published without any research or data to back it up. It is not as if she tried to interview several points of view like V S Naipaul. I struggle to get articles published even when they are backed by sold research. Even my name doesnt sound so different from Arundhathi..

  19. I guess Arundhati Roy is against Narmada dam because it results in displacement of large number of people. Partition of Kashmir will also result in equally large (if not larger) displacement, that too likely to be violent and bloody (unlike Narmada). She is against displacement in Narmada but supports it in Kashmir!

    In Kashmir, she supports a referendum where the people of that state will vote for or against a secession proposal. What about approaching the people of Gujarat/MP for a referendum on Naramada dam ? I wonder will she agree with that ?

    I am not trying to equate the Naramada issue with Kashmir, but pointing out that Arundhati Roy is a hypocrite!

Comments are closed.