[Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru

Gargi Sen sen.gargi at gmail.com
Mon Nov 29 22:02:34 IST 2010


Dear Aditya,
That was a very nice mail indeed. Thank you. I appreciate your wit and play
on my organisation, magic lantern. I really wish you would continue more on
this vein. It makes engagement such a pleasure.
Only, I fail to understand what gave you the idea that I was silent on
Arundhati Roy’s speech? Not on the Sarai list but on many fora I have
expressed my complete endorsement to her speech, in fact all her speeches,
whether on Kashmir or on the Maoists. I am a deep admirer of Ms. Roy’s
position, philosophy and writing. Although that doesn’t quite take me to the
dark ages. Or the middle ages either, which, though, age has certainly
brought me to. And in the middle ages Aditya, nothing is more tiresome than
the noise made by witless youth. So thank you for giving me a glimpse into
your other self. I seriously appreciate it.
Do keep this tone of the conversation going Aditya. And maybe one day you
will ‘see through’ the tone of the court and perhaps even engage for real.
Warmly,
Gargi



From: Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:33:13 +0530
To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest stupidity of arundhati roy - comparing
her utterances on kashmir with those of nehru

Quite interesting to see people here maintaining silence on the provocative
and seditious speech by fiction-writer Arundhati Roy at the Delhi seminar.
They still tend to live in the dark ages. Hope a lantern helps such people
with some light or perhaps a sudden magic. The Court has already set the
tone. Perhaps, now the 'real' engagement will begin. Let the mediocre people
live in peace, finally. On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, geeta seshu
<geetaseshu at gmail.com> wrote: > I do agree with Gargi Sen. The level of
debate is truly pathetic. As > someone > who reads discussions/ debates (but
rarely intervenes), I used to get some > insights into differing points of
view. Please make an effort to bring it > back to a more intelligent, even
if combative, level. > > Geeta > > > > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:18 AM,
Gargi Sen <sen.gargi at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Sudhha for one more
considered reply. Now if only the raving and > > frothing people on the
Sarai list would send considered replies, even as > > they rave and froth,
which, incidentally I don¹t mind, I think the level > of > > the discourse
would rise considerably. Unfortunately, instead, all they > > seem > > to be
posting in the way of arguments are a series of slurs, insults and > >
name-calling. Unfortunately, even the name-calling is left at such a > >
tedious > > and mediocre level that one despairs. > > Where is the wit, the
arguments crafted with diligence, the play of > words, > > all that that
lead to the joys of engagement? > > The colloquial Hindi proverb that an
intelligent enemy is more desirable > > than a mediocre friend is put to
rest on the Sarai list. > > I hope though not forever. > > Gargi > > > > > >
> > From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov
2010 07:35:34 +0530 > > To: Aalok Aima <aalok.aima at yahoo.com> > > Cc: sarai
list <reader-list at sarai.net> > > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the latest
stupidity of arundhati roy - > > comparing > > her utterances on kashmir
with those of nehru > > > > Dear Mr. Aima, I am writing this in response to
your criticism of > Arundhati > > Roy's  recent statement published in the
Hindu. You say, "the directive > of > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita
Kumari  Bagha" asks delhi police to > "lodge > > an FIR under relevant
provisions  of the Indian Penal Code" against some > > named persons (which
includes  arundhati roy) for their speeches made in > > the > > seminar on
21/10/2010  ........ it does not say anything about 'waging > war > >
against the state' The Times of India, seems to have reported otherwise > >
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Delhi-court-calls-for-FIR- > >
against-Roy-Geelani/articleshow/7002100.cms The Times of India quotes the >
> Metropolitan Magistrate, Navita Kumari  Bagha as saying - "The Delhi >
police > > is hereby directed to lodge an FIR under relevant  provisions of
the > Indian > > Penal Code and file a report in this regard  on January 6,
2011, the next > > date of hearing,'' metropolitan  magistrate Navita Kumari
Bagha said, > > pointing out that the court has  to step in since even after
an offence > was > > disclosed, the police  failed to register an FIR. The
sections include > > those > > relating to  sedition, waging war against the
state of the IPC and a > > section > > of  Unlawful Activities Prevention
Act (UAPA)." If you read any other > > paper's reports on the matter, you
will see  exactly the same language. > > Which in itself is not surprising,
as the  complainant has sought remedy > > under those precise sections,
including  the one pertaining to 'waging > war > > against the state' and
so, the  Magistrate, in instructing the Police to > > look into the filing
of the  FIR, has to instruct the police to file > their > > report with
reference  to these specific sections. So, when Arundhati Roy > > refers to
the court asking the police to file  an FIR for 'waging war > > against the
state' against her and others  (including, incidentally, me) > > she > > is
not trifling by any means. What  she has said in her statement > >
faithfully > > mirrors the reports that  have appeared in the press. I
suspect, that > > rather > > than her, it is  you who seems not to have read
the reports with care. > Now, > > as for your contention, that Nehru changed
his position on the  need for > a > > plebiscite to ascertain the will of
the people of Jaamu  and Kashmir > > following the ratification of the
accession to the state  of Jammu and > > Kashmir to the Union of India by
the Constituent  Assembly of Jammu and > > Kashmir. This, unfortunately, is
simply not true. I had published a > posting > > on this list on the matter
of 23 statements  made by Jawaharlal Nehru on > > the > > matter of
ascertaining the will of  the people of Jammu and Kashmir on > the > > 25th
of August, 2008. The link  to the posting is as follows - > >
http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2008-August/014098.html I > >
don't > > want to reproduce the contents of this posting in its  entirety,
because > > much of the matter is already contained in  Arundhati Roy's
statement to > > the > > Hindu. But since you have produced  the magic date
of the 15th of > February, > > 1954, as a threshold, let me  just reproduce
two statements made by > > Jawaharlal Nehru AFTER this date. In a statement
in the Rajya Sabha > > (Chamber > > of States) of the Indian  Parliament,
Nehru says on the 18th of May, 1954 > - > > ³But so far as the Government of
India are concerned, every assurance >  and > > international commitment in
regard to Kashmir stands.² 'Every assurance > and > > International
commitment' includes the  commitment to hold a plebiscite, > as > > mandated
by several United  Nations resolutions. If, Nehru believed that > > the > >
ratification of the  Maharaja's of J & K's accession to India by the > >
Constituent Assembly  of J & K was the same thing as an expression of the >
> popular will vis- a-vis the question of the integration of J&K into the >
> Indian Union,  then, he would not have needed to state that >
"international > > commitments in regard to Kashmir stand". The
international  commitments, > > which can have been nothing other than the
holding of  the plebiscite > under > > international auspieces, could have
been said to  be 'standing' if, and > > only > > if, they had not yet been
seen to have  borne fruit. Clearly, here, Nehru > > on > > the 18th of May
1954 still sees  the plebiscite as a possibility. > Further, > > On 31st of
March, 1955, (which as you will notice, is a full  year and > five > > weeks
after the 15th of Februrary, 1954), Nehru, in a  statement in the > > Indian
parliament, says -   ³Kashmir is not a thing to be bandied about > > between
India and  Pakistan but it has a soul of its own and an > > individuality of
its   own. Nothing can be done without the goodwill and > > consent of the
people of Kashmir.² First of all, Nehru makes a > > distinction here between
the wills of the  entities he calls India, > > Pakistan > > and Kashmir.
Which means that he  does not conflate the will of the > entity > > he calls
India, with the  entity he calls Kashmir. Kashmir, in his eyes, > > (these
are his words,  not mine) is seized of a will and individuality of > > its
own, distinct  from India, and Pakistan. Next, Nehru says, "Nothing > CAN >
> be done without the goodwill and  consent of the people of Kashmir".  Had
> > Nehru said - "Nothing HAS  BEEN DONE without the goodwill and consent of
> > the > > people of Kashmir",  your contention, that Nehru treated the
ratification > > of > > the  Maharaja's accession by the Constitutent
Assembly of Jammu and > >  Kashmir > > as the final word on the matter,
would have had some weight,  because > then > > we would be arguing about
whether or not the decision of  the constituent > > assembly of J & K
actually represented the 'goodwill  and consent' of the > > people of
Kashmir. But Nehru did not say what you  wish he had said. His > > statement
clearly implies that he believed that  as of 31st of March, > 1955 > > a > >
year and a month after the J&K  Constitutent Assembly's so called > >
'ratification' that the "goodwill  and consent" of the people of J&K was > >
yet > > to be ascertained. So,  following from this, as far as Nehru is >
concerned, > > it is very  difficult logically to assert that he believed
that the > > Constituent  Assembly of J&K's ratification amount to anything
closely > > resembling  the final statement of the "goodwill and consent" of
the > people > > of J&K. Incidentally, this quotation, from 1955, was
included in > Arundhati > > Roy's statement in the Hindu. I suppose, in your
haste to indulge in  the > > popular pastime of attacking people who say
things that are not > >  comfortable > > for Indian Jingoism, you had
overlooked the fact that  March 1955 comes a > > year and a bit, AFTER,
February 1954. Mr. Aima, Your contention that > Nehru > > changed his public
stance on the  question of a plebiscite post February > > 1954 is not borne
out by these  two quotations. You say - "this is where > > arundhati roy
reveals her  stupidity and how little she knows about > > kashmir".   I
wonder who looks more stupid now, you, or Arundhati Roy. > best > > Shuddha
On 28-Nov-10, at 3:57 PM, Aalok Aima wrote: > ARUNDHATI ROY : "My > >
reaction to today's court order directing the  > Delhi Police to file an > >
FIR > > against me for waging war against the  > state" > > has the court
asked > the > > police to file an FIR against arundhati roy  > for 'waging
war against > the > > state' or is arundhati trifling with  > facts? > > the
directive of > > "Metropolitan Magistrate Navita Kumari Bagha" asks  > delhi
police to > > "lodge > > an FIR under relevant provisions of the  > Indian
Penal Code" against > some > > named persons (which includes  > arundhati
roy) for their speeches made > in > > the seminar on  > 21/10/2010  ........
it does not say anything about > > 'waging war  > against the state' > > it
is another thing that arundhati > > roy's utterance could be  > interpreted
as 'waging war against the state' > > > > > as she did in an earlier
statement, arundhati seems to find  > > > unacceptable that someone should
seek prosecution against her or  > that > a > > court of law should be
approached with the complaint that  > delhi police > > have not taken
cognisance of the 'anti-india speeches'  > by arundhati > > (amongst others)
> > so arundhati roy issues yet one more statement > (quoted > > below from
> 'the hindu') > > she seeks to compare her statements on > > kashmir with
those of nehru  > on kashmir and suggests that delhi police > > "should
posthumously file  > a charge against Jawaharlal Nehru too" > > > > (her > >
statement, giving quotes of nehru on kashmir, is a  > regurgitation of >
what > > has since long been put forward as arguments  > by the secessionist
and > > secession supporting propaganda  > machines ...... geelani also used
the > > quotes just a few days back) > > this is where arundhati roy reveals
her > > stupidity and how little  > she knows about kashmir > > in comparing
her > > utterances with those of nehru, arundhati roy  > gives us a list of
13 > > quotes attributed to nehru (and 1 of krishna  > menon) > > what
arundhati > > roy overlooks, in her stupidity, is that the  > position of
goi (and of > > nehru as pm) treating the accession of j&k  > to india as
confirmedly > final > > (in what goi considers as fulfilling  > it's part of
the un resolution on > > kashmir) is on the basis of the  > ratification of
j&k's accession to > india > > by the constituent  > assembly of j&k on
15/02/1954 > > the nehru > > statements > > nos 1 to 12, that she quotes,
pre-date that  > ratification date of > > 15/02/1954 and are from a period
when the  > status of j&k with respect > to > > india was subjected to a lot
of  > questioning (including the un > > resolution) > > and nehru
acknowledged  > that as is reflected in his statements > > > after > > the
15/02/1954 ratification by the j&k constituent assembly,  > goi > treated >
> the accession of j&K to india as being unquestionable  > and nehru did >
not > > make any statement that carried the vein of the  > statements 1 to
12 > > quoted > > by arundhati > > arundhati roy is being stupid in
comparing her own > > statements on  > kashmir with those of nehru prior to
15/02/1954 and on > > that > > basis  > self-righteously suggesting that if
she is to be prosecuted then > >  > > > nehru (posthumously) should also be
prosected > > ........... aalok aima > > > > > > > >
http://www.hindu.com/2010/11/28/stories/2010112862661200.htm > > They > >
can > > file a charge posthumously against Jawaharlal Nehru too:  >
Arundhati Roy > > > > > Arundhati Roy > > My reaction to today's court order
directing the > Delhi > > Police to  > file an FIR against me for waging war
against the state: > > Perhaps  > they should posthumously file a charge
against Jawaharlal > Nehru > > > too. Here is what he said about Kashmir: >
> 1. In his telegram to the > > Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Indian  >
Prime Minister Pandit > Jawaharlal > > Nehru said, ³I should like to make  >
it clear that the question of > aiding > > Kashmir in this emergency is  >
not designed in any way to influence the > > state to accede to India.  >
Our view which we have repeatedly made > public > > is that the question  >
of accession in any disputed territory or state > > must > > be decided in
> accordance with wishes of people and we adhere to this >  > > > view.²
(Telegram 402 Primin-2227 dated 27th October, 1947 to PM of  > > > Pakistan
repeating telegram addressed to PM of UK). > > 2. In other > > telegram > >
to the PM of Pakistan, Pandit Nehru said,  > ³Kashmir's accession to > India
> > was accepted by us at the request of  > the Maharaja's government and
the > > most numerously representative  > popular organization in the state
which > > is > > predominantly Muslim.  > Even then it was accepted on
condition that as > > soon > > as law and  > order had been restored, the
people of Kashmir would decide > > the  > question of accession. It is open
to them to accede to either  > > > Dominion then.² (Telegram No. 255 dated
31 October, 1947). > > Accession > > issue > > 3. In his broadcast to the
nation over All India Radio on 2nd >  > > > November, 1947, Pandit Nehru
said, ³We are anxious not to finalise  > > > anything in a moment of crisis
and without the fullest opportunity  > to > be > > given to the people of
Kashmir to have their say. It is for  > them > > ultimately to decide ------
And let me make it clear that it  > has been > > our > > policy that where
there is a dispute about the  > accession of a state to > > either Dominion,
the accession must be made  > by the people of that > state. > > It is in
accordance with this policy  > that we have added a proviso to > the > >
Instrument of Accession of  > Kashmir.² > > 4. In another broadcast to > the
> > nation on 3rd November, 1947, Pandit  > Nehru said, ³We have declared >
that > > the fate of Kashmir is  > ultimately to be decided by the people.
That > > pledge we have given  > not only to the people of Kashmir and to
the > world. > > We will not and  > cannot back out of it.² > > 5. In his
letter No. 368 > > Primin dated 21 November, 1947 addressed  > to the PM of
Pakistan, Pandit > > Nehru said, ³I have repeatedly stated  > that as soon
as peace and order > > have been established, Kashmir  > should decide of
accession by > Plebiscite > > or referendum under  > international auspices
such as those of United > > Nations.² > > U.N. supervision > > 6.In his
statement in the Indian > > Constituent Assembly on 25th  > November, 1947,
Pandit Nehru said, ³In > > order > > to establish our bona  > fide, we have
suggested that when the people are > > given the chance  > to decide their
future, this should be done under the > > supervision  > of an impartial
tribunal such as the United Nations > > Organisation.  > The issue in
Kashmir is whether violence and naked force > > should  > decide the future
or the will of the people.² > > 7.In his > > statement in the Indian
Constituent Assembly on 5th March,  > 1948, > Pandit > > Nehru said, ³Even
at the moment of accession, we went  > out of our way > to > > make a
unilateral declaration that we would abide  > by the will of the > > people
of Kashmir as declared in a plebiscite or  > referendum. We > insisted > >
further that the Government of Kashmir must  > immediately become a >
popular > > government. We have adhered to that  > position throughout and
we are > > prepared to have a Plebiscite with  > every protection of fair
voting and > > to > > abide by the decision of the  > people of Kashmir.² >
> Referendum or > > plebiscite > > 8.In his press-conference in London on
16th January, 1951, > > as > > > reported by the daily ŒStatesman' on 18th
January, 1951, Pandit  > > Nehru > > stated, ³India has repeatedly offered
to work with the United  > Nations > > reasonable safeguards to enable the
people of Kashmir to  > express their > > will and is always ready to do so.
We have always  > right from the > > beginning accepted the idea of the
Kashmir people  > deciding their fate > by > > referendum or plebiscite. In
fact, this was  > our proposal long before > the > > United Nations came
into the picture.  > Ultimately the final decision of > > the settlement,
which must come,  > has first of all to be made basically > > by > > the
people of Kashmir and  > secondly, as between Pakistan and India > >
directly. Of course it must  > be remembered that we (India and Pakistan) >
> have reached a great  > deal of agreement already. What I mean is that >
many > > basic features  > have been thrashed out. We all agreed that it is
the > > people of  > Kashmir who must decide for themselves about >  their
future > > externally or internally. It is an obvious fact that  > even
without our > > agreement no country is going to hold on to  > Kashmir
against the will > of > > the Kashmiris.² > > 9.In his report to All Indian
Congress Committee on > 6th > > July, 1951  > as published in the Statesman,
New Delhi on 9th July, 1951, > > Pandit  > Nehru said, ³Kashmir has been
wrongly looked upon as a prize > for > > > India or Pakistan. People seem to
forget that Kashmir is not a  > > > commodity for sale or to be bartered. It
has an individual  > existence > and > > its people must be the final
arbiters of their  > future. It is here > today > > that a struggle is
bearing fruit, not in  > the battlefield but in the > > minds > > of men.² >
> 10.In a letter dated 11th September, 1951, to the U.N.  > > >
representative, Pandit Nehru wrote, ³The Government of India not  > only > >
reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of  > the > >
continuing accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India  > shall >
be > > decided through the democratic method of a free and  > impartial >
plebiscite > > under the auspices of the United Nations but  > is anxious
that the > > conditions necessary for such a plebiscite  > should be created
as > quickly > > as possible.² > > Word of honour > > 11.As reported by
Amrita Bazar > > Patrika, > > Calcutta, on 2nd January,  > 1952, while
replying to Dr. Mookerji's > > question > > in the Indian  > Legislature as
to what the Congress Government going to > do > > about  > one third of
territory still held by Pakistan, Pandit Nehru > said, > > > ³is not the
property of either India or Pakistan. It belongs to the  > > > Kashmiri
people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to  > > the > >
leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide  > by the > >
verdict of their Plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I  > would have >
> no > > hesitation in quitting. We have taken the issue to  > United
Nations and > > given our word of honour for a peaceful  > solution. As a
great nation we > > cannot go back on it. We have left  > the question for
final solution to > > the > > people of Kashmir and we are  > determined to
abide by their decision.² > > > > > 12.In his statement in the Indian
Parliament on 7th August, 1952,  > > Pandit > > Nehru said, ³Let me say
clearly that we accept the basic  > proposition > > that > > the future of
Kashmir is going to be decided  > finally by the goodwill > and > > pleasure
of her people. The goodwill  > and pleasure of this Parliament > is > > of
no importance in this matter,  > not because this Parliament does not > >
have the strength to decide  > the question of Kashmir but because any >
kind > > of imposition would be  > against the principles that this
Parliament > > holds. > > Kashmir is very  > close to our minds and hearts
and if by some decree or > > adverse  > fortune, ceases to be a part of
India, it will be a wrench and > a > > > pain and torment for us. If,
however, the people of Kashmir do not  > > > wish > > to remain with us, let
them go by all means. We will not keep  > them > > against their will,
however painful it may be to us. I want to  > stress > > that it is only the
people of Kashmir who can decide the  > future of > > Kashmir. It is not
that we have >  merely said that to the United Nations > > and to the people
of  > Kashmir, it is our conviction and one that is > borne > > out by the
> policy that we have pursued, not only in Kashmir but > > everywhere.  >
Though these five years have meant a lot of trouble and > > expense and  >
in spite of all we have done, we would willingly leave if > it > > was  >
made clear to us that the people of Kashmir wanted us to go.  > > > However
sad we may feel about leaving we are not going to stay  > against > > the
wishes of the people. We are not going to impose  > ourselves on them > > on
> > the point of the bayonet.² > > Kashmir's soul > > 13.In his statement in
> > the > > Lok Sabha on 31st March, 1955 as  > published in Hindustan Times
New > Delhi > > on Ist April, 1955, Pandit  > Nehru said, ³Kashmir is
perhaps the most > > difficult of all these  > problems between India and
Pakistan. We should > > also remember that  > Kashmir is not a thing to be
bandied between India > > and > > Pakistan but  > it has a soul of its own
and an individuality of its own. > > Nothing  > can be done without the
goodwill and consent of the people of >  > > > Kashmir.² > > 14.In his
statement in the Security Council while taking > part > > in  > debate on
Kashmir in the 765th meeting of the Security Council on >  > > > 24th
January, 1957, the Indian representative Mr. Krishna Menon  > said, > > ³So
> > far as we are concerned, there is not one word in the  > statements that
> I > > have made in this council which can be  > interpreted to mean that
we > will > > not honour international  > obligations. I want to say for the
purpose of > > the record that there  > is nothing that has been said on
behalf of the > > Government of India  > which in the slightest degree
indicates that the > > Government of  > India or the Union of India will
dishonour any > > international  > obligations it has undertaken.² > > > > >
> _________________________________________ > reader-list: an open >
discussion > > list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To
subscribe: > > send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with  >
subscribe in the > > subject header. > To unsubscribe: > >
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive: > >
<https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> Shuddhabrata Sengupta > >
The > > Sarai Programme at CSDS Raqs Media Collective shuddha at sarai.net > >
www.sarai.net www.raqsmediacollective.net > >
_________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion >
> list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe: send
> > an > > email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the
subject > > header. > > To unsubscribe:
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list List > > archive:
<https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> > > > >
_________________________________________ > > reader-list: an open
discussion list on media and the city. > > Critiques & Collaborations > > To
subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with > > subscribe
in the subject header. > > To unsubscribe:
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > > List archive:
<https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> > > >
_________________________________________ > reader-list: an open discussion
list on media and the city. > Critiques & Collaborations > To subscribe:
send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with > subscribe in the
subject header. > To unsubscribe:
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list > List archive:
<https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> > -- Aditya Raj Kaul
India Editor The Indian, Australia <http://www.theindian.net.au/> Blog:
http://activistsdiary.blogspot.com/
_________________________________________ reader-list: an open discussion
list on media and the city. Critiques & Collaborations To subscribe: send an
email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list List
archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>



More information about the reader-list mailing list