Arundhati Roy has famously described herself as a mobile republic – an individual outside the state. She has lent her support to Kashmiri separatists, which either fits well within her anti-state or anarchist ideology or is an attempt at gaining cheap publicity, depending on which side of the debate you happen to be. In the latest episode, she said in Srinagar that Kashmir was never integral part of India. The Congress has asked her to withdraw her statement while the BJP has sought action against her on sedition charges. In reply, Roy says she pities the nation “that needs to jail those who ask for justice.”

There can be several responses. For example:

Roy is testing the very limits of liberalism. In the process, she is stretching the limit of the Indian state’s tolerance – an irony not lost on her. The causes she has come to defend, ranging from Maoists to separatists, would not have tolerated the degree of dissent that the Indian state has. Our idea of republic is only strengthened if it has enough room for some mobile republics like Roy.

Or: While the constitution provides sufficient platforms for open debates, the citizens must abide by it and Roy is clearing not doing so and is talking treason. The question: Is she guilty?