The Target - some of those "suddenly turned famous" personalities and their self perceived notion of becoming voice of authority on topics much beyond their intellectual quotient. With a specific reference to Arundhati Roy, who became famous for her One novel; the fame got her popularity and that boosted her confidence, and probably made her think why not use this fame for a more righteous cause. Besides, it is basically fashionable to be called a ‘social worker’ maybe a ‘women rights activist’ in the circles of the rich and the famous. And so this damsel probably turned into a ‘women rights activist’, and more recently ‘supporter of azaad kashmir’ doctrine. While there is nothing wrong in working as a women’s rights activist, the later cause is what drew flakes.
Now, while Arundhati cries foul on some of the Indian army’s lapses, which the Kashmiri’s have been repeating time and again; we as mature audience have to look at things without getting too emotional and not do the same mistake of looking at these isolated instances and come to a hasty conclusion. Before giving much credence to her opinions, we need to check for her background to see whether she could be the authority to talk on a topic as complex as the Kashmir issue. An issue that’s dear to a billion citizens of the world.
Born in an isolated part of the country, daughter to a women’s rights’ activist and a Bengali father; she is bound to take on the parental genes. No doubt the Bengali’s have an upper hand in English literary skills. So no surprise she wrote her only novel for which she even bagged an award. Now she writes about the plight of Kashmiri Muslims in a very heart warming manner. And when she drew sharp and negative criticism for the recent views within India, she choose to write about the same issue on NYTimes, for a larger international audience. The US, for reasons has always fancied Pakistan and would gladly encourage anyone who wishes to take shot at crying foul about India. That is probably the reason they happily chose to publish her article.
What irks the average reader is the way she approaches the problem with a simplistic view and so easily comes to conclusion. Since she has decided to be a women’s rights activist; the act of a women getting raped and murdered is the ultimate of all the un-Godly acts. And so she acutely feels for those victims in Kashmir. No one with an ability to think rationally will say this is ok or pardonable. However, it is not the main issue; it is a very small part of a much larger and complex problem.
It is rather unfortunate that there have been isolated cases where someone from the local police or the army has done this dastardly act. The ones responsible should no doubt be punished. However, when we see the plight of these Kashmiri people, why is it that almost all of the victims belong to the Muslim religion? Arundhati will be quick to reply that it is the Muslims who are in majority. And this is the problem. Most of the Hindu’s of Kashmir were forced to leave their homes and flee the state. And it was certainly not the army and the local police who were responsible for riding the Kashmiri Hindu’s out of their homeland. Since this happened more than a decade ago; some cleverly choose to ignore it. Who will decide that driving out hundreds of thousands of people out from their home and forcing them to settle out of state is an act that isless sinister than the act of a few women getting raped.
The Muslims would never have had to face the sufferings had the peace and stability of the state not been disrupted. Had they not forced the Hindu's of the state to flee.
Now when we look at this in hind site, it appears more like a planned aggression. The isolated rapes and the suffering of the muslim kashmiri's is thus part of the collateral damage. Thus picking one side of the story and publishing it in the western media is not done.
Arundhati should be the last person who can be even asked to publicly comment on such a sensitive issue. She spent her childhood in Kerala, a communist state, studied architecture as part of her acadamic background. Her second marriage was to a filmmaker, she did her cameo in films. She did several jobs including working as an aerobics instructor at five-star hotels, before she earned her cash and repute after her book became a hit seller.And thus NYTimes choosing Arundhati's view on such a complex issue probably makes you wonder!
She can be excused for her lack of rationale thinking; she reminds me of that wood cutter who was very sincere in his work; once cut the branch of the tree on which he was himself seated. Now should we stone this dumb wood cutter or refer him as an ideal wood cutter or simply ignore him and move on…
