As a decade-long subscriber to The Economist, I have always regarded it as one of the world’s finest publications, a truly global magazine, respected for its commitment to balanced journalism, rigorous analysis and a clear-eyed view of the world. It is not an inexpensive subscription, but it is worth every penny, thanks to the values, vision and editorial standards laid down by its founding figure, James Wilson, and legendary editor Walter Bagehot. By and large, I must say that The Economist of today, with its wide global editions have maintained the standards over the years and still pay tribute to that enduring legacy.
But I was deeply disappointed by a recent article in the magazine’s Banyan column titled “Promises made, promise kept.” The piece examines how Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership has shaped India in the mould of Gujarat, highlighting economic growth, improved infrastructure and administrative efficiency, while also attributing to it rising communal segregation, religious tensions and a decline in cosmopolitan values. It also reflects on Gujarat’s complex historical identity beyond its reputation for commerce.
From its very first paragraph, the article strikes a trembling tone. Referring to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and also the first Home Minister of India, as having "cajoled (or bullied) 565 princely states" into the Union, shows neither respect nor accuracy. To regard Sardar Patel with such contempt undermines the extraordinary role he has played in uniting a newly independent nation. With the full cooperation of Lord Mountbatten, the British government’s last Viceroy to India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel played a pivotal role in securing the accession of over 560 princely states to the Indian Dominion under the Indian Independence Act of 1947. His leadership was instrumental in laying the foundation for a strong, united India. It is, therefore, disappointing to see a publication of The Economist’s stature making remarks that are not only short of their editorial standards but also lacking in historical accuracy and cultural sensitivity.
The article then writes “When Mr Modi became the prime minister in 2014, he flew to Delhi in Mr Adani’s private jet.” This detail is not only irrelevant but also appears to be inserted with implication rather than purpose. Again, describing Gujaratis as “laggards” reveals a similar lack of historical and cultural awareness. Before making such claims, one must acknowledge the far-reaching contributions of Gujaratis across the globe. The statement that "India’s idea of itself was built by an Anglophile and Bengali-heavy intellectual class" is, at best, one-sided. While Bengali and Anglophile intellectuals undeniably played a significant role in shaping modern India, to ignore the profound contributions of Gujaratis, as well as other Indian entrepreneurs, reformers, political leaders and industrialists is misleading. Ironically, the article itself later admits the global prominence of Gujaratis in commerce and community-building, from Mumbai to Africa, Europe to America.
Furthermore, the piece focuses on cultural irrelevancies, such as vegetarianism versus non-vegetarianism, which is insignificant in the context of governance and development. Sanatan values and tradition play a very important part in the life of Gujaratis and other Indians both at home and abroad. More concerning is the way Gujarat’s history of communal violence has been portrayed. The writer refers vaguely to unrest dating back to the 19th century but offers no verified data or nuanced understanding. Over the last 25 years, Gujarat has enjoyed communal harmony and has progressed remarkably, both socially and economically.
The portrayal of Narendra Modi’s nearly 13-year tenure as Gujarat’s Chief Minister also lacks balance. While the article reluctantly acknowledges the state’s economic growth, infrastructure advances and ease of doing business, it cannot resist framing this against the backdrop of the 2002 riots, without due mention of the tragic Godhra train burning that triggered the violence. An honest account must acknowledge both cause and consequence. Selective reporting damages credibility. One date is too many. No communal incident can ever be justified. The tragic events of 2002 remain deeply painful, and it is equally distressing to see The Economist repeatedly revisiting this episode in reference to one community, often without the full context. It is important to recall that during the UPA government led by Dr Manmohan Singh and under the leadership of Smt Sonia Gandhi, then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi was subjected to extensive investigation. He was interrogated for over nine hours by top-level officials appointed by the UPA government. Eventually, a comprehensive report was submitted to the Indian Parliament, clearing Modi of any direct or indirect involvement in the 2002 riots. That official report still stands as a matter of public record. This is not about defending a political figure or representing a particular community, Gujarati or otherwise. It is about upholding the core values of truth and responsible journalism.
May I respectfully remind the Editor of The Economist that facts and truth have always been the cornerstone of a publication’s reputation. While some may view its tone as bold or even judgemental, that is a matter of style. What truly matters is the commitment to accuracy and fairness. Editorial content should not reflect bias, rather offer a balanced and well-researched perspective.
The article’s take on Gujarati identity is confused. It praises Gujaratis for their cosmopolitanism and entrepreneurship yet also accuses them of parochialism and cultural decline. These mixed messages weaken the argument instead of strengthening it.
To suggest that Gujarat today epitomises "growing communal segregation" is not only misleading but echoes past misjudgements by the magazine. In the early 2000s, The Economist quite often described Gujarat as a site of "genocide" and Modi as a Hindu nationalist demagogue. I wrote several letters to the editor at that time and also published about this report in Asian Voice and Gujarat Samachar. To the magazine’s credit, they responded, and a senior journalist of The Economist visited my office, observing first-hand the progress and the ground realities. Economist also sent a Senior Journalist from their Mumbai office to the Vibrant Gujarat event in 2010 and we both were staying at the same hotel. That correspondent saw a very different Gujarat, one of development, optimism, and coexistence, far removed from the caricature often presented in international media.
Fading Modi-momentum?
Unusually, the same Banyan column on the 14th of June 2025 issue carried another critical salvo against Prime Minister Modi. This second piece, titled “Fading Modi-momentum,” repeats earlier negative points, appearing more like an attempt to discredit a popular and visionary leader than offer fresh analysis. While it briefly mentions India’s economic growth and international progress, the overall tone remains negative and dismissive. The article also ignores the broader transformation India has witnessed under Modi’s leadership, digital inclusion, decisive foreign policy, empowerment schemes and a shift towards national self-confidence. To see this second piece, in such proximity to the first, also raises questions about the magazine’s editorial intentions towards Gujarat, India and Prime Minister Modi.
The global Indian community, particularly Gujaratis, stand as a symbol of India’s entrepreneurial spirit and cultural resilience. From East Africa to the UK, the United States to the Middle East and across Australia and Canada, Gujaratis have consistently excelled as business leaders, professionals, and philanthropists. Their contributions go far beyond economics. Through the establishment of places of worship, community centres and the vibrant celebration of festivals such as Navratri and Diwali, they have preserved and promoted Indian culture abroad. Moreover, their support for Indian art, music, yoga and meditation on a global scale has played a significant role in enhancing India’s soft power and international image. Gujaratis are also deeply committed to humanitarian causes, offering substantial support to relief and development efforts not only in India but also in the other parts of the world.
Likewise, Prime Minister Modi’s leadership must not be reduced to his regional roots i.e. Gujarat. It reflects a larger, pan-Indian aspiration. Under his leadership, India has seen record infrastructure growth, digital innovation and improved ease of doing business. His firm response to the 2016 Uri terror attack, followed by the surgical strikes, was a turning point, marking the emergence of a new, confident India unwilling to tolerate provocation. More recently, Operation Sindoor, reinforced India’s status as a self-assured, proactive global actor. Modi has redefined India's place in the world, not just as a rising economy, but as a fearless and proactive nation. He represents the transformation of India from a cautious regional player into a sovereign voice of power, values, and pride. Seeing Modi only as a byproduct of Gujarat, or viewing Gujarati contributions in isolation, overlooks the bigger picture of India’s unity in diversity and its growing role on the world stage.
This article contradicts its own intent, on one hand raising unfounded and misleading critiques, and on the other, half-heartedly praising development. Given The Economist's past engagement with these issues and its own history of reflection, it is disheartening to see it revert to outdated stereotypes. The magazine must uphold its founding principles, respect for facts, intellectual honesty, and even-handed reporting. The legacy of Wilson and Bagehot demands no less.
In an age of polarised media and oversimplified narratives, The Economist must remain a beacon of thoughtful and balanced journalism. Narendra Modi is no longer just a name, he represents the Brand India, embodying the nation's remarkable transformation. I recollect an extensive December 2015 feature of the Economist, “The Gujarati Way: Going Global”. It celebrated the global influence of Gujaratis with depth and appreciation. One can’t help but wonder what has prompted the recent shift in tone towards Gujarat and Gujaratis in their recent article.
The Economist rightly understands that the Indian diaspora prioritises education, entrepreneurship, and integration into mainstream society. Above all, they are law-abiding citizens who actively contribute to the countries they call home. Let us celebrate India’s rich diversity, recognise the profound contributions of Gujarat and its people globally, and continue to share the evolving story of this great nation with accuracy, honesty, and grace!