The Economist, one of the world’s most influential weekly magazines—and a champion of the free market, to boot—has weighed in on Narendra Modi and the Gujarat elections in the latest issue:
AS A cheerleader for the emerging India, a giant democracy with—at last—an economy to match, Narendra Modi is a disgrace. His six-year leadership of Gujarat, a booming western state, is widely cited as a paragon of economic management. But double-digit growth is not all that Modi—who is seeking re-election in a poll due to begin on December 11—is alleged to have orchestrated.
There is also the small matter of 2,000 murdered Muslims, victims of a 2002 pogrom carried out by his Hindu-nationalist followers with the collusion of Gujarat’s bureaucracy and police…. A small matter, however, is just how the pogrom is viewed in Gujarat, the birth-place of Mahatma Gandhi, and a bastion of prohibition, vegetarianism and gnat-respecting Jains. Its last election, later in 2002, gave Modi a thumping majority, biggest in those districts where the bloodshed was worst….
This time Modi’s campaign has been more sober. He has unleashed the odd rant against “terrorists”, and a few barbs at Musharraf. But the BJP’s leader has been much keener to trumpet Gujarat’s recent economic performance—including growth of 11.5% last year. The change of tack may be because he is chary of the contempt the outside world holds for him. In 2005 America revoked his visa. EU countries have also denied him diplomatic status. This has been damaging to his ambitions to lead the BJP, and India. Modi is already its most globe-trotting state boss. This year he has visited China, South Korea, Japan and Switzerland.
But elections in India are not won by leading trade delegations—even in Gujarat, which has 24% of India’s coastline and a proud commercial tradition. Moreover the slogan Modi is most associated with, “Vibrant Gujarat”—the name of a biennial trade fair he has staged—recalls the ill-fated “India Shining” campaign run by India’s last BJP-led government for the general election in 2004. It was turfed out by the masses for whom India did not shine. Many in the Congress party, which leads the coalition that won that election, predict that Modi will suffer the same fate….
Text courtesy: The Economist
Read the full text here: Don’t mention the massacre
Simon Long’s reporting is a disgrace. I am a happy unsubscriber of economist!
Ah, the familiar Indian trait of shooting the messenger, questioning the messenger’s motives, rather than looking at the message. The Economist does not carry bylines in its stories. It’s a healthy practice that prevents readers from prejudging the reports. How does Aruna Urs know that it is Simon Long’s reporting? He is their Asia editor based in London. James Astill is listed as the South Asia correspondent.
The Economist has been very trigger happy about branding people “fascists” these days.
Check this link out:
http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35&phrase_id=8151
Admittedly “the Exile” is a slightly pro-Russia alternative newspaper, but they are no friends of Putin either.
They also seem to have hit upon a better system of predicting elections than opinion polls or “psephology”: illegal gamblers.
Talking about the exile. Anyone interested in war history should check out a guy(?) who calls himself the ‘War Nerd’.
http://old.exile.ru/archive/by_column/war_nerd.html
@AG
I found exile because of War Nerd ;)
But coming back to the topic:
@Aatmashakshi
Newspapers and magazines these days are hardly “messengers” in that they are not just disinterested reporters of events. They do play an important role in shaping opinions of their readers, and in such cases, it is worth questioning their disinterest.
“after 58 Hindu activists were killed in a fire on a train for which, on scant evidence, Muslims were blamed”
The article seems to have come directly out of naxal ram’s red secular pen.
It could be that the job was outsourced to The Hindu and the report published under the more “influential” foreign brand. Anyway, now that the Gujarat election is nearing, more and more such reports can be expected. It is interesting that wishful thinking of The Hindu kind, is also indulged in by the “inflential” videshi media.
yep, Economist is the gospel. Get some spine, guys!
Why not haul that idiot Hariprasad and Sonia Gandhi for their unlawful speeches!?
The Economist is one of the first newspapers which stated that the train got burnt under mysterious circumstances. So much for its credibility.
Who is The Economist pandering to? The Average Abdul subscribes to Madarasa Newspaper and certainly lacks the intellect to read The Economist.
SN,
There are more ads placed by ‘democratic oil sheiks’ in Economist than any where else. What do you expect from Economist which calls Musharaff an ‘enlightened moderate’ :)
Vote Maadi Modi
“after 58 Hindu activists were killed in a fire on a train for which, on scant evidence, Muslims were blamed”
There goes all credibilty flushed down the… toilet. Why even discuss this smear post by communists?
DB calls The Economist a disgrace!
Atmasakshi – “But double-digit growth is not all that Modi is alleged to have orchestrated”. “he is chary of the contempt the outside world holds for him”. “On scant evidence, Muslims were blamed”. This passes your editorial standards? Fine then, my apologies. Hope this keeps your soul happy.
Economist may say anything it wants. What matters is what Gujjus think about modi, I bet they would rather support a capitalist than a socialist.
The Economist needs to turn its attention to prisons like Guantanamo Bay and what is happening in Iraq before it starts making judgments on others. The US media routinely justifies the role of its government in international affairs. Also, you cannot equate US and India on religious freedom and apply the same standards of equality in the society. Indian social fabric is far more complex than in the US. This context is generally glossed over by the ill-informed foreign media.
I am no fan of Modi, but I wonder whether Economist called Tony Blair a Disgrace during the years of WMD, or war in Iraq etc.All the Western Press had tail between their legs.Some even joined in the bombing of Iraq sitting beside the pilots!Even when it was proved that there was no WMD Blair didn’t resign nor Bush for that matter. If Gujarat were an independent country with lots of oil reserves, U.S. Ambassador would have personally gone to give Modi his visa !For a country described as Bush’s poodle and their press generally echoing Washington, it is easier to criticise what’s happening in India.
ERR,
I completely understand. The events in Gujarat were so random and so bizarrely out of touch with the spirituality of Indian life–we don’t tolerate people being burnt like vermin in a train. In a way I am satisfied that there was an extreme reaction to the event which showed the barbarity people were capable of–it sort of acted like a purge of accumulated slights that have been heaped on the majority in the name of ‘secular’ democracy. Then the people of Gujarat voted for Modi in their ‘collective wisdom’
The Hindus know it and the Muslims understand it. The duplicity and the misrule of all Congress governments have created all sorts of fissures in India. BJP cannot be blamed because they have publicly stated they do not practice this duplicitous secular democracy. The reality is while there are very few capable and honest Modis, there are many congress types within the BJP capable of doing ‘deals’.
Coming to this big deal of a US visa–India can practice something similar like denying Kissinger or Madeline Albright a visa; or even a prominent India-baiting senator–yeah a sort of tit for tat.
I gave up on Economist years ago! It should be righly called ‘Econoleftist’
It’s a shame that those criticising The Economist of pandering to the average Abdul, are themselves pandering to a mass murderer! Is progress solely defined by the number of roads constructed or the FDI roped in? There’s something wrong with you if you justify the killings of thousands of any community (we are not even talking of Muslims here) just because, allegedly, a handful of their community killed 58 from another community. Where is your sense of logic?! As for my using the term “allegedly”, well, for all of you misinformed souls, the fact is that it is still not proved how the Sabarmati Express got burnt. The Nanavati-Shah Commission that is probing the train episode, has still not brought out its findings.
Raah says: The Economist of pandering to the average Abdul, are themselves pandering to a mass murderer!
Please let me know how Modi contributed to the mass murders. If your bane of proof happens to be Tehelka, then you should get yourself updated on impartial media sources. Let me know how you call Modi as a murderer. I have a set of links that puts the series of events after the train burning in chronological order. I will perhaps put them across and let you make the decision. Is that fine?
Raah says: As for my using the term “allegedly”, well, for all of you misinformed souls, the fact is that it is still not proved how the Sabarmati Express got burnt.
Of course, of course.
The conversation between SumneNeev and Raah is rather interesting and one that is very commonly observed in Gujarat (even outside) after 2002. I happen to have covered the Gujarat riots as a journalist and given that I am at risk of being called the “partial one” by SumneNeeve, I’d say that the problem today is not Modi at all. The problem is the acquisitive nature of Gujarati Hindus (most) and the consequent disregard for “cultural/social development” which, in turn, justifies the killing of a community and the denial of what Modi and his ilk have openly stated to have done in speeches/media (Tehelka came much later). 10% Muslims don’t matter at all to Gujarati Hindus unless, of course, they captured the entire economy of the state (one reason why Muslim commercial establishments were particularly selected and destroyed in 2002). Again, if SumneNeeve thinks that ‘Gujarat Samachar’ and ‘Sandesh’ are impartial media, well..
Commentator,
Please state your facts. I will rebuke them. Thats the way a debate should go ahead. I have clearly requested for facts on why Modi should be called as a terrorist. Your opinions hardly matter. Please put forth your facts and give me an opportunity to learn or make you learn.
Till then, I suggest that you shove your moral bickering to a place where the sun doesnt shine. Thanks.