The Verbal Terrorist seems very concerned that martyrs terrorists have no intellectuals to defend them. In her usual style, she banters nonsense upon nonsense.

I’ve had it with examining such people’s arguments, so I’ll just console myself with a few quick points. Ravikiran must have coined the title on the spur of a moment, but I should credit him that he’s a visionary. This article just proves that she’s on the fast track to claim that title; if she persists in her efforts, I’m sure we’ll need to drop the Verbal in Verbal Terrorist.

Roy in her usual style, indulges in hyperbole, and confuses fact for fiction. She states incidents and reports news without a shred of evidence. And yes, she also does make the mandatory mention of the Gujarat pogrom. I seriously doubt her:

a) Sanity
b) Loyalty to India

because despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Roy insists that there is no evidence that the Parliament attacks in Dec 2001 were perpetrated by terrorists! For example,

Each time there is a so-called terrorist strike, the government rushes in, eager to assign culpability with little or no investigation. …the Dec. 13, 2001, attack on the Parliament building and the massacre of Sikhs by so-called terrorists in Chittisinghpura in March 2000 are only a few high-profile examples. (The “terrorists” who were later killed by security forces turned out to be innocent villagers.)

Yeah? And where is the evidence to show that these were indeed “innocent villagers?” Can you quote one source, provide a link? Ya, so the attack on the Parliament was, I suppose, executed by the Opposition, or some outfit supported by the Octupus-like MNCs aka Rumpelstiltskin. If it was proved tomorrow that the MNCs weren’t responsible, then it definitely has to be a group that was terrorized for many years by the Indian government. Right?

What’s even worse is her denigration of India, which in this article innocently begins with branding Kashmir as a mental asylum. She then extends this brand and calls India a mental asylum, although not in so many words.

He said: “Kashmir used to be a business. Now it’s a mental asylum.” [.]The more I think about that remark, the more apposite a description it seems for all of India.

Wonderful eh? Apart from being a mental asylum, India is also a terrorist state, the state tortures people at its whim, citizens’ rights are routinely trampled upon, there’s terror everywhere…. you get the drift. And yes, she also does her mandatory bit of trashing India’s recent economic gains. India is not shining, we should always look at the scum, filth and poverty (despite having clear figures that poverty levels have reduced)… and so on.

I admit that she is entitled to her freedom of speech, to voice her opinions, etc. That doesn’t automatically mean she’s qualified to comment on subjects she understands little; that also doesn’t mean she can conceal truth or twist facts to her liking, and that further doesn’t mean that she’s entitled to report real events without providing evidence.

The real danger lies not in her insane ranting, but in having her insanity published in reputed journals/newspapers. Most people (specifically, Indian bloggers) out here know the shallowness depth of her knowledge and the bluntness precision of her logic. However, the international audience knows her as a Booker Prize winner, and a celebrity whose heart bleeds for the poor and downtrodden, and all that. The international audience also associates a great deal of credibility with LA Times. Next, the average reader relies on the newspaper to do fact-checking/source-verification because they don’t have the time or inclination to do it. Put these together: the impression in the mind of the average reader is that there’s something horribly wrong with India.

I forgot to add this: the Verbal Terrorist, in her support to terrorist makes an important statement.

Of the morass of political venality and opportunism, the callous brutality of the security forces, of the osmotic, inchoate edges of a society saturated in violence, where militants, police, intelligence officers, government servants, businessmen and even journalists encounter each other and gradually, over time, become each other.

Applying this to her: of the morass of justifying terrorism as patriotism/martyrdom, the callous use of words, of the osmotic, inchoate edges of a mind dulled by grandiose illusions of injustice, where writers, intellectuals, social scientists, and even Booker Prize winners encounter each other and gradually, over time, become each other.

I guess this wraps it up.