The Algebra of Arundhati’s Injudiciousness

sorry for typo in # 37
Correction, it is wrong, not worng. Thanks

#10 by Saminasha on January 23, 2006 2:32pm PT
Zeena,

{{{Could you possibly summarize FV`s article? We`re all waiting, thanks! }}}}

Allright, Miss Saminasha.
Here is my summary of this article by our respected cheif-editor, Miss Farzana Versey. Your wish is my command, Miss Saminasha.
Farzana versey has convinced me that Arundhati Roy`s decision of rejecting the award was wrong, based on these valid points. We have to analyze on the grounds of Principles, Morals and vanity as reflection of that decision.
1:-If, it is for principles:-Then there are some moral situations , where we apply principles to resolve them. But, to resolve them, we must recognize them.First rule to principles is to abide by ethics,e.g. what is my impact on society? Now, if, we see Arandahti Roy`s decision based on just principles, then again we have to catagorise, are they personal, professional or global?Personal principles are respect for autonomy of others, being fair, refusing to take extra advantage, preventing damage to others, honesty and doing others good.Professional ones are based solely upon duty of care, sincerety to professional responsibilities and refraining any conflict of interest. Global principles are applied as society before self, social responsibility, global justice for all humans. Each human`s simple existance affects global village and exclusively , good writers( they are the voice of whole human race). By rejecting the award, Arundhati Roy nullified all three categories of principles. So, her decision was not for principles.

2:-Now, if it is based on morals:-Then morals are based on certain standards, which decide about worng and right actions, labelled as either moral or immoral with consequences after their application on society generally.For universally acceptable morals , we need a true source and it`s interpretation based on universal authority.So, even Arundhati Roy made this decision on absolute moral grounds, there will never be global agreement on those morals to be truly accepted,respected and applied. Again, Arundhati Roy`s decision is proven worng on moral grounds.


3:-If, it is for Vanity:-I just read a quote,(Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. ~Logan Pearsall Smith).
Vanity is simply an exaggerated sense of self centeredness in having pleasure to prove your superior strength in terms of appearance, success in multiple ways and in self display, which leads us to detachment, away from attachment with society which is equivalent to hiding the truth and your face under sand. Obviously , vanity is an illusion , not a reality, so, it takes you to loose your talents, which are gifted and specialy , if, you are a famous writer, like Arduntahi Roy, you loose your human connections,b/c of vanity, and mind it, human connections are the bread and butter for good writers.
This is another proof, Arundhati Roy made the wrong decision, if, it was based on vanity grounds.
Thank you
Saminasha, take care and take it easy.
regards
Zeena

With due apologies! FV has to write something every week so she has done it, what Saminasha is hot and heavy about?

I know very little about the lady, may have read something here and there. I understand she is a leftist. Honestly, I don’t look forward to reading leftist writers. They have been writing the same thing for the last umpteenth years. Yes, they all have been writing the same thing over and over again so if you have read one leftist writer, you have read them all. Every year I try and read one leftist to see if they have updated something but no, they are still rewriting the same story for at least the last 20 years.

The rightist are the one I read often. They are jokers. They write a new joke in every para. Read one rightist writer every evening to make your evening a little better. They have some insanely funny jokes. They joke about gays, religion, pro-choice, pro life, the conservative life, the church life, the night club life. You name it, they have jokes for everything. I mean, they would give you hilarious hints on when to have sex to avoid having kids after you are married. (Like I need tips here!)

The writers that I really love to read are mostly libertarian. They are idealist. They write some way over the top stuff but the disillusioned libertarian are truly great. They have an edge, the kind of edge that makes you feel for their miserable lives. You will be happy that you don’t share their lives and would rather send a ten dollar contribution for a crown royal/Dewar’s. I am so happy that they got all the bad things in life and I did not.

Now this lady here, she appears to be eccentric. Didn’t she recently donate all her money prize to some charity in Australia? You see that is the problem. She wants her award in Dollars. I mean couple hundred thousand rupees don’t sound much to give away for charity but $50K make headlines. These government people need to raise the prize money so she can donate that to some children funds. I am sure she must felt bad after watching all those infomercials for the children`s fund. I know Angelina Jolie, another leftist eccentric, ended up having three children from Asian fathers/men to make the children`s fund happy. Now she is going to have white kids.

Well people say she is a leftist but she is doing the exactly the capitalist thing. She has choices and she is using them. What are people upset about?

I think in her old age, she will turn into one of those disillusioned libertarian. Then and only then, I will read and analyze why she declined the award.

She has already done the libertarian thing…used the choice she had. Good luck to her…I am just glad in her old age she wont harm any one.

#33 Saminasha
#10 by Saminasha on January 23, 2006 2:32pm PT
Zeena,

{{{Could you possibly summarize FV`s article? We`re all waiting, thanks! }}}}

Allright, Miss Saminasha.
Here is my summary of this article by our respected cheif-editor, Miss Farzana Versey. Your wish is my command, Miss Saminasha.
Farzana versey has convinced me that Arundhati Roy`s decision of rejecting the award was wrong, based on these valid points. We have to analyze on the grounds of Principles, Morals and vanity as reflection of that decision.
1:-If, it is for principles:-Then there are some moral situations , where we apply principles to resolve them. But, to resolve them, we must recognize them.First rule to principles is to abide by ethics,e.g. what is my impact on society? Now, if, we see Arandahti Roy`s decision based on just principles, then again we have to catagorise, are they personal, professional or global?Personal principles are respect for autonomy of others, being fair, refusing to take extra advantage, preventing damage to others, honesty and doing others good.Professional ones are based solely upon duty of care, sincerety to professional responsibilities and refraining any conflict of interest. Global principles are applied as society before self, social responsibility, global justice for all humans. Each human`s simple existance affects global village and exclusively , good writers( they are the voice of whole human race). By rejecting the award, Arundhati Roy nullified all three categories of principles. So, her decision was not for principles.

2:-Now, if it is based on morals:-Then morals are based on certain standards, which decide about worng and right actions, labelled as either moral or immoral with consequences after their application on society generally.For universally acceptable morals , we need a true source and it`s interpretation based on universal authority.So, even Arundhati Roy made this decision on absolute moral grounds, there will never be global agreement on those morals to be truly accepted,respected and applied. Again, Arundhati Roy`s decision is proven worng on moral grounds.


3:-If, it is for Vanity:-I just read a quote,(Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast. ~Logan Pearsall Smith).
Vanity is simply an exaggerated sense of self centeredness in having pleasure to prove your superior strength in terms of appearance, success in multiple ways and in self display, which leads us to detachment, away from attachment with society which is equivalent to hiding the truth and your face under sand. Obviously , vanity is an illusion , not a reality, so, it takes you to loose your talents, which are gifted and specialy , if, you are a famous writer, like Arduntahi Roy, you loose your human connections,b/c of vanity, and mind it, human connections are the bread and butter for good writers.
This is another proof, Arundhati Roy made the wrong decision, if, it was based on vanity grounds.
Thank you
Saminasha, take care and take it easy.
regards
Zeena

Excellent. Always thought Ms. Roy to be a tad bit overrated but didn`t know where or how to look. But I`ll take this as a start.

re: 31

Thank you but I think I`ve made these issues a lot clearer than they have been presented on this board. IF Roy refuses to accept the Sathiya award because it is an apparatus of the Indian government that supports policies that Roy finds objectionable and does not want to profit from, it is simple as that. Accepting a money, or an award that inherently precedes national canonization or establishment acceptance of one`s art-especially when that art critiques state policy-is undoubtably problematic. If I need to spell this out for you, I will-govts don`t ``freely`` offer anything-there is always a cost. Saying that the govt is involved with everything anyway isnt an argument. Here an argument: Yes, there is no way of untangling government policy and institutionalization from any part of our lives-be it the taxes that are extracted from our devalued labor that go to the military complex that bombs the hell out innocent people abroad that we have no problem with. Even stipulating to OUR govt (and I am speaking of the US govt in this case) that we want OUR hard earned tax dollars to support non violent social services is no easy task. But the notion that govt is entrenched in all aspects of a citizen`s life and therefore a citizen should accept what money, policy, etc comes their way, is nonsensical.

It is this complex irony that faces all of us, particularly in public academia. And we all negotiate it in various ways. And to say one way is better than the other simply evades the conflict of working for a government who is inhabited by an administration with whom most of us have serious disappointment with.

As for Gul Sahib, I could really give a fig. I dont know what it is with you morality virgins who go around prescribing whom artists may meet with and not. Its really partronizing and hypocritical. Put down your Hustlers and then preach to the rest of us.

btw hamid gul came into equation because she does not want to do anything with an institution that is funded by a government yet photo ops with a guy who was more than funded by a government.

samina, you confusing the issue....Roy did not get award from a politicallly controversial figure A or B. If she had to refuse any award, invitation or honor from say...Vajpayee, the PM of India, of even present one, it would be totally understandable. I will understadn that. I will also understand if she refused this award arguing that she thinks Akademy is a PR branch of political figure A, and I oppose figure A hence I don`t accept the award. Fact is she refused it saying it is funded by government. Tell me what big institution in which country is not funded partly by government or another business, social organization or a wealthy individual?

e.g. since you oppose Bush policies, it would make perfect sense if you were to refuse a jacademic award given to you by a school solely based on the fact that the school is partly funded by Bush`s business money....but refusing it saying it is funded by American government will be ridiculous. I am sure your present job is partly...even if slightly....funded by some american government or public money. is there any conflict in getting your pay check from that money because you oppose Bush? No I don`t think so.

Also awards like Sahitya Akademy is one time payment and can`t be taken back...so how is it the case of can`t bite the hand that feeds you? She has been already biting..err..cutting the hand with knife:-) that feeds Sahitya Akademy..and Sahitya Akademy still felt honored giving her this award...is anything missing here?

as for some one declaring some one enemy of state..I assume you mean my mention of Hamid Gul...may be you should hear or read this nutcase some time and see if it is just a case of someone declaring him enemy of state. I am pretty sure you will remain 100 yards away from him let alone posing for a photo op. and if you did pose, salim will beat you to death on unplugged.:-)

No doubt she is a great writer but that does not mean she is free of faults. There has been a long leftist tradition in India that has produced hundreds of writers in various languages in India...some of them actually were from the oppressed and down troden people she claims to defend...and remained so all their lives...even after getting Sahitya akademy awards...but they had the grace to differentiate between government and insitutions funded by government.... they kept writing for the problems of their people and worked for their betterment.

it is also true that Akademy has faultered many times as has any other instituiton - governement or private - in India but mostly it does have the credibility and respect of most of the people.

similariy AR can be excused of faultering too..everyone does once in a while...but she seems to claim a patent on attention seeking behaviour that is going on for too long. People have right to point that out to her that princess has no clothes on sometimes.

Part II

When looking at the writers who, as this piece points out, have accepted the Sathiya Award, the point seems to be, why is Roy refusing to accept this award when other anti establishment writers have?

In the absence of an explication of WHY Roy might have refused the Sathiya award, I offer my own speculations:

1. Refusing an award given by a government funded institution does not necessarily reflect badly on past recipients who have accepted the award; it just draws a line in the sand for that individual. Clearly Roy felt that accepting the award was unacceptable for her. I can only hazard that accepting it may have been too problematic. In many ways, Roy, like other anti establishment WOMEN writers have the right to be wary of national awarding institutions. I find it rather amusing that given the amount of rightwing whining about Roy`s considerable abilities and razor sharp critiques of objectionable Indian policy, that the cabal of rightwingers are now demanding that she be grateful for being offered a symbol of governmental acceptance.

To what extent does Roy legimitize the Indian government by accepting this award? I guess that should Roy accept this award, the patina of respectability might be lent to the government whom Roy critiques. One cannot bite the hand that feeds one with equanimity. Since we are discussing writers and not actors, (if one did, please bring up Brando) or statespeople, several writers have refused to participate in Laura Bush`s poetry shindigs at the White House in protest of the US invasion of Iraq. Sharon Olds and Sam Hamill have penned some fairly eloquent positions on their refusals. Does that mean that the poets who did accept Laura`s fete are selling out? No...I believe there are poets who attended the White House function and were comfortable in making their skepticism of US policy clear. But then, their political affiliations are more moderate.

If Roy decides to meet publically with individuals declared by the Indian govt as ``enemies of the state``, that is, as an independent, intelligent, individual possessing free will, HER perogative. I am surprised that when political writers choose to meet with ideological figures, it is considered some kind of crime when such expectations are based on little logic. As Roy has continually affiliated herself with the ``enemies of the state`` of India, why should it be a surprise that her choices in what she accepts and does not accept?

#27 dullabhatti
Very well said

#26 Salim_Chauhan
I agree with your point of view. Thanks for bringing it up.

#25 Saminah, it is AR who brought this issue up. Now if she is going to refuse an award by:
- a respected literary Academy of her own country,
- which has honored and had members on the executive and juries from writers belonging to various languages of her beloved country
- some people who has done more for people of her country than she in her elite sensational style will ever do

she refuses the award because Akademy is funded by Government. That is height of chutiyapa... I don`t know about her but most of Indian people:

- go to schools funded by the government
- ride on buses partially funded by government
- get electricity partially funded by government
- drive on the roads funded by government

so it is fair to point out that she associate herself or deal with people who never touched any government funds ever if one ahs to follow her argument for refusal...but we all know about her photo op with famous terrorist trainer ISI honcho Hamid Gul...she was fine with that. one assumes Sahitya Akademy has more credibility than Hamid Gul.

this woman is full of her elitism and self centered behaviour. Farzana is right in pointing that out.

Farzana, {``I think the Akademi has expressed more grace than the lady in this particular context.``}

Farzana,
Again, a superb article written with very light criticism, getting the point across very gracefully. I was rather surprised to see this viewpoint expressed by you, but then your objectivity and 360 degree vision is the essence of your credibility. Good job.

When it comes to these celebrities of international ``goody goody two shoes fame,`` why is it that they acquire the despicable myopia of the very institutions and people against whom they have been struggling? Why is it that they have to be more stubborn and more asinine than the ones they accuse of inflexibility and cruelty? Maybe the answer is that these people have become so negative in their outlook, that they fail to see any good anywhere, unless it comes from their own external (western?) sponsors and masters.

Thank God there is no such confusion in Pakistan. From the President, down to the PM, to the Information Minister and the state institutions, all functionaries speak with one voice. No one is going to get an award for criticizing any part of Pakistani society. That makes so much sense, if one can criticize anything in Pakistan, then there is no Paki left in the land. One God, one Prophet (PBUH), one book, one religion, one people, one president, one PM, one voice, and no dissent. It is unpardonable that one part of the Government of India is the victim of Ms. Roy`s rhetoric and the other part rewards her for this disloyalty.

correction:

6. The recipient of awards must have complete transparency and consistancy in terms of the awards they have accepted from each institution including the histories, policies, funding sources and ANY other economic or political dealings with other organizations of these award giving institutions.

Hamzaad and Dotty,

Whenever I read your comments, I merely consider the source from whence they sprung...or oozed...

---

I`ve been looking for the reasoning and logical argument presented in this piece. Briefly, the piece states that Roy:

1. should accept Sahitya award because it was good enough for the other anti establishment writers to whom it was awarded

2. the judges of the Sahitya award committee are now embarrassed because Roy refused their largesse

3. it is good manners to accept awards

4. it is good manners to accept awards from the Indian literary establishment so that other anti establishment writers can also be awarded in the future

5. It is a sign of maturity of accept awards

6. The recipient of awards must have complete transparency and consistancy in terms of the awards they have accepted, the histories, policies, funding sources and ANY other economic or political dealings with other organizations.

Just sorting the first part of this piece out. to be continued...

The article is pretty logical and makes the author`s views clearly. On the other hand, what exactly is the clown in post #1 trying to say here:

``too tangential and muddled for any clear thesis to emerge without great effort on the reader. The arguments and counterarguments are not delineated clearly ``

He he he he