Arundhati Roy is a Victim

A spate of articles have appeared in the normal course of events on Arundhati Roy’s
sensational appearances and advocacy of the cause of Kashmir separatism. Readers are also familiar with her condoning (indirectly) of the cruelty of her Maoist friends against the ordinary policeman (such as beheading). For someone who advocates peace, justice and nonviolence and democracy and all the other good things that Bharat stands for, she has shown herself to be an advocate of the exact opposite.

The question arises as to why this is so ?

The present writer believes that she is the victim of the colonial Occupation when the Christian missionaries openly abused everything Hindu and bent all their energies in the conversion process(that the majority of Hindus did not convert is a testimony to the strength of Hinduism, but they did try and still do so ). Some commentators have pointed out that she cannot be acting alone. She has powerful sponsors both within India and abroad.

One writer has pointed out correctly that there are 4 strands of anti national activity within India (Anil Gupta, responding to an article by Dr. Chandan Mitra in The Pioneer)

1.    Muslim Fundamentalists
2.    Christian separatists both in the North East and other parts of India (well documented by Dr.Niyogi)
3.    Maoists (whose clear aim is to overthrow the Indian state)
4.    Macaulayists (Indians who are still under the spell of Macaulayism)

Anil places her in the last 3 categories. To focus more narrowly on the Christian component of Roy’s anti nationalism one can argue that it is derived from her family background. Her mother Mary Roy was from a wealthy Syrian Christian family from Kerala.

It is ironic that Arundhati has not seriously questioned the basis of the wealth of these
Syrian Christian families, mostly obtained from the cash crop economy of Kerala.Here was capitalism in full swing and yet Roy the criticizer of the Hindu corporate state is silent on the matter.

It is the word ‘Hindu’ that is key to understanding Roy’s malaise. This she has derived from the colonial occupiers and her own lack of familiarity with Indian history and especially Hinduism. She imbibed from early on a contempt for all things Hindu. If she were saying that the Indian state has a majority of Hindus who are found in various walks of life and employment, this would be nothing unusual. And why not the ‘Christian corporate states ? She does not use that word because the word ‘Christian’ is associated with positive qualities (the legacy of the Christian missionary propaganda) whereas everything Hindu is associated with negative qualities.

Hence, her vicious  attack (verbal) on the old Swami Lakshmanananda who was killed along with a Hindu nun by her Maoist friends in Kandamahal in 2008 and that too on the Ashram grounds  which is held sacred by Hindus. The Swami had lived for 60 years among the
Tribals with whom he shared the common elements of Hinduism and their own tribal
religion.

From the Vedas onwards the worship of terrestrial,atmospheric and celestial powers has been central to Hinduism. The worship of murti (icon) as the abode of the divine power manifesting itself on the terrestrial plane has been central to Hinduism. Both these features are what is common to Hinduism and tribal religion. The Swami was aligning himself with the tribals. This was not to the liking of the Christian missionaries who found a competitor in what they hoped would be their own turf.  The reports of the Maoist- Christian link are not far fetched.

And Roy’s continued criticism of all things Hindu is an expression of her early victimization by the Christian missionaries. Some writers have suggested that she be invited to renounce her Indian citizenship (since she finds India to be a horrible den) and move abroad. Where ? Certainly not the Swat valley or Talibanised Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia !

Heven forbid ! She would not be able to indulge in the shenanigans that she is allowed
to in India which she has repeatedly said is not a democracy. And one can’t quite see in her in a burkha ! What about the U.S. or any of the Western democracies ? That would not work either, since the aim of World Vision and such outfits is to keep an agent in India to further their own cause.

Indians should ask as to what the mindset is of Christian converts from the indigenous religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism ? This is a serious question and should not be undertaken without serious thought. Afterall, there are converts who continue to quietly practise their faith in the one country in the world which has welcomed all religions. There are many who stay loyal to the Indian state and to the country that nourished and nurtured them and where they and their ancestors had been born and lived in.

Why is Roy an aberration ? Why did she become an easy victim of those who would
use her ambition, vanity,  publicity seeking, etc. for their own purposes ?

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).

Responses