Arundhati Roy: A Voice of Selective Outrage

MGMMTeam
Sep 24
6 min read

Suzanna Arundhati Roy is hailed internationally as a literary icon and a fearless activist. Since winning the Booker Prize in 1997 for The God of Small Things, she has been elevated as one of India’s strongest dissenting voices. Yet, beneath the global acclaim lies a striking pattern: Roy’s writings and speeches often reveal a deep-seated bias. She routinely attacks Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and Hindu nationalism, while minimizing, excusing, or remaining silent on Islamist atrocities, left-wing violence, and global crises that don’t fit her ideological lens.

Her critics call this “selective outrage”—a practice of raising her voice only against certain actors while ignoring equally brutal crimes committed by others. The result is not a universal moral stance, but a politically convenient bias that damages her credibility as an intellectual.

*Roy's debut The God of Small Things won the 1997 Booker and made her a celebrity at 36 | BBC*

Early Fame and Political Shift

Arundhati Roy shot to global fame with The God of Small Things (1997). But after her Booker triumph, she pivoted sharply from fiction to politics. Unlike other Indian authors who continued in literary circles, Roy carved her identity as a political essayist and activist.

She opposed India’s nuclear tests (1998), campaigned against big dams (Narmada Bachao Andolan), and became a fierce critic of globalization and capitalism. By the early 2000s, her writings had turned increasingly political—targeting the Indian state, Hindu nationalism, and Western imperialism.

Her second novel, The Ministry of Utmost Happiness (2017), was heavily political too, weaving in Kashmir, caste, and identity struggles.

From then on, Roy’s reputation became less about literature and more about activism—often controversial, always provocative.

Roy vs. Modi: An Obsession

Since 2002, Roy has written multiple essays accusing Narendra Modi of enabling, if not orchestrating, the Gujarat riots. Despite the Supreme Court of India clearing Modiji of wrongdoing, Roy continues to portray him as a symbol of “Hindu fascism.”

In her essays (Field Notes on Democracy and Azadi), she repeatedly calls India under Modiji a “fascist project.”
She has compared the BJP’s rise to Nazi Germany, a claim that many scholars argue is hyperbolic and dismissive of India’s democratic framework.
Her speeches abroad often describe India as being on the verge of genocide under Modiji, feeding a negative international narrative about Hindus and Indian democracy.

Roy rarely acknowledges Modiji’s electoral legitimacy, his development programs, or the fact that Indian democracy remains intact. Instead, she focuses exclusively on painting Modiji as an authoritarian Hindu dictator.

Silence on Islamist Terror

This is where her bias becomes undeniable.

Mumbai 26/11: Roy condemned the attacks broadly as “terrorism,” but never highlighted the specific massacre of Jews at Chabad House as an act of anti-Jewish violence.
Ahmedabad Synagogue Plot (2017): Two ISIS-linked men planned to attack one of India’s oldest synagogues. Roy said nothing.
Kashmiri Pandits: While she passionately defends Kashmiri Muslims, she has downplayed or ignored the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in the 1990s.
Boko Haram / Chibok girls: No record exists of her condemning Boko Haram’s abduction of Christian schoolgirls in Nigeria.
Mali Church Massacres & Sudan Darfur atrocities: Despite international coverage, Roy has not voiced strong condemnation.

By contrast, she has spoken tirelessly about Gaza, Kashmir, and Hindu lynchings—demonstrating that her outrage is selective, not universal.

The Hamas Example: Refusing to Condemn

In her PEN Pinter Prize speech (2024), Roy acknowledged that Hamas committed war crimes on October 7, 2023. Yet she refused to condemn them outright:

“I refuse to play the condemnation game. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression.”

This double standard is glaring. When Hindus commit violence, she calls it “genocide” or “fascism.” But when Islamist groups commit terror, she frames it as “resistance.” Such relativism undermines her credibility as a moral voice.

Roy on Kashmir: A One-Sided Narrative

Roy has repeatedly argued that Kashmir is not an integral part of India and has described Indian security forces as “occupiers.” In 2010, she even faced sedition charges for her statements on Kashmir’s right to secede.

Yet she rarely, if ever, acknowledges the plight of Kashmiri Pandits who were driven out in the 1990s. Her activism champions Muslim victimhood while erasing Hindu suffering—a pattern consistent with her wider ideological bias.

Capitalism: Condemnation with Benefits

Roy’s Capitalism: A Ghost Story (2014) is a searing critique of neoliberalism, corporations, and globalization. She accuses capitalism of destroying the environment, displacing tribal communities, and hollowing out democracy.

But here’s the contradiction: Roy herself thrives within capitalism.

Her books are published by global publishing houses.
She earns royalties from worldwide sales, translations, and lectures.
She participates in the same global intellectual circuits she condemns.

Critics call this hypocrisy: benefiting from the system she denounces, while lecturing others about its evils. She dismisses this as “unavoidable,” but the contradiction remains.

The Global Appeal of Anti-Hindu Rhetoric

Roy’s harshest criticisms are always reserved for Hindus and Hindu politics. She calls Modiji a fascist, the BJP a Hindu supremacist project, and Hindus complicit in intolerance.

This rhetoric plays well in Western intellectual circles, where India is often understood through the lens of colonialism, caste, and Hindu majoritarianism. Roy has, intentionally or not, become the global face of “anti-Hindu” critique—appealing to audiences eager to see India’s rise as tainted by religious nationalism.

Her silence on Islamist extremism is equally convenient: it keeps her aligned with leftist, anti-imperialist networks that often frame Islamists as victims of Western or Hindu oppression.

A Consistent Pattern

When we put the pieces together, the pattern is clear:

Targets: Modiji, BJP, Hindus, capitalism, Israel.
Silences: Islamist terror (Boko Haram, Hamas, ISIS), atrocities against Christians and Jews, left-wing Maoist violence in India.
Contradictions: Condemns capitalism while benefiting from it; condemns Hindu violence while ignoring Islamist violence.

This is not the behavior of a universal moral voice. It is the behavior of an ideologue who chooses her targets carefully, guided by politics, not principle.

The MGMM Outlook

Arundhati Roy is celebrated worldwide as an intellectual and activist, yet her writings reveal a clear pattern of selective outrage. Instead of standing as a universal moral voice, she routinely targets Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP, and Hindu society, while turning a blind eye to Islamist extremism and left-wing violence. From the Gujarat riots to her repeated Nazi comparisons, Roy continues to brand Modiji and Hindus as fascists despite the Supreme Court clearing Modiji of wrongdoing and India’s democracy remaining intact. Her silence on Islamist atrocities like the Kashmiri Pandit exodus, Boko Haram’s abduction of Christian girls, or ISIS-linked synagogue plots shows a deliberate avoidance of issues that don’t fit her ideological framework. This one-sidedness not only distorts global perceptions of India but also erases the suffering of countless victims whose stories deserve to be told.

At the same time, Roy thrives on the very capitalist platforms she condemns, publishing globally, earning royalties, and enjoying the benefits of the system she critiques. Her activism selectively highlights Gaza, Kashmir, and Hindu lynchings while dismissing or justifying Islamist violence under the guise of “resistance.” This double standard has made her a darling of Western intellectual circles eager to amplify anti-Hindu narratives, but it exposes her as a biased ideologue rather than an impartial moral voice. Instead of uniting struggles against oppression everywhere, she chooses targets that align with her politics and silence that shields inconvenient truths. For us, this makes Roy less of a fearless dissenter and more of a figure who has traded fairness for a carefully curated brand of selective criticism.

Sources:

Mahatma Gandhi's

Music and Musings