The Verbal Terrorist is back. With a difference. For a change, she has (surprisingly) toned down. When you read the complete article, the reason becomes evident: she has little to say in defence of a terrorist-suspect: SAR Geelani.

Geelani who is one of the prime accused in the attempted Parliament attack a couple of years ago, is now out on bail was subsequently acquitted (thanks, Yazad). It is no secret that this academician is a supporter of the “Kashmir” cause, and has on numerous occasions openly supported self-determination. Now, the recent attempt on Geelani’s life is, according to the Verbal Terrorist, stage-managed by the Delhi police who in her words, “are not above suspicion.”

Why does the Booker-winner go public with an elaborate defense of Geelani? Whether it is widely known or no, she happens to be a member of the All India Defence Committee for S.A.R. Geelani (sic). So she’s quick with her verbal barrage. And in the manner which none can match–hey no! the Resident Idiot does match–Roy like our secular eminences, fulminates at those who have views opposed to hers. Choice phrases she uses in this article, for your reading pleasure:

• Hypernationalism
• Sinsisterly so
• Disregarded… basic integrity
• Fledgling reports, ignorant talk show hosts
• Idle boy-talk

I’m forced to wonder why she didn’t take up cudgels/form a committee when the Kanchi Shankaracharya was arrested on flimsy grounds.

But let’s briefly examine her imagination logic.

Several media reports, including the Outlook story about the February 8 attempted assassination of S.A.R. Geelani, suggest that I am among those who have accused the Delhi Police of carrying out the attack. Not true.

Really? Let’s see what she says later in her piece of fiction the article.

There can be no doubt that the investigation into the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament has been shabbily handled by the Delhi Police, indeed sinisterly so. [...] At the time, the Delhi Police were obviously under pressure to produce results. And produce results they did. Riding the popular wave of hypernationalism, they disregarded procedure, legality and, of course, even basic integrity. While it may be unfair to accuse them without evidence, they certainly cannot be considered above suspicion, and must be investigated…

Mark the underlined words: It may be unfair. She doesn’t say so categorically. Just “maybe.” So what does this suggest? You can indeed accuse the Delhi police, and if you follow this train of logic, it is not hard to conclude that the Delhi police are a brutal lot going by their history, and therefore it is possible that they have stage-managed the recent attempt on Geelani’s life. So her emphatic denial at the beginning of the article is definitely “not true,” using her own words. Only, she’s managed to accuse the Delhi police in cloaked language.

While several people have made this accusation, I’m not one of them. I’m not in the business of making unsubstantiated allegations.

Pffffff! Lying in Style. But that’s what you do all the while, Roy. Remember the Story of the Ripped Foetus? Or the Tale of the Burnt MLA’s Family? It’s another matter that you had to come out with a public apology (I can imagine how uncomfortable that must have made you feel) when the said family was alive and kicking.

But the Verbal Terrorist does more than make unsubstantiated allegations: she is an expert in propagating the Art of Guilt by Association. Here for instance, she says,

On an ndtv chat show, two guests—the director of a jingoistic Bollywood film about Kashmir and an MP from Jammu—discussed the Geelani case.

Why doesn’t she name the director, the film, and the MP as they’ve already appeared on NDTV with thousands of people watching them? And note the choice of her word: jingoistic. It is sufficient to establish her ground: don’t take ‘em seriously. With this established, she says,

The film director said that most Kashmiri militants who do time in prison become police informers when they’re released, and are routinely targeted by militants. The MP went on to add that he knew for a fact that militants made it a point to assassinate surrendered militants—not a single surrendered militant is allowed to survive, he said knowledgeably. Now neither observation is a gem of wisdom in and of itself—but bandied about in this context, it all becomes pretty wicked.

Notice how caustically she dismisses the words as “neither observation is a gem of wisdom…” And her conclusion that “it all becomes pretty wicked” doesn’t quite flow from what the SPINDTV NDTV chat folks have said. But she does subtly manage to imply that the recent attack on Geelani was not by terrorists seeking revenge. So, who else can it be? The cops? But Roy, frothing at the mouth vehemently denied it at the outset.

And then she goes on to spin a sob-story about all the unfair treatment meted out to Geelani by… well, everybody in the whole damn country: the police, media, public (me included because I’m taking a position opposed to Roy), boy-talking reporters… And she doesn’t rest there. She even says that if anything bad happens in future to this harassed man and/or his family, all of us should be blamed. It’s like saying to somebody, “I’ve already filed a police complaint that if anything happens to me, you are responsible for it.” Lovely. By the way, she doesn’t let go of the opportunity to smear the BJP, specifically, Naqvi, Advani, and Vajpayee. It is surprising she hasn’t mentioned Gujarat even once in the entire short story article.

However, what is amusing–disgusting in fact–is that she is secure that this article will get the treatment it deserves. And so she plays the game of reversal. Says she at the end:

That’s it from me folks. ‘Bye now. Let the insults roll. Oh look! Here’s one already…

This is followed by a letter/email message that condemns the article. How much more desperate can she get? The lady has taken the trouble to read the (expected) feedback, and then reproduced it as an “afterword/postscript.”