The first part is factually correct. The second part is, frankly,
embarrassing. I don't hold any personal grouses against Ms. Roy, and I
admire any one with the strength of character to engage in a
lengthy dissent
against the State. But I cannot tolerate someone who seems to do it
without
a vision - this is dissent for dissent's sake, and it is more often
than not
counter-productive.
Oy vey!! So anyway, I leave tomorrow morning for Corbett for ten days
and I don't want people to think I am backing off. There is nothing
that gets my juices flowing more than a solitary (it seems) protest
on behalf an underdog (which is what Ms. Roy is turning out to be on
this thread). This preamble is just to let people know that my
silence henceforth for a week is not because I am agreeing with you--
on this topic anyway.
But Nikhil...deep breath...here we go. Everybody who has commented
on A Roy seems pretty entrenched in their opinions, including I.
I thought GOST turgid in parts and good in others. Frankly, it's an
insignificant book and doesn't form even an iota of my objections
against
Ms. Roy. I don't think the book even defines her any more in the
public eye.
I completely disagree but GOST is fiction so you're entitled to your
misguided view. Let me just say, "insignificant" it was not. We
wouldn't be discussing it here if it were. Booker prize? Lannan
cultural freedom prize-- keeping company with Mahmoud Darwish, one
of the other winners.
My problem stems from her being an "activist". She is not one. She
pretends
to be one. She achieves nothing, sees nothing through and frankly,
she gains
fame by temporarily attaching herself to causes of all sorts - not
the other
way round.
I don't think it is 'causes of all sorts.' I see a clear thread
there. In a word-- underdogs. In five: giving voice to the voiceless.
She would have faded to insignificance except she wants to
constantly tell us that Ind/Isreal/US democracy is shit. She can sit
in a
place like Oman and say this without batting an eyelid about the
state of
human rights in the middle eastern countries.
I don't get the Oman reference, but lots of people have strong views
on the way the US is handling the Israel Palestine conflict. Again,
it interests me that you remember hers.
She may be described as a professional polemicist,
Nothing wrong with that.
but let's not denigrate the term "activist".
I think she is definitely an activist. She has devoted her life to
various causes, as you call it, when she could be skiing in Gstaad or
sunning herself in Como. I think that some existential vaccum in her
is forcing her to go out there and fight-- some misguided and some
guided battles.
From ground water use by Pepsi/Coke (where she bashed
MNCs and the Indian Govt for permitting MNCs per se) to the Gujarat
riots
(where madam was kind enough to let us know that we're all barbaric
without
giving to us animals any idea of how to go forward)
Modi needs to apologize. that's a start. but that's also a
different debate.
to Narmada Bachao
Andolan (an exercise in glorymongering).
Is marching with the Maoists glory mongering too?
Tge pattern is clear - bash govt,
bash monied party, bash policy, bash govt some more, pretense of
empathy,
can't find a solution, move on. Thanks for the stardust.
Being a brilliant supreme court lawyer, I think even you would agree
that the causes A. Roy is fighting are too complex for one person to
come up with a solution. She does suggest solutions but I think her
goal is to shine the spotlight. I think she needs to change her
style because for some reason, she evokes so much ire
She never addresses the actual issues. She makes broad allegations.
Never
does she actually address the issues at hand.
Please re-read her essays.
And let's forget about
offering solutions. I was in court on the day of her disgraceful
contempt
exercise in the face of the Supreme Court. Again, she thinks she knows
everything. She thinks that our SC is a Court that perpetuates the
tyranny
of the Indian democracy. She says this in about 5,000 words without
at any
point betraying even a passing knowledge of Indian legal history.
There is a
reason why the Indian SC is considered the most powerful court in the
world.
It is because no other court in the world has evolved the kind of
doctrines
to keep Parliament under check. It is the foremost Court when it
comes to
public activism, and even the shirllest critics of the Court's activism,
cannot deny that it has been forced to fill a void left by a corrupt and
asinine Executive, and that much public benefit has accrued from such
activism. But this is symptomatic of Ms. Roy. GOST's recognition gave
her a
pulpit - she uses it neither to educate herself nor us. She uses it
to vent,
and senselessly at that.
Not knowing much about legal history, I am not touching this one. :)
I would love to see her write a decent book. Really, would.
You should read GOST. Again.
You know, in every debate, there comes a point when people are
arguing for arguments sake. You know those endless debates we had as
kids about Is there a God? I think, at least with me, this topic is
getting to that point.
Listen: I get what you people are saying. You guys have a point. I
hope you see mine-- at least a little bit.
Methinks the gentlemen doth protest toooo much.
Regards,
Nikhil
And kind regards to you too!!
Shoba
