Sunday, July 14, 2024

Why the Likes of Arundhati Roy are Threat for the Nation?

Must Read

Recently, the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi granted permission to prosecute novelist Arundhati Roy in connection with a case dating back to 2010. This decision has prompted questions about why it took 14 years to reach this point. Many argue that this action should have been taken much sooner. The ‘Left-India group’ which includes writers affiliated with what some describe as the ‘fascist jihadi-secular-liberal’ faction, is condemning this decision as an assault on ‘freedom of expression.’

An English idiom aptly applies here: “Your freedom ends where mine begins.” If we are to consider the argument of those who sympathise with Arundhati Roy, then why was Nupur Sharma’s freedom of ‘expression’ curtailed?

- Advertisement -

It seems that the discourse surrounding freedom of expression is inconsistent. The selective application of this principle raises important questions about fairness and justice in our society. If freedom of expression is to be upheld as a fundamental right, it must be protected equally for everyone, regardless of their political or ideological affiliations.

Arundhati Roy has many identities. First of all, she is a pure leftist, whose thinking questions the existence of India as a nation and like her mentor Karl Marx, she believes in destroying Hindu culture and tradition. This group is expert in spreading animosity in the society, inciting emotions and creating discontent by resorting to lies and half-truths. Apart from this Arundhati is also a novelist. She received the prestigious Booker Prize in 1997 for the novel ‘The God of Small Things’.

- Advertisement -

Arundhati’s unique identity as a columnist and speaker is marred by her detachment from reality, a detachment fueled by her inherent prejudice and penchant for living in an imaginary world. This detachment is starkly evident in her response to the Godhra incident of 2002. In that tragic event, a mob of Jihadis set fire to a coach of a train returning from Ayodhya near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, resulting in the horrific deaths of 59 kar sevaks who were burned alive. This atrocity sparked widespread riots throughout the state.

On May 2 of that same year, Arundhati’s lengthy article, teeming with pure imagination and outright absurdities, was published in the prestigious English magazine ‘Outlook’. In it, she made the outrageous claim that rioters had stripped and burned alive the daughter of then-Congress MP Ehsan Jafri. Arundhati, known for her penchant for flowery language, wrote about Jafri’s house with such vivid detail as if she had been there herself. While her description was undeniably heart-rending to read, it was also a gross distortion of reality. This fabrication was just one among her many lies. It is true that the mob brutally killed Jafri, but his daughters were neither stripped naked nor burnt alive. Concurrently, an interview with Jafri’s son, Tanvir, was published in the English newspaper ‘Asian Age’, where Tanvir stated that his sister was in America at the time of the riots.

- Advertisement -

Vinod Mehta, the then editor-in-chief of ‘Outlook’ (late), identified himself as ‘Left-Liberal’, a term often viewed as contradictory. However, Mehta was a unique blend of both ideologies. He published an article challenging Arundhati’s falsehoods in ‘Outlook’ on May 27, 2002. Upon exposure, Arundhati was compelled to apologize for her deceit. Despite rebuke from the Supreme Court, her associates persist in stoking the embers of the Gujarat riots to serve their agenda.

The controversy surrounding the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi granting permission to prosecute Arundhati stems from remarks made on October 21, 2010. During a conference in Delhi, Arundhati boldly asserted, “Kashmir has never been a legitimate part of India; it has been forcefully occupied by the armed forces.” Furthermore, her persistent advocacy for Kashmir’s secession from India has only added fuel to the fire.

Arundhati’s statements have not only sparked outrage but have also been viewed as seditious by many quarters. Her unabashed stance on Kashmir’s separation from India has consistently provoked intense debates and legal scrutiny. The decision to pursue legal action against her underscores the severity of her remarks and their potential consequences.

In today’s charged political climate, such assertions are provocative and incendiary, challenging the very foundations of national unity and sovereignty. This legal action against Arundhati serves as a reminder that freedom of speech must be exercised responsibly, especially when it concerns sensitive geopolitical issues. The implications of her words resonate far beyond mere rhetoric, impacting public discourse and national security narratives.

The venomous tirade unleashed by Arundhati Roy not only displays ignorance but also mocks ndia’s history, particularly that of Kashmir. Kashyap Rishi’s Tapabhoomi, revered as Kashmir, stood as a bastion of Shaiva-Shakta and Buddhist philosophies for ages. The ancient Sanskrit text Rajatarangini meticulously chronicled Kashmir’s heritage spanning millennia.

Following the martyrdom of the last Hindu ruler, Kotarani, in the 14th century, Kashmir fell prey to a harrowing wave of Islamization under the ‘Kashmir Sultanate’. This period marked a tragic turn in the region’s history. When Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahibji valiantly championed the cause of suffering Kashmiri Pandits, he faced the barbarity of Aurangzeb’s regime. On Aurangzeb’s cruel orders in Delhi, Jihadis ruthlessly severed Guru Sahibji’s head from his body.

Even today, Gurudwara Sheeshganj Sahib in Delhi stands as a symbol of that sacrifice. Arundhati’s venomous words not only diminish this profound history but also disrespect the struggles and sacrifices of those who fought for justice and religious freedom in Kashmir and beyond.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the founder of the Sikh Empire, whose lifestyle was inspired by Sanatan culture – he freed Kashmir from the Islamic clutches in the year 1818-19. After the war with the British, when Sikh sovereignty in Kashmir ended, the British handed over Kashmir to Hindu Maharaja Gulab Singh for Rs. 75 lakhs under a treaty (1846). His descendant Maharaja Hari Singh ruled the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir until India’s independence.

Now, the format of the ‘Instrument of Accession’ signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947 (including full stops, commas, every word) was exactly the same as that signed by more than 560 princely states during their merger with India or were in the process of doing so. But the cunning British, irritated by Maharaja Hari Singh’s patriotism, forcibly made this merger ‘controversial’ through Lord Mountbatten. The remaining task was completed by Pt. Nehru, along with Sheikh Abdullah, by taking the matter to the United Nations, supporting the referendum and declaring a ceasefire against Pakistan without the victorious Indian Army liberating the entire Kashmir. On the basis of this incident, the Marx-Macaulay clan spreads confusion about Kashmir. Therefore Arundhati Roy is not just a novelist but a top-notch urban Naxal who has nexus with the separatists.

The Constitution of India delineates clear boundaries for the executive, judiciary, and legislature, while simultaneously granting citizens the fundamental right of ‘freedom of speech and expression’ under Article 19(1)(a). However, it also imposes responsibilities on citizens under Article 51(A).

No self-respecting nation can afford to tolerate statements or actions that threaten its very existence, sovereignty, or integrity. Such provocations breach the limits of acceptable discourse and challenge the foundational principles upon which the nation stands. Even esteemed figures like Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy must face consequences if they overstep these boundaries.

While freedom of speech is a cherished right, it must be exercised responsibly, with due regard for the nation’s unity and integrity. Those who choose to disregard this principle and cross the metaphorical ‘Laxman Rekha’ must be prepared to bear the consequences of their actions, regardless of their accolades or standing in society.

- Advertisement -

More articles

- Advertisement -

Latest Article