What's new

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least one thing is for certain- she grabs people's attentions and inflames passions at least on this forum :lol:
 
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.
The shame is on you for you for you don't feel for those innocent people who are getting killed by the Kashmiri militants and the maoists.For you are safe, inside the comfort of your own home.
Why is it that people like you are most concerned about the citizen's rights of a traitor like Arundhati Roy, and not extend the same concern towards the people who are in the receiving end of the terrorists who she supports so affectionately ? You may say, I condemn both..Portraying oneself as an impartial person may be a style statement for the likes of you.In reality, you choose sides, and I choose the side of my country.

I am well aware of what the rule of law says.The law has limitations, that's why she is still breathing free air.I am of the opinion that when you are running a big institution, you just cannot do everything by the book.Its not a question of right or wrong, for in this World, its all a matter of perspective and there is very little which can be differentiated as right or wrong. It's a question of national security, the country's image, and damage control, before that attention seeking woman goes on to doing something even more embarrassing and devastating.
 
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?

No, that is not what I am suggesting. That is what those who hold that point of view are suggesting. Are you so stupid that you cannot distinguish between my views and the views of some other people, whose right to free speech is in question here?

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. :sarcastic:

Instead of letting off steam here, and showing us what a great thinker and analyst you are, why not tell her in public what you think? Why skulk here, all of you, call her unspeakable names, and get a great feeling that you've done your bit?

Go tell her off and engage her in public discussion. Not us, not me. As far as I am concerned, the right to free speech is not restricted to those whose views are agreeable to you personally. It extends to every Indian citizen.

Even to you.
 
@Joe Shearer at least we are not in Stalin's Soviet Union where liberal intellectual fascists were rounded up and shipped to the work camps in Siberia in their thousands ;) if we were I would bet my bottom dollar her name would be at the top of the list :rolleyes:

Well I mean how else did this fine specimen of a woman come to be? it must be her superior genetics what other explanation can it be? :lol:
 
The shame is on you for you for you don't feel for those innocent people who are getting killed by the Kashmiri militants and the maoists.For you are safe, inside the comfort of your own home.

I beg your pardon? Are you basing these statements on my views, or what you think might be my views? Can you show me a single post of mine where I have expressed these sentiments?

Actually, can you show me a single post of mine where I have not said exactly the opposite?

What makes you think that supporting somebody's right to free speech implies that I have to agree with that person's views?


Why is it that people like you are most concerned about the citizen's rights of a traitor like Arundhati Roy, and not extend the same concern towards the people who are in the receiving end of the terrorists who she supports so affectionately ?

You obviously know nothing about my views, because I have been on record, in this forum, day in and day out, about the victims of terrorism, both in Kashmir and in Maoist territories.

You may say, I condemn both..Portraying oneself as an impartial person may be a style statement for the likes of you.In reality, you choose sides, and I choose the side of my country.

Again, that is your concoction.

I don't condemn both. I condemn the terrorists. Period. Don't make up things to suit your present rush of blood to the head.

I am well aware of what the rule of law says.The law has limitations, that's why she is still breathing free air.I am of the opinion that when you are running a big institution, you just cannot do everything by the book.

Fortunately, very fortunately, your views are not what prevail.


Its not a question of right or wrong, for in this World, its all a matter of perspective and there is very little which can be differentiated as right or wrong. It's a question of national security, the country's image, and damage control, before that attention seeking woman goes on to doing something even more embarrassing and devastating.

It's not a question of right or wrong.

It's not a question of perspective either. It's a question of constitutional guarantees of free speech. That has nothing to do with national security, the country's image, damage control or any of the hysterical charges you have made.

And it's not a crime for her to seek attention, or to embarrass you or devastate you with her views.

That's your problem.

Try to deal with it with maturity and good manners, instead of making a public exhibition of your patriotism and your intensity of feeling. None of that has anything to do with the rule of law. It has everything to do with your being able to handle judgements judiciously.

@Joe Shearer at least we are not in Stalin's Soviet Union where liberal intellectual fascists were rounded up and shipped to the work camps in Siberia in their thousands ;) if we were I would bet my bottom dollar her name would be at the top of the list :rolleyes:

Well I mean how else did this fine specimen of a woman come to be? it must be her superior genetics what other explanation can it be? :lol:

Well, we aren't, so your bottom dollar is safe.

And I am awestruck at your firm grip on genetics. Your professors must be so proud of you.
 
Last edited:
My objection is only to this kind of excess. Would you consider it a misplaced objection?

Not misplaced at all, maybe misdirected on the choice of subject but certainly not misplaced. I prefer expending my own energy on defending the likes of Zakia Jafri rather than this particular subject, who if the article penned by her was read closely, pretty much says similarly strong stuff as the line quoted, only in slightly better presented language.
 
I beg your pardon? Are you basing these statements on my views, or what you think might be my views? Can you show me a single post of mine where I have expressed these sentiments?

Actually, can you show me a single post of mine where I have not said exactly the opposite?

What makes you think that supporting somebody's right to free speech implies that I have to agree with that person's views?


You obviously know nothing about my views, because I have been on record, in this forum, day in and day out, about the victims of terrorism, both in Kashmir and in Maoist territories.



Again, that is your concoction.

I don't condemn both. I condemn the terrorists. Period. Don't make up things to suit your present rush of blood to the head.



Fortunately, very fortunately, your views are not what prevail.




It's not a question of right or wrong.

It's not a question of perspective either. It's a question of constitutional guarantees of free speech. That has nothing to do with national security, the country's image, damage control or any of the hysterical charges you have made.

And it's not a crime for her to seek attention, or to embarrass you or devastate you with her views.

That's your problem.

Try to deal with it with maturity and good manners, instead of making a public exhibition of your patriotism and your intensity of feeling. None of that has anything to do with the rule of law. It has everything to do with your being able to handle judgements judiciously.

You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.
A terrorist sympathizer is a terrorist.Even more dangerous than the brainwashed gun-totting individual because that person has the ability to reach out to masses using media.Your judgements are clouded.
 
You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.

You were challenged before, and you ran away.

I am challenging you again.

Show one post of mine where I support - covertly or otherwise - anti-national elements.


A terrorist sympathizer is a terrorist.Even more dangerous than the brainwashed gun-totting individual because that person has the ability to reach out to masses using media.Your judgements are clouded.

Nonsense.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I have never been a terrorist sympathiser. So get your facts straight.
 
You try to hide behind the rule of law and freedom of expression when it comes to covertly supporting the anti-national elements.
A terrorist sympathizer is a terrorist.Even more dangerous than the brainwashed gun-totting individual because that person has the ability to reach out to masses using media.Your judgements are clouded.

The man has done his fair share for our country. His very famous father, much more than a fair share. Disagree if you want with his views but to call him a supporter of anti-national elements is unfair & bordering on the absurd.
 
Unparalleled concoction of maoist, ultra left leaned, socialist, communist, Hindu hater - yeah that sums it all
 
Not misplaced at all, maybe misdirected on the choice of subject but certainly not misplaced. I prefer expending my own energy on defending the likes of Zakia Jafri rather than this particular subject, who if the article penned by her was read closely, pretty much says similarly strong stuff as the line quoted, only in slightly better presented language.

It still does not disqualify her from the protection of the human rights portions of our constitution. All the rest is opinion; your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of some guttersnipes, and all equally eligible for protection as free speech.
 
It still does not disqualify her from the protection of the human rights portions of our constitution. All the rest is opinion; your opinion, my opinion, the opinion of some guttersnipes, and all equally eligible for protection as free speech.

Didn't say it did.
 
The man has done his fair share for our country. His very famous father, much more than a fair share. Disagree if you want with his views but to call him a supporter of anti-national elements is unfair & bordering on the absurd.

Please.

I deeply appreciate your gesture (have you noticed my avatar, btw? The vff is on the extreme right, next to Jake), but don't waste your time defending me to these cretins.

Unparalleled concoction of maoist, ultra left leaned, socialist, communist, Hindu hater - yeah that sums it all

None of them true. So much for your understanding, or your knowledge of who stands for what.

At least one thing is for certain- she grabs people's attentions and inflames passions at least on this forum :lol:

To be honest, I fail to be moved by her rants or by those who break into shrill abuse against her.

Include me out.
 
You were challenged before, and you ran away.
I am challenging you again.
Show one post of mine where I support - covertly or otherwise - anti-national elements.
I have never been a terrorist sympathiser. So get your facts straight.
Never get defensive. :) Our constitution guarantees you to have considerable margin of freedom of thought and speech(if not total). I have often spoken about the excesses of AFSPA in Kashmir - does not make me anti national.

In any case I not only respect Mrs Roy's right to speak but also will try my best to protect it.
If she did not have the opportunity and scope to speak we would not have known her stance in public. Now that we know her from her repeated utterances, we can form an informed opinion about her.
This brings me to an important point - she is not a part of Indian intellectual class. Her views, aired openly are so braindead that she could not get any space in our public life other than extremist anti Indian outfits.

As for her rights, she has as much as me - only law can decide if she has crossed lines. In my opinion she is a vital asset to our nation, which we have used to successfully silence better speaking far leftists in the public domain.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom