She has been clear about her verbalised opinions on the Maoist issues with a few tantalising ifs and buts thrown in. It reveals the paucity of thinking in the electronic media that she is asked if she’d take on the role of mediator between the government and the Naxals. What prompted that query?
She said in a television interview that a ceasefire between the security forces and the Maoists was "urgent" and "unconditional". Have the security forces been given a carte blanche to make such announcements? Will the Maoists who have been waging this war for many years and many reasons suddenly give up their conditions? And if all this is urgent then why dilly-dally?
When asked if she would like to make a statement calling upon the Maoists to come forward for talks, she said, “No. Not when there are two lakh paramilitary forces closing in on the villages.”
Did she not mention unconditional? Why does she not wish to put her mouth where her mouth is?
“I would not like to be (a mediator or part of people’s committee to mediate between the government and Maoists). I don’t think I have those skills... I don’t think I am good at it. I am a maverick... I’ll try. I don’t know how to think about it.”
If she is good enough to go on lecture tours, meet the comrades, question the government, then why not? And she forgets that she is not the real maverick here – it is the Maoists who are, the ones she thinks should call for a ceasefire as though they can be herded like sheep for someone else’s intellectual high.
“I don’t think it should be one person. I think there should be a group of people who are used to taking decisions collectively…If you studied the peace talks process in Andhra, you see that this business of picking one person and announcing it to the media... both sides have done it. Home minister P Chidambaram has arbitrarily picked Swami Agnivesh. Maoists arbitrarily announced that they want this one or that one. That is not how it works.”
Indeed. For one, collective decisions can be taken when there is uniformity in thought and action. This has not been the case. Two, there will be individuals chosen arbitrarily because they are either the face of the movement or have a record of such mediatory roles. Interestingly, she herself has suggested that rights activity B D Sharma should be included in such a committee. And isn’t she the spokesperson of several causes? Whose arbitrary decisions are those?
If the Maoists send a peace envoy and he gets killed, then she believes the government does not want peace. So, why is she asking for this committee to be formed and why this sudden ceasefire talks?
Are the Maoists getting out of hand and doing their own thing, not quite concerned about who says what at seminars?
Since when has Arundhati became spokesperson for maoists? She is a journalist and a writer like you, Farzana, nothing more. Its media which has given her the idiotic tag of 'maoist sympathizer' and inadvertently made her the face of the maoist movement.
ReplyDeleteI read her only for the deep and fascinating insights that she provides about naxalism, a job that mainstream media refuses to do and don't expect anything more from her.
Leave her alone, FV. She is not the reason for the growth of maoism. Her job is merely to provide commentary and an opinion on the issue. Why expect her to be part of the solution when she is not a part of the problem?
Eklavya:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I mentioned paucity in the electronic media that made her ask that query, then backed it up with her own statement.
Since when has Arundhati became spokesperson for maoists?
Ask her. Why did she talk about what was urgent in an interview?
She is a journalist and a writer like you, Farzana, nothing more. Its media which has given her the idiotic tag of 'maoist sympathizer' and inadvertently made her the face of the maoist movement.
She is not a journalist; everyone who writes is not one. The media gave her a tag because that is what she portrayed; being a Maoist sympathiser is just fine. You cannot blame the media that she turns up as the face of several causes, and then? What's up, Narmada Bachao Andolan?
I read her only for the deep and fascinating insights that she provides about naxalism, a job that mainstream media refuses to do and don't expect anything more from her.
People are free to choose the analysis they want. Btw, she is extremely mainstream. Outlook is mainstream, Guardian is mainstream. And, no, one is not expecting anything from her.
Leave her alone, FV.
:)Cute. Protective instinct?
She is not the reason for the growth of maoism. Her job is merely to provide commentary and an opinion on the issue. Why expect her to be part of the solution when she is not a part of the problem?
Maoists and Naxalism predate her, and I wish people figure that out. And
who gave her that job? She is not merely providing commentary; she is often speaking on behalf of them. I have not asked for her to provide solutions, but this tendency to 'belong' and then get out of it is a bit disturbing.
":)Cute. Protective instinct?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I love rebels with a cause. You are also a rebel but without a cause due to which you end up nitpicking over insignificant details. Why not appreciate her for her herculean efforts in raising awareness about the tribulations of the other India and shaking the complacency of our elite classes enduring extreme derision and hatred in the process?
I guess I'll have to make do without your love...
ReplyDeleteQuestioning is not nitpicking; the elite have not been awakened...and my points in the post and early response stand and have not been adequately counteracted.
But, that is ok. I think when arguments end up into a she vs she, without any care about the content and context, I let the cheerleaders be.
Be well.