Voting for all phases of the Lok Sabha 2024 elections in Bharat has concluded successfully. The whole country now waits for the June 4 verdict with bated breath. Various exit polls released on June 1 predicted a huge win for the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in the 2024 elections.
Perhaps before we get to see the final results, it would be apt to conduct a quick appraisal of the anti-Bharat and anti-Hindu Western media propaganda peddled generously by various “esteemed” news outlets during the Lok Sabha elections 2024.
Even as Bharat invited foreign observers to witness the Bharatiya electoral process, the Western media continued unabated, with its usual rhetoric of the Modi government pursuing a “Hindutva” agenda full of “hatred” for Muslims and other minorities. Interestingly enough, most Western media reports we came across launch a strong critique of the Modi government on various counts but paint the opposition as a victim.
Balanced reportage, after all, should present facts from all sides and give equal representation to controversial narratives from all sides of the divide. But be it the issue of Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest or the issue of PM Modi’s election campaigning speech where he accused the opposition Congress of snatching away the rights of the citizens of Bharat by openly declaring that just one community, that is Muslims, has the foremost right over nation’s resources, the western media coverage distorted the scenario and gave biased one-sided narratives without adequate context and without including any perspective from the other side.
Let’s check out a few recent headlines of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections coverage by a few renowned global media outlets. “With India’s election in full swing, Narendra Modi is getting desperate – and dangerous”, “India elections: PM Narendra Modi claims he has been chosen by God”, “ The Guardian view on India’s election: Narendra’s Modi’s audacity of hate”, and “ Electoral laws flouted, opposition politicians arrested – this is what it’s like to stand against Modi’s BJP Mahua Moitra ”, and “ ‘Modi builds highways but where are our jobs?’: rising inequality looms over India’s election” are a few headlines of write-ups published by The Guardian covering Bharatiya elections over the past month.
With due respect to The Guardian, some of these headlines seem straight out of a cheap tabloid and not an esteemed publication like The Guardian. Full of extreme value judgments, these perhaps would look more apt on the cover of a sensational thriller or as punchlines for a melodramatic soap opera rather than newspaper headlines. Sample the first article, “With India’s elections in full swing, Narendra Modi is getting desperate – and dangerous”. The article is written by Salil Tripathi, who has a history of propagating misinformation and peddling anti-Bharat propaganda. He is also the Chair of the PEN International Writers in Prison Committee.
Anyhow, coming back to the piece written by him, it starts with the stock narrative of blaming the Bharatiya PM for the 2002 Godhra riots, painting him as the perpetrator, The writer obviously, conveniently overlooks the backdrop in which the riots took place, 58 Hindu pilgrims were burned alive while sleeping in the ghastly Godhra train massacre. The predominant media coverage of this time hushed the burning of Hindu pilgrims in the Godhra train carnage and portrayed the Godhra riots as Muslim genocide. Tripathi conveniently sticks to the predominant narrative, peddling white lies. He also doesn’t care to mention that the Bharatiya PM has long been acquitted of all charges by the Supreme Court regarding the 2002 Godhra carnage. Obviously, the writer wouldn’t point all that out because that doesn’t suit his vicious narrative.
The article then attacks PM Modi’s election speech where he referred to former PM Manmohan Singh’s speeches in which he had said that Muslims have the first right to Bharat’s resources. The writer bends over backward to ascribe motivations to the former PM’s statement, arguing that Modi distorted his speech and such and such was his intent, etc. Perhaps, the article writer would do a better job as a Congress spokesperson than a journalist.
The rest of the article goes on a usual rant about Modi’s “Hindutva” politics catering to “fanatic Hindus” and “feeding into Hindu fears”. This is not dog-whistle politics, its meaning is audible to all Indians. It feeds into Hindu fears and is intended to arouse Hindus: it was dangerous and blatantly divisive… the vehemence of Modi’s speech suggests that after 10 years in power, his government is running out of tricks and wants to ensure that the BJP’s core voters – angry, fundamentalist Hindus – won’t desert him”, says the article.
Thus, the write-up, by classifying BJP’s core voters as “angry, fundamentalist Hindus” is attacking Hindus more than the BJP. The implication is that anybody in Bharat who supports Hindu issues and raises them politically is essentially a fundamentalist full of hatred. Thus, the writer, while rhetorically shaming the Bharatiya PM for an election speech, also implicitly tells the reader that no Hindu issues exist on the ground and that any Hindu talking about the oppression of Hindus in Islamic countries or the historical genocide of Kashmiri Pandit is a mere rabble-rouser.
Many opposition party leaders have repeatedly made speeches full of rabid anti-Hindu rhetoric, during the election or outside election time. The likes of DMK have also made calls to eradicate or annihilate Sanatan Dharma; yet Western media like The Guardian doesn’t critique these Hinduphobic speeches but nitpicks an election campaign speech by the Bharatiya PM where is referring to promises made by a former Prime Minister of Bharat, the videos fo which are available in the public domain.
“The Guardian view on India’s election: Narendra Modi’s audacity of hate” is Guardian’s editorial which says, “India’s prime minister encourages a belief in his divinity, leading followers to think it’s God’s purpose to spread fear and loathing”.
The editorial attacks the PM on his comments made during an election rally regarding former PM Manmohan Singh saying that Muslims have the foremost right to the country’s resources. The editorial indulges in blatant propaganda by taking the PM’s remarks out of context and by skipping homework on the crucial question of – has Muslim appeasement at the cost of the rights of other Bharatiya voters been a part of Bharat’s Congress party agenda. The Guardian should have done its due diligence before labeling the Bharatiya PM a “hate monger”. It should have done an analysis of Congress manifestos and policies over the years and evaluated PM Modi’s comments against it. But alas, that sort of scholarship requires deep research, something that the Guardian is obviously capable of but probably not interested in when it comes to matters related to Bharat. This is sloppy journalism at its best; make a simplistic characterization of everything within the binary of “Hindutva rhetoric” and “Islamophobia” when it comes to Bharat.
The Guardian also seems to be obsessed with PM Modi’s recent remarks in an interview that he gave to NDTV in which he concluded by saying that he feels God has chosen him for a special purpose and sent him to fulfill a set of duties. The Guardian ran a separate piece on this taking a dig at the PM with the headline, “Indian elections: PM Narendra Modi claims he has been chosen by God”.
The article itself has nothing substantial to offer but tries to create a controversy where none exists. It tries to assign ulterior motives to the Bharatiya PM’s emotional remarks about him being just an instrument of God to fulfill a certain purpose in life. There is nothing remotely controversial about what he said. Yet, the likes of The Guardian manage to create a controversy out of this!
“Modi, who is hoping to win a third term when the results of the general election are announced on 4 June, said that while God guided him to do a lot of his work, he did so without revealing a larger scheme… Modi has built a well-established cult of personality within the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP), with many supporters unable to name other cabinet members or their local BJP candidate… the BJP has also actively promoted Hinduism, the majority faith in every aspect of public life. At the inauguration of the temple in Ayodhya in January, it was Modi, rather than Hindu priests, who played the leading role in the rituals”, says the article.
Thus, the article subtly establishes that the Bharatiya PM’s comments regarding him being chosen by God are a part of his party’s larger election strategy where the personality cult of Modi has taken over and he is projecting himself as being even above priests by participating in the Ayodhya rituals. The write-up conveniently distorts what the PM actually meant when he said he was chosen by God in that NDTV interview and puts it out of context. The PM’s comments were indeed delivered in a humble tone where what he said in Hindi essentially meant that his name or persona as Modi was of least importance, rather he was just an instrument chosen by God to fulfill certain purposes in life and that’s what keeps him going. Thus, he essentially said that all the hype surrounding him meant nothing to him and he saw himself as a mere sewak (dutiful human being) fulfilling his duties on earth.
Both the opposition and the Western media ecosystem distorted this simple heartfelt comment by evaluating it within the Abrahamic framework. Within the framework of Abrahamic faiths, “messenger of God” has different implications. But in Hindu Dharma, all human beings are considered messengers of God in their own capacity. Therefore, there is no “chosen one” in the entitled sense; it simply means that the person has immense faith in God and believes they are doing their duty.
Moving from The Guardian to the German broadcaster Deutsche Welle, they too have a clear bias when it comes to issues related to Muslims. The DW recently ran a piece, the headline of which read, “Is India’s election watchdog toothless against Modi?” This piece also focuses on PM Modi’s election speech regarding the Congress party’s plans to provide reservation to Muslims at the cost of other citizens of the country. The write-up goes on to sensationalize his speech, suggesting that his words were mired in Islamophobia, yet the writer fails to balance the article by also putting forth facts that show that Modi government has run the maximum number of schemes for the welfare of Muslims.
The article also conveniently omits the context in which Modi’s remarks were made; he had said that providing reservations based on religion was against the spirit and provisions of the Bharatiya constitution. The article could have debated if providing religion-based reservations indeed went against the basics of the Bharatiya constitution, or if there space for it? But this kind of work requires deep research and DW’s intent here, at least, seems to give space to biased, emotional clickbait stories rather than objective news reports.
The article further calls the Election Commission of India a “passive spectator” and quotes anonymous sources to somehow establish that the EC is biased towards “one party”. Leveling casual allegations against a country’s Election Commission when it’s in the middle of elections based on generalized statements by anonymous sources and without any evidence whatsoever is anything but journalism. What it does seem though is a not-so-subtle attempt to influence the voters and meddle in the internal affairs of Bharat.
There are many Muslims in Bharat who support the BJP. The BJP itself has many Muslim leaders but the likes of DW always quote only those Muslim voices that are against the BJP, creating an impression that all Muslims in Bharat hate the BJP. Why this bias, one wonders.
DW seems to be obsessed with topics that have a scope to further create a Hindu Muslim divide in Bharat. Another piece published by DW recently reads, “India elections: Race reaches a divided New Delhi”. The article talks about the May 25 elections in Northeast Delhi constituency where the BJP fielded Manoj Tiwari and Congress fielded Kanhaiya Kumar.
The write-up dramatically makes the election in this particular constituency a Hindu-Muslim issue invoking the 2020 Delhi riots, again peddling the simplistic narrative that it was Hindus attacking Muslims in those riots. The article wants to create controversies where none exist; “around 30% of northeast Delhi’s residents are Muslim; the rest are Hindu. Its issues are a reflection of India’s larger problems of inequality, unemployment and growing communal disharmony”, it says.
The article selectively quotes voters from the area to support its thesis that the BJP has done little work in that area since it came to power and its sole intent is to deepen the Hindu-Muslim divide. The write-up also quotes people separately from Hindu- dominated localities and Muslim-dominated localities to somehow prove that the BJP has done more work for the Hindu-dominated areas than the Muslim-dominated ones. The sole intent of the article seems to be of persuading the residents of this constituency to vote against the BJP rather than an impartial reportage. Thus, one could reverse in argue that it is the write-up which is provoking a communal divide by deliberately raking up the issue.
CNN jumps onto the Modiphobia bandwagon with the piece “India’s election campaign turns negative as Modi and ruling party embrace Islamophobia rhetoric”. Yet, one of these media outlets highlights issues like the gruesome Sandeshkhali violence against women, or the issue of TMC goons ruthlessly killing BJP workers, or issues like Kanhaiya Kumar being brutally murdered for supporting BJP’s Nupur Sharma’s comments regarding Prophet Mohammad. The likes of The Guardian, DW, CNN, etc. wouldn’t cover these issues because these don’t suit its narrative but do anti-Bharat propaganda by doing biased coverage of certain issues.
Before wrapping up, let’s check out a few election pieces published by The New York Times. “Time is running out for Rahul Gandhi’s vision for India”, reads an article published by The New York Times in April 2024. The article gives an impressive amount of coverage to the politics of Rahul Gandhi and Congress, it seems THE piece for the relaunching of the Gandhi scion’s political career!
The piece focusing on Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra reads like an ode to him and the Congress party. We are nobody to suggest to The New York Times what kind of stories it should publish and it shouldn’t. But the point we are trying to make is simply that their stories regarding Bharat consistently propagate a certain narrative and give little or no representation to the other side.
“Free Food? Modi Makes Sure Every Indian Knows Whom to Thank For It”, and “As Indian Voting wraps up, reports of electoral irregularities mount” are a few other headlines of recent articles done by The New York Times. “Indian diaspora divided as Modi’s office lobbies US fans to influence vote”, “Indian government agency spent millions promoting BJP election slogans”, and “‘Country is doing well’: Why jobless young Indians are still backing Modi are the headlines of a few articles published recently by Aljazeera.
The Modiphobia of Western media seems to know no end. At the root of their Modiphobia is deep-seated Hinduphobia that makes them presume that if Modi talks about Hindu nationalism, it necessarily has to be Islamophobic.
