Even as BJP-led NDA secured a clear majority in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and BJP emerged as the single largest party securing 240 seats, the opposition INDIA alliance of Bharat relentlessly peddled a rhetorical narrative of “BJP’s moral defeat” and the Bharatiya public’s “rejection of PM Modi”.
In democracies, governments are made and unmade by the sheer force of even a single vote. Yet, Bharat’s opposition party Congress, which itself secured 99 seats in the elections, less than half of the 240 seats secured by the BJP, declared itself the winner on social media, projecting the election results as the public’s rejection of Narendra Modi’s “politics of hate”, as BJP failed to secure a clear majority on its own.
There are many parallels between the opposition narrative attacking the Modi government and the Western media narrative targeting the Modi government. We see similar tropes and discursive frameworks at work. The opposition accuses BJP of tampering with the Constitution, the Western media also echoes that viewpoint. When corrupt politicians are put behind bars through the legal and investigative mechanisms of organizations like ED and CBI, the opposition alleges the BJP is on a political witchhunt and the opposition is being unfairly targeted by a “dictatorial regime”. The elite Western media also runs pieces reflecting this viewpoint. The Western media constantly parrots the narrative that the BJP is indulging in “hateful politics” of “Hindutva majoritarianism”, and thus “oppressing the minorities” and “curbing everyone’s freedom of expression. The opposition also communicates through this narrative.
Thus, even as the BJP-led NDA government has taken oath for the third time, making PM Modi the only Prime Minister after Jawaharlal Nehru to have formed the government the third time in a row, the mainstream Western media interprets the Lok Sabha election results through the same biased prism of “Modiphobia”.
Thus, in its election results’ coverage, the global media echoes the viewpoint of the opposition that even though the BJP-led NDA government gets a mandate to form the government at the centre, the results signal that the Bharatiya public has rejected Modi or rather his style of leadership.
“‘India has rejected Modi’s rhetoric’: British Indians react to election result”, “‘Indian democracy fought back’: Modi humbled as opposition gains ground, and “Narendra Modi loses aura of invincibility as predicted landslide fails to materialize”, are some of the headlines of The Guardian.
‘World leaders slow to congratulate Modi after unexpectedly close India election”. “ Best memes as Indians react to unexpectedly close election: ‘Public is smart’”, “ INDIA vs BJP: What Modi’s underperformance means for a resurgent opposition alliance”, “ Samajwadi Party: Regional player that delivered the most shocking defeat of Modi’s political career”, “Why Modi’s BJP was defeated in Ayodhya where they built a grand temple to Lord Ram”, and “ controversial Bollywood actor Kangana Ranaut wins elections to India’s parliament” are a few headlines of the Lok Sabha election results coverage of the British daily The Independent.
Looking at these headlines, one is tempted to comment quite a few of these come across as if the writer was given the task to write a graduate-level essay against Narendra Modi. The premise for writing the headlines seems to be decided a-priori that it has to be somehow projected that brand BJP and most importantly brand Modi suffered incredibly, even as NDA comfortably crossed the majority mark and BJP emerged as the single largest party, garnering 240 seats.
Also, the extent of interest these Western media publications seem to show in Bharat’s Lok Sabha elections seems impressive indeed! The Independent has devoted an entire article to attacking Kangana Ranaut, the “controversial Bollywood actor” who won elections to “India’s parliament”, as they put it.
The article says that Kangana Ranaut has “repeatedly faced criticism in the past for echoing the ruling party’s anti-Muslim rhetoric”. The write-up then describes in detail various controversies regarding Kangana Ranaut when she allegedly made “anti-Muslim” comments and a police complaint was also reportedly registered against her in 2020, as per the article. We are not here to defend Kangana Ranaut or what she said at a particular point in time, but we are definitely concerned at The Independent’s selective targeting. There are numerous elected representatives from Bharat’s opposition parties who have made demeaning, venomous, and atrocious comments about Hindu Dharma, but we have never seen the likes of The Independent devoting a separate piece to those representatives and accusing them of perpetuating Hinduphobia.
A prominent leader of a political party in the south of Bharat compared Hindu Dharma to dengue and malaria, suggesting that it should be eradicated. Yet, we never saw any articles and opinion pieces in Western media condemning his remarks. Why such selective outrage, one wonders.
The Independent has also devoted an entire piece to the Samajwadi Party and how it defeated the BJP in Uttar Pradesh during the Lok Sabha elections, despite the Ram Mandir having been constructed during the BJP regime. The write-up peddles the same old “BJP’s Hindutva fanaticism” propaganda and selectively quotes leftist scholars and intellectuals of Bharat to peddle a biased narrative. The narrative is that despite making efforts to build the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, the BJP faced a defeat in UP because its “Hindu nationalist rhetoric” was rejected by the electorate.
“Mr Yadav reportedly instructed his party’s cadre not to criticize the Bahujan Samaj Party and Ms. Mayawati even after she ended their alliance in 2019. Instead, alongside Mr Gandhi, he highlighted the concern that a big parliamentary majority for the BJP would enable it to amend the constitution to the detriment of marginalized communities, a message that resonated with the Dalit community. He also demanded a caste census in the country arguing it would ensure each community received their due from the government according to their population. The BJP has consistently rejected the demand, fearing it would cost it support among the privileged Hindu upper castes, who generally oppose reservation in public education and employment for the marginalized communities. In fact, Mr Yadav sought to counter the BJP’s Hindu nationalist rhetoric by focusing on social justice and fair representation’, says the article.
I suppose it doesn’t take rocket science to figure out the uncanny similarities between the opposition’s narrative of why the BJP lost UP and Western media’s narrative regarding the same! The kind of stories a media outlet wants to take up is certainly their prerogative but by the same logic, others have the equal prerogative of pointing out the consistent bias in their stories.
Most Western media outlets, as evident from the headlines, are also projecting the Lok Sabha 2024 elections as a “bouncing back moment for Bharat’s political opposition” and by that extension ‘a bouncing back moment for democracy”. One of the most vitriolic and baseless narratives propagated by the opposition was that “Democracy khatre mein hai” (Democracy is in danger”. Ironically, the mainstream Western media peddled the same narrative during the elections, selectively quoting nitpicked intellectuals of the left-liberal cabal to prove by hook or crook that as long as BJP would be in power, Bharatiya democracy would be in danger.
Now that the people of Bharat have given the BJP and NDA a majority mandate, the Western media is in an awkward fix. It still needs to peddle the narrative somehow so the fact that the BJP wasn’t able to secure a complete majority to form a government on its own is like a consolation prize for both the opposition and the elite Western media. Thus, the new narrative is that despite the fact that the NDA is forming a government, Modi’s power and brand value will come down, thus “democracy” has a chance to survive in Bharat. The implicit message is, that under the pressures of a coalition government, Modi would no longer be able to “pursue his hardcore Hindutva agenda”.
The Guardian article titled “ ‘Indian democracy fought back: Modi humbled as opposition gains ground” quotes Mahua Moitra, Yogendra Yadav, and Harsh Mander to essentially claim that “the times of Modi’s tyranny are over”.
The Guardian should have perhaps interviewed truly independent and neutral scholars if it really wanted an impartial view. Instead, it gives space to a set of “motivated” intellectuals with a. history of peddling anti-Bharat propaganda. In the write-up, Mahua Moitra laments how the BJP misused its power to get her barred from the parliament and how she is back as an MP now. The write-up uncritically champions the cause of Ms. Moitra without talking about the other side of the story, that she was indeed guiltily of serious wrongdoing breaching the code of conduct of Parliament, and that there was a plethora of evidence against her based on which the action was taken.
But perhaps The Guardian is not interested in facts. It has already decided to project Ms Moitra as a champion of womanhood and freedom, and thus, has no interest in the other side of the story. The write-up also indirectly alleges that the NDA led by the BJP probably won the election through “unfair” mechanisms. It’s a serious allegation, the article writer doesn’t make the allegation themselves, but they give space to a quote by Harsh Mander who apparently puts forth the allegation. “Mander said he believed that if the election had been fairly fought, it would have been an outright defeat for Modi. Yet he also cautioned against seeing the outcome as a clear turning point for India, as questions remain about whether the prolonged assault on dissent, the use of federal agencies to go after opponents, and the lengthy detention of critics without trial will continue unabated”, says the article.
Now, just reverse the scenario and imagine what would be the reaction if a Bharatiya media outlet interviewed a Western intellectual who claimed that the election happening in so and so Western country was probably rigged and the media outlet, would have published his allegations. The very scenario seems so improbable it’s outrightly laughable. Yet, the Western media sees no issue with giving one-sided coverage to dangerously misplaced and distorted narratives about Bharat.
In all Western media pieces that I have seen accusing the Modi government of “Hindutva majoritarianism”, “minority oppression” and all the stock list of epithets, I haven’t seen a single piece giving any view from the other side of the spectrum, that is quoting someone who supports the BJP to present an alternative point of view. That’s what journalism is all about, views and counterviews to frame a balanced and objective narrative; journalism is not polemics but that’s what Western media has turned journalism into, at least when it comes to coverage of issues related to Bharat.
Yet another article published by The Guardian titled “Narendra Modi loses aura of invincibility as predicted landslide fails to materialize” parrots the opposition narrative that had the BJP actually gotten a clear majority anywhere near it’s “400 par” (crossing 400) slogans, that would have been a threat to the Bharatiya democracy and given them a mandate to change the constitution.
“It is likely to make it far harder for Modi to move forward with many of his more radical Hindu-first policies, particularly involving citizenship registration and laws accused of directly discriminating against Muslims. There is also now little chance of the BJP having the parliamentary votes needed to change India’s secular constitution, which had been a potent fear among many opponents”, says the article.
The fact that the Western media rarely gives coverage to issues affecting Hindus worldwide – the persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan, abduction and forced conversions of Hindu girls in Pakistan, sexual violence against Hindu girls in Pakistan, cases of systematic violence inflicted on Hindus in Bharat by the members of the “minority community, issues like Sandeshkhali violence, the phenomenon of love Jihad, the issue of fraudulent conversion of Hindus, etc. You would hardly find the Western media covering these kinds of stories. It only highlights stories where Hindus can be portrayed as perpetrators. In rare cases where it does cover issues impacting Hindus, the Western media distorts and dilutes the issue to create the impression that Hindus are themselves responsible for their plight.
Thus, there is a correlation between Western media’s abysmally low coverage of Hindu issues and its framing of the Modi government (perhaps the only government in Bharat to date that has given so much space to Hindu issues) as “Hindutva majoritarian”, “fascist”. Etc. Thus, by the definition of mainstream Western media, any government in Bharat that talks about the rights of Hindus is essentially a “fascist” and a “minority hater”.
The same pattern can be seen at work in the Western media’s coverage of election results in Bharat. Most reports, analyses, and editorials seem to be suggesting implicitly or explicitly that Bharatiya democracy is perhaps a bit less in danger and has a chance of surviving in Bharat since BJP hasn’t secured a majority mandate on its own, and therefore it wouldn’t have the freewheeling space to run its Hindutva agenda under a coalition government.
“Indian election delivers stunning setback to Modi and his party”, “In India, the voters have spoken. They do not want autocracy”, and “A setback for Modi is a silver lining for Indian Muslims” are a few headlines of The Washington Post. “Where India turned against Modi”, and “Modi Striking a Modest Tone is Sworn In for the Third Term are The New York Times headlines.
CNN stories replicate the same narrative of “Modiphobia” with headlines like “Indian voters reject Modi’s vision for one-party state in win for competitive democracy”, “India’s newly galvanized opposition strikes back with ‘mandate to serve democracy’”, and “ ‘A containment of Modi’: Journalist reacts to Indian election results”.
Before wrapping up, let’s take a look at BBC Hindi which is one of the most notorious news outlets when it comes to creating subtle but vile anti-Bharat narratives. “Narendra Modi aur Rahul Gandhi ko lekar Prashant Kishore ne kya kaha” ( What did Prashant Kishore say about Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi), “ Rahul Gandhi kee political samajh aur vyaktitv par Yogendra Yadav ne kya kaha” ( What did Yogendra Yadav say about Rahul Gandhi’s political acumen and personality ), and “Ayodhya mein BJP ko haraane vale Awadesh Prasad kya bole” ( what did Awadesh Prasad, who defeated BJP in Ayodhya, say ) are headlines of some of the latest video stories uploaded on their Youtube channel.
Looking at all their stories regarding the 2024 Lok Sabha elections’ coverage, BBC Hindi gives the impression of being the official publicity wing of the opposition INDIA alliance. Also, Manhua Moitra seems to have become the new “poster intellectual” for the “Democracy khatre mein hai” (democracy is in danger brigade). Ms Moitra’s interviews, it seems are highly sought after by Western media outlets; the BBC Hindi Youtube channel also features a video interview clip with Mahua Moitra.
Overall speaking, the fact that the BJP-led NDA indeed won the elections and has now formed a government at the centre, took a bit of an edge out of Western media’s biased election results coverage! But they still managed to stick to the opposition narrative, claiming that there is indeed a chance for Bharatiya democracy to survive since brand Modi seems to have sobered down a bit.
How potent is their assessment and how effective is their narrative building, only time will tell.
