40 comments

1. RR
   26. November 2004 - 12:42 PM

   IMO, Our Lady of Designer Denunciation is NOT, repeat NOT, worth “hating”. Hate is a primeval passion of considerable intensity, to express which is to expend significant amount of emotional energy. When directed against individuals, Hate acknowledges (the existence of) the person being hated in some special sort of way. Does A Roy deserve this?

2. Sandeep
   26. November 2004 - 12:49 PM

   RR,

   I beg to differ. The VT does deserve this because as someone pointed out in Shanti’s blog comments, it is not enough to ignore her invectives in the hope that she’ll stop. She’ll stop only if the attention she gets today is significantly diluted; I don’t see that happening in now or in the near future. Therefore I see it worth my while to condemn her inanities at every turn so that *someone* may wake up to what she says.

3. dina
   26. November 2004 - 9:38 PM

   Thanks Sandeep for taking the effort of explaining point after point – your point of view, i mean .

   Am not going to get into a counter-argument again – there’s a long debate on at Shanti’s blog and my views have been very clear (i hope) there and at my blog post about it.

   Having said that, i must say i am shocked at this statement you make – “I don’t want any community to be wiped off, but only the ideology that inspires such terrorist acts. If people are made to see the reality of the ideology that inspires humans to kill fellow humans, the world be a much better, safer, and peaceful place.” – an ideology exists only if there is a community to carry it forward – are you then suggesting (even tho u say you aren’t) that wipe out the community that lives by it? Can you spell out this ideology for me please? Could it be something to do with Islam ? Or liberal as opposed to right wing ? Perhaps thats where i got the pro-Bush, pro-BJP feeling.

   The world at large is appalled (with the exception of a few countries)at his unprovoked actions in Iraq. Unfortunately, not enough or not powerful to stop him then.

   Maybe next time ? I hope.

   I’d seriously urge you, just for one moment to step into the shoes of an Iraqi – and feel these lines you quoted :

   “To save a family we need to sacrifice a person
   To save a village we need to sacrifice a family
   To save a nation we need to sacrifice a village”

   If that makes the Iraqi a terrorist … then Bush and Co are the same don’t you think ? And they aren’t even saving their own nation … nor do they have the mandate to save anyone else’s.

   I’ve said this at Shanti’s blog – will say it again – sometimes our biases and stereotypes and things we have been fed since childhood do not allow us to see another’s point of view … and sometimes they make us forget our dignity as humans, one to another.

   Don’t fall into that trap Sandeep…. it will only breed more hatred, lead people to operate from fear rather than love.

4. uspeed
   27. November 2004 - 5:10 AM

   Dinah ji, nazi ideology was wiped off without wiping off the Germans wasnt it ? So was communism without wiping out Ivan..

   naah.. shes a humbug alright.

5. dina
   27. November 2004 - 8:19 AM

   uspeed ….. so which ideology are you suggesting we wipe out now ???

6. uspeed
   27. November 2004 - 10:20 AM

   “Wiping out an ideology” is too strong a phrase. I was just pointing out that ideologies can be “wiped out” without wiping out the people who follow them. I think its possible to hate the sin and not the sinner.

   However, all this comes later, the first step that one may take is to recognize that there is a problem.

   The solutions – containment/engagement/confrontation/concessions and so on can come later. Doing nothing about it, while the problem grows and grows and grows to reach proportions where an enormous amount of harm comes to all of us, is a wrong choice.

   Lest you post another question to draw me out the problem I am talking about is political Islam or the temporal authority that Islam excercises over its adherents and the problem of integration of Islamic communities into western/eastern multicultural societies.

   I think AR and her commentary, her way of thought, the ideology that she represents, stops (some) people from recognizing that there is a problem in the first place. Her world view is just as jaundiced as the targets of her diatribes.

7. Rahul
   27. November 2004 - 4:02 PM

   Dina, I think what Sandeep is referring to (as in wiping out the ideology) is the gist of Islam that commands its followers to kill (or convert) everything that is non Muslim.

8. dina
   27. November 2004 - 5:02 PM

   Sin and sinner … only if people are involved can there be sin right ? Thats just a play on words i think Sudeep/Uspeed . So Islam is the problem and needs to be attacked and wiped out as an ideology or religion – is that what you are saying ? How do you propose to wipe it out without wiping out followers of the ideology?

   By the same token should Hinduism as an ideology be wiped out because of a handful of militant right-wing fundamentalists ? Ayodhya is an example. Godhra another.

   And Rahul … Christianity too since it tries to convert people to its ideology ?

   The Nazis tried it with the Jews and failed ….

   Or Sudeep is it militancy and terrorism as an ideology that you feel needs to be wiped out ? Whether it is among its followers within the realm of Islam, or Hinduism, or even George Bush?

   Because all who subscribe to the above “ideologies” fall into the same group of “sinners” – those that take innocent lives, those that show intolerance and adopt violent methods against its detractors.

   What a world !

9. uspeed
   28. November 2004 - 12:01 AM

   >> Thats just a play on words i think

   The Mahatma’s eyebrows would be at the back of his head if he heard this.

   >> So Islam is the problem and needs to be attacked and wiped out as an ideology or religion – is that what you are saying ?

   Read what I said carefully, I might have issues with Islam at a spiritual or metaphysical level, but thats a private matter and nobody elses concern. I and a lot of other people have issues with political Islam, and the temporal authority it excercises over many of its adherents. It is a problem that needs to be recognized, what an appropriate solution or process might be is a whole other question.

   >> militancy and terrorism as an ideology

   exactly who are these people who have militancy and terrorism as an ideology ? People may have extreme views, but I dont think anyone holds “militancy and terrorism” as goals or ideals in themselves. They are methods to achieve those goals, whatever they might be. Recently, a lot of people have moved to the thought that war itself is a way of terrorizing people of one state by another.

   Having said that, I have problems with both the goals *and* the methods adopted by political Islam – where it affects my own life and where it affects the lives of my muslim co-citizens.

   Personally, I find war distasteful, but I dont have such a vehement and fundamental disagreement with the ultimate goals, ideals or the thought process that drives a decision to go to war in most other societies.

10. Alka
    28. November 2004 - 3:58 AM

    I don’t know much about the GREAT ENVIRONMENTALIST lady in question, but I have read this ARTICLE Bungalow blow to Arundhati and it seems she doesn’t have much influence on her own family . I THINK CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.

11. RR
    28. November 2004 - 12:05 PM

    The piece of land that the hubby of Our Lady of Eco-sensitive Exhortations grabbed in violation of eco-laws is described as:

    easily the best-looking one: perched on a small elevation, it overlooks twin hillocks and vast rolling greens.

    Good enough to be featured in “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous”, we see.

    Arundhati comes visiting about thrice a year when she is adding decibels to Medha Patkar’s Narmada crusade.

    With a gig like that in a hill resort for a stop-over on the way to project site, who wouldn’t want to work for the crusade?

    Which is why I say that A Roy must be approached as you’d approach a con-artist: with disgust, maybe loathing; and a quick check to see your wallet is in place. But to hate her is a bit too much.

12. dina
    28. November 2004 - 3:50 PM

    uspeed … good points about goals and methods.

    You say :

    >> “Having said that, I have problems with both the goals *and* the methods adopted by political Islam – where it affects my own life and where it affects the lives of my muslim co-citizens. ”

    With all due respect to the Mahatma – his eyebrows would be at the back of his head if he heard this !

    Would you have the same objection to militant Hinduism … or Bush-ism … enough to wish to first acknowledge them as problems, and then perhaps to wipe them out ?

13. uspeed
    28. November 2004 - 11:25 PM

    >>>> “Having said that, I have problems with both the goals *and* the methods adopted by political Islam – where it affects my own life and where it affects the lives of my muslim co-citizens. ”

    >>>> With all due respect to the Mahatma – his eyebrows would be at the back of his head if he heard this !

    why ? :-/ I am afraid you lost me completely here.

    >>>> Would you have the same objection to militant Hinduism … or Bush-ism … enough to wish to first acknowledge them as problems, and then perhaps to wipe them out ?

    may be, may be not. All said and done I am a hindu, and that gives a certain amount of bias or atleast a better understanding of where the “militant hindus” are coming from. Even so, I do not see hindutwa as equivalent to political Islam. There are people who would like to make it a mirror image of political Islam, but I find myself disagreeing with them. Thankfully, they are not in positions of power yet.

14. Sandeep
    29. November 2004 - 12:34 PM

    Dina,

    You’re welcome. And as I thought it would, a few of my words have had the reaction I expected (sorry if I sound pompous). A few thoughts are in order:

    >>I don’t want any community to be wiped off, but only the ideology that inspires such terrorist acts. If people are made to see the reality of the ideology that inspires humans to kill fellow humans, the world be a much better, safer, and peaceful place.”

    I urge you to carefully read the second sentence of what I wrote. By wiping off an ideology, I mean “educating people about its true nature,” and not “wiping off its adherents.” Have I ever said, “Kill all people who follow X ideology?” Think about it, Dina. A simple example will (I hope)suffice. You are are decent human being, who values dignity, peace and mutual coexistence, never intending harm to anybody. Say, in a fit of rage, you commit a murder. How would you feel about it? You feel guilty, bad, sad, and loathe yourself for doing it, albeit in rage. This is the “normal” human tendency/reaction. Now, here comes an ideology which “mandates its adherents to convert if not physically exterminate adherents of other idelogies/religion and guarantees a clean conscience by saying that God considers it a meritorious act, that there are rewards waiting for this “pious” deed.” Now tell me honestly Dina, would you like to follow such an ideology? The humanism and dignity that you value so highly have no place in such an ideology. Perhaps (and I read it somewhere) the greatest victims of such ideologies are their adherents who (more often that not) follow it blindly, without critically inquiring into its basic tenets.

    - an ideology exists only if there is a community to carry it forward – are you then suggesting (even tho u say you aren’t) that wipe out the community that lives by it?
    For your answer, see above. Your conclusion isn’t quite right from your premise: I repeat, I merely said “wipe out an ideology” not by force/war but by “education.” I guess that should’ve been obvious–I’m no proponent of violence/war–but I now see that it wasn’t so obvious. On a related note, if as you say, a community exists to carry on an ideology, is it ok by you if the community in question sees all other communities/countries/cultures always as the “other/infidel” that needs to either accept the only true faith or die?

    >>Could it be something to do with Islam ?
    Yes. I definitely recommend you to examine the basics of this ideology Daniel Pipes, Sita Ram Goel, etc have written some exceptional books on it. Please do examine your own thoughts after doing so.

15. Sandeep
    29. November 2004 - 12:40 PM

    >>sometimes our biases and stereotypes and things we have been fed since childhood do not allow us to see another’s point of view … and sometimes they make us forget our dignity as humans, one to another.
    Speaking for myself, I certainly grew up with a lot of biases–including for example, the one that Hindutva is a “militant,” “fundamentalist” movement (as the secular media wants us to believe) and grew out of it subsequently. Like you said, I looked at this “fundamentalist movement” from the “Other’s point of view.” I find it fascinating that you speak about human dignity in the context of a subject where several ideologies in question care a whit about human dignity (see my previous comment).

    It is a crime to commit murder/wrongdoing: it is a greater crime not to call a spade a spade.

    Lastly, Dina, the human dignity you talk about is–cynically speaking–good on papers. In reality, these ideologies–Islam, etc–respect only strength. Examples: Israel and the US. If the Arab countries/Bin Laden really could stand up to the US in an open battle, what would their chances be? That’s why they chose the skyscraper route.

16. Dilip D'Souza
    30. November 2004 - 12:05 PM

    Dina,

    Here, I picked out a few phrases at random from the above discussion:

    the problem I am talking about is political Islam or the temporal authority that Islam excercises over its adherents and the problem of integration of Islamic communities into western/eastern multicultural societies.

    the gist of Islam

    I and a lot of other people have issues with political Islam

    Dina, would you like to follow such an ideology?

    You see, Dina? In the end, you get the truth: the problem for these Roy critics is Islam.

    Nothing at all wrong with that – take me, I find all religions faintly nauseating because of the hatreds they encourage. But Roy must be damned because she doesn’t subscribe to this view of the world in which Islam is the sole, or greatest, problem. She actually has the temerity to see the world in a substantially different way. Therefore she must be accused of such things as “peddling lies the size of an encyclopaedia” about the Gujarat riots, of being a “terrorist-enabler”.

    Take me again. From where I sit, here in Bombay, the greatest threat I can see to my future, my life, my children’s lives, my country itself, is this thing they call Hindutva. (I have personal experiences that have led me to this impression). I truly believe it will destroy my country long before Pakistan manages it. This doesn’t mean I am not repelled by the Osamas who kill in the name of Islam, nor that I want to “enable” their terrorist activities. No, I’m just calling a spade a spade as Sandeep himself recommends – only, it’s the spade that I see hanging over my head.

    But if I’ve said this much, I’m hardly presuming that everybody must agree with me about Hindutva. If they did, it would not be a threat in the first place!

    But consider this: I have never seen Sandeep speak a word against Modi or Advani or Thackeray or other tyrannical regimes, or against the massacre in Gujarat in 2002 – much as Sandeep says he has never seen Roy speak “a word against Saddam (in his days of glory) or other tyrannical regimes (most Arab countries are that), or against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorists who have vandalized Kashmir for more than a decade.” I have never seen him agreeing with me that Hindutva is the greatest threat to India and to my life. Terrorists are Evil, whatever their provocation, grievance, motives, and the rest, says Sandeep rightly, but also damns Roy because he thinks she “remained silent about [the] cause” of the Gujarat riots. Why aren’t the fellows who massacred ordinary human beings in Gujarat evil terrorists, whatever their “cause” was?

    Yet, and this is the point I’m making, despite all this, I have not decided that Sandeep is “justifying” the Gujarat massacre. Nor that he gives it a “moral ground”. Nor that he is indulging in “overt peddling of falsehood.” I have not decided to call him the equivalent of “bitch”, or pronounced that he “weeps” for the people who sliced up pregnant women in Gujarat, or gang-raped other women.

    But somehow Roy, because people like Sandeep and uspeed disagree with her, therefore must be plastered with all this.

    All said and done I am a hindu, and that gives a certain amount of bias or atleast a better understanding of where the “militant hindus” are coming from. Even so, I do not see hindutwa as equivalent to political Islam.

    There you have it again. Actually, I’m sincerely grateful to uspeed for this honesty (really). Take me again: I don’t see where the “militant Hindus” are coming from, nor do plenty of Hindus I know. To me, they are just using Hinduism to further hatred and thuggery. To me, Hindutva is indistinguishable from this “political Islam” uspeed mentions – every bit as pernicious and empty. But I wonder why being a Hindu means you must have this “better understanding”. I also wonder why Muslims should not read this and say, “I’m a Muslim and so I have a better understanding of where Osama is coming from.”

    I don’t know where either Osama or the “militant Hindus” are coming from, but I for sure know where they are taking us: to hatred and destruction.

    Two final points. First, note how Sandeep says “these ideologies–Islam, etc–respect only strength. Examples: Israel and the US.” It’s funny how Israel is such a model in this respect, this business of “strength”. Israel has done a whole lot of things right, from farming the Negev to education to health care. But when it comes to keeping Israelis safe from terrorism by this resort to the “strength” Sandeep so admires, it has clearly failed. Terror attacks on innocent Israelis are now a fact of daily life in that country, having risen in number and intensity in direct proportion to the “strength” that Israel applies. So what is this famous “strength” doing for Israel, I wonder?

    And finally, who does Sandeep urge you to read? Daniel Pipes and Sita Ram Goel. Well, in that case, why not also read Edward Said? Asghar Ali Engineer? Robert Fisk? Chris Hedges? John Pilger? And hey … Arundhati Roy? I’ve read them all (yes, including Pipes and Goel), and they inform the things I write here today, or my own writing in general. It hasn’t occurred to me to call those among them I disagree with “terrorist enablers”.

17. dina
    30. November 2004 - 2:36 PM

    Dilip, thanks for stepping in and the great arguments … i need say little more.

    Sad. Very sad. Despite the honesty in admissions that Islam (political or not) is the problem from Sandeep and Uspeed.

    Sad that some feel they are more equal than others. That “educating” people in their views is through a show of strength and force (which in my mind is a form of terrorism). Ram them on the head – if they don’t listen, ram them harder.

    Sad that when others (like Arundhati Roy) call a spade a spade, they are damned. Because they have the balls to stand up to them.

    There is no difference between “political” Hindutva, political Islam, political Bush or militant anything. Why should there be ? If the suggestion is the political ideology that harbours militancy needs to be wiped out, then should it not be the same for all … why single out Islam ??? Because it is less equal and doesn’t have the “strength” ?

    Am leaving this discussion with a thought borrowed from Rudyard Kipling :

    – “All the people like us are we, and everyone else is They”

18. RR
    30. November 2004 - 8:21 PM

    There are many troubling aspects to Mr D’Souza’s argumentative technique, and one of them is that he employs not-so-subtle psychological coercion to get the other party on the defensive.

    If he notices that Shanti wasn’t about to defend Bal Thackeray, for example, he would try and get her to damn Advani. She damns Advani, fine, then, move on to maybe Vajpayee.

    I have never seen Sandeep speak a word against Modi or Advani or Thackeray writes he. But why must Sandeep do so? Just because Mr D’Souza hates them? Is there any specific reason — apart from his own political prediliections and prejudices, that is — that Sandeep must “speak words against” them? Or would he have Sandeep — and the rest of us — believe that it is self-evident that these poeple must be damned?

    I find all religions faintly nauseating because of the hatreds they encourage.

    Given Mr D’Souza’s allergy for Hinduism, I’d not ask him what particular hatred he thinks it encourages. But what particular hatreds do Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism encourage? Can we dispense with banal, self-serving generalities and get down to the specifics please?

    Or is it again supposed to be self-evident that ALL religions encourage hatreds?

    She actually has the temerity to see the world in a substantially different way.

    Like this cleverly-constructed strawman is supposed to be some sort of argument. Another of Mr D’Souza’s well-honed debating tricks.

    Shall we say that Mr D’Souza’s problem with Sandeep is that he has the temerity to see Our Lady of Conceited Condemnations in a substantially different way than her idolizing fan club does?

19. RR
    30. November 2004 - 8:23 PM

    Sad that when others (like Arundhati Roy) call a spade a spade

    Which spade did A. Roy call a spade?

    She would not even comment on the land-grab her hubby effected in Pachmarhi. That doesn’t seem “balls” enough to me.

20. Sandeep
    30. November 2004 - 9:40 PM

    >>I picked out a few phrases at random…
    Noooooo Dilip. You can’t pass judgements by picking phrases/points at random. Whatever my abilities, I sure can express my thoughts fairly logically. And I’m sure you’ve read one of the basic lessons of logic which talks about “sound conclusions based on sound premises.” You haven’t refuted/examined all or each of my premises but have picked stuff that (probably) suits your conclusion.

    >>I find all religions faintly nauseating because of the hatreds they encourage…
    Now again, you are generalizing. Now, do you include Hinduism in the list of religions that encourage hatred? Just curious. Because if you do include, here’s a basic fact about Hinduism:
    Show me one tenet, one teaching, one precept in Hinduism that “encourages hatred.” You say you’ve read Sita Ram Goel–and he’s written copiously on Hinduism–but apparently you seem to have missed out the essence of Hinduism that he strives to drive home.

    >>But Roy must be damned because she doesn’t subscribe to this view of the world in which Islam is the sole, or greatest, problem.
    Hmmm… not exactly, DD. Whatever gave you the impression that I said Islam is the “sole” and/or the “greatest” problem? Read my words carefully, and then form your conclusions.
    Islam is a problem; so is Roy. And both are separate. And to the worldview which doesn’t see Islam…well, “militant” Islam as a problem, I have just this to say: look at the history of how Christian Europe saved itself from “militant Islam.” Pray tell me, what is the “substantially different way” of seeing things? For all that you say about Roy’s views, show me just one piece where (even loose) she has argued on the basis of logic, and without twisting facts. While we’re at it, like I said in my blog entries, is Mesopotamia and contemporary Iraq one and the same? And a person (of Roy’s celebrity stature) who equates them, what is she doing: she’s either pathetically ignorant of world history, or she’s plain, lying. Second, she wrote in Outlook about Gujrat riots that a Muslim MLA’s family was burnt alive, while the MLA was hale and hearty and alive. A month or so later, Roy returns with an apology. What’s the use, DD? The damage is done: “The Hindutva brigade hasn’t spared a sitting MLA’s family–” this message would’ve already reached thousands of readers, perhaps as intended. Now, aren’t these examples of “encyclopaedic lies?”

    >>the greatest threat I can see to my future, my life…is this thing they call Hindutva.
    With due respects and regard for your personal experiences, here’s a question I need to ask you (and I believe I’ve asked this earlier to which you didn’t response): what is your understanding of Hindutva? What is its basis? What background material have you researched before you reached this ghastly conclusion, barring your personal experience? We can take this argument based on the answers to these questions. What say? In my personal experience, I was bitten by a dog: is it then right for me to conclude that “the greatest threat I can see to my future, my life…is this thing they call the Dog?” So what do you propose to do about this “greatest threat, Dilip?”

    >>I truly believe it will destroy my country long before Pakistan manages it.
    Interesting, especially your last words, “long before Pak manages it.” Do you mean to suggest that Pakistan will “manage to destroy India?” No, I’m not implying anything. Just curious for your response.

    >>I have never seen him agreeing with me that Hindutva is the greatest threat to India and to my life.
    You said it better than I could, DD, thanks If I did agree with you on the “Hindutva threat,” we’d not be having this argument, would we?

    >>Yet, and this is the point I’m making, despite all this, I have not decided that Sandeep is “justifying” the Gujarat massacre… I have not decided to call him the equivalent of “bitch”…
    Trying to provoke me, are you (wink)? For a person who admonished Shanti for yelling at Chok, you shouldn’t even entertain a thought like calling me the “equivalent of a bitch.” It’s called “fall from grace.”

    >>But somehow Roy, because people like Sandeep and uspeed disagree with her, therefore must be plastered with all this.
    I’m truly sorry you still didn’t get it, DD. I do vehemently disagree with Roy because she lies big time. That’s what I’m against. Period. If you see her lies as having a “different viewpoint,” then there’s little I can say for you.

    “…nor do plenty of Hindus I know”
    You hit it again, Dilip! That’s one of the tragedies of post-independent India. Hindus know so little of their own heritage and thus aren’t in a position to defend their religion/philosophy when confronted by a liar like AR.

    >>To me, Hindutva is indistinguishable from this “political Islam” uspeed mentions – every bit as pernicious and empty.
    Like I said, it’ll be rewarding for me (and the readers here) if you can clearly elucidate your understanding of Hindutva as it is explained in its primary sources. Till such time, please withhold your “pernicious and empty” judgments.

    >>But I wonder why being a Hindu means you must have this “better understanding”.
    Dilip, you’ve mixed up your logic again. Uspeed said, All said and done I am a hindu, and that gives a certain amount of bias or atleast a better understanding of where the “militant hindus” are coming from. Please read that carefully. He didn’t say, “because I’m a Hindu I have better understanding than others.” He merely said, “because I’m a Hindu I have better understanding of where the “militant Hindus” are coming from.” A whale of a difference between the two, don’t you agree?

    >>I also wonder why Muslims should not read this and say, “I’m a Muslim and so I have a better understanding of where Osama is coming from.”
    You said it DD! The answer to this can be had by looking at countless posters of OBL plastered across several Mosques/Madarassas both in India and elsewhere. You have thousands of supporters of OBL precisely because they have this better understanding of where he is coming from.

    >>having risen in number and intensity in direct proportion to the “strength” that Israel applies…
    So what do you suggest Israel do? Like India has done w.r.t Kashmir? Bleed itself dry? Give in to the “Palestinian Freedom Fighters?” Dilip, please, please give both sides of the picture before you put your conclusions.

    >>So what is this famous “strength” doing for Israel, I wonder?
    Helping it survive–from being swallowed by the Arab terrorists and the nations that support such terrorism.

    >>why not also read Edward Said?
    Definitely. Also the critiques of his works. Highly recommended.

    >>And hey … Arundhati Roy?
    Certainly, MOst certainly. Gives me plenty of fodder for thought–and deconstruction.

    >>…they inform the things I write here today..
    Well, why don’t you start by sharing some of the stuff they’ve “informed” you, that you write here? I’ll share mine, and we’ll compare notes. Way to educate each other.

    >>It hasn’t occurred to me to call those among them I disagree with “terrorist enablers”
    I’m confused. Whom are you referring to in specific? Pipes? Goel? Or all the authors you’ve listed? My answer will depend on this.

    Despite whatever perception you’ve formed about me–not that I care–I’ll tell you I’m a very open minded person: give me facts, a superbly argued piece of logic in support of the facts (the likes of which you can find at Ravikiran’s, Yazad’s and MadMan’s blogs), and a valid conclusion that you derive from your logic, I’ll definitely accept your viewpoints even if I’d opposed them initially. If you (“you” as in not you, DD)fail on any of these counts, as AR does routinely (ok, I couldn’t resist taking a dig at her)… well… I can’t say much for you.

21. uspeed
    30. November 2004 - 11:34 PM

    DD sayeth:
    ##
    Here, I picked out >>a>n>us

22. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 12:01 AM

    >>>>> But consider this: I have never seen Sandeep speak a word against Modi or Advani or Thackeray or other tyrannical regimes, or against the massacre in Gujarat in 2002 – much as Sandeep says he has never seen Roy speak “a word against Saddam (in his days of glory) or other tyrannical regimes (most Arab countries are that), or against the Pakistan-sponsored terrorists who have vandalized Kashmir for more than a decade.” I have never seen him agreeing with me that Hindutva is the greatest threat to India and to my life. Terrorists are Evil, whatever their provocation, grievance, motives, and the rest, says Sandeep rightly, but also damns Roy because he thinks she “remained silent about [the] cause” of the Gujarat riots. Why aren’t the fellows who massacred ordinary human beings in Gujarat evil terrorists, whatever their “cause” was?

    With due respect (which is not a lot), you and AR are public personalities, purportedly and ostentatiously caring enough about all people in the country, regardless of their political persuasion, their religion, their language or caste. What you may feel in private, simply doesnt count. If its a public forum using which you air your opinions, it is those opinions that you shall be judged on. If you participate in public movements/agitations, it is those actions that you shall be judged on.

    So lets see, if a quarter of the victims in the Gujarat riots were hindus, how many articles that you or AR wrote were about the hindu victims ? If you are impartial and oh-so-lily-white, then round about a quarter of the articles would be about hindus right ? How about Kashmiri pandits ? Or the victims of left wing terrorism in heartland India ? just FYI, about 10,000 people have been killed by naxalites in the past 10 years or so, reference the recent IE series ? Or Chakmas ? or Kafiristanis in Pakistan ? Your, or ARs public record does not give me (or others here) any indication, that she has an ounce of sympathy or compassion for hindu victims of Islamic or Communist terrorism. Infact, whatever compassion or sympathy that she may have is completely decided by what the religion or political persuasion of the victim is. Recently, someone asked her about the holocaust in Godhra, and she said “Oh thats the standard hindutva line..” – (never mind that many of the Godhra victims were just regular hindus, not karsevaks) that statement completely sums up her attitude.

    On the other hand, people like me or say Sandeep are private individuals, you have no right to barge into someone elses blog, read a couple of posts, and try to fit them into some stereotype that you may have. Infact, I think you have taken leave of basic manners and etiquette if you do this.

    >>>>> From where I sit, here in Bombay, the greatest threat I can see to my future, my life, my children’s lives, my country itself, is this thing they call Hindutva. (I have personal experiences that have led me to this impression).

    so this is it.. fear of your skin determines completely your opinions ? ahhh.. my nanhoo munhoo choclate creame soldier

23. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 12:15 AM

    >> Sad. Very sad. Despite the honesty in admissions that Islam (political or not) is the problem from Sandeep and Uspeed

    Dinah ji, dont be sad We are just regular people.. If I see an accident, I wont stop to ask the person if hes hindu or muslim. If I see a beggar, I dont ask him if hes hindu or muslim. If someone comes to my home, Ill welcome them with folded hands.. not ask them about their politics or religion. I am sure the same things hold true for you too. If it helps, I know it never does I have several muslim friends.. girls and boys.

    >> Sad that some feel they are more equal than others. That “educating” people in their views is through a show of strength and force (which in my mind is a form of terrorism). Ram them on the head – if they don’t listen, ram them harder.

    Whatever gave you the idea, that I consider some people to be more equal than others ? I do think that not all ideas are the same or equal, some are just stupid. Admittedly, “wiping out an ideology” is a strong phrase, but I never said it.. just pointed out a fallacy in your statement in relation to it.

    >> Sad that when others (like Arundhati Roy) call a spade a spade, they are damned. Because they have the balls to stand up to them.

    lol.. By what measure of imagination is AR standing up to us ? If anything we are standing up to her and her ideas She has more money, she is more famous, *and* she is prettier than us, we stand no chance.. and anyways, we are not the people who are doing any killing or cutting down trees (I recycle ), so if theres any standing up that shes doing, let me assure you that its not against us even if shes doing so, I am a stubborn guy.. Ill just say excuse me and be on my way

    There are regular people behind the politics.. Stereotyping doesnt feel nice, especially when you are the one being typecast.

24. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 12:21 AM

    http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=59854&pn=0

    an interview of Jagadish Bhagwati, where he talks a little about AR.

    • At the other end of the spectrum, who are you competing with intellectually? Stiglitz, or Arundhati Roy, or Chomsky? Or is it all of them?

    I would say all of them, though actually Stiglitz is my colleague at Columbia and he’s hard to pin down because when he talks with people like us he sounds very amiable and agreeable but then he goes in front of a crowd of a hundred thousand in Bombay at the World Social Forum…suddenly all restraint and wisdom gets dropped, and then he’s sort of speaking to a large crowd. He actually told me that he faced a hundred thousand people at Bombay.

    • What about the other two—Arundhati Roy and Chomsky?

    I think Arundhati Roy is just…

    • You wouldn’t like your book to be reviewed by one of them.

    I would love to see what they have to say. But Chomsky is the only serious person there because Chomsky is the world’s greatest linguist. He is a man known for his intelligence and ability and…you get arguments you can put your teeth into. Most of the time I do disagree but he’s really an intellectual. Arundhati Roy is unfortunately…unfortunate because she’s our compatriot and she’s written one very fine novel…but her conclusions are far more obvious than her arguments and that makes it impossible to function. You don’t know where to begin or where to end. Stiglitz is really more worried about the IMF’s policies which are not of great relevance to us.

25. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 12:23 AM

    some more

    • …symbol of American power.

    So it’s like spitting on America… For them it acquires a symbolic value of that kind. But multinationals are a very big thing because most of the people who are on the Left, and there are a large fraction of these people, like Arundhati Roy, whether she’s genuinely Left I don’t know but she likes to mouth these cliches.

    • She probably is if you see the passion.

    Right. Maybe if you can convince yourself that you’re one, if you talk like that long enough and besides it has a huge payoff, so the incentive is becoming more and more to the left. But there you see the multinationals are like the B-52s of globalisation. So you have to be against them and if they make progress it’s even worse. And one of the things I say in the book, if you look at Medieval times, moneylenders and usury would never get a fair deal. In the same way, in modern times, that is how it will be for the multinationals and globalisation. So no matter what you and I say, no matter how much evidence there is, they are going to be there. It’s like a deep visceral conviction.

26. Dilip D'Souza
    1. December 2004 - 12:31 AM

    You can’t pass judgements by picking phrases/points at random.

    Why can’t I pick phrases at random? To me, they seem to say something about your dislike for Roy. So I pick them to analyze that dislike.

    You haven’t refuted/examined all or each of my premises but have picked stuff that (probably) suits your conclusion.

    And why should I refute each of your premises?

    do you include Hinduism in the list of religions that encourage hatred?

    What does the word “all” mean to you, I wonder?

    I make my conclusions about religions based on the way I see (some of) their followers behaving: the . The most-fervent followers, in my experience, are the most disparaging of every other religion. When I say this, I invariably will get someone saying to me: “Have you looked at the essence of Hinduism/Christianity/Islam/Buddhism/whatever?”

    Well, all I can say is, the spreaders of the hatred haven’t looked at that essence.

    Read my words carefully, and then form your conclusions.

    Sort of what I did, actually.

    Pray tell me, what is the “substantially different way” of seeing things?

    Example: Mine, maybe? In which I see this thing called Hindutva as the greatest threat to my future, my life?

    Second, she wrote in Outlook about Gujrat riots that a Muslim MLA’s family was burnt alive, while the MLA was hale and hearty and alive.

    The lie is in this statement of yours, Sandeep. I think you know it. A Congress ex-MP, Ehsan Jafri, was pulled out of his house on Feb 28 2002, stripped, paraded naked, fingers then hands and feet chopped off, dragged with a “fork-like instrument at his throat” before being burned. Three of his brothers and two nephews were also killed, along with at least 30 more who lived in that building (Gulberg Society). In an account Arundhati Roy wrote, she mentioned that Jafri’s daughter(s? can’t remember) were also killed. That turned out to be false. But how does that change the reality, that Jafri and 5 of his family and 30 others were killed there? How does that allow someone as thoughtful as you to say “the MLA was hale and hearty and alive”?

    If tomorrow someone wrote an article saying that 75 people died in Godhra, and I read that and say to myself “that’s not true, only about 60 died” (which is the case), would it be acceptable for me to get on my blog and write “That account by XYZ of killings in Godhra is false; in fact, all those who were supposed to have died are hale and hearty and alive”?

    what is your understanding of Hindutva?

    First point: I said “this thing they call Hindutva”.

    Second, here’s my understanding of it from the years I’ve been hearing the term: demolition of a mosque, riots, killing, seeing “redemption” in that demolition, “teaching Muslims a lesson”, injustice, lies, demagoguery, calling its critics “anti-Hindu” … I could go on and on.

    Therefore: I have contempt for this thing they call Hindutva.

    So what do you propose to do about this “greatest threat, Dilip?”

    Fight it with all I have. Fight to prevent it from destroying my life, my country.

    Trying to provoke me, are you (wink)?

    Not in the least. I am truly, honestly, saying what I said earlier: I don’t believe you are justifying the Gujarat massacre, giving it a “moral ground”, weeping for the people who sliced up pregnant women in Gujarat, etc. Therefore I don’t understand why you would believe those things about Roy.

    For a person who admonished Shanti for yelling at Chok, you shouldn’t even entertain a thought like calling me the “equivalent of a bitch.” It’s called “fall from grace.”

    I have no idea what you mean here.

    I do vehemently disagree with Roy because she lies big time.

    Fine. Point me to one such, apart from Ehsan Jafri.

    That’s one of the tragedies of post-independent India. Hindus know so little of their own heritage and thus aren’t in a position to defend their religion/philosophy when confronted by a liar like AR.

    So Hindus who disagree with you are automatically Hindus who know little about their own heritage? Can it really be possible that you think you have a monopoly on Hindu heritage? I am willing to bet that there are Hindus I know who know as much or more about their religion and philosophy as you, but who still find, for example, this thing called Hindutva disgusting.

    A whale of a difference between the two, don’t you agree?

    Not that I can see, actually.

    You have thousands of supporters of OBL precisely because they have this better understanding of where he is coming from.

    Which is pretty much why you have thousands of supporters of guys like Thackeray and this Hindutva stuff.

    So what do you suggest Israel do? Like India has done w.r.t Kashmir? Bleed itself dry? Give in to the “Palestinian Freedom Fighters?” Dilip, please, please give both sides of the picture before you put your conclusions.

    I have no idea what Israel should do. All I’m saying is, this “strength” you seem to admire is itself bleeding Israel dry. Some strength.

    Helping it survive–from being swallowed by the Arab terrorists and the nations that support such terrorism.

    More Israelis are being killed by terrorism today than at any time in their history, and this is called “helping it survive”? Welcome back, George Orwell.

    Well, why don’t you start by sharing some of the stuff they’ve “informed” you, that you write here?

    Sort of what I’ve been doing, actually.

    I’m confused. Whom are you referring to in specific? Pipes? Goel? Or all the authors you’ve listed?

    The ones I disagree with.

    I can’t say much for you.

    Fine with me.

    You didn’t respond to this:
    Terrorists are Evil, whatever their provocation, grievance, motives, and the rest, says Sandeep rightly, but also damns Roy because he thinks she remained silent about [the] cause of the Gujarat riots. Why aren’t the fellows who massacred ordinary human beings in Gujarat evil terrorists, whatever their “cause” was?

    Dina, you have any idea what this means? I don’t: Here, I picked out >>a>n>us

27. RR
    1. December 2004 - 1:13 AM

    she mentioned that Jafri’s daughter(s? can’t remember) were also killed. That turned out to be false

    Ah. We see. Just ‘false’, not a ‘lie’.

    stripped, paraded naked, fingers then hands and feet chopped off, dragged with a “fork-like instrument at his throat” before being burned

    Where do you think Mr D’Souza got this account of the murder from? All that detail of dragging and chopping you know, the detail that through continous repetition and megaphoning by the good offices of the likes of D’Souza got to so exercise the faithful that in a revenge act terrorists picked temple-going Hindus at Akshardham and mowed them down?

    From Hinduism Combat, it appears, that for-profit circus that Setalvad runs. Of course, it also appears in the “report” of a Kangaroo court that called itself the “citizen’s tribunal”. [That's right, this "tribunal" claimed to speak for "citizens", including you and I.]

    But what was A Roy’s account?

    They stripped his daughters and burned them alive. Then they beheaded Ehsan Jaffri and dismembered him.

    Looks like Our diva of deprecation couldn’t resist adding her own gory bit of variety to the detail.

    Was he beheaded as Roy claims? Or was he burned to death _after_ the chopping and dragging, as the kangaroos claimed?

    Or did he die because his house was set on fire, which happened because he angered the mob by firing on it killing people, as some witneesses claimed?

    The most gruesome is the version that Roy and her fan club prefer to peddle. Not to incite hatreds you know — how can you even suspect them of that? — only to douse them.

    Note that the kangaroo coverage of Godhra had no gruesome detail. It was as if all those unfortunate victims were cartoon characters.

28. RR
    1. December 2004 - 1:21 AM

    Why aren’t the fellows who massacred ordinary human beings in Gujarat evil terrorists, whatever their “cause” was?

    Evil terrorist kills Ordinary Human Being Vajpayee

    BANGALORE, DHNS:

    A painter was murdered by his friend since he refused to treat the latter to a drink. The victim is Shivakumar alias Vajpayee (45), and Ramesh, the accused,

    According to the complaint lodged by the victim’s sister, Sharadamma, the accused came to the house of the victim on Sunday afternoon and asked his friend to treat him to a drink. The victim took his friend out and returned with him around 4 pm. In the end, he refused to buy him a drink. Angered with this, Ramesh beat up Shivakumar. The severely injured Shivakumar was shifted to the KC General Hospital, where he was declared dead.

    Evil Terrorist Husband Kills Ordinary Human Being Wife

    Man kills wife over petty quarrel
    A domestic quarrel resulted in the murder of a woman in Kasturbanagar in Hanumanthanagar police limits on Sunday night. The victim is Girijamma and the accused, her husband, Basavaraj, an autorickshaw driver. The victim, a widow, and the accused, a widower, were living together for several years. The couple have two children, a 20-year-old girl and a 19-year-old boy. Both were alcoholics and used to quarrel frequently. One such quarrel ensued between them on Sunday night. In a fit of rage, the accused hit Girijamma with an LPG cylinder used for autorickshaws. The severely injured victim was taken to Nimhans, where she died. Police have arrested the accused.

29. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 2:48 AM

    dd, I messed up the html..

    heres the same thing again for ur reading pleasure.

    DD says,
    >>>>
    Here, I picked out a few phrases at random from the above discussion:
    >>>>

    u said A N U S.. snigger snigger.. u said anus.. snigger snigger..

    which is about the sum total of Dilips argument

30. dina
    1. December 2004 - 12:37 PM

    Dilip … anus is as anus does – i wouldnt worry too much about it … and hey aren’t you terrorized by this statement from uspeed :

    >>>”On the other hand, people like me or say Sandeep are private individuals, you have no right to barge into someone elses blog, read a couple of posts, and try to fit them into some stereotype that you may have. Infact, I think you have taken leave of basic manners and etiquette if you do this.”

31. uspeed
    1. December 2004 - 10:51 PM

    >> Dilip … anus is as anus does – i wouldnt worry too much about it …

    You really don’t know what I said there, do you ?

    >> this is almost funny !

    Why so ? Will u consider it funny if someone reads two of your posts, forms an impression based on that, and starts calling you names ?

    >> And you ask uspeed, what makes me think you consider some people more equal than others … it reeks from every statement you make – on ideas, on people, on goals and methods.

    Care to point out any statement in particular ? In my conversation with you, I havent made any statement about “people”, one distinguishing between goals and methods, and one about not all ideas being equal. For that matter, do you think that the ideas of “militant hindus” (whatever one might construe them to be) are equal to yours ? If they are equal, why dont you adopt those ideas ?

    >> it reeks from every statement you make

    the reek dina, lies in the stereotypes that you have of “militant hindus”. You hear a few words, and automatically associate them with certain images or larger world views in your mind without bothering to read or understand completely what the person in front of you is saying. I understand, that DDs business is in the area of selling stereotypes, but do you have to buy into them in so complete a fashion ? I am an individual, I find myself agreeing with some of the goals and ideas of hindutva. Like others, I have nothing but distaste for some people associated with the Sangh Parivar, but I dont think that every hindutvawadi is a demon or rakshas. If you cant make your peace with this simple axiom, then there is no point in continuing this.

    >> would love to hear your views on a possible solution to this ‘threat’ from (political) Islam ?

    Its a very complex problem with historical, social , economic, political and religious/theological aspects. The solutions cant be developed in a single sitting between two or three people, or over a blogs comments section. FWIW, I dont think an approach thats solely military or is forceful in nature has chances of succeeding. On the other hand, this approach has its short term/long term uses as well, and can not be ruled out completely either.

32. Sudhakar Nair
    2. December 2004 - 12:16 AM

    Will u consider it funny if someone reads two of your posts, forms an impression based on that, and starts calling you names ?

    I see we have here another gasbag. RR, you tutor these guys or is it the other way around?

    U-poor soul, U-Speed! Someone called you names? You’re all injured? I feel sorry for you!

    But let me try to pin you down and see if you are as much of a wriggle-master as that champion RR: Who called you names (I mean, besides me calling you gasbag here)? Where? What names? Please supply details. Thank you.

    Its a very complex problem with historical, social , economic, political and religious/theological aspects. The solutions cant be developed in a single sitting between two or three people, or over a blogs comments section.

    In other words, “I make provocative pronouncements and run. I can’t be expected to back them up.”

    Have a very good day, U-Speed, you hear?

    Sudhakar Nair
    sudhakar@easy.com

33. uspeed
    2. December 2004 - 12:21 AM

    ooops my bad..

    went through the comments section of Sandeeps “secular hall of fame”.. I see that DD and Sandeep have been acquainted for a while.

34. uspeed
    2. December 2004 - 12:27 AM

    Sudhakar, u r just wasting ur time. U wont draw me into a spitting contest with u.

    – never fight with a pig, you’ll both get dirty, but the pig will enjoy it.

35. dina
    2. December 2004 - 7:22 AM

    Ouch – this is getting nasty – uspeed i apologize if i have been guilty of stereotypes – never intended to rub in the mud here – just share another point of view.

    I’ll leave this discussion with a thought you articulated so well …

    >>>Like others, I have nothing but distaste for some people associated with the Sangh Parivar, but I dont think that every hindutvawadi is a demon or rakshas. If you cant make your peace with this simple axiom, then there is no point in continuing this.>>>>

    I too, like you dont think that every Hindutvawadi is a demon or rakshas. Likewise, every follower of Islam. But there are those, who follow both ideologies that we can despise. Equally. For their actions.

    Can we make peace with this ?

36. dina
    2. December 2004 - 7:23 AM

    Ouch – this is getting nasty – uspeed i apologize if i have been guilty of stereotypes – never intended to rub in the mud here – just share another point of view.

    I’ll leave this discussion with a thought you articulated so well …

    >>>Like others, I have nothing but distaste for some people associated with the Sangh Parivar, but I dont think that every hindutvawadi is a demon or rakshas. If you cant make your peace with this simple axiom, then there is no point in continuing this.>>>>

    I too, like you dont think that every Hindutvawadi is a demon or rakshas. Likewise, every follower of Islam. But there are those, who follow both ideologies that we can despise. Equally. For their actions.

    Can we make peace with this ?

37. Sudhakar Nair
    2. December 2004 - 10:53 AM

    Sudhakar, u r just wasting ur time. U wont draw me into a spitting contest with u

    U-Speed, who’s asking for a spitting contest? U?

    U complained piteoUsly, U-speed, that people are calling U names. So I asked, qUite natUral qUstions I thought, Who called you names (I mean, besides me calling you gasbag here)? Where? What names? Please supply details.

    U-Speed, I want to stand Up for U if someone is calling U names. So tell me where and what names. No spiting contest I swear. God promise.

    And now, just go have a nice day yoU hear?

    Sudhakar Nair
    sudhakar@easy.com

38. uspeed
    2. December 2004 - 11:52 AM

    >> Can we make peace with this ?

    sure.

39. uspeed
    2. December 2004 - 11:56 AM

    sudhakar,

    were u frothing at the mouth when you wrote that ? try a little harder.. I might just oblige.

40. sash
    21. December 2004 - 3:27 AM

    Comments like ” Any right minded person………..can’t do without U.S is amusing and just reflects how much you are bought over by an illusion called America. It is not Bush’s America which Roy needs to praise. No right minded person would do that. The whole world ( people) condemn an act like what Bush indulges in.If you don’t have the capability and creativity of putting thing together the way Roy has done, it is atleast expected that there is a civilized way of writing about someone whom lot of poor keep in high esteem. She is sensitive to issues which most of you will never chose to feel about. I always wondered who are the type of people who support Bush and the America. now I know who they are…..

1 trackback/pingback

1. pingback by Desicritics.org: Media, Culture, Politics, Sports and More with a South Asian Focus
   Wednesday, 2. August 2006 - 09:10

Leave a comment