Arundhati Roy’s Goa remarks misrepresent history, falsely framing liberation as communal war.
When Dissent Crosses the Line into Distortion
Misleading Narrative, Distortion in the Name of Dissent – Arundhati Roy, celebrated author and activist, is no stranger to controversy. Her critiques of the Indian state have often sparked fierce debates, but her recent remarks about the 1961 liberation of Goa have ignited a firestorm of backlash that goes beyond intellectual disagreement. In a resurfaced video, Roy claimed that India’s military action to liberate Goa from Portuguese colonial rule was not a patriotic act, but rather a communal war waged by an “upper-caste Hindu state” against Christians.
This assertion has been widely condemned as historically inaccurate, ideologically driven, and dangerously misleading. Critics, including former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal, have accused Roy of distorting facts to push a divisive narrative that vilifies India’s democratic institutions and whitewashes the brutal history of colonialism.
Let’s unpack the layers of Roy’s claim, examine the historical record, and explore why her interpretation is not just controversial but deeply flawed.
The Historical Record: Goa’s Liberation Was Anti-Colonial, Not Communal
To understand the gravity of Roy’s distortion, we must revisit the facts. Goa was under Portuguese rule for over 450 years. Even after India gained independence in 1947, Portugal refused to relinquish control of Goa, Daman, and Diu. Despite repeated diplomatic efforts, the Portuguese government remained defiant, prompting India to launch Operation Vijay in December 1961.
The military campaign lasted just over 36 hours, with minimal casualties. Portuguese Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva surrendered, and Goa was peacefully integrated into the Indian Union. The operation was widely celebrated across India as the final chapter in the country’s anti-colonial struggle.
Roy’s framing of this event as a communal war against Christians ignores several key facts:
- The target of the operation was a foreign colonial power, not a religious community.
- The Indian government made repeated diplomatic efforts before resorting to military action.
- The Christian population of Goa was not persecuted or targeted during or after the operation.
- Goa’s integration into India was followed by democratic reforms, not religious suppression.
By portraying this liberation as communal aggression, Roy not only misrepresents history but also undermines the legitimacy of India’s anti-colonial efforts.
The Pakistan Comparison: A False Equivalence
Roy’s speech goes further, claiming that Pakistan has never used its military against its own people in the way India has. This statement has been widely ridiculed as factually absurd.
Kanwal Sibal and other critics have pointed out multiple instances where Pakistan deployed its military against its own citizens:
- Operation Zarb-e-Azb (2014) in North Waziristan
- Operation Rahat-e-Nijat (2009) in South Waziristan
- 2006 Balochistan offensive, which killed Nawab Akbar Bugti
- Operation Azm-e-Istehkam (2024), a counter-insurgency campaign targeting internal dissent
These operations involved heavy artillery, airstrikes, and widespread civilian casualties. To claim that Pakistan has not used its military against its own people is not just misleading—it’s a blatant denial of documented history.
Roy’s comparison attempts to paint India as uniquely oppressive while absolving Pakistan of its own violent record. This selective framing not only distorts reality but also undermines the credibility of her broader critique.
Ideological Bias and Intellectual Dishonesty
Roy’s remarks reflect a pattern of ideological bias that prioritizes provocation over precision. Her narrative consistently casts India as a “colonial state” that wages war on its own citizens—tribals in the Northeast, Muslims in Kashmir and Hyderabad, Christians in Goa, and Sikhs in Punjab.
While it’s true that India has faced internal conflicts and made controversial decisions, Roy’s framing reduces complex socio-political histories to a simplistic communal binary. It ignores:
- The constitutional safeguards and democratic institutions that allow dissent, protest, and reform.
- The regional diversity of India’s challenges, which cannot be explained solely through caste or religion.
- The agency of local communities, many of whom supported integration and democratic governance.
Roy’s speech also fails to acknowledge the brutal history of the Portuguese Inquisition in Goa, which targeted Hindus and converted Christians alike. By portraying the Indian state as the aggressor and ignoring colonial atrocities, she flips the moral compass of history.
Her critics argue that this is not intellectual dissent, it’s ideological propaganda. Anand Ranganathan, who shared the video, described it as “when irresistible weed meets immovable hallucination”. While the phrasing is satirical, the underlying concern is serious: Roy’s narrative risks fuelling communal divisions and undermining national unity.
Public Reaction: Outrage, Satire, and Calls for Accountability
The backlash to Roy’s speech has been swift and intense. Social media users have accused her of historical revisionism, anti-Hindu bias, and even treason. Some have called for her citizenship to be revoked, while others have demanded legal action under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Kanwal Sibal’s response was particularly scathing. He described Roy as “venomous against her own country” and accused her of supporting terrorism and promoting a communal, anarchist agenda. He challenged her claims with documented evidence and called out her hypocrisy in whitewashing Pakistan’s military record.
Even among intellectual circles, there is growing discomfort with Roy’s tendency to conflate dissent with distortion. While freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, it comes with the responsibility to engage with facts, not fantasies.
Roy’s defenders argue that she is simply raising uncomfortable questions. But when those questions are based on falsehoods and ideological bias, they cease to be constructive. They become tools of division, not dialogue.
Conclusion: Dissent Must Be Honest to Be Valuable
Arundhati Roy’s speech about Goa’s liberation is not just controversial, it’s misleading. By framing a legitimate anti-colonial military operation as communal aggression, and by falsely comparing India’s democratic actions with Pakistan’s authoritarian violence, she distorts history to fit a narrow ideological lens.
Her remarks undermine the sacrifices of those who fought for India’s freedom, insult the intelligence of its citizens, and risk deepening communal fault lines. In a time when public discourse needs clarity, empathy, and truth, Roy’s narrative offers none.
Dissent is vital. But dissent that ignores facts, erases context, and fuels division is not courageous, it’s corrosive.
Also read: Goa Health Minister Sparks Controversy by Suspending Senior Doctor, CM Intervenes
Stay informed with the latest news and updates – only on Rapido Updates.