New York Times: Again at its anti-India game!

 By: (Name withheld for privacy reason)

 New York Times writes: “Saving the Cows, Starving the Children”   in India.
I am not completely familiar with the specifics of this issue and whether or not it is true that the administration is starving the children of indigenous and tribal communities even of eggs. If true, this would amount to sheer hypocrisy because many affluent urban dwellers who identify as Hindu these days eat meat, if not beef, and definitely consume eggs either directly or in the form of cakes and pastries, take capsules constituted with animal protein, etc.
But what I would like to know is: What the hell is going on at the NYT? Have you ever seen them pursue an agenda of such single-minded negative propaganda towards any other nation, with a blog section devoted exclusively to an overwhelmingly dismissive and sneering tone of coverage (of India)?
How long would a NYT journalist in China last if she regularly reported on their resettlement of peasants, or their indulgence of industrial espionage, adulteration of consumables, and so on? Why, right next to India is a genuine basket case of a country. Why don’t they have a blog page titled “The Perdition that is Pakistan?”
What makes India so uniquely deserving of the NYT’s brand of journalistic proctology? If you notice they do not allow online comments under most such articles so the readership never gets to consider and discuss a contrary opinion on the article.
Mark my words: this is slowly but surely influencing how Indians are widely perceived.  The accumulated arsenic of contempt will surface one day or the other in unforeseen ways if the Indian community keeps silent about it and withholds other points of view. At the very least Indians should come together to express their collective concerns to their Public Editor.


Saving the Cows, Starving the Children

Intolerance of New York Times editorial in its piece “Indian Religious Intolerance”

By: Shreepal Singh

New York Times has published an editorial on December 25, 2014 captioned “Religious intolerance in India”. Jettisoning its well-publicized neutrality on international events, it writes that hope is in danger of crumbling that Prime Minister Narendra Modi would rein in that divisive agenda of his militant Hindu-nationalist supporters. Without going into the root cause of the phenomenon of religious conversions currently going in India, the editorial takes note of the fact that during the last days of the just concluded Indian Parliament’s session the legislature was unable to deal with important legislative business. It emphasized the fact that this inability of Parliament to transact business was because of repeated adjournments and an uproar over attempt by Hindu groups to convert Christians and Muslims. The newspaper states, as if passing a final verdict in the whole affairs “The issue has come to a head following a ‘homecoming’ campaign by the Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and the Vishwas Hindu Parishad – groups dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Hindu state – to ‘reconvert’ Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.”

The editorial very conveniently chooses not to go into the issue of Indian citizens’ constitutional right to freely ‘propagate’ their religions – the real issue impinging on the question of religious ‘conversion’ or ‘re-conversion.’ By steering clear of this issue, the newspaper in a clever maneuver has absolved itself of the responsibility to answer such unpalatable questions: Is religious conversion prohibited by law in India? If the religious conversion is not prohibited in the first place, is it prohibited in subsequent or second attempts by citizens (termed‘re-conversion’ by the editorial)?

In the place of examining such questions as a responsible newspaper of an international repute, New York Times finds fault with Narendra Modi over his silence on this Indian religious quagmire of a very long standing. Does NYT expects Narendra Modi to ‘prohibit’ Hindus to convert Christians and Muslims to Hinduism and ‘permit’ Christians and Muslims to convert Hindus to their religions? If Narendra Modi ever does such a thing, will it be justified on his part in the eye of NYT?

The paper does not go into the justification or need or legality of the moves of those individuals who have been spending their life time in converting Indian citizens from one religion into another religion in an organized manner (we intentionally omit the names of religions involved in the exercise and if you name the religions, you name the culprit). Instead, the editorial raises the boggy of “groups dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Hindu state by “reconverting” Christians and Muslims to Hinduism.”  Perhaps one can justifiably equally put a question to the editors of New York Times: “Are the groups that are ‘converting’  Hindus to Christianity or Islam not dedicated to transforming India’s secular democracy into a Christian or Muslim state?”  Yes, Hindus are in majority in India and Christians and Muslims are in minority here but all citizens in this country are living peacefully under a democratic rule of law. All citizens have equal rights and freedom to ‘propagate’ their religions. May be in the eye of NYT, the Christian democracy or the Islamic democracy is the ‘secular democracy’ and the Hindu democracy is ‘not the secular democracy’.

It is intolerance of NYT on the religious conversions in India. Indeed!

%d bloggers like this: