Arundhati Roy has travelled a great distance since 1997, the year which saw her winning one of the most coveted awards in literature, the Booker Prize for her amazing ‘The God of Small Things’. She instantly shot to international fame and along with helped expanding the Indian literary sphere beyond the Indian borders. Today she is hardly a novelist; at best she is an occasional essayist; but she is certainly a big time activist.
And I have big problems with self-styled activists. These activists are almost always sympathizers of evil mongers, be it Maoists or Kashmiri separatists - an occupation in vogue nowadays. They stylishly call themselves as Human Rights Activists.
I agree that Arundhati Roy is an intellectual and is blessed with extraordinary talents but I do not approve of her indulgence into misguided sedition in guise of social activism. Many a times I feel she does what she does to attract attention. She could have got adequate notice by being an author too but why did she choose the path of controversies is beyond my comprehension. Otherwise, to think that she does not understand the meaning of humans or rights or sedition or freedom - azadi - would be absolutely naïve.
“Kashmir should get azadi from bhukhe-nange Hindustan!” advocated Arundhati Roy at the recently held seminar in
Arundhati Roy should get her facts right before articulating her skewed views on the subject of an Azaad Kashmir. I am sure she knows that Kashmir is an integral part of
What perplexes me the most is the logic proffered by these so-called activists is their definition of human rights because they are seldom right in their explanation of humans or their rights. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be seeing them fight for Separatists and Maoists rights! Can any person in his/her right senses describe people belonging to either or both of these sections as ‘humans’? For God’s sake, they are terrorists! And murderers cannot be granted the same rights as that of ‘normal’ humans whom they kill at will.
Kashmir became a “problem” – not a mere ‘dispute’ as defined by current interlocutors - because of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s idealistic posturing about the UNO – as it was called in those days – and its ability to bring about the necessary changes while dealing with global conflicts. If our first prime minister had shown political acumen and courage, the whole controversy would have got resolved in 1948 itself. Indian military was quite capable of defending its territory and securing its borders and not letting
Hopefully all those Indian Kashmiris - and I firmly believe they are in absolute minority – who want to be a part of Pakistan or want a ‘separate’ state for themselves, will soon realize Kashmir is an Indian state and no force on this earth can divide India further. Their King who happened to be a Hindu by religious practice had decided the inclusion of his kingdom in the Indian state in all his senses and within his legal rights to do so. And that included his citizens as well. Moreover, almost a failed state by any yardstick,
Arundhati Roy could call her Hindustan “bhookha-nanga” but she should thank her stars for being a born Hindustani; for speaking in seditious language in
No comments:
Post a Comment