Jump to content

I give you Narendra Modi: The Economist


Vilander

Recommended Posts

There were a number of not so subtle jabs in the original article (some retracted) not only to Modi, but Indians as a whole. He calls Indians "crowds of peasants in parched fields" He calls Indian-Americans "They are willing themselves into the kind of obedient hysteria they were meant to have left behind generations ago in the badlands of Asia, along with hunger and snakes." Worst one still had to be "Outside, in a strange salute to the mother country, there is a mini-riot over free handouts of Bhelpuri, a rice snack.". And what about this? "a handful of blinking American Congressmen, who have been flattered or press-ganged into appearing, go on stage." How does TE know those Americans were coerced into attendance? And why refer to Modi as a "pain in the ass" by the 2nd or 3rd sentence? I am guessing that was a joke, but it wasn't very funny. Joke of an author Heavily edited retracted article. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/09/india-america-and-political-theatre?sort=3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seriously wtf is wrong with Economist.. how can even allow this moron to write this blog and publish it... hope people boycott Economist after this..
half the world population who can understand this is probably from India, it funny how Patrick Foulis the editor of the US magazine can be this careless or worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment on the post

WOW. From semi-polite nudges to the great unwashed Indian masses to vote for the ‘civilized’ (who cares about corruption eh?) alternative to Modi, The Economist has now left all pretence behind and moved on to all-out racist, sneering tripe of the highest order! Well done, Patrick Foulis, a.k.a. "P.F.", a.k.a. New York bureau chief of The Economist, I salute you. Calling an elected head of state a “pain in the ass”. Classy. Attributing that Modi gives not a flying-rat’s-ass (oh dear, can I be so crude? But I guess it’s already been used in the article, so I have a free pass!) about American elected representatives by claiming that he thinks they are “idiots” and thus ignores them. Mind-reading too? Implying Indian immigrants, no matter how successful in the US, are too subservient and “oriental” to be independent-minded by saying “They are willing themselves into the kind of obedient hysteria they were meant to have left behind generations ago in the badlands of Asia, along with hunger and snakes". Respect! Let’s not forget "P.F.'s" hat-tip to his host-country, India, where he lived for a few years. He shows his affection by saying “In a strange salute to the mother country, there is a mini-riot over free handouts of Bhelpuri, a rice snack”. Nice. Next time some British come to India, we can say "in a strange salute to the mother country, they went to a stranger's house, looted him, starved him, sneered at him, killed him and didn't ever leave". Funny, right? A British author calling India a “continent-sized embarrassment”, after a three-hundred year-long orgy. Rich. Oh wait. I meant, India WAS. I sincerely recommend TE should instate a new section like its ‘Banyan’ section. It can be called “Regular Racist Rants”. Or: ‘”‘Tis Tabloid Time”. At least then we will all know where we stand. Do consider it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another One

Many comments here describe this article as Anti-India and Racist but that is simply wrong. If this was a Rahul Gandhi event that articles would be totally different. Plain and Simple, The Economist is anti-Hindu and hates India's center-right. Here is long list of anti-Hindu articles published by The Economist: Examples of The Economist articles with name and publication date: 1) “Bitter Fruit”, Aug 2008: Article exercises double standard by calling relatively peaceful J&K's Hindu minority protester “Militant” and aggressive J&K's Muslim Majority protester “Protester”. 2) “An uphill walk”, Sept 2012: Amarnath pilgrimage is called “INVASION”. 3) “Kashmir’s future: Fleeting Chance”, July 2011;”An uphill walk”, Sept 2012, “Bitter Fruit”, Aug 2008: Amarnath shrine called “penis-shaped lump of ice”. 4) “Shaking the mountains”, Dec 2010: Article states that Amarnath pilgrims are unmolested; However, nothing can be further from truth. Amarnath pilgrims were massacred on several occasions. For instance, on August 2nd 2000, 34 pilgrims were murdered by terrorist who attacked makeshift pilgrim tents. 5) “The Hindu rate of self-deprecation”, April 2011: The title itself is unjustly anti-hindu. Both,red tape and corruption, are legacy of Nehruvian Socialism and has nothing to do with Hinduism but Economist does not blame Nehruvian license, quota, permit raj. Instead, it cleverly abuses Hindus. 6) “In search of a dream”, Sept 2012; “Now finish the job” April 2012; “The Hindu rate of self-deprecation”, April 2011: Economist refers to India’s socialist era GDP growth rate as “Hindu rate of growth” but it is actually 'Nehruvian Socialist rate of growth' 7) “The Swami’s Curse”, June 2011: Article indirectly describes Ayurveda and Yoga as quack cures. Personally, I am neither a follower nor a supporter of Baba Ramdev and Lokpal movement but I was shocked by the tone, tenure, bias and foul language of the article. 8) Economist has many articles on Kashmir like Nov. 2010 “The K Word”. They almost always omits “The P Word” (i.e., indirectly deny/downplay Hindu Pandit Plight). Only once “The P Word” was reluctantly mentioned. 9) In 2012/2013 year, Economist has many articles on Bangladesh war crime trial & political crisis. Most articles condemn the war crime trial, attack the evidence, and question eyewitness account. The omissions and commissions, of this articles, indirectly deny/downplay 1971 Hindu Genocide, and 2012/2013 attacks on Hindus. 10) Economist has printed many articles about Ayodhya dispute. Almost all articles omit/suppress entire history and deny archeological evidence. Example, Oct 2010 article “The uneasy split” falsely claims that “there is no archaeological evidence to support either belief”; However, nothing can be further from truth. Archeological evidence of Hindu temple is a fact proven beyond reasonable doubt in India’s high court. 12) “Witchcraft in Assam Toil and trouble”, April 2012: Article touts superiority and rationality of Islam and Christianity, dismisses native beliefs as superstition, and omits social reforms carried out by mainstream Hindu organisation like Rama-Krishna mission. 13) “Shadow of a darker decade”, Aug 2012: This article is directly and indirectly justifying the latest muslim violence in mumbai based on bogus accusations and numbers.Firstly, Economist claimed that "In 1992,Muslims were targeted by Hindu-nationalist mobs and hundreds were killed" but, in reality, Islamist, who got angry in wake of demolition at Ayodhya, started targeting hindus. In first 2 days( January 6 and 7 1992) of rioting, 34 Hindus and 8 Muslims got killed, 138 Hindus and 34 Muslims were injured. On January 8 1992 at 0030 hours, 6 Hindus, including 5 women, residing at Radhabai Chawl were burnt alive. Radhabai Chawl massacre triggered hindu backlash. Official death toll is 900 (575 Muslims, 275 Hindus, 45 unknown and 5 others).(*) Secondly,About 2002 Gujarat riots,. Economist wrote "2,000 people, most of them Muslims, were killed" but here are the factual numbers: 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed.(*) (*) All numbers cited are from official government reports published by Justice SriKrishna Commission for Mumbai, and parliament report for Gujarat. 14) “Bleak House” , March 2012: Article cleverly tries to blame Hindu victim of Godhra train massacre for their death, indirectly suggests that nearly nil (official number 254) Hindus died in subsequent riots, and exercises double standard. The Economist stealthily planted a seed of doubt on Godhra verdict, and it keeps alive canards like "dispute" and "accident". The truth is that there was no major dispute which would spark such a horrific massacre. Abduction story was proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt. Only an extremely prejudiced media would try to dismiss fire started in the middle of an attack as mere accident, and indirectly absolve attackers of all responsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The economist lost the plot when they came out with their "anybody but modi" stance. best ignored. Have given up reading the economist a long time ago. Their profits are down on magazine circulation and are being held up by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Ironically their parent company The Financial Times has softened his stance of Modi quite a bit. I recommend Bloomberg businessweek. A magazine which is not preachy and sticks to finance and the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...