On 29th September, 2014, I read an excellent piece of article on your website – I give you Narendra Modi. Probably The Economist editorial team has achieved enlightenment or has gone completely numskull to come up with something like this; especially at the point of time, when Indians are the most excited and proud ever to see their leader flourishing at Madison Square in unprecedented manner.
Even we have someone called Kamal R Khan who is known for passing injudicious or rather “idiotic” opinions, but I have never read something as arrogant, senseless, shallow and imprudent as the mentioned article ever in my life.
“Pain-in-the-ass” – That is the world you use for a man who leads 1.3 billion people, has won the world’s largest democratic mandate ever in free world, has miraculously paved his way through the humble beginning to becoming the Prime Minister of world’s second most populated nation which makes world’s third largest economy !! Well, if that is the case, I really want to thank the editorial team for giving us a clear picture of how bankrupt Economist is when it comes to content and decency.
Let me get more into the details and discuss the important parts of your unimportant article and enlighten you about how intellectually, factually and structurally insolvent you are getting day by day. But before getting into details, let me give you a brief idea about what India means to west.
- India is the one of the most vibrant and happening economies and ever growing market where multinationals from west come drooling and begging to have a place and spend billions of dollars in lobbying.
- India is the country where the USA President, Barack Obama comes seeking some foreign investments in 2010, to create some jobs in USA the economy of which was shattered after great depression of 2008-09.
- India is the country which taught to the world how to reach Mars with optimum productivity within a budget and time period much less than what US had used and proved what “being frugal-smart” is.
- India is the country, the Prime Minister of which was denied US visa in 2005 and is now being invited with open arms and hearts by US government.
I fail to understand, why The Economist has always been so negative about India? Why it always sees India as a country of snakes and hunger? Why it always actively propagates their narrative of India still being a poor and weak county? What sort of a pain-in-the-ass Indian success is causing to The Economist?
Time and again, The Economist has written idiotic articles prominently exhibiting their low tolerance for Indian glory. Are you politically motivated? Do you even remember one of the pillars of great journalism is neutrality? You are not even close to neutrality and decency seems to be alien to your editors.
Let me now pick up paragraphs from your articles and reply to each of them.
In the India of the past six decades, events like this were a reliable shambles of short-circuiting loudspeakers, security guards with lathi sticks and feudal leaders with appalling punctuality. But since elections in May, India has been run by Mr Modi. He is, this adoring crowd believes, India’s Margaret Thatcher or Lee Kuan Yew.
Well, Modi is not India’s Margaret Thatcher or Lee Kuan Yew, he is our Modi, the man who has created history by winning number of votes that Margaret Thatcher or Lee Kuan Yew or even your Obama for that matter must have never imagined or got putting all of them together. Secondly, how rallies are being conducted in India is none of your business and not even remotely related to the article that absolutely conveys nothing. Thirdly, I seriously don’t understand where your article is moving and what it is trying to communicate at this point as your writer is too busy criticizing India than making some sensible point.
Next, in response to a meticulous cue, a handful of blinking American Congressmen, who have been flattered or press-ganged into appearing, go on stage. They get a cheer: this may be the only place in the disunited states of America where that happens. The national anthems are sung: the Star Spangled Banner, first and with care, then India’s, with abandon.
Congressmen attending the event at Madison Square Garden and waiting to meet our PM with blinking eyes!! Not tolerable right? National anthems are sung with spirit of unity, and after reading your article, by now, I bet, nobody else in the world would have spotted what The Economist has done – “American anthem sung with care and Indian anthem with abandon!!” Seriously? I mean that’s how negative you are at analyzing things? That’s what a media that claims to be the most intellectual in the world inferred out of an event filled with positivity? Are you trying to intimidate Americans for nothing?
That reminds me of a creative Ad-copy by The Economist that reads, “I never read Economist – Management Trainee, Aged 42.” Well, I feel it should be something like this – “I am arrogant and intellectually collapsed – The Economist, Aged 171.” Or “I cannot digest India succeeding – The Economist, Aged 171.” Or “My ass burns when India does something beautiful – The Economist.”
Mr Modi ignores the dignitaries completely: idiots. He looks around the crowd smiling, savouring it all. After riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002 in which at least a thousand people, mainly Muslims, were killed, Mr Modi, then the state’s chief minister, was banned from travelling to America. American officials called him a monster, a demagogue, a fanatic. Now they close down Manhattan’s streets for him, and America’s politicians stand here as his stage props. Sweeter still, Mr Modi’s acceptability is not a product of his remorse or decisive acquittal, but of his power: winning an election in a country of 1.25 billion people. He doesn’t let his anger or sense of triumph show, though. To get here, to the Garden, Mr Modi has spent decades roaring himself hoarse thousands of times before crowds of peasants in parched fields. Now it is time for some magnanimity, at least at first.
First of all, get your facts right and stop sensationalizing the statements by putting up things out of context. Supreme Court of India has given Mr. Modi a clean chit and announced him not guilty for all the allegations. Secondly, what the hell do you mean by “crowds of peasants in parched fields”? Your language itself proves how “parched” you are in your thought process.
What, I mean what on this god’s green planet troubles you so much about our PM that such harsh words are popping out? Even if I forget the fact that I am a proud Indian and read this article as a Cuban citizen, it sounds bloody offensive, senseless and completely biased. You are losing respect internationally.
He starts by explaining what is at stake for most Indians, which means reminding the crowd of the misery they left behind, a result of decades of failed economic policy. In India, he says, “the poorest of the poor are asking ‘How much longer can we live like this?’” Mr Modi calls himself a small man; a former tea-seller. He says he reveres democracy. Indians have lived like slaves for a thousand years, he notes, ruled by outsiders, most recently the British. Gandhi led the country to freedom, he says. Now India’s economic development “has to become a public movement,” too. “I have to create that kind of movement.” To anyone who has heard Mr Modi’s remarkable oratory at work in India, he seems subdued.
I have heard Mr. Modi’s more than remarkable oratory at work in India and have hardly missed any of his speeches and HE DOESN”T SOUND SUBDUED at all. And most importantly, I have finished reading 70% of your article and have yet not been able to figure out where this article is going!!!
The holy but toxic river Ganges will be purified by Mr Modi. “Will you help me?” he asks, and the audience screams back. “I have a dream,” he confides. By 2022 he promises every Indian will have a house. The pledge is significant for the implication that he will still be in power then.
“You have given me a lot of love,” Mr Modi cries. “This kind of love has never been given to an Indian leader before! And I will repay you by forming an India of your dreams!” Huge swarms of balloons tumble from the rafters. Mr Modi walks off the stage. “Man, that was something,” says a spectator in a suit as the crowd exits. Outside, in a strange salute to the mother country, there is a mini-riot over free handouts of Bhelpuri, a rice snack. And then the bearers of Mr Modi’s T-shirts spill out into Manhattan’s streets, suddenly swallowed by groups of orthodox Jews, Chinese tourists and billboards advertising Irish beer and Swedish bikini waxes. America’s Indian diaspora, entertained and enchanted, is heading back to the suburbs. And Mr Modi? His next stop will be the White House.
“Holy but toxic”, wow! Look at the language. Why so much of negativity?
“In a salute to the mother country, there is mini-riot over free handouts of Bhelpuri, a rice snack.” F@#K you man! What is your problem!! What is causing this rampant verbal diarrhea?
Dear Economist, you are over doing it. I had read your article when India launched and successfully completed her first Mars mission titled – How can poor countries afford space programmes? And invariably, that article was too factually incorrect, extremely biased and intellectually shallow. What is pinching your ass so hard about India making progress that you come up with absolutely utter crap every time?
You must have lost a number of subscriptions going away from you bucket and do expect more with your shitty content and editorial team.
Finally I would like to say something which I guess every Indian will tell you after reading your anti-India articles.
“I shall never read Economist – A Proud Indian, Aged 23.”
– Jay Thadeshwar