You are wrong about the use of the word genocide. It is absolutley appropriate to describe the state sponsored massacres that have taken place in India in the last thirty years.

I love India. I love Hindus. But I dont like the silence surrounding the state culpability over violence against minorities. I want to change that so Indians can live happily ever after.

Kurian

Thanks for the reply

Al Mujahid

Doesnt your name mean “Holy Warrior”?

Are you a holy warrior?

I find invocation of Jihad frightening.

The only reason i put quotation marks around the word was that i wasn’t sure of it’s exact definition. But now that i’ve googled define:genocide i see that the loosest definition of the word — ” The systematic killing of people because of their race or ethnicity” [from hrusa.org] — does apply to both Gujurat and the killings of Sikhs in 1984. On the other hand there are other stronger definitions listed — ” Extermination of an entire people” [from mcgraw-hill.com] — that wouldn’t apply. So apparently there is still no consensus on what the word means.

But i share your (and Al Mujahid’s?) outrage at these events.

sincerely, kurian

Run a google search on Arundhati and Narmada Dam, and you’ll pull up a lot about her work protesting on behalf of dispossessed Indians. Read Power Politics and you’ll see her criticize the Indian government’s approval of corporatization of things like agriculture, water supply, and electricity. Even her fictional God of Small Things is an indictment of the caste system. She does fight for Indians (sometimes, in my opinion, misguidedly), and her struggles for people of other nations doesn’t make this any less valid.

Genocide, I agree with Al Mujahid, is a strong word. While there is a definite prejudice against Sikh and Muslim minorities, I don’t believe it’s systematic enough to be considered genocide.

And, I believe this has been brought up before, but Gandhian nonviolence would not work the same for Palestine as it did for South Africa, the US, and India. Not that violence is the answer, because I have ZERO ideas about the Israeli/Palestine situation, one or two state, but I’m just not sure that had they chosen the nonviolent route it would have worked either.

Thanks. Please do provide the links if you get the time. But please note, there is no need to place quotation marks around the word genocide when referencing the religious pogroms in India. The various genocides cannot be contested.

Iraq doesn’t need emotional coddling from Roy, they have plenty of that from the Arab world. What Iraq needs is constructive, practical, and real ideas to ensure the people of Iraq and their future is secure in a safe environment.

Urging resistance to empire in a peaceful manner would mount to demonstrations, strikes, non-cooperation etc. Funny thing is, with the US occupation all of this is now possible. With Saddamn, there was no resistance.

Also, the coalition has allowed such means of activism. What they have been fighting are insurgents who booby trap bodies, kidnap, kill social servants like Margaret Hassan, and conduct a thug/fascist style of governance in their areas of control.

Resistance to Empire my foot. Her activism in India made more sense. This whole anti-globalization deal she has taken up really seems unproductive. Though she is very popular among academic elites. I’m sure Michael Moore would be happy to make a documentary on this with her.

The story of Enron’s involvement in India is one of double-dealing, corruption, violence and violation of human rights. It began in 1993 when the company signed a deal to provide much-needed electricity in a state that was desperate for power to fuel its new high-tech industries and to propel the country on its new free-market economy.

Even though the World Bank said that the project was too expensive and that other forms of power would be cheaper, Enron bulldoze d ahead. There were no competitive tenders, politicians were bought off with bribes estimated to run to $20 million and local police and thugs were hired to terrorize the opposition into silence. By 1997 Enron had been listed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch organization as guilty of being ‘complicit in human rights violations’ in the state of Maharashtra.

The scandal attracted the attention of Roy, who was already campaigning against the construction of dams on the Narmada river — moves that would have displaced 400,000 people. When Roy agreed to head the protest movements, she was accused of inciting violence and tried at the Supreme Court — an action that she countered by writing her own affidavit and publishing it in a mass-circulation magazine.

But remember, because she’s an agitator and criticizes the US she’s a moral zero