Dear Readers,
The Economist has managed to grab attention with its latest piece on India, and its Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Released just a couple days ahead of India’s Republic Day, the timing was perfect for a sensational, reaction-provoking piece. Amongst various points I noticed, the article titled 'Intolerant India : How Modi is endangering the world's biggest democracy' includes the writers views on Kashmir, Hindu Rashtra, the CAA, NRC, and other topics.
Let me save you the trouble of reading this biased piece of reporting and give you a gist of what The Economist seeks to convey through this sensationalist piece. It has portrayed that the Indian electorate is not capable enough of using its franchise properly. It has portrayed India’s media as being docile and submissive, and pelted its “expert” advice to the country's highest court – the Supreme Court of India and asked it to show some “unexpected spine”.
Okay
I tried to refrain from making any comments on the article. But let's get real for a second here, The Economist hoped for some reaction, and I would not want to disappoint them.
They seem to have forgotten the basic facts of Indian history. But worry not, when would I be of help? For the last 1000 years, India has not attacked any country or acquired their territories. On the contrary, it has given shelter to the early Christians about 2000 years ago. It also gave asylum to Jews, Parsis, even Muslims from other neighbouring countries who sought political asylum. The Economist does not even know the recent history of the Partition of India.
India was divided because the Muslim League called for a separate homeland for Muslims. Mahatma Gandhi and other Congress leaders tried their best to placate the demand made by Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Gandhi was so keen on keeping the country together, he even offered Jinnah leadership of the newly independent India. However, imperial power Britain divided the country and the rest, is as we know history.
I will spare you the details of all the gory deaths, violence, and destitution of hundreds of thousands killed on either side of the border. Millions of people migrated from India to Pakistan, and vice versa. Before The Economist talks about “Intolerant India”, it should very well know that it is the homeland of millions of people who live within India irrespective of religion, caste, or provinces of the country.
'Minority' with the force of a thousand horses
Let's look at some population statistics. At the time of the Partition, there was a Muslim population of around 13 per cent, and Christians around one per cent. The latest Census statistics published by The Economist itself, reveals that the Muslim population has gone up by about 1.6 per cent. Christians have almost more than doubled, and the Hindu population has reduced consequently.
In its monologue about the plight of the Muslim section in India, it has not only tried to undermine the community, it has, in its own wisdom, completely ignored eminent Indian Muslims like Mohammed Arif Khan, the current Governor of Kerala, who had resigned during the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1986 over differences in the Shah Bano case and the tinkering of the Constitution, as a matter of principle. Yet another well-known figure, Salim Khan, and many others prominent Muslim figures – they all are vocally comfortable with the Modi government and present India.
Let none of us, for a minute, think the Indian Muslim community is too timid to speak out. We all have seen on TV bold Muslim men, women and even children in their thousands openly and fearlessly denounce the CAA and proposed NPR. And what business does The Economist have been discussing NRC when in fact, it has not even been discussed by the Indian Cabinet, and nor been included in statute books?
There are people in India protesting, openly, aggressively, and violently, every single day. If 'Freedom of Speech' was to be explained, what better way than to take a look at the masses of people voicing their opinions over the CAA?
Media Silence?
The Indian media, both print and electronic, be it the NDTV, or The Hindu, along with others, leave no opportunity to attack Modi and his policies and, completely out of context RSS.
Tarek Fatah, a Pakistani Muslim residing in Toronto, is known for his outspoken political views. He, and other commentators have exposed the hypocrisy of the Congress party, the Indian communists, and the so-called secularists. I should also bring The Economist's attention to Bangladeshi-Swedish writer Taslima Nasreen, who had to leave Bangladesh to save her life now lives in New Delhi!
Dear Economist
I as a subscriber and an avid reader of The Economist for several decades, expect the journalism of such an eminent publication to follow in the footsteps of Walter Bagehot, son-in-law of the publication's founder James Wilson, who had laid down some noble ground rules of journalistic profession.
Do not get me wrong. The Economist is fully entitled to opine on any subtexts of their choice, but I would have expected them to use facts and not a fabrication. That, to me, is something not expected of a magazine with such an outstanding pedigree. In its comments since the beginning of the article, The Economist has been misleading or seems misinformed. It talks about ”many of the 200m Muslims” who do not have their papers and risk being thrown out.
Let me say it a little louder so my voice goes all the way through. The Citizenship Amendment Bill only states that refugees ( Hindu, Sikh, Jain ,Parsis, Buddhist, Christian) who arrived in India up to 2014, are entitled to acquire citizenship. Nobody is being thrown out here. It appears that The Economist, has been economic with the truth.
The statement about the 200 million Muslims being made stateless is far-fetched, highly provocative, and divisive. And to say blatantly that the government has ordered building of camps to detain those caught in the net? Dear Economist, India is not China, which has detained some million Uighurs in Xinjiang province.
It has alleged that Modi is trying to transform India to a “chauvinistic Hindu state” and talked about his “decades long project of incitement”. Their words, not mine. Let me remind The Economist, in case they have forgotten what they have printed several times about the communal riots of Gujarat, 2002. In the aftermath of a train compartment being burned by fanatic Muslims- 59 men, women, and children (all Hindus ) were burned to death. This was the statement of the then prime minister Manmohan Singh in the Indian Parliament, that The Economist had so readily published.
The Congress-led government did their best to implicate Modi for this heinous activity, all based on incomplete and untruthful proof.
With its recent-most masala piece, The Economist has made serious allegations, nothing but allegations. I ask why such an esteemed publication have to stoop so low in their anti-Modi campaign?
I and many others would remember that in the aftermath of Godhra riots, it was The Economist, that called Modi the purveyor of genocide in Gujarat at one stage, and used several more such adjectives. In the Gujarat state elections and Indian parliamentary elections, The Economist had advised publicly not to vote for Modi or his party.
Despite that, in the general elections last year, Modi and his party got a clear mandate from some 800 million voters. What the Economist could not achieve through provocation and propaganda, they are now hoping to win by undermining the government of India. Not knowing that in the bid, it is provoking violent protests through lies and innuendos or guilt by association. This is not expected of a publication which aspires or claims to follow the footsteps of the journalistic criteria laid down by Mr Bagehot.
India is not the only country where the economic indicators are facing some severe challenges. To say that the removal of Article 370, CAA, and NPR are diversions, and to doubt the judicial capabilities of the SC is completely misleading and unacceptable.
Let The Economist and such publications or so-called experts who have been proclaiming that the democracy is in danger in India, come to their senses just enough to accept that India has remained democratic, secular and is developing much more rapidly within the framework of free enterprise. India has not followed the Chinese path of centralised planning or dictatorship, to achieve rapid economic development.
One of the most serious allegations in the comment tells us that Modi is “calculating a sizeable minority”. Why do you have to interpret the intentions of Indian govt, why not pay attention to facts? It is no use destabilising India or Modi government through complete lies and selective memories of your sources of information.
In fact, I challenge The Economist to show one example where in Gujarat or in New Delhi or within the Central government in the last 17 years where Modi's govt followed any discriminatory policies against Muslims or any other minorities. There is no pro-Hindu or anti-Muslim bias in the legislature or implementation in last 17 odd years.
Yes, it is tragic that some Hindu die-hards took law into their own hands for cow or other causes. Their actions personally disgusted me. But what is the use of exaggerating numbers to emphasise your allegations?
“A secular and impartial government, even if flawed in many other ways, protects all these groups. The deliberate and sustained persecution of one of them constitutes an implicit threat against all- and so puts the political system at risk.” The article goes on to talk about Gandhi. What do you know about Mahatma Gandhi? Have you even read his biography? Gandhi himself says that sadly some Muslims have an element of aggression , even bullying against non-believers. Gandhi said it, not me! In fact, it was Gandhi, who when Pakistani soldiers went to attack Kashmir in 1947-48, approved the Indian government’s decision to send the Indian Army to defend its borders.
If we want to talk about Gandhi, let me point out that he would not in the slightest approve of journalism purely based on falsehood or vendetta against Modi or his party.
“By perpetually firing up Hindus and infuriating Muslims, the BJP makes fresh bloodshed more likely,” the article reads. I ask The Economist to find out just how many communal riots have taken place in the 11 years in Gujarat, or six years in India under the Modi regime. Please don't encourage Hindu-Muslim rivalry as provocation causes bloodshed.
There is a mention of Hindu nationalists who are “not easily restrained as the slaughter in Gujarat showed”. Blaming one community over an unfortunate incident that involved two, does not read right.
The Economist has even gone ahead and assumed it can advise the Supreme Court. Does it think it is so above the SC? Do they have enough qualifications or credentials to do so? They provoke and taunt the SC with the comments.
I will let The Economist know that like any other democracy working within its constitution, India is fully entitled to reclaim its sovereignty and the soul of its nation. The rude awakening of the publication has to be truthful, fair and proportionate in blaming Modi or Modi's govt. Vendetta against Modi will inevitably strengthen his hands because the new India with 1.3 bn people where some 80 per cent born in independent India are able to decide their own destiny. They don't give a damn to the old imperial power.
