The Western media has a long history of portraying India in a distorted light and spewing out glaring falsehoods, partial facts and outright lies. However, they have gone on an overdrive to accelerate the propagation of their perverted perception since the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power both in the centre and in multiple states. The media has relentlessly condemned Prime Minister Narendra Modi and state administrations of the saffron party irrespective of the issue or its merits, only to further the skewed narrative.
A recent prime example of the same is an article published by “The Guardian” titled, “Muslims in India face discrimination after restaurants forced to display workers’ names,” on 13th October. Needless to say, it was an exemplary propaganda piece discussing the alleged discrimination against Muslims following the Uttar Pradesh government order which mandated eateries to display the names and addresses of operators, proprietors and managers. In its pursuit to paint an adverse image of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath which the article described as a “hardline Hindu monk,” the media house also ridiculed the Congress-ruled Himachal Pradesh for introducing a similar law.
It is crucial to bear in mind that the development came about as a result of several instances of spitting, peeing and using similar methods to contaminate food that was eaten by Hindus, particularly during religious occasions like Kanwar Yatra.
The article commenced by shooting off the shoulders of Indian Muslims and read, “Muslims in India say they have been fired from their jobs and face the closure of their businesses after two states brought in a discriminatory policy making it mandatory for restaurants to publicly display the names of all their employees. The policy was first introduced by Yogi Adityanath, the hardline Hindu monk who is the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. Last month the state of Himachal Pradesh, governed by the opposition Congress party, announced it would also make it compulsory for all names of workers and employees to be put on display.”
It asserted, “Both state governments have said it is to ensure compliance with health and safety rules and vending regulations in the north Indian states. However, locals and activists have alleged that the new rules are instead a thinly veiled attack on Muslim workers and establishments.” Notably, the law did not target Muslims alone, rather, it applied to the owners of eateries from all communities, including minorities such as Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and others. Thus, it raises the question of how the law is aimed only at Muslims. Moreover, why is it a problem for the second largest community in the country to display their names if they are not indulging in any malpractices or have nothing to hide?
The article then also made the standard argument put forth by the liberal Islamist ecosystem and claimed, “Names in India widely signify religion and caste and there are growing fears among Muslim business owners in Uttar Pradesh that this will lead to targeted attacks or economic boycotts, particularly by hardline Hindu groups that are active in the state.”
On the surface, it might seem like a valid point, but a deeper analysis reveals the sinister narrative. First off, the Hindu community has not participated in any such widespread boycotts. However, Muslim leaders including Shoab Jamai of the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) have urged their religious brethren to boycott the Hindu community. However, he had to take back his statement after massive backlash.
Secondly, why shouldn’t the customer know who he is purchasing his goods from, especially something as significant as food items? He has a right to know who is on the other end of the transaction as he is investing his time and resources. Notably, a sizable portion of the Hindu populace regards vegetarianism as an essential component of their faith and practices it accordingly. They prefer to eat from places where non-vegetarian food is not prepared. It is their food choice, just as Muslims are obliged to consume only halaal-certified food.
Shouldn’t all communities be accorded equal rights and privileges or does it only turn into bigotry when Hindus do it? Most importantly, should Hindus just accept polluted food and disregard their faith and sacred customs in the name of “secularism” even while observing their holy festivals? Furthermore, does the unhygienic aspect of such practices and the health risks they pose need to be mentioned? Will the author of the article be willing to taste such food? Unsurprisingly, the Guardian has conveniently overlooked these significant but obvious facts.
Afterwards, the article proceeded to attack PM Modi and CM Yogi and stated, “Uttar Pradesh is governed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that also rules at the centre under the prime minister, Narendra Modi, whose decade in power has been marked by growing anti-Muslim discrimination and attacks. Adityanath is viewed as one of the most hardline leaders in the BJP. Since he became chief minister in 2017, he has introduced a flurry of policies that are accused of enabling the targeting of Muslims or fuelling anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.”
The piece further added to its nefarious agenda by regurgitating accusations of Muslim marginalisation without producing any hard facts or concrete evidence to support its politically motivated and prejudiced narrative. The Guardian doesn’t seem to appreciate the improvements made to law and order following the election of the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh. It probably misses the days when mafias like the late Atiq Ahmed and late Mukhtar Ansari were shielded and emboldened by the previous governments for the sake of Muslim votes and when rioters could wreak havoc on the streets with impunity. Now, the preferential treatment for a particular community in the name of vote-bank has ended which likely irked the staff at the English daily.
The piece then quoted some Muslims claiming victimhood and blaming the government for deliberately targeting them. It also quoted those who allegedly let go of their Muslim staff to further demean the government which only asked for the names to be made public and not for any owners to fire anyone from employment. Playing to the expected gallery, the aggressive criticism was entirely directed towards CM Yogi and not the Congress government of Himachal Pradesh.
It featured a comment from a man named Tabish Aalam (28) who claimed to descend from a long history of specialized chefs. He charged, “This order is dangerous, it forces us to wear our religion on our sleeve. I am sure the government knows this, and that is why it is being exploited.” Some other statements from owners of eateries were added who ousted their Muslim staff after the government directive, in yet another attempt to disparage the BJP administration.
The article claimed, “Business owners in Uttar Pradesh said they had fired Muslim staff as a result of the new laws, fearing they would become a target. Other Muslim-run businesses said they had already been harassed as a result of the policy, with some considering closure. Rafiq, 45, the Muslim owner of a highway restaurant in the Uttar Pradesh city of Muzaffarnagar, said he had fired his four Muslim employees in July after police demanded he put the names of all workers on a sign outside.”
“I had to fire my Muslim staff because I was concerned for their safety following the order. Displaying names makes us vulnerable and a very easy target. If, for instance, there is communal tension that keeps taking place, we will be easily identified as Muslims and targeted. Displaying names will identify people’s religions, which I suspect is intended to discourage people from eating at Muslim-owned or Muslim-staffed restaurants,” he told the media house and added that although he resisted police pressure to comply, he would likely close his business completely if asked to obey the law.
It is pertinent to note that the man is willing to shut down his business but refuses to provide the names of his staff. A few more similar claims of victimization and biased policy execution were included in the report to draw attention to the propaganda of an anti-Muslim BJP government.
“Calls for economic boycotts of Muslims have been prominent in the state and there have been rising incidents of attacks against Muslim vendors over the past five years. Last month, the state leader of Bajrang Dal, a rightwing Hindu vigilante group, was captured on video at a meeting calling for attendees to pledge: I will not buy goods from any Muslim shopkeeper,” the article claimed while completely ignoring the fact that Muslims not only made similar announcements many times but even implemented them on the ground.
Following an acrimonious tirade against the saffron party, it quoted Praveen Garg, an Uttar Pradesh BJP spokesperson, in an attempt to present a false impression of objectivity by presenting the opposing viewpoint. He rightly pointed out that the goal of the policy was to maintain restaurant hygiene and emphasized that no one is being refused permission to work. He remarked, “The government was obligated to take this action after becoming aware of situations in which food was purposefully contaminated. There have been instances where persons from a specific community have been caught polluting meals with dirty items that a Hindu cannot consume.”
“Several incidents suggesting that vendors had mixed spit and urine with food and drink items recently went viral and led to arrests in the state. However, despite allegations by rightwing Hindu groups that there was a Muslim conspiracy to commit spit jihad, there was no evidence that the incidents were specifically targeted at Hindus,” the article alleged.
Interestingly, this narrative has already been busted several times including a recent occurrence where non-vegetarian biryani was served to devotees returning from Haridwar even after they were assured by the seller Tanveer that it was vegetarian. The decision to display names was also made for the same reason after Hindus were being duped, specifically during Kanwar Yatra which frequently resulted in altercations and arguments between members of the two communities.
It also mentioned how the country’s Supreme Court put a stay on the order and stated, “In July, India’s supreme court blocked a separate order by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments, both BJP-ruled states, that had demanded restaurants along the route of an annual Hindu pilgrimage display the names of their owners and operators. A petition against the order brought by opposition politicians argued that it was discriminatory on grounds of religion.”
The article eventually realized that Himachal Pradesh would also need to be addressed to create the hogwash of neutrality after a long rant against the BJP and briefly highlighted a similar law passed in the state. “Despite the controversy and allegations of stirring up religious division, in September the state government of Himachal Pradesh said it would soon be following Uttar Pradesh’s example. It cited food hygiene as well as fears over an influx of migrants as the reasons behind bringing in the policy. Vikramaditya Singh, a Himachal Pradesh Congress leader and state minister, said the matter was still under deliberation,” it stated.
Remarkably, Congress minister Anirudh Singh raised the issue of illegal immigration in the state during his speech in the state assembly. “There will be no compromise with the internal security of the state. The law is applicable to everybody. Why should one particular community feel threatened or have apprehensions,” it quoted Vikramaditya Singh and added that he assured “some other way will be explored” in response to concerns regarding the name display. Notably, the minister came under fire from his own party and leaders for this legislation. Congress was slammed over first criticizing the Uttar Pradesh government for enacting the law and then enforcing it in Himachal Pradesh
“Business owners accused the local Congress party of going against its pledges of secularism and using the divisive policy to court the Hindu-majority vote in the state,” the article accused and then added a remark from a 27-year-old small restaurant in Shimla, Sharik Ali. He also reiterated the timeworn propaganda and claimed, “I will not feel safe after displaying my name on my stall. We have seen how Muslims across India have been attacked in the last 10 years of Modi’s rule, but I was not expecting this from the Congress government. They know what will fetch them votes.”
The Guardian ended the piece and successfully accomplished its goal of straying from ground reality and reproducing the lies that its ideological peers in the West and India had already communicated multiple times.
The Guardian and the prism of anti-Hindu, anti-India narrative
In a documentary released during the 2024 Indian Lok Sabha election, the media outlet asserted that the government of Prime Minister Modi has led to a rise in hate speech in the country. The documentary featured journalist Hannah Ellis-Petersen’s interviews with prominent anti-BJP figures and influencers as the general public mostly spoke favourably about him. This could be regarded as a veiled attempt to interfere in India’s democratic election process, especially due to the blatant propaganda directed against the ruling dispensation. An attempt was made to disparage the common people for electing Narendra Modi as prime minister by attacking the Indian society and labelling it as “male-dominated.”
The Guardian in April of this year vented its frustration over the death of anti-India elements and terrorists across different parts of the world and carried a flawed piece based on Pakistani sources. It mostly relied on unnamed sources, especially from Pakistani intelligence, to paint PM Modi as an enabler of “extra-territorial killings.” It claimed that the Modi government used its “sleeper cells” in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to target Pakistani terrorists, referring to them as “individuals” who were allegedly killed by the Indian government.
During the anti-Hindu Leicester violence in 2022, Aina Khan, a journalist with the media house declared that she met a Hindu man wearing a helmet and holding an Indian flag as she was covering the riots who told her that he was from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). She didn’t produce any picture or name the person. He had no image accessible, and she had not given him a name. She added that Benito Mussolini, the dictator of Italy, served as an inspiration for the RSS.
She then claimed that the alleged RSS worker stated that Narendra Modi’s appointment as prime minister marked the real beginning of India’s independence and mentioned Muslims were a problem in the UK and highlighted the grooming gang in Rotherham. He bragged that PM Modi’s leadership was the answer to India’s “jihadist Muslims.” The claims which have already been debunked several times were made without a shred of proof about the existence of that man or their meeting.
The Guardian’s anti-Hindu reporting reached such an absurd level that Hindus in the United Kingdom staged a protest in front of its London office against the biased coverage of the violence in Leicester, which portrayed the Hindu community negatively even though they were the ones who suffered and a temple was also damaged. One of the demonstrators expressed their deep concern about The Guardian’s extreme anti-Hindu and anti-Indian prejudice, stating that the media outlet regularly publishes pieces denouncing the community for a variety of offences. They asked the media house to moderate its harsh language against India since it is inciting hatred towards Hindus in the UK.
Conclusion
The Guardian is a serial transgressor who prioritizes advancing its narrative over truth. It frequently depicts PM Modi and the BJP, which earned the support of the Indian people to come out as winners in several elections, as autocrats who have usurped power, undermining the country’s democratic process and the will of the population. It has an extensive record of manipulating facts to advance its propaganda and regularly berating the Hindu community in favour of Muslim extremists. The Guardian, in pushing its political objective, has come to be seen as the guardian of baked truths and deception.
