A little before midnight on Friday, my phone buzzed to an incoming email, the subject of which was ‘Guardian reporter Aina J Khan’. The email was marked to the OpIndia English editor, Nirwa Mehta and myself, the Editor-in-Chief of OpIndia.

The email essentially asked us to “stop online attacks against Aina J Khan via the publication and personal and official handles”. Apparently, we had no basis to call Aina an Islamist and our doing so had somehow put her in harm’s way. The rest of the incoherence in that email and our response to it have been elucidated going further in this article.

My team and I were thoroughly amused but responded politely, asking which article on OpIndia specifically “attacked” Aina J Khan. We also wondered why Aina was not tagged in the email that was sent to us by Sheila Pulham. Honestly, we were wondering if the email was a hoax by a sophisticated hacker who may have spoofed the domain name. Much to our levity, after we tweeted that we would respond to the email in time, the Guardian Communication handle responded to Nirwa Mehta with a screenshot of the email, emphasising that they were only “requesting” us to not “attack their journalist”.

Dear Ms. Mehta – in the interests of transparency for your followers, here is the email you mention. We simply ask you (again) politely to refrain from making personal attacks on our reporter on your site and on social media https://t.co/qi0SbFRWOS pic.twitter.com/4qXVUrbSvD

— Guardian Comms (@GuardianComms) October 14, 2022

It must be mentioned here that at the time of writing this article, we had not received a direct response from Ms Sheila Pulham to the question we asked her – which specific article on OpIndia “attacked” Aina J Khan in their opinion and why was Aina not included in the mail that we received. Be that as it may, it is only fitting that we respond publicly since the email itself has been tweeted by The Guardian.

In bold is the text of the email and following that, is our response to Ms Sheila Pulham.

Dear Nupur J Sharma

I am quite pleasantly surprised at the outset, that you managed to get my name right and added the “J”. Several individuals, who support the kind of journalism The Guardian and Ms Aina Khan practises, have consistently wished death upon me and issued threats to behead me after mistaking me for the Nupur Sharma you vilified in your publication. Before I respond to the rest of your email, I would like to congratulate your entire editorial team, including Aina, for getting this right without prejudice. Of course, given the manner in which you covered Nupur Sharma and fuelled the campaign of beheading threats being issued to her, I have no doubt in my mind that I might meet the same fate, given that you have now turned your attention to me.

I am writing to request that OpIndia stop its online attacks on Guardian reporter Aina J. Khan via your publication and your official and personal social media channels.

That is an agreeably worded sentence that uses “request” to show just how polite your email is, but in actuality, it is a veil (no pun intended, of course, lest your “journalist” Aina Khan considers the word “veil” as another “Islamophobic attack” against her identity – a fair supposition given that she thought laser eyes were “demon eyes”) to mask the prejudices, baseless accusations and surmises that this sentence is loaded with.

Firstly, my Editor, Nirwa Mehta, responded to your email, asking you to furnish evidence of this alleged “attack” against your journalist via our publication, and official and personal handles, which, by the way, you have not bothered to respond to. As a 200-year-old media organisation, I am sure you are aware that criticism of one’s reportage cannot, by any way, shape, manner or form, be considered an “attack” against the reporter. An article showing the glaring bias in reporting a sensitive issue where the British Hindu minority came under attack, or an opinion piece on the mythical “bravery” of the duo who supposedly stood up to “Hindutva mobs” (and were unscathed) cannot particularly be called an “attack” but a criticism of the turn of events. If this is considered an “attack” by The Guardian, I must humbly point out that your publication has been indulging in online Armageddon since its very inception, given that you have an illustrious history of misinterpreting nuances, misrepresenting facts, labelling and demonising those you don’t agree with and siding with the most violent elements in society.

For the uninitiated, I think a primer on the entire issue of Leicester violence and the shenanigans of your reporter would be desirable. The tension in Leicester started with a skirmish over a cricket match on the 28th of August. In this skirmish, there is video evidence that the Hindus had later tended to the Sikh man who had desecrated the Indian flag. On the 4th of September, Islamists in mobs attacked Hindus, their houses and their establishments. After that, the minority British Hindu community had decided to take out a protest march against the violence that had been unleashed against them since the 4th. On the 17th of September, fuelled by consistent fake news and propaganda by Islamists, Hindus came under attack again, identified in several cases by the display of their religious symbols.

The saga of fake news started in August itself when Muslim organisations in Leicester approached the police, claiming that Hindus were chanting slogans like “death to Muslims”. This was first furthered by the Leicester police fallaciously and then debunked on the 1st of September. As far as OpIndia is concerned, we got introduced to Aina Khan while we were just about beginning to look into the Leicester violence. On the 19th of September, while Hindus were under severe threat, Aina Khan proceeded to report from Leicester. Without a shred of evidence, she claimed that she had interviewed one “Hindu Nationalist” who was “holding the Indian flag” – a man who was wearing a helmet. She claims that the man identified himself as an RSS supporter, adding that RSS was inspired by Mussolini. There is no evidence to back this claim. In fact, Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s father, Stefano Maino, actually served as a foot soldier in Mussolini’s army, but we digress.

Here is an excerpt from our very first report about Aina Khan:

She then said how the helmet-wearing man said Muslims are a problem in the UK and talked about the Rotherham grooming gang. There is no video clip evidence of the man saying ‘Muslims’ are a problem, but the fact that many Muslims are prime accused in the Rotherham grooming gang case, one does not see what exactly is incorrect in this.

Aina so far has not been addressed as an Islamist. We have merely pointed out that her reportage seems one-sided and with zero evidence, to put it mildly. There were several other falsities peddled by Ms Khan, including a strange tirade against RSS and Hindus. While Ms Aina wishes to brand all criticism as Islamophobia, she displayed her Hinduphobia when she claimed that her discussion got ‘heated’ when the ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans were raised. She refers to Jai Shri Ram (Glory to Shri Ram), as a ‘Hindu chant appropriated by extremists in India’ and also alleged that Jai Shri Ram is now synonymous with anti-Muslim hatred. As a journalist, one would expect her to realise that several of these fake cases where Jai Shree Ram was chanted were debunked by the police themselves. But we would not want to accuse The Guardian of journalism.

While branding an organisation as fascist, Hindus as extremists and Hindu religious chants as war cries, Aina cries Islamophobia as usual and proclaims that she was accompanied by one Majid Freeman, a “Local Muslim activist”, in her endeavour to find the truth of Leicester violence. The full extent of the lies peddled in her first thread about Leicester can be read here.

It was at this point that OpIndia started looking into Majid Freeman and realised the litany of fake news that he had spread, aiding the violence against Hindus. Much to our dismay, it was this individual, with known sympathies for ISIS/Al Qaeda, who was guiding the Guardian’s coverage of Leicester. Majid Freeman, the terror sympathiser who had travelled to Syria with terror organisations, spread fake news about a Mosque being attacked by Hindus, about the attempt to kidnap a Muslim girl by a Hindu man, about Quran pages being ripped and far more. He also gave calls for Muslims to assemble in an attempt to attack Hindus since Muslims were fed up with the music being played by Hindus during their festivals. He considered a mere march by Hindus chanting their religious slogans as “provocation” simply because there was a mosque on their path. The full coverage of Majid Freeman’s lies and criminal provocations against Hindus can be read here.

A terror sympathiser who instigated attacks against Hindus was the “activist” who was the primary source for Ms Aina Khan, the journalist with Guardian. When the victims are turned into perpetrators and persecuted are turned into aggressors, it is in the interest of the truth that such bias in reporting is called out. In fact, the fact that Aina Khan and her “source” were lying blatantly when they blamed Hindus is evidenced by the fact that Aina had later grudgingly accepted that a Hindu temple was indeed attacked by a Muslim mob – but her religious sentiments, of course, forced her to hail an Imam instead of speaking up for the victims of violence. Calling out such blatant truth jugglery is not an “attack” – it is journalism. It is speaking up for the truth and standing by those who were being victimised. We decided to call out the farce being perpetrated in the name of “objective journalism” – that it is being called an “online attack” by Ms Pulham is a testament to the journalistic standards that Guardian prefers to maintain.

Now, coming to the alleged “attacks” from personal and official handles, according to the email by Ms Pulham.

Well, there was no “attack”.

Dear Ms Pulham, I am unaware as to the extent to which Ms Khan has briefed you, however, you must know that your journalist decided to wake up and start hurling accusations 20 days after an opinion piece about her double standards with regard to Hindus was published. In the article, we deconstructed how Aina Khan or Muskan can bravely take a stand against those who follow Hindutva because they are aware that they would be untouched. The same, of course, cannot be said about her co-religionists. Given what is happening in Iran, I am sure you see the precedence – while Aina goes on a tirade against Hindus, she would not have been unscathed had she expressed similar disdain in an Islamic regime against values that her co-religionists hold dear.

First off, let us address the apparent elephant in the room – those are laser eyes, not “demon eyes”. Maybe religiosity makes Ms Khan believe that those are indeed “demon eyes” but they are not. It’s a meme where people are either shown bullish on something or are painted as possessing superpowers (in The Guardian’s case, one would imagine that superpower is turning the victims into aggressors). Perhaps the publication could hold classes called #KnowYourMeme so such digital transgressions aren’t repeated in the future.

Further, I wonder if you, Ms Pulham, asked your journalist on what basis did she conclude that those students who were protesting against the imposition of Hijab in schools by some students, flouting uniform norms, where students are meant to be a-religious and equal, were a “far-right Hindu mob”. Is it the Guardian’s editorial policy to ascribe motives to mere students completely ignoring the nuance of the situation? Further, did you also ask Ms Khan how the opposite of “wearing a hijab” is “reporting stark naked”? And if those are indeed her views, if she is called an Islamist in response to the colourful labels she likes to throw around, how is it an “online attack”? When Ms Aina calls every Hindu she disagrees with a “far-right mob” and holds the opinion that those who don’t wear a Hijab are essentially “stark naked”, was I so off the mark to label her so?

Is it the Guardian’s considered editorial position that their journalists are free to label and “attack” others who criticise their journalism but any response from those they attack would be deemed problematic simply because her faith gives her the pass to cry Islamophobia? I am, however, willing to concede that the fault does not lie completely with Ms Khan, after all, Ms Pulham, this is the Guardian’s editorial standard and inherent racism against Hindus – why would Guardian then not espouse a journalist who considers a terror sympathiser her source, who considers non-Muslims “stark naked” because they don’t wear a Hijab and considers her attacks fair game while crying victim when she gets a response in equal measure?

Clearly, as the Managing Editor, you seem to believe that Hindus being branded with all kinds of labels is fair game since your magazine has done it in the past, but any criticism of your abysmal journalistic standard is an “attack”. We reject this proposition, Ms Pulham.

There is no basis for you to accuse Aina, without any evidence whatsoever, of being “Islamist” or biased in her reporting.

There is a basis bigger than the size of the former British empire to accuse Ms Aina Khan of being biased in her reporting. Most of it has been explained above already. But in case you want certain specifics for easier comprehension, here it is:

1. If Islamists have attacked the minority Hindu community, a journalist is not supposed to base her reportage on the say-so of an ISIS/Al Qaeda supporter who spread fake news and enabled the murderous attacks against Hindus. That is not journalism. That is confirmation bias and a dangerous one at that.
2. There was no basis for Aina Khan to brand every Hindu an RSS supporter (though there is nothing wrong with being one) and by extension, a “fascist” based on false evidence of RSS being inspired by Mussolini.
3. How are Hindus, the victims, all “mobs” even though Aina grudgingly accepted that a Hindu temple was attacked by a Muslim mob? And if she did admit that it was, why was an Imam hailed with no evidence unless your journalist was trying to exonerate the aggressor community?
4. Has Ms Aina Khan, during her coverage of Leicester, written extensively about the fake news being spread against Hindus by her source Mr Majid Freeman? Has she informed your readers about his links to terror organisations? If not, does that not speak of her bias?
5. On what basis did Aina Khan brand our criticism of her journalism as “Islamophobia”? Does your journalist looking at everything from the prism of her religious faith also not speak towards her bias?

I will leave you to answer these questions to yourself.

Now, let’s come to the part about her being called an “Islamist”.

Aina Khan being branded as an Islamist only came up when I responded to your journalist after she suddenly decided to be incensed about an article published 20 days ago. If you, Ms Pulham, want people to believe that the basis of your indignation is simply your journalist being called an Islamist, your contention is as believable as your country claiming that they are the rightful owners of the stolen artefacts adorning the British Museum. When your journalist brands Hindus as “fascists” and calls me the names that she did, I have the right to respond in the same manner.

When one cosies up to elements like Majid Freeman, what did Guardian expect their journalist to be called? In fact, Guardian itself termed those who carried out the 9/11 attack as “Islamist fundamentalists” – now, if your journalist treats someone who covers up the terror attack as a source, would she not be called an Islamist as well?

At a time when risks to journalists’ safety are rising around the world, it is highly irresponsible to encourage hate against a young female reporter, whether online or in person. Moreover, doing so risks undermining your credibility as a media organisation.

Full marks for using the veil again. You threw in an unrelated issue of the safety of journalists. Yes, journalists are certainly under threat – in fact, one journalist was arrested only yesterday in the Indian state of West Bengal for reporting an attack against Hindus – a story that will never be published on The Guardian – while pushing the charge of “hate” without any basis. Just how seamlessly you transitioned from “online attacks” to “hate” with the real threat of physical attack is something all of us need to learn. If propaganda were a symphony, you, madam, would certainly be Beethoven.

Let me take this opportunity to educate you, perhaps. Do you know who is encouraging hate and jeopardising safety? Elements like Majid Freeman who your journalist cosied up to. Do you know who else? Your publication with racist cartoons against Hindus. The brown sepoys who still bend to the Crown’s will further tropes of “Dismantling Hindutva”, because of which, Hindus across the globe have been endangered with the active help of Left media who are the ideological backbones of Islamists.

And thanks for worrying about the credibility of our organization. An entire cabal is out there to attack it, like the motivated garbage we see on Wikipedia, and by now we have become immune to it. In such a scenario, this supposed concern looks more like a threat – “desist, or we will destroy your credibility”. Is it a hitjob against us being prepared? I hope at least it’s published in The Guardian and not some of those websites run by the brown coolies back in India. Either way, I would want you to know that we are prepared.

I can see that OpIndia disagrees with some of the Guardian’s coverage of Prime Minister Modi’s actions; you are entitled to criticise our coverage however you see fit, but not to make personal attacks on our journalists.

Honestly, I am not sure where to start with this. I would like to tell you that this specific part of the email was a source of constant amusement to my team. Prime Minister Modi has nothing to do with our coverage of the Leicester violence, Majid Freeman or the fact that the terror sympathiser was your journalist’s primary source. It is purely a figment of your imagination if you believe that we criticised your reportage about Leicester because we don’t like your coverage of PM Modi. Leicester was about Hindus being under attack by Islamists, and your Islamist journalist blamed the victims while being hands in gloves with another Islamist. It is absurd for you to make this leap of argument and I can safely conclude that you and the editorial team of the Guardian seem to be far more obsessed with the Indian Prime Minister than with Indians themselves. I wish you luck.

As far as my entitlement is concerned, I would have you know that your nation lost the right to decide what we are entitled to decades ago. Please deal with it. I could suggest some coping mechanisms if you so wish.

If you have any concerns regarding the Guardian’s editorial coverage, you are welcome to email our independent readers’ editor at [email protected].

Well, Ms Pulham, you refused to respond to our query over email as a response to your condescending email. So, thank you for your suggestion which has been taken into consideration and duly discarded. You chose to take this public and we will follow suit and publish our response publicly as well. I would, however, encourage our readers to write to your independent readers’ editor and air their grievances with the editorial standard of the Guardian and the conduct of your journalists.