Funny thing is, given her reaction, one would imagine the review to be highly critical, but in fact it is mostly positive. The author holds Roy in high esteem and applauds her work. This is no surprise, the leftist ideologues are essentially shills for fascist regimes, so in their minds, they can not accept anything other than complete obeisance.
Incidentally, after considering the available information, the US government has denied Mr Modi a visa. A handicap, wouldn't you say, for a potential prime minister? Incidentally, for more on the Tata's "ethical dealings" you could google "Kalinganagar" or "Singur".
It also mildly amusing that for an endorsement of their anti-Modi views they essentially cite the one decisive Government action so far: the visa denial by a country that is the focal point of their hatred!
Of course, the fact that the land dealings in question were done by a communist Government is not important. The Tatas have undergone a significant downgrade. Long time secular party supporters and donors, the Tatas indirectly funded the leftists through their research institutes. The social institutes, scholarships and other programs run by the Tatas have been exploited to the hilt. Now that the Government is flush with post-liberalization tax receipts, they are no longer needed.
Arundhati Roy should not get so upset when people call her on her factual accuracy. In her own words:
Her wild exaggerations about the fetus killing and the manufactured accounts of gratuitous rape of a Congress MP's daughters are well documented. We documented some of her embellishments in a recent post, from a single article!
It is also disingenuous on Arundhati Roy's part to constantly blame colonization on Africa's problems, when many Africans themselves do not believe so. Even if we are to take all her arguments at face value, just because a foreign Government wants to mine your country, you don't have to slaughter half your population. Naturally she will completely ignore the role of religion (both varieties actually) in Africa's problems.
For someone who seems to be so against colonization, the realization does not dawn on her that she is essentially a "foreign" element trying to colonize the minds of folks of another religion through nefarious leftist tactics. This is perhaps the biggest irony of the Arundhati Roy story.
8 comments:
More typically, she (A Roy) appears to gather her facts from newspapers (her articles strike the reader rather as “lounge notes”), before selectively arranging and then exaggerating them to suit her own ends.
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14120046
I think you shall not write, say, or even think anything against Arundhati Roy, Medha Patekar, Barkha Datt, Karan Thapar, NDTV, CNN-IBN, China, Communism, Islam, Muslims, Pakistan etc.
The simple reason being that if ever such 'tolerant free-speech propagating intellectuals' get hold of power, people like you who dared uttering uncomfortable truths, will end in concentration camps and deep dungeons.
Don't you understand that rights, free speech, and justice are not for people like you, who refuse to accept the Godly wisdom of Roy, Datt, Sardesai, Thapar, etc...
>> Regardless of our obvious ideological differences I hope you agree that errors and innuendo of this nature undermine the real debate.
I have heard many socialist cheerleaders drop this phrase often. What is the 'real debate' we keep hearing about ? They never tell you.
Well, the lady is turning out to be India's major entertainment act. Perhaps she needs to feign embarrassment at any praise directed at her, being modest and all you know.
I don't think it funny however when she starts lecturing about "ethical dealings". How about that nice plot of hill country land that she and her hubby tried to cheat the local tribal owners out of?
"As a writer, a fiction writer, I have often wondered whether the attempt to always be precise, to try and get it all factually right somehow reduces the epic scale of what is really going on."
She is cribbing that accuracy, precision and sticking to facts are reducing the productivity of her communist, anti-national propaganda.
This sounds ominously like orwellian newspeak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
She is blatantly saying that she is not happy with facts.
That is what happens Orwell's 1984.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth
As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves an opposing purpose to that which its name would imply, being responsible for the falsification of historical events; and yet is aptly named in a deeper sense, in that it creates/manufactures "truth" in the newspeak sense of the word.
http://www.livemint.com/2008/12/29211704/A-8216communist8217-MP.html?atype=tp
Congressmen had actually banned usage of word "videshi" in the parliament to describe Sonia Gandhi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. In the novel, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year".
As a writer, a fiction writer, I have often wondered whether the attempt to always be precise, to try and get it all factually right somehow reduces the epic scale of what is really going on.
The above is infact the PERFECT incarnation of the post-modernist mindset. In the United States its also called "Fake but accurate"
Post a Comment