The Algebra of Arundhati’s Injudiciousness

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.

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.

#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

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.

#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

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

my dear Zeena -- your summary is longer than the artile -- why.....:)

#40
my dear nasah--sometimes, summaries have to be longer for some subjective benefits, if, requested by someone based solely upon objectivity....................................haaaaaaaa

on side note:-
nasah dearie
This is not only summary, but, also my analysis of this article. So, obviously , it makes it longer, if, it is serving double jobs. Thanks

Saminasha # 33: ``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.``

Samina Ji, No one but no one is going to confuse YOU with AR, Farzana, Kaka or even Salim ever. So stop this nonsense of using `we`, `us` and first person plural.

What in the world do you mean by `` As for Gul SAHIB, I could really give a fig`` ? Are you a fig distributor? Are you just sympathetic to all Islamist terrorists? Are you a morality whore, who can not be bothered by murder of innocent civilians, as long as they are not Muslims? Would morality whoredom approve if AR faces a firing squad for playing the latter day Mata Hari or would it undergo Hymen-something operation all of a sudden?

By the way if you must pontificate, at least learn a bit more about spelling `Sathiya` Academy and what they have done in the past. Mr. DullaBhatti is a good start.

Meanwhile do not miss `Munich`.

Zeenaben, what is the difference in your #35 and # 37? DO you just like to stand up again and again? Please sit down.

I agree with author but am not sure where this statement is coming from.
``Cynics might well conjecture that the whole tribute business is about the conceit of people who believe they are intelligent enough to recognise somebody`s contribution. ``


Let us see who have chosen Arundhati Roy for the award.
http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=268057&ssid=43&sid=ENT

``The book of political essays written between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003, was the ‘’unanimous’’ choice of a jury comprising members Prof Bhalchandra Nemade, Samik Bandhyopadhyay and Ms Vrinda Nabar. Akademi president Gopi Chand Narang approved the recommendation today.

Roy will receive the award at a special function here on February 21, Akademi Secretary K Satchidanandan said.``


Who are all these people? I googled for them.

Prof Bhalchandra Nemade

He is a prominent Marathi novelist whose first novel was published in 1963, when Ms Arundhati Roy was a toddler.
http://www.seasonsindia.com/art_culture/lit_marathi_sea.htm#bala

Samik Bandhyopadhyay
He is a theatre and film critic who has written, translated and edited several books on theatre and film.
http://www.indiaclub.com/shop/AuthorSelect.asp?Author=Samik+Bandyopadhyay


Ms Vrinda Nabar
Vrinda Nabar is a former head of the English department of Mumbai University and has also written books. `Caste as woman` is the name of one of them.


The Sahitya Akademi secretary is K. Satchidanandan one of Kerala`s prominent poets.

http://india.poetryinternational.org/cwolk/view/23263
``A prolific poet, he has published nineteen collections of poetry since his first book, Anchu Sooryan in 1970. He has four collections of poetry in English translation and has translated over sixty Indian poets, as well as several European, Latin American, African and Asian poets into Malayalam. A sensitive and astute critic and editor, he has received the Kerala Sahitya Akademi Award four times (for poetry, drama, travel writing and criticism), among numerous honours and fellowships.``


Gopi Chand Narang President of the Sahitya Akademi
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Mar04-Print-Edition/1603200422.htm

``...Gopi Chand Narang, Sahitya Akademi president, bestowed with the Padam Bhushan this year, happens to be the most noted Urdu litterateur globally.

The community of the pen wielding, know that Narang has always raised his voice against parochialism, religious fanaticism and social injustice of any kind. In fact his opponents, during his election, were disturbed as for the first time, a writer belonging to a ``minority`` language, happened to be a strong candidate for the post of the president of the Akademi.

Communalists be they from the Hindi lobby or the Urdu one, have always tried to deter him from the path of constructive work. He refused to be dragged into unnecessary political controversy and instead reposed his trust in the discretion of his voters who all are celebrated writers drawn from 22 languages of India. In fact his tremendous work paid off.

On the issue of secularism Narang asserted that again it was a charge that did not stick, since a writer should be judged not by euphemistic labels, but by the values reflected in his writing. He maintains that his record of work, dedication to subaltern and minorities causes, and 56 books of solid scholarship, literary and cultural criticism, and linguistic studies were more than enough to establish that he was a secularist and socialist to the core. He points out that there is a basic difference between a writer and a political worker.

According to Narang, one may be an activist, but in a democracy one does not need to be a card carrying member of a party to enter the field of letters. A writer’s basic commitment is to the sanctity of shabda, concern for humanitarianism and sense of nationalism. ..``



Arundhati Roy is free to do what she pleases. But I think (and I don`t mean FV here), anyone belittling the Akademi`s award needs to show some humility if nothing else.

Dear Farzana,

Great article. I was a huge fan of Roy for God of Small Things, until she broke into politics with force and made flowery remarks about things I found important. For example her poetic expression of flags being gift wrappers, of nationalism being evil and myopic, her candid love for name-dropping `Gandhi`s India` when it didn`t quiet fit. Then her piece on the standoff between India and Pakistan where she visualized a nuclear war and counted the living things that would die: the sparrows in her backyard in Dehli, her husband etc - unnecessary and narcissist I thought for a writer of her standard...David Barsamian sent me her tapes with a special note saying I would love her when I ordered Eqbal Ahmed`s, and her lecture was in retrospect not very insightful, though beautiful and moving it was. It was all in all a disappointment to see her speak at the Friday times event 4 years ago and put down the Pakistani nationalist cause, while inserting her ``humanist sort of morality`` on us, which is neither bite sized nor practical.

It is really childish for her to reject this award. And you raise a valid point when you say she is willing to accept the booker prize from the ``imperialist America`` who she exposes for Enron scandals and underhanded deals with the BJP but would rather use to get her publishing needs furthered. Doesn`t make sense, and is very inconsistent. She needs to get off her moral high horse.

Since you mentioned prizes and asked how important a dead person`s award it to him/her and the people who nominate, I am reminded of a huge feature on the Nobel prize website that explains why Gandhi didn`t get the Nobel peace prize. What is interesting about this is a) Nominations create the nobility brand, and even a suggestion is enough b) Despite the hype, even at that time, a year after his death he didn`t get it, NOT because a Nobel isn`t given posthumously, but because the world wasn`t ready to crown a person who was racist. His politics in South Africa was the reason that they rejected his other peace initiatives, because Gandhi was selective and exclusive.

A key feature of a moral principle is that it should be able to fit universally without being unjust to one group. Clearly, Roy`s principled stand this time casts an unfair brand on people who have already accepted the prize.

Best,

Aisha Sarwari

I heard her speak in Lahore on 15th August 2002 ... Was impressed- temporarily.

Then I understood that beyond the emotionalism, goody-goody-ness and the fact that she was bashing India for all the wrong reasons ... I don`t wish to elaborate there... I realised that she was not the person we thought she was...

Only an old man with some integrity stood up on that day and asked her some poignant questions in bad English... we all made fun of him and dismissed him most self righteously as ``old school``...

Aisha Ben #44 : `...David Barsamian sent me her tapes with a special note saying I would love her when I ordered Eqbal Ahmed`s`

Boy, you have really arrived. Who is David Barsamian and can I get a special note from him too? Who is Eqbal Ahmed?

`...and put down the Pakistani nationalist cause, while inserting her ``humanist sort of morality`` on us, which is neither bite sized nor practical.`

That is quite a shame. What is the Pakistani nationalist cause these days? If it is to kill AR`s husband and nuke sparrows in her backyard, you have my full support. Just give us some notice so we can warn relatives and friends.

`Since you mentioned prizes and asked how important a dead person`s award it to him/her and the people who nominate, I am reminded of a huge feature on the Nobel prize website that explains why Gandhi didn`t get the Nobel peace prize.`

Hey who cares, as long as Jinnah got the Nobel peace prize? Honestly Ayesha Ben, I think you are reminded of Gandhi at very odd times and performing all types of acts. If Farzana Bibi had mentioned an Okra recipe, you would have told us how Jinnah liked Okra but Gandhi did not.

Manto #45 : ` I realised that she was not the person we thought she was... `
Do You mean she did not pull Gandhi`s Dhoti off in her speech?
Everyone can not be a sophist like you Manto.

Manto,

Again, lets look at this logically.

Why would are we expecting writers and artists to be models of perfection? Can someone explain this disingenuous notion to me?

In other words, if person A refuses a govt. award saying that she does not want:

1. to be the recipient of an award given by an institution that is part of a larger institution that enacts and performs policy that is objectionable to her, what is it to you or anyone else?

2. Why should anyone else be offended by it? Did Roy say, If anyone accepts this award, they are a sell out? Can you or Aisha provide proof to corroborate Roy`s implying such?

3. Why do her critics get offended by her refusing the award? Is she supposed to bow and scrape to any govt if they throw bones at her?

4. Why is no one pointing out the VAST difference b/n receiving a Nobel or PEN award and this Sahitya award? Can anyone here explicate the difference?

5. Why are you writers are all up in a dither for her taking a personal stand. Roy`s actions are barely surprising to me, but a bunch of writer-journalist types here seem to take her refusal personally, which says a lot more than anything else....