The Biggest Scam in the World

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Hello folks,

I will be surprised if Arundhati Roy is popular here, and therefore, you can rest assured I like her . Amy Goodman interviewed her this morning. If you hate her, here is something that will make you hate her even more. Enjoy!

Cheers!

 

[amala]

I don't think its about hating her or otherwise. I actually loved her book The God of Small Things. Full of surprises and a lovely messages, but she cannot stop nor change realpolitik. I like her choice of words though -- "geopolitical jockeying". Very nice

 

[KRS]

Dear Professor Nara Ji,

To tell you the truth, I became a fan of Ms. Roy after reading her novel. It was sensitive, moving and exposed the deterioration of a culture. It actually, I thought, portrayed the bruteness of the communist/socialist philosopy and it's effect on a praternal culture. All this from the viewpoint of a Christian family!

But alas! Her subsequent activities failed to hold my interest. She got involved in real world activities, where an absolute idealism never pays off. Her stand only created opposing forces with no way to compromise. On top of it all, I think that she has misspent her authority, gained from writing a beautiful novel.

I reject this notion that there are heroes and villains in any issue. Absolute black and white is very rare in this world and is usually relegated to the activity of cold blooded murders.

Regards,
KRS

 

[pvraman]

Thanks Prof Nara Ji,

I don't like her. She is one of the best marketing women.


Regards

 

[ivar52]

It is not about liking or hating Arundhati. She has consciously and assiduously taken up the role of presenting an anti-establishment and anti-popular viewpoint. It is a matter to be admired that she can rant on any subject so coherently - enough to make you feel angry at her and her arguments. You realise, however, once your anger has subsided (and if you are basically an unbiased person) that much of what she rants about makes sense. Every country needs a few like her - to talk and write about all things anti !

 

[pvraman]

Dear Sri Iver52,

I have not read any of her writings except her antics on the Maoist issue. And her rants on Kashmir is another story. Anyway, its not anger that she evokes, but annoyance.

Regards

 

[RVR]

Arundhathi Roy is not willing to respect the law of the land. In the Narmada dam project, supreme court gave its verdict after going through the pros and cons of all the aspects. But Arundathi Roy continued her protests even after final verdict of the highest court of the land.

I feel she wants to be in the limelight by hook or crook.

All the best

 

[ivar52]

Anger or annoyance. It is a matter of semantics. The fact of the matter is, Arundhati is provocative and cannot easily be dismissed. I have no desire to defend Arundhati - she can do that herself quite admirably. The point I am trying to make is that people like Arundhati are required to constantly ask questions. The Supreme Court is made up of distinguished men and women. That does not mean that they cannot err. The Supreme Court did err during the Emergency Days - they redeemed themselves a few years later. So, if Arundhati questions the Supreme Court's judgement, it does not mean that she has no respect for the law of the land. We need more Arundhatis!

 

[Nara]

..... Arundathi Roy continued her protests even after final verdict of the highest court of the land.

Then RVR sir, she is just following Gandhi's methods, he also went against the law of the land.

Law, sometimes, can be an ass.

What many here call "rant" is music to the ears of those who are really trodden over, you know, the downtrodden.

She is an internationally known writer and activist. With her fame comes certain cachet. She has chosen to use it for social justice. For this why is she getting put down as a limelight seeker?

The Adhivasee resistance are the ones asking her to mediate, but she declined saying she does not have the skills or the temperament to be a mediator.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Prof Nara sir,

Whatever happened before independence and after independence are totally difference circumstances.

Mahatma Gandhi has led the freedom struggle before independence.

Post independence, except a few years during emergency of Indira Gandhi era, the country is totally democratic and rule of law was prevailing throughout.

Probably Arundhathi Roy could have filed a review petition in the Apex court and argued her case more effectively. Instigating tribals against their own elected government is not correct. She can also fight elections, get elected and fight for her rights in legislative forums.

Mahatma Gandhi never had such options since the rule by British itself is illegal and force was used against armless freedom fighters.

We are seeing even in USA, President Obama has to sweat out to get the Health care bill cleared by legislators.

All the best

 

[KRS]

The watermark of any civil disobedience is the immorality as accepted by the majority, I think the recent actions of Srimathi Arundhathi do not meet this standard,

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

...Whatever happened before independence and after independence are totally difference circumstances.

Why? The principle of peaceful protest against unjust laws is still the same. The main weapon Gandhi used was breaking duly enacted laws that were unjust, and easy to break.

Post independence, except a few years during emergency of Indira Gandhi era, the country is totally democratic and rule of law was prevailing throughout.

.... and people call me naive ...

Probably Arundhathi Roy could have filed a review petition in the Apex court and argued her case more effectively. Instigating tribals against their own elected government is not correct. She can also fight elections, get elected and fight for her rights in legislative forums.

Yes, she could do a lot of other things, but she wants to do what she wants to do and that I think is great. She is not instigating anybody, she is is giving voice to the voiceless.

Democracy is not just elections -- that even Saddam Hussain conducted. The pillars of liberal democracy include protection of minority rights from the whims of the majority, and the basic and fundamental right of peaceful dissent.

Peaceful dissent is what Gandhi, MLK, Mandela, and scores of others practiced and advocated. This is what some poor adivasees affected by the Narmada River Valley Project did against the government that decimated their way of life for the sake of city dwellers. This is what Roy is also doing, on behalf of the voiceless.

Any government that takes away the basic right of peaceful assembly and protest is a tyrannical one, even if it is one elected in a fair and free election.

Civil disobedience is about resisting government actions, legal or illegal, in a non-violent way. Allowing peaceful protest is more a mark of a democracy than elections. What is lawful one day may become unlawful in another. Unlawful things become lawful. Wiki says, law is simply a system of rules enforced through a set of institutions. The government PRC is lawful. British colonial rule was a lawful one, because it was within the rules they established. They even conducted elections.

In the U.S. up until some 40 years ago, in the south, there were laws duly enacted by democratically elected governments that treated black Americans as second class citizens. MLK led a civil disobedience campaign against these unjust laws. Mandela was imprisoned by the Botha government according to their prevailing laws, unjust laws though they were.

I have no sympathy for the Naxalites. I abhor their tactics. But how much better is the police force in those areas? Roy says the government is determined to clear the area of the tribals so the MNCs can move in for the mineral riches that lie below their land. Roy says more than 600 villages have been burned down and thousands killed and hundreds of thousands displaced. A way of life is being eradicated in the name of economic progress. These are actions of democratically elected governments in a lawful manner!!

Getting elected or filing court cases cannot be the only avenues of redress in a liberal democracy. Often these door remain firmly shut for the ones who need protection the most. Peaceful protest is part of the arsenal at the disposal of civil society. As the cliche goes, those who make peaceful protest impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Prof Nara Sir,

British occupation of India itself is illegal, immoral and unethical.

Mahatma Gandhi fought against such a Government which doesn't have any moral, ethical or legal right before independence.

He took to Satyagraha since that was the only weapon available for him.

Post independence, the scenario changed 180 degrees.

It is the Government which is elected by the people and for the people.

Arundhathi could have got elected to the legislature through due process.

Still if she was unable to convince majority of the legislatures, she could have moved the courts of law and argued the case effectively and efficiently.

One single individual `Subramanyam Swamy' has stalled the Sethusamudram Project by moving the court which was approved by Government of India. He has fought both central and state governments effectively by due process of law.

Arundadhi should have followed the same process.

Indian courts are highly independent and pronounce judgement s independently overriding the legislatures.

She doesn't believe both and wants to be in the lime light by hook or crook.

She cannot be compared with Mahatma Gandhi & his fellow freedom fighters.

Post independence Lok Nayak Jayaprakash Narayanan (JP) and others fought the Government which imposed emergency. They won the hearts of the people and threw out Indira Gandhi government which imposed emergency.

She cannot be compared with JP also.

All the best

 

[Nara]

Dear RVR sir, Greetings!

... Post independence, the scenario changed 180 degrees.

This is your opinion, not shared by many including yours truly.

You want to talk about Gandhi and the British, and not about the fundamental right of citizens to assemble and protest. Alright, I will bite.

For all his greatness, Gandhi was not the embodiment of all things exalted. He supported an illogical kind of varna darma. He himself joked about the enormous money that was being spent on keeping him on supposed poverty. He believed in weird things like mud packs and other crackpot remedies. He had the audacity to subject young girls in an experiment to test his ability to control his senses. None of these is true of Roy. You are right, Roy is not following in the footsteps of Gandhi. All Roy is doing is give voice to the voiceless with no claim to Mahatma status or international fame.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

Dear RVR sir, Greetings!





This is your opinion, not shared by many including yours truly.

You want to talk about Gandhi and the British, and not about the fundamental right of citizens to assemble and protest. Alright, I will bite.

For all his greatness, Gandhi was not the embodiment of all things exalted. He supported an illogical kind of varna darma. He himself joked about the enormous money that was being spent on keeping him on supposed poverty. He believed in weird things like mud packs and other crackpot remedies. He had the audacity to subject young girls in an experiment to test his ability to control his senses. None of these is true of Roy. You are right, Roy is not following in the footsteps of Gandhi. All Roy is doing is give voice to the voiceless with no claim to Mahatma status or international fame.

Cheers!

Prof Nara sir,

I am not supporting all the views and actions of Mahatma Gandhi. I don't expect others also do the same thing.

Mahatma Gandhi invented a weapon `Ahimsa' probably first time in history. He organised `satyagraha' against might British empire those days. If he has taken up arms, it would have been much easier for British to tackle him. But the British empire didn't had any answer to Gandhi's actions and were forced to leave India. It is a historic event which everybody should acknowledge and appreciate.

Construction of any dam will definitely affect the environment and also the local population. At the same time it will produce electricity, facilitate irrigation and avoid frequent flooding down stream areas. Definitely it will affect people in the water logging area and suitable compensations are arranged as part of the project cost.

Now a days detailed study is conducted on environmental aspects before taking up such projects. Pros and cons are discussed openly. People approach the courts if they are not happy with final decisions of the Government. A single individual Subramanyam Swamy was able to get a stay for Sethu Samudram project from Supreme court which the Government is unable to vacate till date.

In the case of Narmada project similar exercise was gone through. The affected party formed an organisation called `Narmada Bacha Adolan' and with the compensation, they continued the good work of rehabilitation of the affected people. Medha Padkar, a renowned social worker, is still active in the rehabilitation program.

NBA PRESS RELEASE: 17 February

But it seems Arundhadhi Roy is not interested in the rehabilitation work Normally corruption would have erupted in the rehabilitation stage and the compensation may not reach the affected parties. If Arundhadhi Roy ensured that the victims were compensated properly, it would have been a great service to such people.

On the contrary little known social worker Medha Padkar, who lead the Narmada Bacha Adolan movement right from its beginnings, still continues the rehabilitation work.

Arundhathi Roy is interested in cheap publicity and not bothered about the affected tribes of the area.

All the best