I don't know Arundhati Roy. Have not read any of her books. But
knowing she was trained as an architect, she couldn't be all bad.
I am only kidding :-).
Of the various points here, to me, the last one seems to carry the
most weight. My observations likewise, mostly.
But let us look into all a little deeper:
But the Indians as a people are too sensitive.
*** It would seem to me that it would be unfair to paint ALL Indians
with that same brush. I would like to think it would be more accurate
to say that those Indians who are most visible to us, in the
internet, in the print media, on TV etc., tend to be that way. Why?
Because they constitute that tiny segment of Indians who, having
secured their lot thru the operating system and its many largesses,
now seek 'national' respectability in the world. When Arundhati bares
the seamy underside of the real India to the world, this tiny segment
gets upset. Their image of the India that they are either aware of or
care about, gets tarnished by AR's revelations.
They do not, or cannot refute what AR exposes. Because she does not
fabricate things to make India look bad. She describes what she sees,
and comments on them. That is exactly why those who get upset by the
truths she speaks of, attempt to devalue her comments and opinions by
attacking her persona, hoping, that would somehow make those ugly
truths disappear like a bath in the Ganga might do to Hindu sins.
3. For reasons known to her, she hates anything that is Indian
and no >matter what, she only sees ills about anything to do with
India/Indians.
*** I don't buy this argument. It is akin to Rush Limbaugh accusing
those Americans who criticize Bush/Cheney policies of hating their
country.
Why can't a reasonable person criticize those issues about India that
deserve criticism, without having to be an 'India hater'? Heaven
knows there are plenty of those who carry around India-shining
banners to show to the world. Just because someone does not ride that
bandwagon, make that person automatically an India hater?
2. It is a fashion to be critic. It helps her sell her books,
gives her >the publicity that she needs. She is one of those Flower
Children, Anti >Establishment Types from the late sixties. It also
earns her frequent >invitation from those forums/conferences
whereany form of Anti Establishment is >the key-note.
*** AR is not a sixties Flower Child. I am guessing she is in her mid
forties. A Sixties' Flower Children would be in their sixties now.
But even if she is, because Indians picks up western fads a decade or
so later :-), WHY is it FASHIONABLE, and devoid of substance, to be
an Indian critic, or US critic, or British critic? Or for that
matter, can a person be a critic of one's nation, WITHOUT having a
profit motive driving one? Are we suggesting that there cannot be
honest, intellectual disagreements among reasonable people, with
their governmental or societal policies and attitudes ?
Very few people (read Indians), who have heard about her or read
her works or >her her speeches, have neutral feeling towards her.
Either they hate her or >love her.
*** IF this were to be true, then it would not speak well of Indian
intelligentsia. Why I say that is that a reasonable and intelligent
person can agree with some of AR's ( or for that matter anybody
else's) views, while disagree with others.
Couldn't they?
If they couldn't then it would indicate that Indians , by and large
are a bunch of ideologically imprisoned automatons, who are unable to
decide what is right and what is wrong about a particular issue, and
react in unison either for or against the person who brings bad news
to their notice.
Could that be true?
*******************************************************************************
At 10:04 PM +0100 4/10/07, Malabika Brahma wrote:
What ever Arundhoti Roy does or whenever she speaks, makes a news.
She has her ardent admirers and bashers. Very few people (read
Indians), who have heard about her or read her works or her her
speeches, have neutral feeling towards her. Either they hate her or
love her.
What do netters think about Arundhoti Roy with respect to her
frequent criticism about India:
1. She believes in certain values and would raise her voice
against any establishment she believes is going against them. Since
she is an Indian and most of her focus on issues are concerning
India/Indians, the establishment of India bears the brunt of her
criticism
2. It is a fashion to be critic. It helps her sell her books,
gives her the publicity that she needs. She is one of those Flower
Children, Anti Establishment Types from the late sixties. It also
earns her frequent invitation from those forums/conferences whereany
form of Anti Establishment is the key-note.
3. For reasons known to her, she hates anything that is Indian
and no matter what, she only sees ills about anything to do with
India/Indians.
4. She believes in calling a spade a spade. But the Indians as a
people are too sensitive. Unless you are blowing outright trumpet
for India and Indians, Indians will take any comment that is not
overtly positive as an act of treason against Mother India. Its not
Arundhoti Roy but the nation in general that needs a change of
attitude to hear criticism about India and evaluate without jingoist
attitude.
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less,
<http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html>sign
up for your free account today.
_______________________________________________
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
