Love her or hate her, but it’s necessary for our collective conscience to be awakened every now and then by the pointy stick of Arundhati Roy (9 is Not 11, Dec 22). It helps us not to become like the people we hate. However, the dislike whipped up against political leaders won’t do our country any good either. The alternative will be tinpot military dictators whom we’ll never be able to get rid of. If we can have an outspoken Rakhi Sawant in entertainment, a Laloo in politics, why can’t we have an Arundhati in the media?
Shyam Sreekaram, Francistown, Botswana
If Vinod Mehta is so concerned abut ensuring the livelihood of one Ms Roy, let him start some pension fund for her—we will gladly donate for the same. Just spare us her wisdom, please. By now the entire nation knows what plagues our "evil" country and what solutions come out of her "hallowed" brain. Do we need to know more of the same? Seven pages of enlightenment by the goddess of small things! Or is it that Outlook can’t find more worthwhile contributors?
Ashwin Kumar, on e-mail
How does Ms Roy reconcile her supposedly secular values with support for such theocratic movements as that of these terrorists? Will an independent Kashmir be a secular democracy? Will Pakistan ever allow it? India has many flaws but at least it tries to achieve a higher ideal. The right wing in India is as disgusting as the Muslim parties in Pakistan. But even the worst of India is comparable to the best of Pakistan.
Ashish K., Cambridge, US
Each individual sentence in Arundhati’s essay is a masterpiece in literary construction. But put together, it’s all crap! She points out what is wrong with everything, but offers no solution other than "looking the monster in the mirror". Jimi Hendrix sang, "I used to live in a room full of mirrors and all I saw was only me." Arundhati’s been living in that room for a long time now.
Sanjay Sarkar, Mumbai
It’s a brave article by Arundhati. I applaud her.
Waris, on e-mail
This woman is a literary terrorist. Nay, she is literally a terrorist.
Anil Chakradar, Hyderabad
One of the few times I’ve agreed with Ramachandra Guha is when he advised Arundhati to stick to fiction.
P. Bodepudi, on e-mail
Earlier I thought Ramachandra Guha was jealous of Arundhati, but having gone through her periodic essays in Outlook, I tend to agree with his assessment. Anyway, when are you both—that is Roy and VM—getting your Nishaan-e-Pakistan?
Dr Shaunak Shah, Vadodara
As a rookie reporter many years ago, I remember asking Arundhati at a book-reading session if the cult of snobbery growing around God of Small Things disturbed her. She had not yet won her Booker, was not weighed down by the role of the nation’s conscience-keeper and looked like a young girl surprised by the hysteria around a book. I don’t remember exactly what she said but over the years, I’ve lost my curiosity about her because she has turned into a joyless writing machine, a thinking man’s Shobhaa De. Someone who thinks a five-star hotel made by a sassy Parsi entrepreneur in defiance of the British is an icon of gross injustice while it is okay to break into a jig after accepting a Booker from the British who she herself says, gifted Partition as a bloody blow to India. She is not that important to us, we have lives of our own and we do not even remember her till she is back with a long-winding 10-page essay on an issue she is sure will provoke a reaction. What a fantastic way to keep yourself alive in the public eye. I stil l think that to display anger would be to give her more importance than she deserves because she does not. Everything is not about her or about her version of what 26/11 stands for. What has happened in Mumbai is a national tragedy. It’s time to stop intellectualising it, commenting on it derisively and playing one aspect of it against the other.
Reema Moudgil, on e-mail
Roy may well be the greatest writer and speaker of our time.
Donald H. Veach, Cambridge, US
Arundhati is nothing but a miserable one-trick pony. That one trick got her the Booker. And ever since she has been resting on that laurel.
Gaurav, on e-mail
Arundhati devotes her first few paras to question the comparison of 26/11 to 9/11 and seems as much outraged at the comparison as at the incident itself. Like it or not, 9/11 will always be the benchmark of enormity for acts of terror, for it was, after all, the largest such act in the recent past.
Bharat Rao, on e-mail
Arundhati is clearly very rattled by the Mumbai attacks. Her prose, usually so lucid and a treat to read whether or not you agree with her, is this time rambling and repetitive. Along with the form, the function too suffers from a complete lack of new insight. Instead, she has once again propped up her all-time favourite villains—Gujarat genocide, "atrocities" in Kashmir, Hindutva, powerful and sinister politicians et al, which have supposedly led to this (almost justified!) retribution from the Muslims of the world. This is a tad too over the top. Notwithstanding the "decades of quick-fixes and dirty deeds", these terrorists were no disgruntled Indian Muslims whereby these attacks could be explained in the above context. I wouldn’t even term them as Pakistanis. People like them are above nationalities, owing allegiance only to their own pure hatred and warped mindsets, global citizens of the Terror Republic.
Rahul Gaur, Gurgaon
Congratulations Arundhati, and congratulations Outlook, for managing to turn 26/11 into a rant for everything that India stands for.
Anil Kotwal, on e-mail
Thank you Arundhati—and thank you Outlook—for trying to inject some sanity into this madness.
Anuradha Ramanujan, Gainesville, US
I read Arundhati’s article with mixed feelings. I’ve never supported Hindu fundamentalism. I live in the UK (and am still an Indian citizen after 30 years) and have personally experienced the pitfalls of ethnicity. I am at a higher risk of being suspected by the police than a native white because of my colour. There are more Blacks and Asians in jail as a percentage. But I continue to follow the law of land. I can’t understand why some Muslims in India should seek to have a different law for themselves.
Satyendra Jha, UK
As the Mumbai blasts were being blasted live on air, one of the first truths to hit home was that this is what the people of j&k have gone through day after day. This is what several Gujaratis must have gone through after the genocide that we all love to live in denial of went through. And this is what happens when you allow yourself to be ruled by a political class which has engaged mainly in two national projects—corruption and lumpenisation of the masses. Actually, Roy’s essay is not that blasphemous. The obvious is taken care of. Pakistan is on the block now and the candles are still burning in solidarity. If anything is to change, the suppressed majority must participate in the reconstruction of a more desirable nationalism. By the way, by head and body count, more people have die d, been orphaned and mutilated in the recent floods in Tamil Nadu. As my domestic help says, how does it matter who kills you as long as death is the end.
Sharada Ramanathan, Chennai
Arundhati should migrate to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. I’m sure she’ll get a better perspective on the religion of peace.
Rupesh, on e-mail
Arundhati the literary terrorist has struck again. It’s high time we started ignoring sick, Leftist anti-nationals like her.
Maha Gandhar, on e-mail
Roy’s piece will, as usual, invite hostile reactions, but none can quarrel with her comments on the irresponsible conduct of TV news channels, particularly the English language ones, during their live coverage of 26/11. If there is such a thing as the depth of TV journalism, it was plumbed when anchors and senior on-the-spot correspondents freely indulged in wild sensationalism. Times Now at one stage gleefully claimed that even though the police authorities had requested the channels to suspend live coverage, they were continuing with it as no one had come to the spot to stop them.
Ramesh Ramachandra, Bangalore
Roy expects the media to articulate an "authentic Indian" response to our tragedy. Such expectation is misplaced. The clientele of the media houses, both print and TV, is the upper and middle class in the cities, who have a more western outlook. The voice of the villager is rarely heard in the mainstream media.
Jaipat S. Jain, New York
No doubt the media coverage and analysis was crude—"Is This Our 9/11?"—but by invoking an anti-politician rhetoric early on, it probably denied the opportunity to those who might have wanted to give it an anti-Muslim twist.
Mangesh Kasbekar, Mumbai
Much as I admire Arundhati for her (often misplaced) audacity, I can’t help saying that her latest essay in Outlook, though nice to read, offers no logical understanding of, or practical solution to, the problem of terrorism. The lengthy, convoluted prose ends with a conclusion that is poetic but which does nothing to address the problems faced by the man on the street, the victim of terror.
V. Muthuswami, on e-mail
A brilliant piece. The idea of India is being slowly yet effectively dismantled by jingoistic regionalism, linguistic chauvinism and cultural degradation. Surely the India of the Mauryas, Mughals, and Nehru was more colourful and vibrant. What’s more, there was no religious intolerance then. And how have we changed when the decades-old problems of poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and lack of housing for the poor persist? Jigar Moradabadi has rightly said: Kya qayamat hai ke is daur-e-taraqqi mein Jigar/ Aadmi se aadmi ka haq ada hota nahin.
Zoheb Hasan, on e-mail
Isn’t it enough, Mr Mehta, that we suffer terrorism? Why should you add insult to injury by inflicting Arundhati Roy on hapless and helpless readers?
Gopi Maliwal, Hong Kong
Mr Mehta’s hatchet woman has done it again, waiting for the Republic’s anger to subside before raising suspicions on the investigations and trying to get terrorists out of the gallows.
Gopi K. Nambiar, Bangalore
Roy is a wordsmith with a warped mind. Persuasive imagery is her passion, fishing in troubled waters her pastime. Recounting the commissions and omissions of the Indian State since Independence, she has tried to justify 26/11. For all her wordplay, why doesn’t she focus on some positives—like how present-day youth have transcended the divisive forces of religion, language, ethnicity, caste etc? Like other issues, human rights ones too are not unfettered. Driven beyond a point, they are counterproductive. When we are attacked and the nation is in pain, to say that we deserve it because of past mistakes is downright insensitive.
V.K. Rayadu, Bangalore
Roy’s latest rant is different only for the reason that instead of her favourite whipping boy—the State of India—this time she has picked on us, that is everybody else.
Sanjay Ranade, Pune
From my perspective, Roy’s analysis of the Mumbai attack and specifically subcontinental historical causes seems measured, informative and wise.
David Finn,
Nanoose Bay, Canada
If it is justifiable, as Arundhati suggests, to cite past injustices as a potential cause of 26/11, we are condemned in perpetuity. Such flawed reasoning works right into the Sangh parivar’s agenda, for they could cite any number of Mughal atrocities to justify the ones they commit.
Abhishek Agrawal, on e-mail
Roy’s efforts have certainly considered history and time, but with her ‘Die Hard 25s’ and other overt simplifications peppered all over, the whole issue has careened off any specific hitting zone.
Dip, Dhaka
My head still reels! What is Arundhati trying to say? Impoverished Muslims driven to the wall? By whom? Who stopped them from going to school? Is anyone preventing them from thinking rationally and integrating with the rest of the country/world? Is it the fault of ordinary people that we continue to support the hideous spectre of illiterate Muslims being blindly misled by irrational clerics while a bunch of self-righteous writers like Roy keep advising pacifism as a response? Aren’t we already pacifist enough to the point of being lame and timid?
Madhan, Bangalore
A genuine/honest/demonstrable separation of religion and the state is the key. This has to be fought at the ideological level in debates etc. The millions of Muslims supporting a humanist, secular democracy play a key role here.
M. Vijaykumar, Bangalore
Arundhati could easily have cut her eight-page essay to half and directed readers sooner to the conclusion that we are at a crossroads and must choose between a sign that says ‘Justice’ and another that says ‘Civil War’.
T.N.K. Kurup, on e-mail
Arundhati is oversimplifying things by linking Kashmir to 26/11. None of the terror attacks in the last year sent out the message: ‘Give us Kashmir, and we will stop.’ Plain and simple, 26/11 was an attack on India, seen in some quarters as part of a Zionist grouping. Otherwise, Jews and foreigners would not have been targeted.
Kanishka Agiwal, on e-mail
Arundhati has once again transgressed all norms of civility by blaming Inspector Mohan Sharma for executing terrorists. She lacks basic knowledge of international law and should realise that most experts have agreed that Kashmir does not qualify for independence. India is a country that has not only tolerated her anti-nationalism, it has, over the centuries, embraced millions of people who came here, whether in search of plunder or in search of shelter. Indi a is only next to Iraq in the number of people it has lost to terror. Being a soft state, it won’t go to war, but it should not be business as usual either.
Nirode Mohanty, California
Why does Arundhati have to support convicts and demoralise the police? Why does she feel the need to go bjp-bashing and provide terrorists with further ammunition? By saying that we can’t stop people like Kasab as long as we have people like Narendra Modi, she is reinforcing what is precisely the logic of terrorist groups like LeT and JeM.
Chitrakar, on e-mail
It nauseates me to see writers like Arundhati churning out senseless venom and insulting an injured nation.
Arun Kumar, on e-mail
Arundhati is nothing but a whiner. A few months ago, she was willing to give Kashmir away—only to have Kashmiris electing overwhelmingly to stay. I can’t understand why Vinod Mehta is letting his magazine become a personal blog for the lady.
Abhishek Chaturvedi, on e-mail
Arundhati is a hypocrite out for some cheap publicity. She conveniently writes for the jehadi cause in India, knowing well that we’ll tolerate diverse opinions and won’t react violently to her load of garbage.
Smita Bhakta, on e-mail
I used to have respect for your publication. It used to be better than the sensationalism propagated by other Indian media. No longer.
Ninad Huilgol, on e-mail
Why does everyone give this woman so much importance?
RV, Minneapolis, US
Arundhati’s essay is the best, most comprehensive, thoughtful and sane piece of writing I have read on 26/11. What I find appalling are the responses from some of India’s most fortunate people, who may also be considered "well-educated". A democratic state’s foundation lies on a well-informed, educated polity. What I see in the comments from her detractors doesn’t bode well for India.
Chandan K. Mahanta, on e-mail
Arundhati just stops short of suggesting that we all join the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Why can’t she become the attorney-general of Pakistan?
Raghunatha Rao Juvvadi, on e-mail
In the aftermath of 9/11, Roy had written about it, blaming everything on America and Bush. The New York Times refused to run her article because credible newspapers accept political commentary from political experts and analysts, not fiction writers. You, however, ever dying to get a "name" author, are more than ready to ‘spread’ the folds of your shoddy magazine.
Rishi, on e-mail
The only logical reason for Arundhati to indulge in such behaviour is to advertise her lateral thought process. "Oh, how can I say what everyone is saying, how can I think the way everyone’s thinking? See, this shows how I can look at this incident and still be unaffected for I am a superbrain sent by Him to show you little people the right path." Ms Roy...we don’t think so. So shut up.
Shardul Banerjee, Ahmedabad
It’s sad to see a mainstream newsmagazine publishing articles full of uncorroborated facts and figures, especially on Kashmir.
Sanjay, New Delhi
The problem with liberal writers in India is that in the quest to be politically correct, they assume both forms of extremism (Hindu and Islamic) are equal in terms of reach and destructive power. Islamic extremism has state backing most of the time and hence has achieved an international character today. Hindu extremism is still more local in nature. You just can’t equate the two.
Indranil, Calcutta
That Roy’s rationalisation of mass murder continues to find legitimacy in respectable publications is proof of the fact that we have learned nothing from the Mumbai massacre.
Vanaja Rajan, Chennai
A literary writer will be a romantic, not a politician. That Roy is a fourth-grade politician with an agenda is evident from her one-sided article.
S. Suriyanaryanan, Surat
We never fought the war on terrorism ‘together’. To think that in this game of ‘unity’ we hope to include politicians, the government and the public!
Ashok Jayaram, Bangalore
Now I know that Hindus are responsible for the rise of Islamic terrorism. Hindus say they are the most adaptable, so after 500 years of Islamic rule why haven’t they adapted Islamic traditions and learned the Quran? It is unfortunate that some innocent Muslim youth had to do the Mumbai job. I am with you Ms Roy, destroy Hinduism culturally to end Islamic terrorism.
Devendra Patel, Ahmedabad
Arundhati’s problem is that she can never separate her ego from her words. No writer writing to a nation whose individuals hold every kind of view, be it rational or otherwise, can afford to flaunt this ego in front of those he or she is trying to convince. In her scheme of things the Taj cannot be a national icon because it’s frequented by the rich; armymen cannot be saviours because they are the terrorists plaguing J&K; cops can’t be heroes because they kill Muslims in fake encounters; we can’t rely on America to help us combat terror because it’s the warmonger; forget Hafiz Saeed, catch Babu Bajrangi instead!
Anjishnu Kumar, New Delhi
I, for one, choose to side with Arnab Goswami in my disgust for Arundhati Roy.
Jha Singh, New Delhi
Small mercy that Arundhati has not held L.K. Advani responsible for the terror attacks on Mumbai.
Bharat Trivedi, on e-mail
I wonder when Outlook will stop its obsession with Arundhati. I feel depressed every time I read her pieces. She never has anything good to say about India. Every writer who makes it in the West acquires the same trait.
Viswanathan Venkataraman, Bangalore
We are still reeling under the treacherous and inhuman terror attack on our civilians and cherished icons, one planned and perfected by a State not accountable to civil society and perpetrated by its proxies—all in the name of God. And you inflict on us a defence of this evil by Arundhati. Does trash divided into paragraphs pass for an essay? Yours is a reputed magazine, sir, pieces like Arundhati’s will only diminish your "Outlook".
A.A. Rao, Bangalore
I had a lot of respect for Arundhati but not any more. She seems to think that the genesis of all evil in the world lies in the Babri demolition.
Deepak Seth, on e-mail
I normally find Arundhati to be a purveyor of beautiful prose. Each sentence is carefully crafted with a smart turn of phrase here and stiletto-sharp thrust at the jugular there. It was therefore disappointing to read an unstructured, repetitive, listless and cliche-ridden essay from her. The government of the country may tolerate her anarchist views, but surely her readers will reject her if she continues inflicting on them this kind of unimaginative verbosity.
Shyamal Mukherji, Mumbai
I may disagree with what she says but I can’t deny the beauty of Roy’s writing. One quibble, though. The poor do not become virtuous just because they are poor just as the rich do not equal vice because of their money. If we are really genuine, we must shed tears for both the rich and poor victims of 26/11, for Muslims, Christians, Jews and Hindus.
Pear, Mumbai
I’d have forgiven Arundhati had she taken up the defence of the Malegaon accused with as much gusto as she has of arrested Islamic terrorists. Alas...
Dheeraj, Trivandrum
Dear, darling Arundhati. How can you do this to these warriors on the Internet/TV? Everyone was content, having waged their bit of the war against terror on these fora. And now this cat you let loose a mong the pigeons!
Manish Banerjee, Calcutta
If Arundhati is unhappy with Mumbai terror or its comparison with 9/11 of US she is welcome to choose more hospitable climes where her views may be (?) "welcome". Popular and reputed weeklies like yours should not provide the hospitality of your columns for such writers to air their highly offensive comments. The proposed protocol to control media coverage by the government perhaps has some substance after all.
H.N.Ramakrishna, Bangalore
On reading Arundhati, I have come to the conclusion that apart from the sides A and B, there is also a side C, represented by writers like her who never have positive solutions to issues in contention. They find fault with everybody: politicians, police, bureaucrats. As Russian playwright Anton Chekhov said, "Love, friendship, respect do not unite people as much as a common hatred for something".
V. Pandy, Tuticorin
I always request my wife not to buy Outlook if it has an article by Arundhati. Unfortunately, she makes it a point not to miss that particular issue.
A.K. Ghai, on e-mail
Who’s Outlook speaking for when it gleefully tells us How To Be Happy In These Gloomy Times on its cover (Dec 29)? The Mumbaikars? I wonder how much of a comfort Shefalee Vasudev’s retail therapy or Bhaichand Patel’s cocktail recipes would be to someone who has lost a loved one in Mumbai’s night of terror?
Honey Mehta, Amritsar
I noted sadly that the list of books prescribed for happiness (Rev Up Your H Quotient) included not a single book in Hindi. Maybe it needed Manjula Padmanabhan, the selector, to be a more pan-Indian author to include gems like Raag Darbari (Shrilal Shukla) and a collection of essays by the great Harishankar Parsai.
R.G., on e-mail
I recently attended a reception at a village 80 km from Vijayawada. Two farmers were discussing the Mumbai terror attacks. One said, "Oh let those rich people die. Why spend all those crores on a hotel?" The second concurred, "Yes, what’s the use? What’s in it for us? Why all this hue and cry (gola, the Telugu word for ruckus)? Aren’t we dying here, with no water, roads, power?" I sneaked away, unable to sleep that night.
D.M. Raju, Vijayawada
I’m a 17-year-old born and brought up in Mumbai. We’re probably the most angry of all age groups, the most willing to bring about the change India deserves, in the wake of the attack on our city. Many of us can’t vote yet, violence is not an answer, and angry letters to politicians fall on deaf ears... our voices are simply not heard. So I beseech you to create an outlet for the youth and leave one page in Outlook (just one) for an article by a member of the youth.
Aditi Rao, Mumbai
The speed with which Sandra was spirited away to Israel—unable to bid farewell even to her kids or unable to speak to them over the phone—was astonishing (Moshe’s Saviour, Dec 29). She might have something to say about the sackfuls of food being stockpiled at Chabad House days before the attacks. And something on stories circulating about how some of the terrorists were staying there before the attacks. Or how they shot everyone else but took pity on the little boy and spared his life.
Vine Sivan, Calcutta
Were the 26/11 terrorists inspired by Frederick Forsyth’s Dogs of War? The way they used a mother ship and later switched to speedboats remarkably echoes Forsyth’s fictional events.
Kamei G.M., Guwahati
I agree that someone should defend Kasab, who must get the sentence that Ram Jethmalani prescribes (No Houris Inside Our Jails, Dec 29). But is this why Jethmalani defended Jessica Lall’s murderers?
Arpan, New York
Fear didn’t enter the polling booths in Delhi and Rajasthan (Dec 22). Did it enter those in MP and Chhattisgarh?
Kiran Bagachi, Mumbai
I think Vinod Mehta’s senses had gone on a premature Christmas vacation. There’s no other way he’d treat Mumbai’s loss so condescendingly.
Deepali Pawaskar, Mumbai
Slokas After A Noon Namaaz (Dec 22) was a heartwarming story. We need more such from the mainstream media.
Sivakumar T., Dallas
Mutual appreciation of cultures is more typical of India than a chauvinistic ‘we are better than you’ strain.
Anwar Patel, Dallas
It’s time we closed all madrassas. To become a global power, we need more scientific/technical manpower, not more religious scholars.
Rupesh Kumaran, Pune
For me, the only disheartening, yet glittering, blemish in your otherwise interesting magazine is the glossy paper it’s printed on. The glare is a problem for senior citizens like me. But this has a brighter side: magazines printed on glossy paper are heavier and fetch more at the raddiwala’s!
K.K. Kapur, Kanpur
Liberalism of the kind Amitav Ghosh espouses in Confessions of a Xenophile (Outlook Nano) makes me extremely proud of India.
A. Patel, by e-mail
I can understand why Ghosh likes Islam. It’s so much more liberal than Hinduism.
Iqbal Z., Pune
Clarification: The following footnote was inadvertently left out of Amitav Ghosh’s essay: "I owe the concept of ‘xenophilia’ to Leela Gandhi, who explored it brilliantly in her work, Affective Communities."
I was perplexed to see my name appear with a fictitious quote in Bibliophile (Dec 22). I’ve exchanged three sentences with your books editor in my life, and this wasn’t one of them. One hopes Outlook doesn’t endorse columns that rival film rags in their lack of authenticity. Not everyone vies to be tabloid fodder.
Amruta Patil, on e-mail
