“For India Prime Minister Narendra Modi, strength is everything.” On November 29th, American magazine The Atlantic published an attack on Indian Prime Minister Modi. From the beginning, author Daniel Block makes it clear that, for both him and The Atlantic, propaganda takes priority, with the need to spread anti-Modi narratives outweighing any commitment to objective journalism.
The article titled "How a Strongman Made Himself Look Weak" argues that Prime Minister Modi addresses domestic criticism by 'co-opting' the media and 'suppressing' religious minorities, particularly Muslims. On the international stage, the Modi government is said to respond to criticism with hostility and, somewhat absurdly, even through 'political assassinations.'
OpIndia
In the context of the death of Khalistani terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar, an article in The Atlantic downplayed the anti-India activities of Nijjar and fellow Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun by referring to them as Sikh nationalists.
The article refrains from labeling the United States as a rogue nation, despite its history of conducting arbitrary bombings in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, including the operation authorized by the Obama administration to eliminate Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, who was hiding in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
While the U.S. taking action against threats to its national security on foreign soil is deemed acceptable, The Atlantic reacts strongly when India allegedly takes similar actions, even without proof. Pannun in the U.S. and Khalistani elements in Canada engage in daily anti-India and anti-Hindu activities, from attacking and defacing Hindu temples to burning Indian flags and challenging India’s territorial integrity.
Recently, consular camps in Canada were canceled due to threats from Khalistani groups and the Canadian police's failure to provide adequate security to Hindu Canadians. However, for The Atlantic, these individuals are simply ‘Sikh nationalists’ and ‘critics’ of Prime Minister Modi.
The article also insinuates that while Modi’s supporters may view India’s response to Canadian allegations of 'political assassinations' as a sign of courage, India is not truly independent enough to jeopardize its ties with the U.S. and Canada.
Yet, The Atlantic overlooks the fact that it is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government in Canada that has severely strained relations with India by not only appeasing Khalistani elements and offering them refuge to challenge India’s sovereignty but also making baseless accusations against Indian diplomats regarding extrajudicial killings.
It is important to note that just days after accusing Indian diplomats of criminal activities on Canadian soil in October, Trudeau admitted that Canada had no evidence to support its allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s death.
Contrary to The Atlantic’s suggestion that India should defer to Canada and the U.S., India’s foreign policy is driven by strategic autonomy, and there is no question of India’s foreign ministry engaging in "damage control." Moreover, India's reputation is ‘undermined’ only in the eyes of left-liberal media, which consistently portrays India negatively. Furthermore, Narendra Modi's strong leadership, which was a key factor in his selection as the BJP's prime ministerial candidate, contributed to his historic victory in the 2014 elections.
What is leftist propaganda if it doesn't resort to the familiar tactic of portraying Muslims as victims? Daniel Block, a former writer for the left-wing publication The Caravan, asserted that Narendra Modi's rise to power was fueled by "polarizing the country’s Hindu majority against its Muslim minority," implying that Muslims obstruct the restoration of Hindu greatness.
The 2002 Godhra tragedy, in which 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed when an Islamist mob set fire to the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, is often cited in leftist narratives. In a manner typical of many such outlets, The Atlantic framed the 2002 Gujarat riots as an anti-Muslim pogrom, conveniently omitting the context that led to the violence.
Godhra Riots: The Atlantic's Misrepresentation of Modi-Shah and Muslim Victimhood
On February 27, 2002, 59 innocent Hindu pilgrims were tragically killed when Islamic extremists set the S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express on fire near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat.
The Sabarmati Express was initially scheduled to arrive at Godhra station at 3:30 am but was running four hours behind schedule. It finally reached at 7:40 am. Just eight minutes later, a mob of around 2,000 Islamists set fire to coach S6, killing 59 Hindus, including 25 women and 15 children, in the predominantly Muslim area of Signal Falia in Godhra.
On February 22, 2011, the trial court convicted 31 individuals for their involvement in the Godhra massacre, with 11 receiving the death penalty and 20 sentenced to life in prison. In October 2017, the Gujarat High Court upheld all 31 convictions, resulting in life sentences for those involved. Witnesses and survivors testified that the fire was not accidental but a deliberate act of arson by the Islamists.
Over the years, the Islamo-leftist narrative has attempted to downplay the atrocity, calling it a mere "train burning incident" or "accident." In an extreme case, The Atlantic’s columnist went so far as to entirely omit any mention of the Godhra massacre. This omission may reflect an agenda to avoid acknowledging the brutal burning of Hindus, possibly to support an apocryphal narrative of the alleged persistent persecution of the "innocent Muslim minority."
The article describes how the state of Gujarat, under the leadership of Narendra Modi, witnessed a so-called "pogrom" in which "at least 790 Muslims" were killed, following the Godhra incident. This use of the term "pogrom" is misleading and offensive, as the violence only erupted in response to the horrific killing of 59 Hindus. Perhaps Daniel Block, the author, should consult a dictionary to understand the true meaning of "pogrom" before misusing it in this context.
Moreover, while The Atlantic highlighted the deaths of Muslims in the riots following the Godhra incident, it conveniently ignored the fact that around 254 Hindus were also killed in the violence. This glaring omission reveals a biased focus, as the suffering of Hindus appears to be of little concern to the publication. This is unsurprising given Block's association with The Caravan, which has long been criticized for propagating anti-Modi narratives and downplaying the violence faced by Hindus in Bangladesh.
The Atlantic's piece is filled with distortion and insinuations aimed at portraying Narendra Modi, a democratically elected four-time Chief Minister and three-time Prime Minister of India, as a despotic figure who manipulates international relations to bolster his "strongman" image.
Atlantic Misrepresents Modi-Shah with Dismissed Allegations
Interestingly, The Atlantic asserts that the BJP has tolerated little dissent since assuming power, despite the fact that an entire anti-Modi ecosystem thrives by attacking PM Modi and the BJP for fame, recognition, and financial gain. The article mentions criminal cases against PM Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, noting that "a judge dismissed the cases," but omits the critical detail that the Supreme Court of India cleared both of them in these matters. The Court upheld the Special Investigation Team's (SIT) clean chit to Modi, who was Gujarat's Chief Minister during the 2002 Godhra riots, and similarly cleared Amit Shah.
Both Modi and Shah were relentlessly pursued for years by the Congress government, with its propaganda machinery—primarily the mainstream media—working tirelessly to frame them in connection with criminal activities, including the alleged role in the Godhra riots. Yet, despite the resources at its disposal, the Congress government failed to persuade the courts against Modi and Shah, showing that the charges were baseless and lacked merit.
Furthermore, the special CBI court's ruling 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 a larger conspiracy orchestrated by the CBI under the Congress government to falsely implicate political figures. However, The Atlantic conveniently omits these facts, as including them would undermine its narrative against PM Modi and expose how the Congress government misused investigative agencies for political gain.
The Atlantic Calls Modi's Stand on Khalistani Terrorism 'Hindu Nationalism'
Revealing the depth of his delusion, Daniel Block asserted 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 also asserts that when repealing the three farm laws, the Modi government contended 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”.
Comments