One of the biggest tragedies that have befallen the nation in the post independence era is the class of the so-called intellectuals, who would go to any extent to earn themselves laurels even if it requires denigrating their own motherland.
Arundhati Roy who has already been made an international figure by being rewarded the Booker'sPrize, now seems to be eyeing for more international recognition. Recently, during a book reading function in New York, Roy surprised the audience as she stopped reading her award winning book midway and said she wanted to speak on an issue, which had been bothering her for quite some time. Amidst frequent clapping, she told the audience that, ?The biggest PR myth of all times is that India is a democracy. In reality, it is not.?
Had India not been a democracy Roy would not have been able to bargain insult of her motherland for international fame and publicity. India is a democracy and in a democracy every individual has the right to voice his opinion, but India is also one national family and it is expected that the family issues are not taken to strangers for redress. Had Roy been genuinely concerned about the state of democracy in India without caring for laurels, she could have voiced her reservations on appropriate forums in India. The Indian media, which is predominantly controlled by the same forces to which Roy owes allegiance, would have been overwhelmingly obliged to air her views.
Roy sighted the cases of Kashmir and the North-eastern states to prove her point that India is not democratic. It seems that in her perception India is not one single nation, as she finds the presence of the Indian army in Kashmir and the North-eastern states akin to the US occupation of Iraq. She feels that India is ?one of the leading experts? in ?occupation? and that ?the occupation of Kashmir has taken place over years?. She pointed out that in Kashmir Valley alone some 80,000 people have been killed and there are some 7,00,000 military personnel. Assuming that the given statistics is correct, what Roy did not dare to mention is the blood bath that would have prevailed had the Indian military not been present in the Valley. Though she termed the presence of the Indian military in Kashmir and the North-east, which is doing its level best to ensure peace in the violence-hit areas, as ?occupation?, Roy had nothing to say against the jehadis in Kashmir and the church sponsored separatists in the North-east whose hands are smeared with the blood of countless innocent men, women and children. It is obvious that Roy endorses Musharraf'sviewpoint in the matter, that the violent terrorists are ?freedom fighters?. No wonder a few years ago, Roy had defended and supported SAR Geelani who was accused of attack on the Parliament and anti-national activities.
Speaking on the Narmada dam issue, Roy used the language often used by the Christian missionaries and the UN calling the tribals the ?indigenous people?. The concept of ?indigenous people?, though applicable to the other parts of the world like Africa, Australia, North and South America, does not apply to India. The native Indians in America, the aboriginals in Australia, the pygmies in Africa, were the original inhabitants of the respective lands but when the white man from Europe went to these lands, he conquered violently and unethically, rendering the indigenous people a deplorable minority. But this is not the case with India. In India from times immemorial the so-called vanvasi and non-vanvasi populations have been co-existing. There is no evidence of any white ?Aryan? race coming from foreign lands and invading the black ?Dravidian? race of the original inhabitants, a myth formulated by Max Muller. The latest archaeological and historical discoveries have proved that Aryan-Dravidian myth conceptualised and propagated by the British was a deliberate attempt to divide the Indian population.
India has, time and again, asserted that it is one indigenous people implying one undivided nation. But that does not go well with the church which is an instrument of continued western imperialism. Right from the days of the British Raj, the church with its evil divisive designs has been propagating that the Vanvasis are the indigenous people and instigating them to liberate themselves from the rule of the ?Aryan invaders? which often results into violent separatist movements as can be witnessed in the North-east.
While Roy painted a very horrendous picture of the Gujarat riots where 1,00,000 Muslim minority (again one wonders the source and authenticity of the figure) were forced to flee their homes, there was not even a mention of the 4,00,000 Kashmiri pundit minority that has been forced to live as refugees in their own country for the last fifteen years.
In front of the international audience, Roy took utmost care in her statements to be politically correct, correct in the context of international polity, not the national polity. Probably the natural desire to maintain the status of international personality made her speak the language that would appeal to her western masters.
It is only because of India'sliberal democratic nature that elements like Roy, who are compensated by their paymasters in the west, are tolerated. Thanks to the large chunk of the so-called liberal media that thrives mainly on resources that come from the west, the likes of Roy, instead of being exposed, are projected as modern, liberal, heroes who because of their westernized, sophisticated ways become the objects of admiration and emulation for the Indian youth which, following the legacy of Macaulay, sees everything that is coming from the west as ideal.
The nexus of such fraudulent intellectuals and the sold media is an effective and easy tool in the hands of the western imperialists for the smooth implementation of their hideous agenda.
