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, hardly any space is allocated to hindu opinion, and sometimes non-hindu opinion is passed off as hindu opinion. Much worse, baseless allegations are repeated even after they are proven wrong beyond reasonable doubt.
Examples 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 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. Did Economist actually ask the pilgrims?
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; However, nothing can be further from truth. Amarnath pilgrims were massacred on several occasions. For instance, on August 2nd 2000, 34 pilgrims were murdered by terrorist who attacked makeshift pilgrim tents.
5) “The Hindu rate of self-deprecation”, April 2011:
The title itself is unjustly anti-hindu. Both,red tape and corruption, are legacy of Nehruvian Socialism and has nothing to do with Hinduism but Economist does not blame Nehruvian license, quota, permit raj. Instead, it cleverly abuses 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” falsely claims that “there is no archaeological evidence to support either belief”; However, nothing can be further from truth. 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 others).(*)
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 Gujarat.
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 standard.
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 them".
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 wikipedia:
* 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 massacres.
1) Go to http://www.economist.com, type article name in search box.
Q. How I recreated 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 favorable articles praising Hinduism?
Answer: No. I don't recollect any article praising 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 did not include articles providing facts, constructive criticism, and gave generous benefit of doubt.