The Media’s Problem With Modi

International media outlets along with their cohorts in India have began a full court press against Modi as elections near an end. Why this coordinated attack all of sudden? Even more concerning was the constant miasma published for the past 5 years about Modi. What is the source of all this?

The same tune is being played by different flutes in an international orchestra. All synchronous. No maestro in sight.

This all happened while Modi stormed into Prime Ministership with a massive majority in 2014. The BJP would continue with a juggernaut’s pace dominating elections, winning 15 elections bringing 19 out of 29 states under its control, until a massive stop in 2018 – where the Congress would barely form a coalition in Karnataka but conduct a clean sweep of 3 states in December. Overall, a very dominating record for the BJP despite its losses in late 2018.

These wins would be in great contrast to the apocalyptic narrative that the media would peddle about Modi’s rule. If you read their articles, you would assume Modi would lose every single election that they ended up dominating. Even their losses in 2018 were very slim in all states but Chhattisgarh. They formed the single largest party by far in Karnataka but lost out to a rag-tag, last minute coalition; while anti-incumbency hurt them across the 3 Hindi heartland states.

But what is the root cause of all this? Why do they hate Modi so much; but more so, why is the international media’s coverage of India so blatantly racist, colonial, and generally off the mark?

As always, let’s take a look at context.

Old Scars

India is a civilizational state. Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, the Aztecs, the Incans, and many other ancient peoples had their culture, religion, and/or language wiped off the planet due to being conquered by foreign forces.

India was also conquered by foreign ideologies and peoples, but its spirit was never broken. India has kept alive its most ancient cultures, religions, and languages. An unbroken chain of Indian philosophy and culture flows back for more than 5000+ years. Only China can arguably compare; but it has only faced off against the tradition desecrating influences of Marxism; while India has battled Radical Islam, European Imperialism, and also Marxism, albeit a milder dose of red.

If we were to compare India with America – Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains are very much the “Native Americans” of the Indian Subcontinent. Their philosophies and culture were born in the land. Moreover, many literally worship the land as God itself. This link is absent in the Abrahamic religions of the far off western sands.

Islam and Christianity came initially through refugees (in the case of Christianity) and traders (in the case of Islam). But the real stamp of Abraham came with horrendous violence. There is no point whitewashing the tremendous atrocities of the Islamic invasions and European colonialism on India. Sources of the conquerors frequently describe the horrific persecution with glee and hysteria as the heathen forces finally bend to the one true God or whichever emperor was in fashion.

The celebrated historian, Will Durant said the Islamic invasion was, “the bloodiest story in history.” Durant’s pedigree is elite, having written an 11 volume epic, The Story of Civilization. Durant also criticized the British Raj’s barbarity in his book The Case for India, one of the first international calls for India’s independence. Shashi Tharoor goes into even more detail of the horrors of British colonialism in An Era of Darkness.

Hindu and Sikh reaction to this violence was a drop in the pond compared to the rivers of persecution Muslims and Christians dealt to them. We need to be honest about this just as we should be honest about the horrors of caste. No Muslim or Christian Indian today is any less of an Indian than a Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, or Jain. They carry 0 blame for the crimes of the past. But this is where the international media comes in.

They view India in a basic majority versus minority lens. India’s majority minority complex is viewed as akin to the United States where the invading Europeans had brutally persecuted the natives and brought African slaves over. In reality, India is much more akin to post-apartheid South Africa, where the minority Europeans persecuted the native majority Africans.

Either way, to them the majority always persecutes an innocent minority. Never mind that India’s minority population has skyrocketed since independence, while its partitioned sister countries have decimated their minority populations. Hinduism has proven its pluralism for thousands of years, especially after independence. India doesn’t need a colonial stamp to prove its credentials.

Next they ignore clear cases of minority appeasement and mind-bending justifications for them. A few examples include:

• No uniform civil code. Muslims have Shari’a civil courts leading to practices such as triple talaq, nikah halala, polygamy, etc…
• Only Hindu temples get taxed and Hindu schools are government regulated. Churches, mosques, convents, and madrasas are free from taxation and government control.
• Certain states have affirmative action for minority religions. So in essence, if you convert to Islam or Christianity, you will get affirmative action.

None of this is liberal. None of this is equal. None of this is secular.

Yet we have silence amongst the international media and no understanding of the justified outrage from Hindu sections about the above policies.

Much of this is related to a very un-politically correct notion – Western Liberal’s ignorance and sometimes even tacit support to political or extremist Islam. Muslims are unfairly targeted in much of the Western world by far-right extremists causing Western Liberals to rightly defend their rights, as anyone should. The problem is when these same “Liberals” start defending extremist interpretations of Islam as they do not want to be labeled as bigots. One can defend innocent Muslims whether in Europe, America, India, Israel, or Pakistan while still challenging Islamic extremism.

So now that we have a frame of why international media antagonizes India, why do they hate Modi so much?

Fahrenheit 2002

Of course this horrible incident must be tackled. Very much the biggest stain on Narendra Modi’s political career.

What happened?

On February 27, 2002, a train returning from Ayodhya came to a stop in a small town named Godhra. It was filled with about Hindu pilgrims – men, women, and children. As the train started leaving the platform, someone pulled the emergency breaks. The train was attacked by a 2000 strong mob who initially pelted stones at the trains. Next, a carriage caught on fire causing 59 people, mostly women and children, to be burned alive. Forensics experts have confirmed stone pelting, the strong possibility of 60 liters of flammable liquid being poured into the carriage, as well as use of petrol soaked rags for the arson. The aftermath investigations of the incident saw connections to terrorist groups, Pakistan (naturally), and worst of all Congress Party workers.

As the train burned to embers, Gujarat would soon itself be enflamed.

Hindu-Muslim riots spread across Gujarat in response to Godhra. According to official figures, the riots ended with 1,044 dead, 223 missing, and 2,500 injured. Of the dead, 790 were Muslim and 254 Hindu. Unofficial estimates believe the toll was higher.

The charges against Modi came in 3 forms:

1. It was a state sponsored pogrom on Muslims. Many Hindus died in the violence so this theory loses ground unless we go into conspiracy territory (Hindus killed being “sacrificial lambs” to further the polarization).
2. Modi allowed the violence to go on in an almost “Purge”- like situation. Modi maintains that he operated based on standard procedure. Modi’s claim would be put up against the Supreme Court of India.
3. Modi was inept and failed to quell these riots. No malice, just a failure of process and action. While he may have followed procedure, extraordinary violence called for extraordinary justice and protection.

Modi eventually brought the riots under control with paramilitary. He claims that he asked for help from adjacent states, but was ignored. He was severely admonished by the then Prime Minister and BJP’s tallest leader, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who pondered stripping Modi of his Chief Minister post.

The media of course went on a huge frenzy over the gruesome riots. Word would spread internationally, and Modi would be banned from the USA and UK due to his perceived involvement. Rajdeep Sardesai, a prominent journalist and noted Modi critic, has recently said that the media sensationalized the 2002 riots and believed Modi was not responsible in hindsight.

As the Congress government formed a central government in 2004, their first target became Modi. Modi was to face a reckoning with India’s Supreme Court. A court that had been stuffed to the brim for over 60 years with Congress bureaucrats and lackeys. People assumed the hammer would fall on Narendra.

He was found completely innocent.

Now let’s step back. According to the above information, it very much seems Modi would be pronounced guilty. The media had feverishly covered the riots and pinned the blame on Modi with utmost confidence. But yet a “neutral” Supreme Court filled with Congress appointees found Modi innocent. One can assume that the much hyped charges against Modi fell flat. It is likely that it was Charge 3 where Modi failed in his duty to clamp down on the riots. The riots occurred a few months into his first term as Gujarat CM; inexperience could definitely have been a factor. His handling of the riots is very much a valid criticism of Modi and blot on his political career.

What one must remember though is that bigots, abusers, and tyrants typically repeat their abuses. They repeat it with arrogance and impunity. There were no more major riots under Modi’s 4 terms as CM of Gujarat and none under his 5 years as PM. In addition, Modi has almost doubled the budget of the center’s minority affairs committee and overall maintained a very respectful tenor when discussing minority issues. He has unequivocally admonished the infamous cow vigilantes and cases of communal violence during his tenure as PM.

Willing Ignorance

Knowing the above, why is the international media hell bent on toppling Modi? Are they comfortable with an inept Rahul or casteist/regionalist Mahagathbandhan coming to power? A scenario where chaos will be king? A situation which will throw India’s growth story into disarray?

People are more interested in the confirmation of their feelings, than the pursuit of facts.

The international media wants to tell a story. Their story. Not the story of 1.3 billion Indians. Not the story of a poor chaiwala becoming Prime Minister giving healthcare, toilets, roads, electricity, and so many more basic necessities to the poorest of the poor. Indeed, Modi would be hailed as a liberal hero among America’s Left due to his development agenda. But he is not. He is a bigot. He is Hitler. He is the worst thing that has happened to India since Hinduism.

Colonial attitudes are deep in the discourse on India. To outlets such as BBC, Al-Jazeera, Washington Post, New York Times, and many other so called “liberal” media, India is an inferior and savage land filled with inferior and savage peoples believing in inferior and savage ideologies. They must be saved by foreign ideas and foreign thinking leaders.

To establish this narrative, one of their favorite tactics is selective reporting. It has very much become their bread and butter.

The best example would be the cases of cow vigilantes. A favorite form of attack on the Modi government amongst these outlets, they will purposefully report only certain types of attacks (Hindus on Muslims, High caste on low caste) and ignore all the other cases. Ruchir Sharma eloquently describes the faulty methodology and underlying economic problems (If a poor person’s cow is stolen, their livelihood is gone), of cow vigilantism and the reporting surrounding it.

Other examples would be the complete silence on the poll violence in West Bengal, brazen caste politics in Uttar Pradesh, and regional chauvinism from certain states. The silence is present because all these uncouth actions and ideologies are the best tools against Modi’s development and calls for unity.

But here’s the worst part – the complicit and often subservient mentality of certain Indian outlets to supply the outrage and skewed facts to these international outlets. It’s quite a lucrative relationship:

1. An Indian outlet sifts through the news and selectively hones in on outrages that match colonial biases.
2. Journalists publish it on the Indian outlet and subsequently supply the information to international media.
3. A transactional relationship develops between the Indian and international outlet. The Indian outlet supplies fresh, affirmative outrage to the international outlet; who in turn publishes or references the outrage and provides recognition and esteem to the Indian outlet.

The Indian media concocts self-hate, while the international media transmutes it into racism. Alchemy in action producing a byproduct of the white man’s approval.

Beyond this ideological battle is something much more concrete though. Modi’s policies have instituted a political, economic, and cultural rise of India. An assertive India presents a threat to various countries whose geopolitical interests lie in keeping India poor and divided. Not to mention the fact that a future 1.5 billion strong country with strong economic, cultural, and political pull tips the world’s balance in a gargantuan manner. The fear of a strong India inspires slander in certain sections of the international media.

This media relays the calls of the ivory towers of the West. Modi has given them answers that they do not like. No more do they see easy opportunities and exploitation, now challenge and pride reflect back. Perhaps the media realize something that many Indians will find themselves agreeing with – a strong Narendra Modi means a strong India.