This is hilarious!
But the editorial would not have sounded as ridiculous as it
does, if it could have rebutted, point by point, what it deems wrong,
misleading or intellectually
untenable.
>After all, versatility is not
ingrained in writers of all hues.
Unless it is a Sentinel editor or Assam Net commentator
:-).
>True, our democracy is one of
aberrations, but that does not make India non-democratic.
This is interesting. 'One of aberrations', but it still is one?
It is like saying India is democratic, kinda, sorta, but NOT
undemocratic. Incisive indeed!
>In fact, that
she can attack the Indian system in her own whims on foreign shores
and safely land back >home,
.
Oh, the OTHER test of desi-demokrasy, after the be-all and
end-all of elekshuns.
Only problem with these PROOFs of desi-demokrasy is that tyrants,
murderers, thieves, bigots and all other hues of public scum that are
well connected or are affluent, have exactly the same freedoms, in
fact a whole lot more, than those who Arundhati speaks out for;
those ordinary law-abiding citizens of the same country but who do not
count.
Most of all I liked the Sentinel's advice to AR: "---writers of her ilk should remain busy penning
novels, not deliberating on issues where they lack expertise or
insight."
I am sure AR will deeply appreciate that, coming from such
authorities of expertise and insight as the Sentinel.
At 2:57 PM -0500 5/25/06, Ram Sarangapani wrote:
"The problem with pseudo-intellectuals is that they go absurdly overboard. This problem is typical of some of our confused writers......
In fact, that she can attack the Indian system in her own whims on foreign shores and safely land back home, .." Sentinel.
I think that about sums it up for someone like Roy. Is she confused? Absolutely!
--Ram
Of Confused Writers
T he other day, celebrated Indian writer Arundhati
Roy, known for her extreme views (though not radical), told a 1000-strong New York audience: ''The biggest PR myth of all times is that India is a democracy. In reality, it is not''. The 1997 Booker Prize winner challenged the much-acclaimed The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who had praised India for having had the best democratic traditions in the world, illustrated by its ability to conduct peaceful democratic elections year after year despite being overpopulated. Arundhati said: ''He probably needs a new tour of India... Does Thomas know that in the Kashmir valley, some 80,000 people have been killed?'' The problem with pseudo-intellectuals is that they go absurdly overboard. This problem is typical of some of our confused writers, who should rather restrict themselves to writing fiction and not play around with random socio-political theories and deliberations. After all, versatility is not ingrained in writers of all hues. It is not that easy to emulate a Bertrand Russel or a Naom Chomsky. Arundhati Roy's is an instance of intellectual hogwash, deliberately callous as she is to the fact of democracy in India and the US - the country she was lecturing. True, our democracy is one of aberrations, but that does not make India non-democratic. In fact, that she can attack the Indian system in her own whims on foreign shores and safely land back home, is indicative of how democratic India is, in one way or the other. As for ''80,000 people'' killed in Kashmir, she would do well to have the guts to decry the Pakistan-sponsored jihadists or, for that matter, to ask Pakistan to forget the Kashmir agenda. If she cannot do that, writers of her ilk should remain busy penning novels, not deliberating on issues where they lack expertise or insight. Mindless rhetoric by celebrities - like Arundhati Roy - in foreign countries does the nation great disservice.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
