“For India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, strength is everything.” A hit job on Indian PM Modi was published by American magazine The Atlantic on the 29th of November. From the outset, author Daniel Block makes it clear, that for him, and The Atlantic, propaganda is everything and the imperative to peddle anti-Modi propaganda easily takes precedence over balanced journalism.
The hit job titled “How a Strongman Made Himself Look Weak” claims that PM Modi responds to criticism within India by ‘co-opting’ the media and ‘repressing’ the religious minorities [read Muslims]. And, on foreign soil, the Modi government responds to criticism with anger and laughably, even ‘political assassinations’.
In the context of the death of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, The Atlantic piece downplayed the anti-India activities of wanted terrorist Nijjar and another Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun by calling them Sikh nationalists.
The piece stops short of labeling the US a rogue nation for carrying out arbitrary bombings in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, including the operation authorised by the then PM Barack Obama-led administration, to take down Al Qaeda terrorist Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding in a safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
The US eliminating threats to its national security on foreign soil is good, but if India supposedly does the same, The Atlantic suffers a meltdown, even when it is not proven. Pannun in the US and Khalistanis in Canada carry out anti-India and anti-Hindu activities on almost daily basis, Hindu temples are attacked and defaced every now and then, Indian flags are burnt, India’s territorial integrity is challenged.
Recently, consular camps in Canada were cancelled due to Khalistani threats and Canadian police’s incompetence in providing minimum security to Hindu Canadians, but for The Atlantic, Khalistanis are ‘Sikh nationalists’ who are ‘critics’ of PM Modi.
The hit job against PM Modi further insinuated that while PM Modi’s supporters may see India’s response to Canadian allegations of ‘political assassinations’ as evidence of his courage, India is not that independent to strain ties with the US and Canada.
The Atlantic, however, fails to see that it is the Canadian government led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau which has single-handedly destroyed ties with India by not only pandering to the Khalistani elements, providing them safe haven and freedom to challenge India’s sovereignty, but also accusing the Indian government and diplomats of extra-territorial killings without a shred of evidence.
It must be recalled that just days after accusing Indian diplomats of involvement in ‘criminal activities’ on Canadian soil in October, Trudeau had admitted Canada had no evidence before accusing the Indian government of involvement in the killing of Khalistani extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar.
Contrary to The Atlantic’s expectations that India genuflects before Canada and the US, India’s foreign policy is governed by strategic autonomy and there is no question of the Indian foreign ministry “scrambling with damage control”. Also, India’s reputation is ‘undermined’ only in the eyes of the left-liberal media ecosystem, which is perennially devoted to painting India in a bad light. Moreover, Narendra Modi is a strongman and it was his strongman image that played a significant role in his selection as BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and a historic election to power in 2014.
What is leftist propaganda if it doesn’t play the tried and tested Muslim victim-hood card? Daniel Block, who previously wrote for leftist propaganda magazine “The Caravan”, claimed that Narendra Modi rose to power by “polarising the country’s Hindu majority against its Muslim minority, suggesting that Muslims stand in the way of restoring Hindu greatness.”
2002 Godhra carnage wherein 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed as a rampaging Islamist mob set on fire the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat. Much like the most leftist propaganda outlets do, The Atlantic also emphasised the 2002 Gujarat riots as an anti-Muslim pogrom while conveniently skipping the part where they should tell their readers what led to the riots.
Godhra riots, Modi-Shah and Muslim victimhood: The Atlantic passes off Godhra riots as anti-Muslim ‘pogrom’
It was on 27th February 2002 when 59 innocent Hindu pilgrims were killed as the Islamic jihadis set on fire the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat.
The Sabarmati Express was scheduled to reach Godhra station at about 3:30 am. On that day, the train was running four hours late. It arrived at Godhra by 7:40 am. 8 minutes later, a mob of 2000 Islamists set 59 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children, in the coach S6 of the train on fire in Godhra’s predominantly Muslim area – Signal Falia.
31 Islamists were found guilty of the Godhra massacre on February 22, 2011, by the trial court (with only 11 receiving the death penalty and 20 receiving life in prison), and all 31 convictions were affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in October 2017, resulting in everyone receiving a life sentence. Prior to that, based on the testimony of witnesses and survivors, it was established that it was not an accident rather the Islamists had set the train on fire.
While over the years, the Islamo-leftist ecosystem has been trying to whitewash the Islamist crime as a “train burning incident”, or “accident”, The Atlantic’s columnist went a step ahead and completely skipped mentioning Godhra carnage altogether. Probably, because the burning alive of Hindus doesn’t matter to the propaganda outlet or simply because reporting the truth of Godhra will prove counterproductive in Daniel Block’s attempt to establish the apocryphal narrative of persistent persecution of an ‘innocent Muslim minority’.
“When he governed the Indian state of Gujarat, he stood by as a pogrom killed at least 790 Muslims. His party won more seats in elections right after this,” the propaganda piece reads.
The very usage of the word ‘pogrom’ in the context of the Godhra riots is infuriating given the fact that the violence erupted only after 59 innocent Hindus were burnt alive by the Islamist mob. Perhaps Daniel Block needs to get his hands on a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word “pogrom” before randomly throwing such words in the context of riots which erupted in response to the killing of Hindus.
Further, while The Atlantic specifically mentioned the number of Muslims who died in the riots caused by the brutal killing of 59 Hindus, the leftist propaganda outlet did not mention that around 254 Hindus were also killed in those riots. Evidently, killings of Hindus at the hands of Islamists are of not much importance to Daniel Block. It is, however, not shocking given Block was associated with The Caravan, which has thrived on peddling propaganda against Narendra Modi and continues to trivialise the Islamist violence against Hindus in Bangladesh.
The Atlantic’s propaganda piece is stuffed with lies and innuendos with a clear intent to project a democratically elected four-time Chief Minister and three-time Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a despot in a democracy, who is ‘creating’ disputes with countries like the US and Canada to strengthen his “strongman” image.
The Atlantic villainises Modi-Shah using allegations dismissed by the Supreme Court of India
Funnily, The Atlantic claims that the BJP has tolerated little dissent since coming to power. This is when an entire anti-Modi ecosystem literally earns its bread and butter, fame and recognition solely by slandering PM Modi and the BJP. It further talked about criminal cases against PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah and that “a judge dismissed the cases”. However, it did not elaborate that the Supreme Court of India has absolved Modi and Shah in these cases. Supreme Court upheld the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) clean chit to Modi who was Gujarat Chief Minister when the Godhra riots unfolded in 2002. Similarly, in the case against Amit Shah, the Supreme Court upheld clean chit to Shah.
Both Modi and Shah were hounded for years by the ruling Congress governments and their propaganda machinery [read mainstream media] also worked its fingers to the bone to establish a false narrative that the Modi-Shah duo was involved in criminal activities including their alleged role in the Godhra riots.
However, despite having resources and machinery at their disposal, the Congress government failed to convince the courts against Modi-Shah indicating that those cases were absolutely baseless and devoid of merit. In fact, the special CBI court judgement acquitting all 22 accused in the “fake” encounter of gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his associate Tulsiram Prajapati, and the murder of his wife, Kauser Bi, revealed that a larger conspiracy hatched by the CBI under the then Congress government to implicate political leaders in these cases. But then, The Atlantic would not dare to mention these details since it would defeat the very purpose their hit job against PM Modi and would expose to its readers how the Congress governments used probe agencies against its political nemesis.
The Atlantic views the Modi government’s stern stand against Khalistani secessionism and terrorism as ‘Hindu nationalism’
Exposing the extent of his delusion, Daniel Block claimed that the “Modi government’s frustration with Sikhs goes back to at least 2020. That year, the government attempted to deregulate India’s agricultural sector, and Sikh farmers protested the legislation for months, until New Delhi withdrew it.” The propaganda piece further claims that while repealing the three farm laws, the Modi government argued that “the protests were the work of Sikh separatists bent on breaking up the state,” and tried to establish how this supposed contention was “patently false”.
OpIndia, however, reported back then how Khalistani elements had indeed hijacked the farmers‘ protest and managed to maintain secular overtones while retaining the communal undertones of the protests. Also, contrary to The Atlantic’s assertion that “Sikh separatism” has not been a force in India since the 1990s, thanks to the relentless efforts of IPS KPS Gill, there was always an undercurrent even though the focal point of the Khalistani movement shifted to the West.
It is also interesting how The Atlantic wants India not to supposedly try to eliminate Khalistani terrorists on foreign soil but not once did it question why Canada allows Khalistani terrorists to thrive on Canadian soil and why Justin Trudeau wants to burnish his image as a ‘liberal hero’ at the cost of destroying ties with India. Further, will The Atlantic ask why does Trudeau government call slain Khalistani Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a designated terrorist a Canadian citizen even though there is no clarity on whether he was even a legal citizen of Canada? Interestingly, OpIndia had earlier reported that Trudeau’s allegations against India were possibly a smokescreen to China’s interference in Canadian elections and legislation.
Notably, The Atlantic’s disdain for PM Modi and “Hindu nationalism” is not surprising given it has a history of peddling anti-Hindu propaganda and platforming people who have links with anti-India and anti-Hindu entities.
The Atlantic blindly places its faith in the allegations levelled by the Trudeau government in the Nijjar killing even though it has not furnished a single piece of evidence to back its claim. Trudeau ‘expelling’ Indian diplomats was no act of bravery on Trudeau’s end. In fact, it was the Indian government that called back the Indian High Commissioner and dismissed Canada’s “preposterous” allegations.
Towards the conclusion of the hit job, The Atlantic claims that the Indian government routinely crosses the line between necessary arguments and wanton confrontation, however, it failed to question even once why the Trudeau and Biden administrations allow the anti-India Khalistan elements in their respective nations to challenge India’s territorial integrity and poison the minds of Sikh youths in Punjab.
