Arundhati Roy has written an op-ed for The New York Times, viewing Obama’s visit in Kashmiri perspective.

Arundhati Roy is in a strange position where both right-wing and liberal-minded hate her, for different reasons. I might disagree with a few bits, but to me, citizens like her are important because they bring us out of our comfort zones. Kashmir should be independent; Naxals are innocents — she is an antipode for Indian nationalists, or as we call them, patriotic Indians (and patriotism is a smokescreen that justifies governments committing crimes). If not anything else, she is showing patriotic Indians that there is another side to the story.

Of course, her side is often not the complete story (not all Naxals/separatists are innocent of crime either), which is a common complaint.

(It is disingenuous of me to cluster all patriots. I’m really referring to the chest-thumping variety.)


Where I don’t agree with her is the romanticization of rebellion. I don’t know enough to blame her for it or the fact that she is a writer, but the undercurrent was present in the piece on Naxals, and it is present in this op-ed.

Indian nationalists and the government seem to believe that they can fortify their idea of a resurgent India with a combination of bullying and Boeing airplanes. But they don’t understand the subversive strength of warm, boiled eggs.

which is a reference to an egg that a victim’s kin handed her. Go figure.


The whole sedition case against her was hokum. The government didn’t have the balls (or the case) to arrest her.