Monday, January 17, 2022
HomeOpinionsRacist, "liberal", The Economist, its battle with Narendra Modi and how Indian media uses...

Racist, “liberal”, The Economist, its battle with Narendra Modi and how Indian media uses it to bash India’s own Prime Minister

These elections are rather unique. The ones who wore the mask of neutrality have become active players in the elections, perhaps, just as much as the candidates and political parties themselves.

Foreign Media has not been kind to Narendra Modi. Neither has Indian media, but the deal with foreign media is entirely different. While Indian media is perhaps looking out for its bread and butter, considering under the Congress rule, it was fed well and fattened with its incompetency being rewarded, foreign media just hates the cultural identity assertion that Modi gave people the confidence for.

Who can forget the New York Times and its racist rants? In 2017, Indian automobile giant Mahindra and Mahindra opened its first car manufacturing facility in Detroit, the auto hub, a first in 25 years. The plant, which is set up at an investment of $230 million, will produce an off-highway vehicle which is being considered a game-changer already.

While most hailed this historic event, NYTimes, which seems to have a grouse with India, was it’s condescending best while reporting this development. NYTimes reported,

It has been years since Detroit, birthplace of the American auto industry, was a steady producer of the manufacturing jobs that defined it as the Motor City. But its comeback is entering a new phase.

The latest milestone came Monday, with the announcement of the area’s first new vehicle assembly plant in 25 years. And the automaker making it happen is from, of all places, India.

NYT had an issue with Indian attire, the saree as well, calling it a tool for Nationalism. Then, it had lied blatantly about GST and demonetisation to pain Prime Minister Modi and India in poor light. NYT lied about the UAE giving Kerala Rs 700 crores even after it was summarily debunked. NYT also used childrens’ deaths to malign Yogi government’s crackdown on illegal slaughterhouses and drew flak for calling the saree a ‘tool of Hindu nationalist campaign’. It had also in the past used lies to insult victims of the Godhra carnage.

And lo behold, NYT had also peddled long debunked, false data on “violent cow protection” to vilify the Hindu population of India and brand them as violent, deviant, terrorists.

While NYT has long proven its credentials, The Economist is the new favourite of the “liberal” ecosystem in a last-ditch attempt to discredit Narendra Modi.

While I have personally always supported newspapers and media outlets openly declaring their bias for or against a leader, the use of lies, propaganda and racism to discredit a democratically elected leader by foreign media and that narrative being lapped up by Indian media is a cause for concern almost amounting to foreign interference in Indian elections.

In the 2014 elections, The Economist had shamelessly campaigned against Narendra Modi. That its nefarious plans failed, has not deterred them from peddling their nonsense yet again.

Before we delve into how The Economist demonised Narendra Modi, let’s take a look at just how elitist, racist and brazenly stupid The Economist truly is against Indians. Not just Modi supporters, not just Modi himself, but brown, unwashed, Indians.

This what The Economist had to say when India launched Mangalayan.

The elitist, racist Economist had a problem with Mangalayan because India is a “poor country” Whether their issue was with the fact that brown people like Indians launched a space program or that it was under the Prime Ministership of Modi that the mission was launched, is a mystery.

Important to note, that at the same time, NYT had also launched a tirade against India’s space program with a racist cartoon strip.

In 2014, racist, elitist, The Economist did not “support Narendra Modi”. In an article headlined “India’s one man band”, The Economist in 2015 said as much.

In 2019 too, The Economist’s stand hasn’t changed. The fake “religious strike” narrative peddled by The Economist stands unaltered.

The Economist, shamelessly, calls PM Modi “agent orange”. Firstly, the western fools must be colourblind as PM Modi, if anything, should be called “agent saffron”. Secondly, The Economist’s fear-mongering about PM Modi and the mythical “religious strife” is invariably connected the how Hindus are getting more confident to speak up and assert their cultural identity, while the Muslims feel threatened.

“Mr Modi has been neither as good for India as his cheerleaders foretold, nor as bad as his critics…imagined. But today the risks still outweigh the rewards”.

His “strongman” image for the airstrikes in Pakistan was “not so much an act of strength as recklessness that could have ended in disaster”, it adds.

“He has inflamed a separatist insurgency rather than quelling it”, The Economist says.

It is most severe on Modi’s “biggest fault” – his “relentless stoking of Hindu-Muslim tensions”.

It goes a step further. The paper says Congress is “hidebound and corrupt” but does “not set Indians at one another’s throats.” “It is a worthier recipient of Indians’ votes than the BJP”.

Essentially, The Economist has a problem with resurgent, assertive Hindus, development of a “poor country” under PM Modi and much prefers that India chooses the “corrupt” Congress party. Because, why should the unwashed, brown people dream of anything better?

And of course, the Indian media and its darbari journalists lapped this nonsense up.

Rajdeep Sardesai, who has been subservient to the Gandhi family since forever, called The Economist ‘venerable’ while peddling this nonsense. Of course, anything that comes from the white overlords becomes ‘venerable’. Italian or British.

The Print, led by Shekhar Gupta lapped it up too. Why an opinion by The Economist must be reported as “news” would generally be beyond comprehension, but the white syndrome is often high wish brown sahibs.

Other brown sahibs like Dhume rejoiced that The Economist, the racist, foreign media had called the democratically elected leader of India ‘despicable’.

And one wonders what the difference between these independant thinkers and illiterate politicians is, when Akhilesh Yadav, leader of Samajwadi party too ends up peddling the racist rant by The Economist by terming it “Indian Media”.

Of course, none of these brown sahibs or their masters like The Economist of NYT has ever questioned why Rahul Gandhi allied with Islamists or called himself a Janeu dhari shiv bhakt. Why he chose to contest from Wayanad and in a sting operation, why his leader was caught saying that Wayanad is a safe seat because it has a majority Muslim population. They have remained mum on Congress’ despicable Manifesto that demonises the Indian Army and also, remained silent about his numerous, uncountable lies.

These elections are rather unique. The ones who wore the mask of neutrality have become active players in the elections, perhaps, just as much as the candidates and political parties themselves. That they have to toe the line of racist foreign media to denigrate their own country and its Prime Minister, is a question they have to sort out with their own conscience. If they have one left, that it.


  Support Us  

Whether NDTV or 'The Wire', they never have to worry about funds. In name of saving democracy, they get money from various sources. We need your support to fight them. Please contribute whatever you can afford

Nupur J Sharma
Editor, since October 2017

Related Articles

Trending now

Recently Popular

- Advertisement -

Connect with us