Hanging Arundhati Roy's arguments

By John Cheeran
When Arundhati Roy’s celebrated Booker Prize winning novel God of Small Things was published few dared to criticize her work.
In Kerala, where the story was unfolding, journalist and novelist M.P. Narayana Pilla pointed out what a bad writing God of Small Things amounted to.
In the first paragraph of the book, Arundhati wrote about ‘black crows’. Narayana Pilla asked who doesn’t know crows are black? Then why say it so?
That is to just to tell the liberties she takes with the written word.
Arundhati Roy has raved again, again in Outlook magazine.
Readers have wondered why Arundhati has not written any novels since winning the Booker Prize. They are mistaken. Arundhati Roy is capable only of fiction.
She has a problem in looking at facts in their face.
She dug up fiction from the debris of Gujarat riots and Outlook and carried it in the past. Arundhati had cooked up burnt alive scenes of an MP’s daughters who were not in India at the time. It was right-wing journalist Balbir Punj who nailed her lie.
Now Arundhati has taken up cudgels on behalf of terrorist Mohammad Afzal, who has been sentenced to death for his involvement in the attack on Indian Parliament on December 13. Thank God, Arundhati, unlike her friend Iranian President Ahmadinejad who keeps on denying the holocaust, has not said we, the Indians, were hallucinating on December 13, 2001.
She has not said Indian Parliament was not attacked.
She, however, screams that Afzal should not be hanged. (So that India should waste more money by feeding Afzal biryani and keeping alive him in the safe confince of Indian prison..In her Outlook essay Arundhai has done some quick maths and says India wasted an estimated Rs10,000 crore of public money during the tense period in the aftermath of Parliament attack. Spending money to defend the country is bad, but terrorists can be kept alive on taxpayers' money...Thank you very much ..)
Arundhati’s feeble argument goes like this. Let me quote her from Outlook.
“In its August 4, 2005, judgement, the Supreme Court clearly says that there was no evidence that Mohammad Afzal belonged to any terrorist group or organization. But it also says “As is the case with most of the conspiracies, there is and could be no direct evidence of the agreement amounting to criminal conspiracy. However, the circumstances, cumulatively weighed, would unerringly point to the collaboration of the accused Afzal with the slain fidayeen terrorists.
So: No direct evidence, but yes, circumstantial evidence.” Quote ends.
So Arundhati, what’s wrong in sentencing someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence?
Every day in India judges separate wheat from chaff based on circumstantial evidence.
It is well documented that Afzal had a background of terrorism and is a surrendered militant. Arundhati is unable to find fault with Supreme Court’s judgement but asks why we should we sentence terrorists at all.
She immediately discusses the morality of death sentence.
Why she has taken up the morality of death sentence only now? Because this is a god-send opportunity to grab the attention of the international media and cheap applause from the Muslim community. Where was she when other executions were happening right across India? Is Mohammad Afzal the first one to be hanged till death since Arundhati came of age?
She writes in Outlook that Supreme Court has observed that “The appellant, who is a surrendered militant and who was bent upon repeating the acts of treason against the nation, is a menace to the society and his life should become extinct.”
To counter this observation of Supreme Court Arundhati says: “They (a small but influential minority of intellectuals) see again she subtly throws in the word minority!!) argue that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that the Death Sentence works a deterrent terrorists.
How can it, when, in this age of fidayeen and suicide bombers, death seems to be the main attraction?"
At this point, Outlook Editor Vinod Mehta should have spiked this ridiculous piece. Here Arundhati says it is tough to resist the temptations of death. If that is the case, why all the fuss about hanging a potential suicide bomber and a proven plotter with a track record of militancy in Kashmir?
In any case, Afzals of this world are ready to destroy themselves so that they can destroy others. So why this hue and cry when Indian state decides to punish its assailants?
Arundhati Roy has asserted in her Outlook piece that India is an occupying power in Kashmir. Let me quote her : “On the whole, most of Kashmiris see Mohammad Afzal as a sort of prisoner-of-war being tried in the courts of an occupying power. (Which it undoubtedly is.)Quote ends..
So Arundhati Roy, has no doubt that India is occupying power in Kashmir!
I don’t think so. .
Indian government does not think so. Indian people do not think so.
Arundhati, this is not reason, but treason. Being the smart ass she is, Arundhati pretty well knows that to call India an occupying power in Kashmir is the easiest way to international stardom.
It has become easy and charming to be a traitor in India.
India, however, should treat its writers with care. Especially those who can't tell apart fact from fiction.
Turkey put Orhan Pamuk on trial for insulting what they call Turkishness.
We do not need a trial to determine that Arundhati has insulted Indian-ness by denying India's sovereignty over Kashmir, when she called the nation an occupying power.
It would be enough for us to understand her crime and hang Afzal till his death.
Long live India!