Arundhati Roy’s India-Pakistan Analogy: A Provocative Claim on State Violence Sparks Nationwide Debate

Acclaimed author and activist Arundhati Roy has once again stirred political and public debate with her latest remarks. In a recent video shared online, Roy asserted that since independence, India has “perpetually waged war” on its own people. She listed regions such as Kashmir, Manipur, Nagaland, Mizoram, Telangana, Punjab, Goa, and Hyderabad as evidence of this claim, and went on to argue that Pakistan, in comparison, has not deployed its military in similar fashion against its own citizens.

The remarks, quickly circulated on social media, provoked strong reactions. Several political leaders and commentators condemned Roy’s analogy as misleading and inflammatory. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal described her words as “venomous,” accusing her of presenting a distorted picture of India’s history and governance.

Arundhati Roy(File Photo/PTI) | Hindustan Times

The Roots of the Controversy

Roy’s criticism hinges on the Indian state’s use of security forces in conflict-prone areas over the decades. From insurgencies in the Northeast to militancy in Punjab and the ongoing strife in Kashmir, India has frequently relied on military and paramilitary deployments. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), enacted in 1958, remains one of the most controversial pieces of legislation. It grants extraordinary powers to security forces in designated “disturbed areas” and has been linked to serious allegations of human rights abuses, including custodial deaths, torture, and disappearances.

Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. State Department have repeatedly raised concerns about the impact of AFSPA and the lack of accountability in counter-insurgency operations. For instance, the violent clashes in Manipur since 2023 displaced tens of thousands of people and drew international attention to alleged state complicity and failure to protect vulnerable communities. Similarly, in Nagaland, events such as Operation Bluebird in 1987 remain etched in local memory as examples of grave excesses by security forces.

In Kashmir, decades of insurgency and counter-insurgency have created a cycle of violence, with human rights groups documenting enforced disappearances, detentions, and extrajudicial killings. The Indian state, on the other hand, maintains that such measures are necessary to counter secessionist violence and protect national security.

Supporters of Roy and the Question of Free Speech

Roy’s statement may have angered many, but her supporters argue that she is voicing uncomfortable truths. They point out that the regions she mentioned have long histories of being treated as security challenges rather than as integral communities of citizens with legitimate grievances. For them, her intervention is less about exaggeration and more about drawing attention to structural violence and state policies that marginalize minorities and dissenters.

This controversy also reignites the debate around freedom of expression in India. Critics of the backlash warn that dismissing or silencing dissenting voices could weaken democratic values. They argue that whether one agrees with Roy or not, the space for critique must remain open in a society that calls itself democratic.

Counterarguments and Complex Realities

While Roy’s words highlight the darker chapters of India’s internal conflicts, her sweeping assertion risks oversimplifying complex realities. Each region she referenced has its own history, political movements, and cultural context. Insurgencies in the Northeast, militancy in Punjab, and separatism in Kashmir were not monolithic struggles but multi-layered conflicts involving local grievances, external influences, and violent actors.

The Indian government often frames its actions as responses to these threats rather than deliberate wars on citizens. Supporters of this perspective argue that the state must preserve sovereignty and stability in the face of armed insurgencies. They also point to reforms, peace accords, and democratic processes—such as the Mizoram Accord of 1986—as examples of the state working towards reconciliation rather than permanent militarization.

Why the Debate Matters

The uproar over Roy’s statement is not just about her words but about how India confronts its past and present. It raises uncomfortable but necessary questions: How should a democracy balance security and human rights? When do counter-insurgency measures cross into systemic oppression? And how can justice be ensured for communities that continue to feel the brunt of militarization?

Roy’s framing may polarize opinions, but it forces a reckoning with India’s identity as a plural nation-state. It challenges citizens and policymakers alike to reflect on whether the country has truly addressed the root causes of discontent in its restive regions, or whether it continues to rely on militarized solutions that deepen alienation.

The MGMM Outlook

Arundhati Roy’s latest remarks once again expose her habitual attempt to vilify India while downplaying the very real violence emanating from Pakistan. By claiming that India has “perpetually waged war” on its own citizens, Roy paints a distorted picture that ignores the context of separatist violence, cross-border terrorism, and armed insurgencies that forced the state to deploy security forces. Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur have all witnessed militant uprisings driven not merely by local grievances but also by external influences—especially Pakistan’s sustained efforts to destabilize India through terror networks. To equate India’s democratic struggle against violent separatism with Pakistan’s track record of sheltering terror groups and oppressing minorities is not just misleading but also insulting to the sacrifices made by security personnel and ordinary citizens who bore the brunt of militancy.

What Roy presents as “state violence” cannot be separated from the larger reality of India’s survival as a diverse nation under constant threat. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), while controversial, was enacted in response to violent insurgencies—not as a tool of routine governance. India has also pursued peace accords, democratic elections, and reconciliation efforts, unlike Pakistan, where the military suppresses dissent and religious minorities without accountability. By ignoring Pakistan’s genocide in Bangladesh, persecution of Hindus, and continued export of terrorism into India, Roy selectively frames India as the aggressor while remaining silent on Islamabad’s brutalities. Her narrative aligns conveniently with anti-India forces, raising questions about whether her activism genuinely seeks justice or merely fuels propaganda against the nation.

(Sources: IndiaTV News, Hindustan Times, News18)