Arundhati Roy: Conspiracy Theorist

Arundhati Roy is arguably an even bigger darling of the left than Noam Chomsky, and with good reason. Her exquisite book “The God of Small Things” was awarded the 1997 Booker Prize for fiction; she has spoken out tirelessly against the corporate takeover of India and the increasing impoverishment (and suicide) of poor farmers; she has taken on Monsanto and frankenfoods, imperialism and the war on terror; she’s a leading figure of the anti-globalization movement.

She was also listed amongst Tarpley’s “left gatekeepers” during a presentation he gave in New York.

Truth be known, I admire the work of both Arundhati Roy and Noam Chomsky, despite their cowardice on 911. I have lost a great deal of respect for many figures on the left, but I dislike “black and white” thinking and hold out hope that some of them will eventually do the right thing. I don’t really think it has much to do with “right” or “left” so much as ego and perceived stature. 911 is apparently viewed as a career-killer. The libertarian figures on have been similarly negligent, but I still enjoy the articles of Justin Raimondo.

Anyway, Arundhati Roy is apparently a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. She has yet to speak out on 911, but a recent article in the Guardian (which, coincidentally, just published a hit piece on 911 truth) suggests that she – and by extension, other prominent leftists – are beginning to realize the importance of false flag operations. She even mentions Operation Gladio.

Just about every argument she puts forth in this article can equally be applied to 911. In fact, a cunning individual could change a few names and turn this into a paper on 911 truth! She speaks here of a 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and the various inconsistencies of the case, some of which appear to indicate government complicity.

Here is the full article:,,1972788,00.html

And here are a few exerpts:

Question 3: The entire attack was recorded live on CCTV. Two Congress party MPs, Kapil Sibal and Najma Heptullah, demanded in parliament that the CCTV recording be shown to the members. They said that there was confusion about the details of the event. The chief whip of the Congress party, Priyaranjan Dasmunshi, said, "I counted six men getting out of the car. But only five were killed. The closed circuit TV camera recording clearly showed the six men." If Dasmunshi was right, why did the police say that there were only five people in the car? Who was the sixth person? Where is he now? Why was the CCTV recording not produced by the prosecution as evidence in the trial? Why was it not released for public viewing?


Question 6: Is it true that the military mobilisation to the Pakistan border had begun long before the December 13 attack?


Question 9: The courts acknowledge that Afzal was a surrendered militant who was in regular contact with the security forces, particularly the STF of Jammu and Kashmir police. How do the security forces explain the fact that a person under their surveillance was able to conspire in a major militant operation?


These questions, examined cumulatively, point to something far more serious than incompetence. The words that come to mind are complicity, collusion, involvement. There is no need for us to feign shock or shrink from thinking these thoughts and saying them out loud. Governments and their intelligence agencies have a hoary tradition of using strategies such as this to further their own ends. (Look up the burning of the Reichstag and the rise of Nazi power in Germany in 1933; or Operation Gladio, in which European intelligence agencies created acts of terrorism, especially in Italy, in order to discredit militant groups such as the Red Brigades.)


A genuine inquiry would have to mean far more than just a political witch-hunt. It would have to look into the part played by intelligence, counter-insurgency and security agencies as well. Offences such as the fabrication of evidence and the blatant violation of procedural norms have already become established in the courts, but they look very much like just the tip of the iceberg. We now have a police officer admitting - boasting - on record that he was involved in the illegal detention and torture of a fellow citizen. Is all of this acceptable to the people, the government and the courts of India?

Given the track record of Indian governments (past and present, right, left and centre) it is naive - perhaps utopian is a better word - to hope that today's politicians will ever have the courage to institute an inquiry that will, once and for all, uncover the real story. A maintenance dose of pusillanimity is probably encrypted in all governments. But hope has little to do with reason.

Arundhati Roy


If you’re interested in learning more about Roy and her work check out the excellent documentary “We”.

You can download it for free here: