On Thursday, International news agency Reuters removed an earlier picture of US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley with a ‘swastika’ seen behind her at a Hindu temple in New Delhi.
The Reuters India Photo twitter handle wrote: “Reuters has removed an earlier photo of U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley with a swastika seen behind her at a Hindu temple in Delhi. The swastika is an ancient religious symbol for Hindus and Buddhists. It was also used as a symbol by Nazi Germany.”
Haley, who was on a three-day visit to India, visited the Gauri Shankar Temple on June 28 in the national capital.
The popular media house, Reuters, probably needs a fact check. There is a significant difference between the two symbols, which they have ludicrously compared and have not only hurt Hindu sentiments but also displayed their inherent Hinduphobia.
When translated from its Sanskrit root, Swatika comprises of ‘su’ meaning ”good” and ‘asti’ meaning ”to be”. In other words, well-being. It dates back some 6,000 years to rock and cave paintings. Scholars generally agree it originated in India.
It has also meant a symbol of good luck, prosperity and all things auspicious for other ancient cultures, including the Vikings and Greeks, besides Hindus, Buddhists and Jains.
A religious symbol for Hindus, the Swastika was first mentioned in the Vedas. It symbolises many things like Surya (the sun) and Brahma, the creator. It is seen as a power symbol and is also the emblem of Ganesha, the god of good luck. In both Hinduism and Jainism, the Swastika is used to mark the opening pages of account books, doors and thresholds.
In fact, it is found that the Swatika was also used in Ancient Greece and can be found in the remains of the ancient city of Troy, which existed 4,000 years ago. The ancient Druids and the Celts also used the symbol. It was used by Nordic tribes and even early Christians used the Swastika as one of their symbols, including the Teutonic Knights, a German medieval military order, which became a purely religious Catholic Order.
One is left to believe that the news agency, Reuters, definitely, not completely oblivious to this basic fact, decided to compare the two symbols. This was, for obvious reasons not well received by the Hindus, who were quick to make a jibe at the agency through their tweets.
Rubbish. The #Hindu swastika is entirely different from the #Nazi swastika. This is crude #Hinduphobia and brazen denigration of #Hinduism by @ReutersIndia @IndiaPhotos . https://t.co/aUvG5ubdM5
— Kanchan Gupta (@KanchanGupta) June 29, 2018
can you please give your contact info? We would like to interview you. This is horrible and basically saying to all 1B Hindus globally that they should never display their wedding, festival or baby birthday pictures because a Hindu Temple symbol may be in it. HORRID #HInduphobia
— The Chakra (@ChakraNews) June 30, 2018
Twitterati did not hesitate in showing total disregard for this malicious attempt of ‘The Reuters’ to completely disregard the Hindu conceptions.
Many even pointed out that it is rather impossible for The Reuters to have not known the glaring difference between Hindu Swastika and the Nazi symbol.
Completely misleading & malicious to say that Nazi Hakenkreuz & Hindu Swastika are d same-Hindu Swastika moves clockwise & symbolises the Sun☀-i.e.Prosperity & Well Being-Whereas Nazi Symbol is counter clockwise & has negative connotations-pl delete ?tweet #GetYourFactsRight pic.twitter.com/cvdhbGyqO5
— India ?? First (@SeCoolar_Right) June 28, 2018
This is beyond idiotic. Nazi Swastika was a modified warped and twisted version of the Hindu Swastika. Instead of being an agency of information, @Reuters is busy spreading stereotypes. All of world’s horrible inquisitions happened under the Cross. Would you censor the cross too? https://t.co/w0s1JiXDhP
— Neha S (@neha_aks) June 29, 2018
This is not the first time that Reuters has been caught on the wrong foot. Earlier they had used conjectures to build a narrative of ‘concessional land being provided to Patanjali’. They are yet to issue a clarification or retract their blatant display of Hinduphobia at the time this article was published.
