For years now, the New York Times has been accused of being brazenly Hinduphobic and anti-Modi in the content that is published on its website. These dubious credentials were reaffirmed recently when they published an entry-level job requirement on their website and LinkedIn.
While publishing job requirements is a routine affair, what caught the attention was the specific requirements—being anti-Hindu and anti-Modi—mentioned in the description. The job posting was for that of a South Asia Business Correspondent in New Delhi.
The New York Times was unabashedly seeking applications from writers who were ideologically aligned against the Modi government and possessed skills required to carry forward its legacy of anti-Modi and anti-Hindu propaganda.
While New York Times is looking for someone who is anti-Modi and anti-India, the media house is already publishing such content for years. In fact, ever since Narendra Modi became the prime minister of India, the attacks against Hindu culture in the New York Times have only intensified. With the arrival of PM Modi, the New York Times has shunned its subtle attempts in propagating its anti-Hindu propaganda and assumed a more aggressive approach to allow its platform to host Hinduphobic content.
Here are 14 articles published by New York Times that testify their patently anti-Hindu and anti-Modi slant:-
NY Times provides its platform to propagandist Kunal Kamra to peddle anti-Modi propaganda
Not so long ago, the New York Times appeared so desperate to push its tirade against the Modi government that it roped in propagandist and unfunny comedian Kunal Kamra to vilify PM Modi and his government’s handling of the pandemic.
Even though India, with its humongous population, succeeded in suppressing the ferocious wave of resurgent coronavirus, propagandist Kunal Kamra drew a veil over it and attributed the surge in cases right on the shoulders of PM Modi.
With the COVID-19 outbreak wreaking havoc in India, Kamra blamed the Indian government for the pandemic and gave a pass to China, where the coronavirus was most likely synthetically developed and leaked. But this did not deter Kamra and the New York Times to continue their diatribe against the Modi government.
While Kunal Kamra is an abusive troll famous for heckling Arnab Goswami inside a flight and standing outside the journalist’s house to harass him, NYT published Kamra’s article just because he is anti-Modi.
New York Times uses coronavirus pandemic to propagate Hinduphobia
Earlier last year, when the first wave of coronavirus stuck India, the New York Times published a patently Hinduphobic article where it made factually incorrect claims to weave a spurious narrative that ‘Hindu nationalists’ were fanning communal hatred in India against Muslims in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.
“Hateful messages have bloomed online. And a wave of apparently fake videos has popped up telling Muslims not to wear masks, not to practice social distancing, not to worry about the virus at all, as if the makers of the videos wanted heMuslims to get sick,” said the article, which was co-authored by Jeffrey Gettleman, Kai Schultz and Suhasini Raj.
In their article, however, the authors had horrendously made inappropriate and misleading claims that are laughable on the face of it. A deliberate attempt is made to insinuate that the videos on the video-sharing platform TikTok, where Muslims advocate against social distancing and ask fellow Muslims to place their faith in Namaz and Allah instead, was somehow created by Hindus to make Muslims fall sick.
Besides its hoary accusations of PM Modi presiding a ‘Hindu Nationalist’ government and pursuing ‘majoritarian’ policies, the report engaged in victim-mongering in significant measure. The authors managed to conjure some scared Muslims suffering from paranoia and a persecution complex and elicited responses from them that cements their narrative.
New York Times denigrates old Hindu custom of burying and immersing dead bodies in Ganga
In the midst of the second wave of coronavirus pandemic, a particularly misleading narrative, designed to undermine the Yogi Adityanath government, was peddled by some motivated journalists, which was later picked up by western media outlets such as New York Times and Washington Post.
The articles published in these outlets fussed over the number of dead bodies floating in the holy river Ganges. An article published in the New York Times on June 17 this year insinuated that the dead bodies floating in the river Ganga and buried on its shores reflect the deaths that happened due to COVID-19 that had gone undetected and undercounted by the state government.
However, what the article alleges is far from the truth. Without even seeking details of the conventions and old customs prevalent in the region, it patronisingly asserted that the dead bodies in Ganga showed people in India did not have the resources to provide a fitting farewell to their loved ones. This was yet another attempt by the New York Times to show Modi government in poor light about its handling of the coronavirus outbreak.
The article did not bother to impress upon the fact that immersing the dead in Ganga and burying them along its shores is an age-old practice that Indians living along the banks of Ganga have been practising for years. Even before the pandemic cast its evil eyes on India, dead bodies were often found floating in the river Ganga.
Targeting PM Modi through spinning a web of lies about Citizenship Amendment Act
Back in 2019, the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act provided yet another opportunity to the New York Times to peddle its vitriol against PM Modi and Hindus. An article titled “As Modi pushes Hindu Agenda, a Secular India Fights” was published by the NY Times after the Modi cabinet passed legislation that allowed minorities from three neighbouring Islamic countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.
The article maliciously tried to cast the CAA Bill as a legislation that would chip away at the pluralistic foundations of the country. It also peddled half-baked lies about the Act, whipping up fear psychosis among the Muslims that the legislation was the first step towards disenfranchising them. It continued its negative portrayal of PM Modi, projecting him as a leader pursuing his “Hindu Agenda” while the “secular India” fought back.
Of course, all these assertions were misguided. The legislation had no provisions to disenfranchise any citizens, let alone Muslim residents in India. It only facilitated fastrack citizenship for the persecuted minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who had fled their countries and escaped to India on or before 31 December 2014.
New York Times holds Modi responsible for anti-Hindu riots in Delhi in Feb 2020
After portraying the Citizenship Amendment Act as a law passed with the pernicious motive of disenfranchising Muslims, the New York Times pinned the blame of the violence that took place in the wake of the anti-CAA protests on the Modi government.
In the aftermath of the passage of the CAA, motivated groups, ran riot under the pretext of carrying out “peaceful protests” against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The bloody spate of violence, which were witnessed in several pockets of the country, culminated into a horrifying anti-Hindu pogrom in Delhi in February 2020.
However, the New York Times published an article to allege that it was the result of the policies pursued by the Modi government. The article insinuated that the policies and decisions taken by the Modi government emboldened the “Hindu nationalists”, who then went on a rampage and provoked the kind of bloodshed that exploded in New Delhi in February 2020.
Not only is this grotesque perversion of facts, but it also proceeds to paint the aggressors as victims and victims as aggressors. The anti-Hindu riots that swept the national capital in February last year happened amidst the anti-CAA protests that were taking place across the city. With the then US President Donald Trump in the city for a visit, the rioters ran amok and instigated violence against Hindus and other sections of the society. The Delhi Police later said that the riots that convulsed the national capital were part of a well-planned conspiracy, in an attempt to internationalise the CAA issue and pressurise the central government to rescind the bill.
New York Times takes up the cudgel for fake news factory
With the Modi government being one of the principal victims of the menace of fake news, the Centre brought in new rules to curb the spread of lies and misinformation online. The new rules asked for greater accountability from online portals, including social media, who were so far immunised by any adverse action against them, owing to the archaic laws that did not account the challenges presented by the increasingly evolving digital world.
The Modi government passed new set of digital rules in March 2021 which included provisions for the punishment to the online portals who blatantly lied and pushed misinformation and news based on unsubstantiated sources. But instead of applauding the government for taking the menace of fake news head on, the New York Times published an article, portraying the fake news peddlers as “India’s News Upstarts” that the Modi government was trying to tame them.
Arguing in favour of the chronic fake news spreaders, the article said that the online news organisations had practiced aggressive journalism in the mostly “compliant media landscape”. It branded those who busted fake news and spurious narratives as “trolls” and said the new rules empowered them. It mentioned portals like The Wire as among those new online portals that were practicing aggressive journalism.
While it was arguing for the likes of The Wire, it is worth mentioning that there is storied history of the far-left portal in spreading misinformation and lies. There have been myriad occasions when the portal was caught lying through its teeth about the Modi government and other BJP-ruled regimes. Most notably, the Wire was amongst those news portals that published fake news in the Ghaziabad fake hate crime, where an occult practitioner was thrashed by a group of men for palming off an amulet that did not possess the said powers.
These laws were brought in explicitly to discourage news portals from publishing unverified news and create fissures within the society. However, the New York Times would rather have India’s society implode that welcome necessary laws that are important to curb the scourge of fake news.
New York Times villainises PM Modi for pressuring social media platforms to block accounts of rabble rousers
On January 26 this year, the so-called farmers conducted a tractor rally in the national city. Though they claimed that the rally would be peaceful and non-violent, as has been the case with their most claims, they fell flat and Delhi witnessed an unprecedented wave of violence, with rioters storming the Red Fort and trying to capture it to continue their farmer protests. Social media platforms were rife with provocative posts that falsely accused the Modi government of using force to quell the farmers’ protests.
However, New York Times published an article that demonised the Modi government for asking the social media platforms to rein in rabble-rousers, who were using their platform and trying to foment unrest in the national capital. The article cited the free speech principles enshrined in the Constitution of India to assert that the government is trampling upon them and railroading the social media companies to adhere to its dictates.
In their hatred for PM Modi, the NYT characterised the most logical move by the central government as an attempt to suppress the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech. By contrast, when the so-called Trump supporters marched to Capitol Hill and staged an insurrection, the New York Times and other Western Media outlets lavished praises on the social media companies for suspending accounts and banning people who called for the storming of the seat of the US government.
This patronising attitude of raising the issue of freedom of expression is reserved only for the Oriental world, while when the same nature of incident takes place in their own backyard, they go on great lengths to sing praises to the social media companies for stifling the freedom of speech of people.
NYT’s treachery on Farmers’ Protest
The ongoing farmers protest provided yet another avenue to the New York Times to push its unbridled hatred for PM Modi. The article titled ‘Modi’s response to Farmer Protests in India stirs fears of a pattern’ was published on February 3, 2021, arguing that the PM Modi was clamping down on dissent, blocking internet and taking other measures to stop the demonstrators from continuing their protest against the three farm laws.
“As India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, struggles to quell months of protests by farmers against new market-friendly agriculture laws, critics and analysts see a pattern of curtailing free speech that they fear is sending India down a dangerous path of intolerance,” the article said.
The article alleged that arresting the rabble rousers, restricting the movement of the instigators who were inciting violence and causing upheaval in and around the national capital, was an attempt by the Modi government to stifle dissent and subdue the protests. It is worth noting that the article was published just a week after Delhi witnessed an unprecedented bout of violence, when the so-called farmer protesters ran riot, wreaking havoc in the national capital, and storming the grounds of Red Fort, allegedly to capture it and turn it into another protest site.
In the aftermath of the tractor rally on Republic Day that went violent, the Modi government ordered probe against the culprits. But for the New York Times, mounting an insurrection in the heart of the country’s capital was a perfectly acceptable method of expressing one’s protest against a policy decision taken by the government of the day. Instead of blaming the violent protesters for indulging in vandalism, riots and arson in Delhi, it blamed the central government for ordering corrective action against such lumpen elements.
Furthermore, the protesters in and around the borders of Delhi are camping from last November. While the New York Times goes overboard in denouncing PM Modi and the central government for its handling of the second wave of the coronavirus outbreak, it does not hold the extremely crowded protest sites responsible for the spread of the virus, even though experts have claimed that rallies and protest marches held by Punjab farmers may have played a huge role in powering the resurgent wave of coronavirus outbreak. It continues to vilify the Kumbh Mela celebrations as a superspreader event that contributed to the COVID-19 surge in India, but not a word on how ongoing farmers protest fuelled the recent wave of coronavirus outbreak.
New York Times rants against PM Modi for choking foreign funding of NGOs that indulged in compromising national interest
An article published in the New York Times ranted against PM Modi because his government institute stern rules to stop the foreign based NGOs from compromising India’s national interest. The opinion column titled “Narendra Modi’s Crackdown on Civil Society in India” extrapolated the muzzling of funds to foreign NGOs as an attack against the Civil Society in India.
“In December, the Modi government barred it from receiving foreign grants. The political reasons were obvious: The Collective had represented critics of Mr. Modi’s sectarian record and environmental vision,” the article that was published in January 2017 said.
Even though, the article mentioned that Teesta Setalvad was accused of siphoning off donations meant for riot victims, the article tried to picture her as a victim whose organisation lost its foreign funding licenses after the Modi government deregistered 16,000 NGOs and cancelled the FCRA registrations of 13,000 of them. Apparently, for New York Times, it is perfectly acceptable to swindle donations meant for riot victims as long as the culprit is resolutely opposed to PM Modi.
When one takes a look at some of the NGOs whose FCRA licenses have been cancelled by the Modi government, it’s quite clear why the ‘civil society’ harboured such intense hatred for Narendra Modi. One of the NGOs whose FCRA license was cancelled is the Navsarjan Trust. Cancelling its license, MHA said, “Navsarjan Trust has come to adverse notice for its undesirable activities aimed to affect prejudicially harmony between religious, racial, social, linguistic, regional groups, castes or communities.” Since then, Martin Macwan has indulged in political propaganda against the BJP government and attempted to exploit Dalits for his own political objectives.
Apart from Navsarjan Trust, the license of ANHAD was also cancelled for “undesirable activities against public interest”. Compassion International, a Christian missionary organization, was also forced to shut down its operations in India. It was also reported that Amnesty International (India) Foundation and Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust was also under the scanner of the government for alleged FCRA violations. The FCRA license of Indira Jaising’s NGO Lawyers Collective was also cancelled. The NGO was using foreign contributions to achieve political objectives.
Bitter meltdown of the NYT after PM Modi was re-elected to power in 2019
A series of articles were published in the western media outlets, including the New York Times, after PM Modi scripted history by returning to power with an even greater majority in May 2019. Following the election results, the New York Times, which perennially wallows in anti-Modi hatred, published an article, trying to undermine his victory.
The article titled “How Narendra Modi seduced India with envy and hate” tried to belittle PM Modi’s victory by alleging that the prime minister won the re-election bid on the “tide of violence, fake news and resentment”. The author of the article, Pankaj Mishra, who clearly seemed to have a hard time digesting the fact that PM Modi would have another term at the Centre, attributed violence, misinformation, propaganda as main tools that wrought victory for PM Modi.
Clearly, the author felt despondent at the prospect of living yet another term under PM Modi’s leadership. However, the author’s assertion that people remained beguiled by PM Modi’s charisma and could not see his larger agenda is a bit presumptuous and condescending of the Indian voters.
While the author would have us believe that PM Modi came back to power on the plank of violence, communal discord and what not, the reason why PM Modi was voted back to power was that he was successful in fulfilling the aspirations of people.
PM Modi announced key initiatives such as Ujjwala Yojana, Swachh Bharat Mission, Electrifying rural India, that instantly connected with the people and made them to vote for him, again. PM Modi’s nationalist credentials that were burnished in the aftermath of the gruesome Pulwama attack, along with his readiness to allow Armed Forces to carry out Surgical Strikes inside the enemy territory also played a pivotal role in reaffirming people’s faith in his leadership. While detractors can wail all they want, these were a few of the reasons why the BJP won 303 seats on its own in the 2019 general assembly elections.
New York Times vilifies PM Modi for greater integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union
The New York Times also had a hard time coming to terms with the reality after PM Modi’s government took a historic decision of hollowing out Article 370 and paving the way for the greater integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the Indian Union.
Until the time when Article 370 was in force, Jammu and Kashmir enjoyed a separate status. But after its abrogation, it was treated at par with other Indian states. But this did not sit well with the journalists at the New York Times, which presumptuously claimed the move as an attempt by PM Modi to make India a Hindu nation.
The article argued that by invalidating Article 370, PM Modi’s government has sent a message to the country’s only Muslim-majority state. The article whipped up unfounded fears that the abrogation of Article 370 spell doom for the Muslim population as the centre would be keen on changing the demographics of the state following the move.
It is amusing that Jammu and Kashmir is always viewed from the religious prism. States across India are never referred to as Hindu-majority but this distinction is reserved only for Jammu and Kashmir, ostensibly because it is a Muslim-majority state. Although detractors have a habit of citing India’s constitution to attack PM Modi, but they forget the fact that the constitution of the country says India is a “secular” country and in a secular republic, representing a state by its religious majority is nothing but an assault on that very constitution.
Also, after Article 370 was repealed, the terror incidents in the state reduced dramatically. In addition to this, even stone-pelting instances, which were hitherto a routine affair, drastically came down. The abrogation of Article 370 brought rights and benefits to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that had eluded them so far. In real sense, Jammu and Kashmir go integrated with India on August 5, 2019, the day when the Modi government annulled Article 370.
Modi used religious crisis to power his return at the Centre: NYT article
The New York Times broadcasted another disparaging video where it asserted that PM Modi was using a religious crisis at one of India’s holiest shrines to win another five-year term. The claims made in the video, which were nothing but a figment of the creator’s imagination, accused PM Modi of exploiting the Sabarimala verdict to mobilise Hindu devotees and win over their votes.
The video broadcasted by New York Times alleged that PM Modi was pandering to his voter base by not standing for the equality of women. It also alleged that by promoting a patriarchal and parochial view with regards to the Sabarimala verdict, PM Modi was appeasing the Hindu voters for winning another five-year term.
After Supreme Court allowed women of all ages to enter the sanctum sanctorum of the revered Sabarimala temple, Hindus across the country were aggrieved with the top court’s decision that ran counter to the centuries-old traditions practiced by the devotees of the Lord Ayyappa. PM Modi too expressed his opinion on the matter, arguing in favour of the longstanding tradition.
New York Times attacks PM Modi for laying the foundation stone of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya
The New York Times also published an article where it attacked PM Modi for attending the groundbreaking ceremony or the “bhoomi pujan” function to mark the construction of a magnificent Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
The article titled “Modi founds temple on Mosque’s ruins, in triumphal moment for Hindu base”, not only perverted the history of Ayodhya dispute but it also proceeded to cast PM Modi in negative light for attending the groundbreaking ceremony of the temple. It said PM Modi’s attendance in the ceremony was a unambiguous sign of ascendancy for his Hindu nationalist base. It also alleged that PM Modi founded the temple on the ruins of Mosques.
This is historically and factually wrong. According to the Architectural Survey of India(ASI), a temple lay underneath the structure that was felled in Ayodhya by karsevaks in December 1992. Therefore, the New York Times’s assertion that Modi founded temple on ruins of mosque is profoundly wrongly and has the potential of sparking unrest and engendering resentment among the Muslim population. The disputed structure was built on the ruins of a temple, not the other way around.
In November 2019, the Supreme Court of India ended the protracted dispute over the ownership of the land by granting it to Hindus to build a magnificent Ram Temple over it. When PM Modi attended the groundbreaking ceremony, he was acting in accordance with the apex court’s verdict that allowed Hindus to have a temple at the site.
New York Times calls saree a ‘tool of Hindu nationalist campaign’
In 2017, the NYT carried an article that claimed saree to be a symbol of Hindu nationalism.
The article said promoting saree is an effort to align ‘party’s broader political program: to project multi-faith India, a country of more than 1.3 billion, as a Hindu nation.’ Amongst other claims, the author links journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder and says that those who disagree with Prime Minister Modi are “branded as “anti-national,” some shot and killed by Hindu nationalist activists.”
There were multiple things wrong with the article, like how there is no conclusive evidence on who killed Gauri Lankesh, but for now, let us focus on the saree as a symbol of Hindu nationalism. It is the same publication that claims that regressive hijab gives women self-confidence, but saree is a tool to increase ‘Hindu nationalism’. NYT also ignored that Saree is worn by women in Bangladesh also, a Muslim majority country.
The attempt to cast promoting saree as a nationalist agenda is a preposterous assertion made by the New York Times. It seems like hateful propaganda wherein every symbol of Indic traditions, or anything that is viewed as remotely Hindu is being vilified. Perhaps their idea to malign a leader who doesn’t fit in the grand leftist world order is to malign a majority population, however ridiculous that might sound. What they fail to perhaps understand, is that Hindus and Hindu traditions have survived far worse than such pontificating media. It has and it will.
These are but a few instances when New York Times had brazenly indulged in publishing anti-Modi and anti-Hindu propaganda. This list is, by no means, an exhaustive repository of instances when the New York Times has propagated Hinduphobic content and its hatred for PM Modi. There are countless other articles where New York Times has peddled its prejudicial view about India’s current prime minister.
