In a familiar display of what critics term as "Islamo-leftist" slant, factual analysis appears to take a backseat to the creation of a sympathetic narrative favoring certain figures. On October 22, 2024, the New York Times published a eulogy-like piece for Umar Khalid, an accused in the Delhi riots case, painting him as a symbol of resistance and dissent against the Modi administration, which it depicts as a "fascist" Hindu-nationalist regime.
The activist Umar Khalid, center, protesting in New Delhi in early 2020. He was arrested later that year. Credit: Biplov Bhuyan/Hindustan Times, via Getty Images
In a piece titled Four Years in Jail Without Trial: The Price of Dissent in Modi’s India, the New York Times leaned into familiar themes of victimhood, the Muslim minority perspective, and grievances with the judicial process, highlighting Khalid’s lengthy pretrial detention and his family's distress. However, the article avoids explaining certain delays attributed to Khalid and his legal team, such as his decision to approach the Supreme Court only in April 2023, following multiple adjournment requests. Indeed, it was found that Khalid’s lawyer, Kapil Sibal, had requested seven out of 14 adjournments since 2023. Contrary to the impression that Khalid's hearing delays were solely the result of a biased judiciary, many appear to stem from choices made by his own legal representatives.
The article also criticizes the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against Khalid, portraying it as a tool for repression rather than a measure against incitement. However, the New York Times fails to address the evidence suggesting Khalid’s alleged role in the riots, focusing instead on positioning him as a "dissenter" and "activist." The piece further implies that Khalid’s treatment is harsher due to his Muslim identity without addressing whether his actions—criticized by the government as incitement—played a role in his legal challenges.
Additionally, NYT links Khalid’s case to a broader pattern of supposed governmental control over the judiciary, citing Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and later Supreme Court relief, despite the judgment being independent of executive influence.
The article downplays violence during the 2020 riots directed against Hindu individuals, such as the murders of IB officer Ankit Sharma and police officer Ratan Lal, and blames “Hindu mobs” for the deaths of Muslim individuals. In doing so, it omits key details that balance the narrative of community-based violence.
In examining the Modi administration’s policies post-2019, including the revocation of Article 370 and the Supreme Court-mandated Ram Mandir construction, NYT portrays these steps as fulfilling the demands of a "Hindu nationalist" base while minimizing the socio-economic benefits for Kashmir and the broader legal rulings that preceded these changes.
Furthermore, the article criticizes the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which extends asylum to persecuted religious minorities from neighboring countries, as discriminatory for excluding Muslims. Yet, it omits that this exclusion stems from the unique persecution faced by non-Muslim minorities in Muslim-majority countries, not an anti-Muslim agenda.
The New York Times concludes by lionizing Umar Khalid as a "Gandhian" hero, describing his bail hearings as “empty exercises” and lamenting the “torturous wait” his family endures. However, there is no mention of the suffering and justice sought by the families of Hindus who died during the riots, such as Ankit Sharma and Dilbar Negi, revealing a selective empathy that critics argue undermines the piece's credibility.
Indian leftists are using a New York Times article to criticize Chief Justice Chandrachud
As expected, Indian leftists are actively sharing the New York Times' full-page article that promotes Umar Khalid. In this context, Sushant Singh, the Consulting Editor of Caravan India, a left-leaning publication, ridiculed Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and remarked that; “Here is the actual legacy of “talking to God” CJI DY Chandrachud, on a full page of the New York Times.”
In the meantime, expressing sorrow over the Umar Khalid 'injury,' Arfa Khanum Sherwani from the Islamo-leftist propaganda outlet The Wire stated: “Wish CJI had asked for a divine intervention on Umar Khalid too. Would he have been a free man now ? Four Years in Jail Without a Trial: The Price of Dissent in Modi’s India. A full page on Umar Khalid in The New York Times.”
Significantly, the jab about "divine intervention" originates from Chief Justice Chandrachud's recent remark in which he stated that he prayed to God for a resolution to the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. While criticizing the Chief Justice, leftist commentators also take the opportunity to mock his religious beliefs.
New York Times and its negative portrayal of Hinduism
The New York Times has a troubling pattern of targeting Hindus while downplaying the actions of Islamists. A recent example can be seen in its coverage of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh, where the paper misleadingly described the violence as “political revenge attacks.” The Times suggested that Hindus were not targeted for their religious beliefs but rather due to their historical support for the ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League. This narrative persisted despite reports of vandalized Hindu temples and idols being destroyed by Islamists, who were also reportedly collecting Jizya in exchange for sparing Hindu lives.
Earlier this year, the Times blamed Hindus for “attacking” Muslim sites after Islamist mobs rioted in response to the demolition of a madrassa and mosque built on encroached land in Uttarakhand’s Haldwani.
In October 2023, the New York Times focused on the Akshardham Mahamandir in Robbinsville, New Jersey, to advance previously discredited allegations of caste discrimination.
While the Times promotes discussions about dissent and freedom of expression, it has been reported that its own journalists were unable to handle confrontation from three individuals questioning their censorship of figures like Seymour Hersh and Tucker Carlson. These dissenters were physically silenced while the Times’ executive editor and other journalists observed without intervening.
The Times’ hostility toward the Modi government is well-documented. It routinely features anti-Modi voices to propagate its agenda, even when it means spreading falsehoods. For instance, in March 2023, Anuradha Bhasin, Executive Editor of The Kashmir Times, published an op-ed claiming that the Modi government had unlawfully shut down the newspaper's Srinagar office. In reality, the government had allocated two offices to The Kashmir Times, and Bhasin was asked to vacate one following the death of the publication's founder.
The Times has also featured comedian Kunal Kamra, who blamed the Modi government for a surge in COVID-19 cases, despite the country managing to control a significant resurgence of the virus. Additionally, during the pandemic, the Times insinuated that floating dead bodies in the Ganga were evidence of underreported COVID-19 deaths, overlooking the long-standing tradition of immersing the deceased in the river.
For years, the Times has criticized the Modi government regarding anti-CAA protests and the 2020 anti-Hindu riots. During the Farmers' Protest, it was particularly vocal in demonizing Modi and the Indian government while defending the protestors. In 2017, the Times published a piece criticizing Modi for imposing regulations on foreign NGOs that it claimed jeopardized civil society in India, framing these actions as an attack on civil liberties. The paper has even described the saree as a symbol of Hindu nationalism.
The New York Times, along with its supporters, continues to defend and glorify Islamists and anti-Hindu elements. Western media has played a harmful role in tarnishing India’s reputation globally, portraying Hindus as oppressors of vulnerable Muslim minorities. Such media narratives not only serve an ideological purpose but are also financially advantageous for their outlets. However, OpIndia remains committed to countering the anti-Hindu and anti-India propaganda that permeates these discussions.
Comments