Western media have mostly painted a negative picture of India and cherry picked the topics that discredit the Hindu way of life to please the minorities. These media have been supported by many Muslim countries. They always sided with Pakistan to break India even further. The only major religion that advocated the peaceful coexistence, embraced non-violence as the pillar of peaceful living, practicing democratic ideals for political stability, provided special opportunities to the minorities, allowed the minorities to have a special status in the constitution whereby they do not adhere to the uniform civil law, never condemned the other religions to hell, never called them as kafirs or Satans, and so on.  It appears that the media have been on a mission to wipe out Hinduism and demean the Hindu leaders and denigrate the Hindu customs and traditions.  They seem to abhor the largest democracy on the planet.  With all the basic principles of civility, humanity and freedom so inherent in Hindu philosophy, one wonders why CNN, New York Times, The Washington Post, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Guardian, BBC and many western journalists haves been particularly revolting against the BJP and repulsive against Narendra Modi, even after he was democratically elected by unprecedented majority. They are engaged in a biased witch-hunt than actual reporting.

Swapna Dasgupta writing in the Daily Pioneer stated that, “Since the summer of 2014, the foreign journalists reporting India have increasingly come to live in an ecosystem that is both wary of and hostile to the winds of change blowing over India. The Economist doesn’t seem to have gotten over its disappointment that its endorsement of Rahul Gandhi in the 2014 general election was disregarded and the editorial board of the New York Times seems to be dominated by supporters of the Maoist insurgency and Kashmiri separatism. When Modi visited London in October 2015, the Guardian even carried a long article by a staff columnist arguing that the UK Government should have no truck with him.”

British Media

                Nitin Mehta has analyzed the British media by saying that UK media’s Anti India bias is all too evident.  Anti-media did not expect the overwhelming majority that elected Modi as Prime Minister. They did not even expect that his government would even last this long. They are shocked to find that his strength is increasing with UP elections. They do not report any atrocities committed daily in totalitarian Muslim countries and how they reduced the minorities (Hindus) to less than one percent. They do not talk about triple talaaq, sharia law, Muslim women rights in Islamic countries. Their life could be in danger to report on these totalitarian countries. Unable to find their space in Muslim countries, the only country democratic country, India, that allows freedom of speech has become their vicious target to criminalize it, demonize it and dismantle it. They made it a point to write dark stories and blow it to disproportionate level and magnify them multifold to sway the public opinion. Nitin Mehta observed “For the secularists, any expression of India’s heritage, culture and spiritual beliefs is anathema. For these social scientists and economists, most of whom are of Indian origin and live in Britain, India always falls short of their expectations. Democracy? It is caste based; it is corrupt. They did not play any part in nation building.” (The Guardian, September 10, 2017)

For more than a decade, his critics have been questioning Mr Modi over his controversial role in the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the western state of Gujarat. He was accused of having done little to stop the riots in which more than 1,000 people died - an allegation he has always denied. These journalists have no respect for the legal system and keep criticizing Modi even though Supreme Court of India has absolved all the charges against Narendra Modi.

The Guardian’s hatred toward Modi is reflected on tits editorial and the article published. In their editorial, it keeps harping on the Gujarati riots. It says that the “role he played in the Gujarat massacres of 2002 remains unresolved.” Some of the titles of the articles published include: “India is a ‘republic of fear’. The UK must keep the pressure on Modi,” “Narendra Modi: the divisive manipulator who charmed the world,” “Modi’s government fails to act on rape,”” If Modi is elected, it will bode ill for India's future,” “Narendra Modi: India's saviour or its worst nightmare?” “Narendra Modi, a man with a massacre on his hands, is not the reasonable choice for India”; “India is being ruled by a Hindu Taliban”; and so on.

Mihir Bose’s article on 2 August 2017. After listing some Indian achievements, he had the following to say: “After the victory of Narendra Modi the country seems to be turning its back on the tolerant, secular society that India’s founding fathers wanted. Modi has always ridden two chariots: what one prominent Indian businessman, and an old friend of mine, called Modi’s real business of making India prosperous; and his Hindu business of appeasing his fanatical Hindu followers. Modi has proved a timid reformer, whose tinkering has included an overnight demonetization that led to such chaos that people died. In contrast, his Hindu followers have been given free rein to believe that Ram Rajya, the mythical rule by the revered Hindu god Ram, has finally arrived. This has seen a ban on the slaughter of cows, and a growing intolerance of minorities.”

                Amrit Wilson laments about the horrific rapes committed in the name of Hindu nationalism. He talked about two horrific rape cases in Indi and how India is being rocked by huge protests. (The Guardian, April 18, 2018). Jason Burke scathing attack started even before he was chosen as leader of Bharatiya Janata Party. He says that Modi “is a divisive figure in India. Some see him as an extremist who sided with mobs who attacked Muslims in towns and cities across Gujarat, following a lethal fire supposedly started by Muslims on a train full of Hindu pilgrims in 2002 – a charge he denies.” (The Guardian, October 22, 2012). In another article Jason Burke criticizes him for the 202 riots even though, he was exonerated by the Supreme court.  “Repeatedly accused of allowing, even encouraging, Hindus whipped up by hardline activists to vent their fury, Modi has consistently denied all wrongdoing and has been cleared by a succession of high-powered legal inquiries. It was after a key court decision that the UK decided in 2012 to end a boycott of Modi by senior officials. Only weeks ago, the US followed. Nonetheless, Modi has yet to shake off the controversy.”

                Salman Rushdie, Imran Khan, John McDonnell, Fiona Mactaggart, Pragna Patel, Jayati Ghosh, Suresh Grover and other leftist brains published an opinion letter in The Guardian criticizing the role he played in Gujarat Riots. They say that his political ethics and moral character is incompatible with secular constitution. The they conclude that “Were he to be elected prime minister, it would bode ill for India's future as a country that cherishes the ideals of inclusion and protection for all its peoples and communities.” (April 10, 2014). Similarly, Aditya Chakraborty says that Modi is responsible for some of the worst religious violence even seen in independent India. “Given the enormity of the allegations against Modi, this is frankly pathetic. First, the Gujarat massacres have not safely been consigned to the past”          

Anish Kuman in The Guardian (November 12, 2015) says that Narendra Modi is clamping down on tolerance and freedom of expression. The openness to the minorities and regional differences is at serious risk. He says, “a saffron-clad army of Hindu activists who monitor and violently discipline those suspected of eating beef, disobeying caste rules or betraying the “Hindu nation”.”  The writer continues to smear the government with his jaundiced eyes with the statement, A Hindu version of the Taliban is asserting itself, in which Indians are being told: “It’s either this view – or else.”” These journalists are ignoring four important points when they spit out their venom.  First that overwhelming majority of the Indian citizens wanted change and voted BJP into power.  Second, Modi is trying to implement what is written in the constitution about protecting the cow. Third that majority of the people wanted to see changes in the appeasement policies. Fourth, the many foreign funded Christians are using the funds for conversion of Hindus into Christianity by flouting the Constitutions. These journalists have not yet realized the depth of citizens’ passion to see changes in the government policies. They do not acknowledge that that it was not Hindu militant who went on jihad in Mumbai killing several people, nor Hindu militant that bombed Varanasi, or set fire first to the railway compartments in Gujarat in 2002.

By comparing Indian democracy to Taliban government of Afghanistan and other countries, the writer is completely shut his eyes to more than 50 countries where the Muslims have declared their countries as Islamic with no concern for the rights of other religions such as Hindus. In many countries, Hinduscannot even carry the Hindus cannot even carry the picture of their Gods.

Journalists have become Presstitudes to the cause of Muslims and Christians who know how to woo them and make them as their mouthpieces. Consequently, they live in a moments life ignoring the realities on the ground and the richness of India’s history. Why India is having with these two religions? This is the country that sheltered Parsis, Jews, Buddhists and other religions and guaranteed their right to worship and helped them to maintain their culture. These religions lived in peace and contributed to the richness of Indian culture of tolerance, freedom and non-violence.  After state of Israel was established, they passed a resolution by saying that India is the only country that has not discriminated the Jews out of 126 countries they lived.  Dalai Lamas praise for India’s tolerance and spiritual heritage was unmatched in the human annals. Then, why Muslims and Christians have problems in India. It because of their missionary zeal to convert India into either a Christian country or Islamic country. They have been working relentlessly and tirelessly to break the backbone of India and consign it to past unknown.

                Ever since Modi was elected, BBC has started a vicious campaign against him labeling him as a “mass murderer” and accused him as a man who started persecuting minorities. BBC is in bed with Congress party. When Home Minister Rajnath Singh (August 1, 2015) stated that Congress government has coined the term “Hindu Terror” to undermine the efforts to deal with domestic terror, BBC jumped into the fray to refute the report that charges Muslims are the most likely terrorists in India along with the communists. Pakistan was places in the first tier that list all the countries that represent the worst situation in the world for religious freedom. Additionally, biggest number of asylum requests come from Pakistan to UK, not India. If the Muslims are persecuted why there is no exodus of them to other countries. BBC wanted to support Rahul Gandhi claim expressed to US Ambassador to India that growth of “radicalised Hindu groups” posed a great threat to the country than militant groups like LeT. BBC would not heed the former Prime Minister Tony Blair who warned that “The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world. It is destabilizing communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalization.”

BBC held a program on Modi on May 1, 2015 where guest speakers totally slanted and sneered him.  Modi was described as a controversial figure by all the participants with no other person to challenge in the program. The Programs presenter, YaldaYakim, stated that Modi had blood on his hands and he was India’s most divisive politician.  Anish Kapoor quantified him as “India’s dreamed itself a dream with a mass murderer as its main character”. BBC should have contested these statements by demanding the relevant statistics and compare them with other countries. Priti Patel wrote a letter to BBC Director General bring his attention about the anti-Modi program. “Modi’s political opponents have portrayed him as being ‘controversial’, so by using this reference, the BBC, who should be impartial, is giving acceptance to the political position of Modi’s opponents rather than reporting objectively … Claiming someone who is a democratically elected politician is a ‘mass murderer’ is an extremely serious allegation and unless such a claim is substantiated with meaningful evidence, the BBC should not be broadcasting this slur.” Obviously, BBC would not respond with any kind of justification for their one-sided, contemptuous program on Modi.

                Th Economist also joined the anti-Modi chorus denouncing his as a man focusing on the appearance and loosing sheen. Recognizing his popularity in the public and acknowledging the recent victories in different states, it criticized the demonetization as causing great hardship and disruption.  The paper described Modi not as a reformer.  It claims that GST has become unnecessarily complicated and bureaucratic. “If Mr Modi wants to keep winning votes, he must concentrate not just on campaigns; he must also show that he knows how to run the country. Sooner or later, voters will tire of grandstanding.” (November 2 2017). Similarly, The Economist criticized Modi by saying, “Mr Modi, in short, is squandering a golden opportunity. Some apologists claim that he is waiting until he wins a majority in the upper house before taking on bigger reforms. If so, he has given no inkling of what he is planning. In fact, he has not even made clear that economic reform is his priority.” (June 24, 2017)

US Media

The New York Times Maligns Narendra Modi and Hindus

The New York Times published articles that are mostly critical of Modi, BJP and any other news critical of India. Their bias toward Modi is vicious and groundless. Even before he got elected, NYT accused him of killing so many Muslims in 2002 without ever mentioning the root case of the unrest. They never indicated that the Muslims closed all the doors of the train where Hindu were returning from Pilgrimage and set fire killing all the Hindus. They could not even open the doors of the compartments and were scorched. After he was elected NYT doubled their efforts to charge him as an extreme Hindutva advocate denying the Muslims safely, Al l the studies across the globe revealed that Muslims feel safer, secure, happier and more comfortable in India than Muslims in their own Muslim countries. The newspaper would not dare say about the minority rights of Hindus in many of these Muslims countries. A Hindu cannot carry even the pictures of their own Gods and Goddesses, cannot read their Bhagavad Gita, and cannot do even the pujas to their chosen Gods in many Muslim countries. Any violation by the Hindus would result either in expulsion, imprisonment or death. NYT has nothing to do with human rights violation in these Muslim countries. No other country gives as many privileges, opportunities and freedom to Muslims in India. But NYT times is not concerned about enforcing the Constitution that requires all the states to protect and preserve the cows.

                Would Muslim counties allow pigs to killed and eat?

                Would USA or UK allow slaughter horses in the US or UK?

                Would USA or UK allow killing of pets such as cats or dogs indiscriminately?         

Hartosh Singh Bal wrote an Opinion in New York Times (May 30, 2018) listing several incidents such as no confidence, Supreme Court intervention, Modi government, election commissions decisions and Karnataka elections. The writer’s bias is blatantly visible. All the incidents that he described have not violated any aspect of Constitution. The author says, "As India prepares for the national elections next year, Mr. Modi’s ratings are falling" only to create doubts among his supporters. The author has conveniently negligent the opinion poll conducted few days before he wrote his opinion. Mega Times Group reveals that 71.9 percent of Indians say that they would vote for Narendra Modi. He is one of the members of a fringe group that was supported by the elite groups and the Congress Party who were unable wake up to the reality. These journalists are trying to find niche to accept the fact that overwhelming majority of Indians elected Modi as Prime Minister. But they failed. The writer went as far as accusing Modi as subverting the democracy. He stated that “If Mr. Modi was willing to drown dissent and subvert national institutions when his government enjoyed popular support, how far down an undemocratic path might he and his party go to ensure a victory?” Pew Research published on May 2018 the percentage of people who are satisfied with the way democracy is working. India topped the list with 79 percent. The New York Times would not worry about the way people feel and would not reflect the views and trust of Indian people as they are sold to the special interest groups.

The New York Times has a long history of warped, biased and insulting views toward India and Hindu way of life. They will find writers who are offensive and who can aggressively attack Hindus. Wendy Doniger, Joseph Manu, Arundhati Roy, William Broad, Ellen Berry and other leftist writers whose job it is to demonize India as anti-Muslim and Anti-Christian. Even before the elections in 2014, the editorial Board concluded that, “His rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country’s 138 million Muslims and its many other minorities. They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade …  Mr. Modi cannot hope to lead it (India) effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people” (May 2013). Similarly, the prejudiced, hateful and spiteful editorial stated two days after the elections, ... whether he will be the strident Hindu nationalist who might impose a sectarian agenda on a largely secular state…but he can’t achieve those goals if he exacerbates sectarian divisions, for example, by using divisive rhetoric against Muslims.” This kind of editorial is aimed at pleasing the minorities, elites, intellectuals and Congress Party leadership where the journalists cohabit for their livelihood and survival. Why they completely ignore the wishes of one billion people for the sake of 138 million Muslims? With so much terror inflicted all over the world by ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terror groups, why New York Times would not criticize the Muslims. They must be handsomely paid by Muslim countries to be their succors. They are also in bed with their Christian faith which calls for the elimination of Hindus by conversions. Pope Paul was their mentor who wanted to establish cross over India.

The New York Times bemoaned and cried out loud in its editorial “India’s Battered Free Press” by saying that, “Press freedom in India suffered a fresh blow on Monday when the country’s main investigative agency raided homes and offices connected to the founders of NDTV, India’s oldest television news station. The raids mark an alarming new level of intimidation of India’s news media under Prime Minister Narendra Modi … Since Mr. Modi took office in 2014, journalists have faced increasing pressures. They risk their careers — or lives — to report news that is critical of the government or delves into matters that powerful politicians and business interests do not want exposed.” (June 7, 2017). In another editorial, NYT talks about alarming rise in the mob attacks and cried out loud that under Modi government “what has actually been unleashed is virulent intolerance that threatens the foundation of the secular nation envisioned by its founders.” (July 17, 2017). It never acknowledges that it is only because of Hindu ideology and principles of tolerance and pluralism, Muslims numbers are increasing day by day, If Hindus are made responsible to threaten the foundation of secularism, why you do not see an exodus of Muslims to other Muslim countries. How many Muslim countries are secular where Hindus can practice their religion and worship their Gods.  NYT never acknowledge the fact that Islam is incompatible with democracy, secularism, pluralism and freedom of speech.

NYT’s assessment is a blatant lie and deliberately misleading the readers as well distorting the facts. CBI clearly stated that the raid was not about debt payment but about the collusion between Roys and the unknown official at the bank. It is a criminal conspiracy. CBI says that the raid was financial transgression these investors committed and not interfered with the operation of the programs. NYT conveniently ignored the fact that NDTV had floated 20 wholly-owned subsidiaries in different parts of the world. It would not even acknowledge that CBI raided number of people during demonetization, IAS officers, Bank officials, IT officials, Accountants and so on. This is s not a raid to interfere with free press.

New York Time’s vicious, mean, spiteful and rancorous reporting on saree being attributed to the revival of Hindu nationalism and fundamentalism. Even BurkhaDutt, who is an anti-Hindu herself, felt insulted to insult the saree by saying that NYT has become a laughingstock of India. She was appalled at linking Sari to politics and Hindu nationalism.  Sari was the most democratic clothing which cuts across class, caste, religion, region and even counties. The poorest and the richest alike wear sari. Dutt says that any suggestion that the sari is about Hindu identity is rubbish and laments on the accusation of NYT that Indian government is promoting Sari as if it was a crime. She admonishes the editorial board by saying that “To fabricate a conspiracy theory around our beloved sari is not only Orientalist; it’s just plain stupid. And poor journalism to boot.”(Washington Post, November 17, 2017).

Why do these Western media paint Hindu leaders and Hinduism in such dark sketches? For these liberal, secular and anti-Hindu journalists to be accepted by their peers they must prostitute themselves with India’s media that is controlled by Muslims, Christians and Communists.  Ideological ghettoization of the foreign correspondents starts developing by mixing with their co-journalists of the similar mentally deranged Indian media particularly in Delhi. The Indian media’s anathema to their own culture, hatred toward Hindu leaders, passion to take up the cause of minority rights at the expense of overwhelming Hindu rights, greed for accumulation of unaccounted income, and deliberate effort to ignore Islamic terrorism, and conscious endeavour to overlook Christian deceptive practices to break up India slowly infiltrate the minds of foreign journalist. To remain in the ghetto and to be accepted by Indian media, the foreign correspondents become the mouthpiece of Indian media. They become traitor like the Indian secular and liberal media who are vowed to burn the Hindu house that has given the unlimited freedom. Consequently, they would not be able to break the ghetto boundaries. They dare not go to the villages and find out how the peasants feel about the present government. A single incident is blown up to new heights to make it appear as a routine and normal course of event. They paint every incident as an incident caused by Hindutva forces and flash them around the globe insinuating Modi and BJP. It must stop.   

                It is worth looking at the mindset of western journalist as explained by one of the western scholars, Thomas Jackson who penned an article, “Wrong on Right.”  He went to India with many preconceived notions and earful of biases against India to spend few months with right wing think tank. He realised that the Congress leaders, still bitter that it is out of power, are creating false narrative of their own country in the west. He even heard these liberals equating BJP as an organization supportive of the Nazi Party in 1930’s.  He was even warned to be wary of RSS members who would treat him terribly for a lifestyle that is typical of any Western person of his age. He says that he was relieved to find out that every single preconceived notion was false. In fact, he says, “I am no more out of place in my office than any single one of my colleagues would be in liberal metropolitan London. I now feel rather foolish for having ever entertained any of these ideas.” He was even surprised to find out “how unaware and out of touch Western media and left-wing academics are on the topic of the modern Indian Right. Fake news has been the political buzzword of the last year, but just how fake the news on India is still surprised me.” The western media have become succors of the Indian media in painting a nasty repulsive and revolting picture of India.

He summarized his experience with these sobering words. “A picture is being painted of a country where you will be murdered for eating beef, attacked for being out in public in a mixed gender group and where the Government is doing everything it can to encourage such actions. The idea that Indian liberalism and tolerance are dead, if they did in fact ever exist, is firmly planted in the mind of the Western media and academics. My experience suggests that this cannot be further from the truth, and I’ve even heard many people I work with make the claim that Hinduism and the Indian way of life encourage liberalism, pluralism and tolerance. I am inclined to believe this.”(Open the Magazine, June 1, 2018

                Has any western journalist read this article?Is there any consciousness left among western journalists to re-examine their philosophy of hatred and their manufactured fake news? They have sunned their objectivity, eschewed their morals, sold their souls, committed to wipe out rich Indian cultural heritage, and acting like stupid persons. They are acting like fools without regard for accountability, responsibility, reasoning, and logic. They misinterpret all the statistics and ignore the reality. One is reminded of Bhartihari who says that you can never change the mindset of a fool (person who lacks judgement).

                You may boldly take a gem from te jaws ofa crocodile,

                You may swim the ocean with its tossing wreath of waves,

                You may wear an angry serpent like a flower in your hair,

                But you’ll never satisfy a fool who is set in his opinions!

Prakasarao V Velagapudi, PhD

President, GHHF