As a regular reader of “The Economist”, I realized that, on most

occasions, S. Asian columns provide disparaging description of

Hinduism and its followers. Instead of providing facts, Columns are

filled with omissions, commissions, derogatory terms, and baseless

allegations; Moreover, Baseless allegations are repeated even after

they are proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt.

List, of The Economist articles, with article name and publication date:

1) “Bitter Fruit”, Aug 2008:

Article states that “pilgrims see (Amarnath) as a phallic symbol of the

god Shiva” but that is not true. All encyclopedias make it clear that phallic

representation of Shiva is controversial and predominantly a western

interpretation. Not providing space to hindu opinion is bad but trying to

pass off non-hindu belief as hindu is dishonest.

Article exercises double standard by calling relatively peaceful Hindu

protester “Militant” and aggressive Muslim protester “Protester”.

2) “An uphill walk”, Sept 2012:

Amarnath pilgrimage is called  “INVASION”.

3) “Kashmir’s future: Fleeting Chance”, July 2011;”An uphill walk”, Sept 2012:

Amarnath shrine called  “penis-shaped lump of ice”.

4) “Shaking the mountains”, Dec 2010:

Article states that Amarnath pilgrims are unmolested but that is not true.

Amarnath pilgrims were massacred on several occasions. For instance,

on August 2nd 2000, 34 pilgrims were murdered by terrorist who

attacked makeshift pilgrim tents. More-over, In 1990s, Government of

India banned Pilgrimage, and denied religious freedom, because of terror


5) “The Hindu rate of self-deprecation”, April 2011:

The title itself is anti-hindu. Both,red tape and corruption, are legacy of

Nehruvian Socialism and has nothing to do with Hinduism. Economist

cleverly shields Nehruvian Socialism and blames Hindus.

6) “In search of a dream”, Sept 2012; “Now finish the job”  April 2012;

“The Hindu rate of self-deprecation”, April 2011:

Economist refers to India’s socialist era GDP growth rate as “Hindu rate

of growth”. Is Cuba's poor GDP growth rate "Catholic rate of growth"?

Both, India & Cuba, has constitutionally declared themselves as "socialist

secular republic", and has followed socialist economic model (i.e.

Fabian/Nehruvian socialism in India till 1993). Why isn’t Economist

using the same standard in describing growth rate of other countries?

7) “The Swami’s Curse”, June 2011:

Article indirectly describes Ayurveda and Yoga as quack cures.

Personally, I am neither a follower nor a supporter of Baba Ramdev

and Lokpal movement but I was shocked by the tone, tenure, bias

and foul language of the article.

8) Economist has many articles on Kashmir like Nov. 2010 “The K Word”.

They almost always omits “The P Word” (i.e., indirectly deny/downplay

Hindu Pandit Plight). Only once “The P Word” was reluctantly mentioned.

9) In 2012/2013 year, Economist has many articles on Bangladesh war

crime trial & political crisis. Most articles condemn the war crime trial,

attack the evidence, and question eyewitness account. The omissions

and commissions, of this articles, indirectly deny/downplay 1971 Hindu

Genocide, and 2012/2013 attacks on Hindus.

10) Economist has printed many articles about Ayodhya dispute. Almost

all articles omit/suppress entire history and deny archeological evidence.

Example, Oct 2010 article “The uneasy split” states that “there is no

archaeological evidence to support either belief” but that is not true.

Archeological evidence of Hindu temple is a fact proven beyond

reasonable doubt in India’s high court.

11) “The rights approach”, March 2010:

This is a nice article about RTI act, which has nothing to do with

Hinduism, but nevertheless slips into Hindu bashing.

12) “Witchcraft in Assam Toil and trouble”, April 2012:

Article touts superiority and rationality of Islam and Christianity, dismisses

native beliefs as superstition, and omits social reforms carried out by

mainstream Hindu organisation like Rama-Krishna mission.

13) “Shadow of a darker decade”, Aug 2012:

This article is directly and indirectly justifying the latest muslim violence in

mumbai based on bogus accusations and numbers.

Firstly, Economist claimed that "In 1992,Muslims were targeted by

Hindu-nationalist mobs and hundreds were killed" but, in reality, Islamist,

who got angry in wake of demolition at Ayodhya, started targeting hindus.

In first 2 days( January 6 and 7 1992) of rioting, 34 Hindus and 8 Muslims

got killed, 138 Hindus and 34 Muslims were injured. On January 8 1992 at

0030 hours, 6 Hindus, including 5 women, residing at Radhabai Chawl

were  burnt alive. Radhabai Chawl massacre triggered hindu backlash.

Official death toll is 900 (575 Muslims, 275 Hindus, 45 unknown and 5


Secondly,About 2002 Gujarat riots,. Economist wrote "2,000 people, most

of them Muslims, were killed" but here are the factual numbers: 790

Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed.(*)

(*) All numbers cited are from official government reports published by

Justice SriKrishna Commission for Mumbai, and parliament report for


14) “Bleak House” , March 2012:

The title is borrowed from Charles Dickens whose racial views are well

known. Article cleverly tries to blame Hindu victim of Godhra train

massacre for their death, indirectly suggests that nearly nil (official

number 254) Hindus died in subsequent riots, and exercises double


Economist wrote “The killing started with a fire on a train....After a

dispute......31 were convicted.....some people, however, continue to

believe that the fire was an accident,....Whatever the fire's cause..”.

The Economist stealthily planted a seed of doubt on Godhra verdict, and it

keeps alive canards like "dispute" and "accident". The truth is that there

was no major dispute which would spark such a horrific massacre.

Abduction story was proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt. Only an

extremely prejudiced media would try to dismiss fire started in the middle

of an attack as mere accident, and indirectly absolve attackers of all

responsibility. Firstly, Coach S6 would not have caught fire, at that precise

moment, without attack. Secondly, In absence of attackers, passengers

would be able to get out of coach. Finally, it's already proven wrong

beyond reasonable doubt.

15) “Affirmative Action”, June 2013:

Article makes many false claims:

* Author wrote "Muslims want quotas too, but lack political clout to force


The fact is Muslims belonging to OBC castes, like Khatri, Gujjar, Jat,

Ghanchi etc, are included in OBC quota. Muslim tribes, like 'Siddi' in

Gujarat & Karnataka, ‘Gujjar’ in Himachal Pradesh & JammuKashmir, are

included in Schedule Tribe quota. OBC & ST quota system is Secular &

includes all faiths.

* Author wrote "lowly...Hindu castes, known collectively as the

OBCs...also got quotas"

The fact is OBC quotas are Secular. They include all OBC castes

regardless of religion. Muslims, Sikhs and Christians,in India, have castes

& tribes too. More-over, Plenty of castes are found in multiple religions.

* Author wrote "Probably more repressed for the centuries in which

Hinduism’s noxious caste practice has prevailed however are the

Dalits....Shunned by other Hindus".

The fact is that noxious caste practice is Secular. It is found among all

religions of S. Asia (Tibetan Buddhist, Pakistani Muslims, Christians,

Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Sri Lankan Buddhist). Dalits were shunned by all

religions as well as ruling elites. Ruling elites for a significant section of

history were Buddhist, Muslims & British. For more on that refer to

"Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" by Hindu American Foundation.

16) “Religious festivals and violence”, August 9th, 2013:

Author wrote "In India, for example, big Hindu festivals can be a time of

fear for Muslims and Christians." but reality is quite different.

Here are few examples and facts from 'List of Massacres in India' on


* On August 24th 2008, Jalespeta Kanya Ashram, a Hindu monastery with

temple and residential girls school, was celebrating Janmashtami, a Hindu

festival celebrating the birth of Lord Krishna. Ashram was attacked by a

group of 30-40 armed attackers, mostly christians and  maoist, who

murdered five persons including 82 year old Monk, woman, and children.

On September 30th 2013, Court found 8 persons, 7 christians and 1

maoist, guilty of Jalespeta hindu monastery massacre.

* Hindu believers are prime target of terrorist. Examples, August 2000

massacre of 30 amarnath pilgrims, March 2002 attack on Raghunath

temple killing 11, November 2002 attack on Raghunath temple killing 14

devotees, September 2002 attack on Akshardham temple killing 30.

* On August 10 2013, In Kistwah, Jammu, On the occasion of Eid, Huge

Muslim crowd attacked Hindus, leaving 2 dead (1 Hindu, 1 unknown).

* On July 27 2013,In Meerut UP, During Ramadan, Muslims objected to

the playing of hymns at a hindu temple. They switched off the

loudspeaker, and beat up Hindus attending prayer. Results riots killed 2

(both Hindus).

* The fact is that 66% of religious massacres in India are Hindu


Verifiable Source:

1) Go to, type article name in search box.



Q. How I created the anti-Hinduism list?

Answer: Economist homepage has search bar on Right Hand Side.

I type word 'Hindu' and read the search result.

Q. Did I find any neutral articles providing Neutral Point of View (NPOV) on  


Answer: No. I don't recollect any article providing NPOV on Hinduism but, then

again, I did not look at every single article out there.

Q. Did I list every single anti-Hinduism article on this page ?

Answer. No. I excluded articles providing facts, constructive criticism,

and gave benefit of doubt; Moreover, Indirect anti-Hindu articles were

excluded. For example, All the articles attacking India’s center-right,

like ‘Can anyone Stop Narendra Modi’ dated Apr 5 2014, are excluded.

Alternate URL: