ensures

Foreword

Did not want to share the link of The Economist Piece here – “No traffic contribution by me” Policy

Firstly, the world’s largest Democracy and its process need no backing of any one except Indian Voters, leave alone a Foreign rag which goes by the name “The Economist” For all we know this rag’s footprint across the world cannot beat the number of Voters participating in this mammoth Exercise. Thanks, but no Thanks for your offer, The Economics. India and Indians can do well without your backing and no one is dying for it.

Wonder of wonders! Even a foreign rag needs to rant on the BJP Prime Ministerial Candidate Sri Narendra Modi to increase its eyeball count is obvious from its attention seeking piece. (or definitely it needs some Indian’s money, if it was sponsored hit job). So who needs backing!!!

Since they chose to be economical with the truth, here is Sri Dinesh Ghodke, Director Outreach, Sri Sri University, Odisha – (Founded by His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of the Art of Living Foundation) helping miserly Economist with some home truths. They also got to realize, Gone are the days when what is spoken or written by the Main Stream Media was the Gospel Truth. Supposedly watchdog of democracy almost always has become a faithful dog of the Government and unforgiving Social Media has emerged as the alternate media, ripping their lies apart.

A dose of Truth for The Economist

A little study of the article shows the following intentions of the writer, and thus the Economist.

It starts with deploring the Congress corruption, (just to appear unbiased) thereafter going on an unbridled rant on Modi. (so that future negative feedback is countered with, ‘but we have spoken against Congress also).

Mr Modi had helped organise a march on the holy site at Ayodhya leading to death of 2000 in Hindu-Muslim clashes is like saying The Economist let India’s Economic revolution in 1991 leading to millions of lives being benefitted. Cunning Economist, if you existed then, you were a tiny insignificant inconsequential negligible irrelevant part of the revolution.

The reason begins with a Hindu rampage against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, in which at least 1,000 people were slaughtered.

How cleverly misleading without it being a lie! If you ask a student preparing English comprehension for CAT to read the article and tell how many muslims died in Gujarat 2002, the answer will be ‘at least 1000’. The truth :  Statement made in Rajya Sabha by Congress Minister of State for Home Affairs on 10th May 2005 : 790 muslims and 254 Hindus . Just for the above statement, the Economist should be condemned for Journalistic terrorism, Nothing less.

The orgy of murder and rape in Ahmedabad and the surrounding towns and villages was revenge for the killing of 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train by Muslims.

Again, this suggests in no uncertain terms that only Hindus carried out orgy of murder of rape. Also what is conveniently missed is the fact that the gruesome burning of 59 Hindu men, women and innocent children was started by Haji Bilal, the Congress president of Godhra, which triggered a reaction from the Hindus, which in turn was countered by murder and rape by the Muslims too. Links for the same

1. End of Hope (Para 15: specially)
   
2. Shoot orders in many Gujarat towns, toll over 200 
3. Rioters torch 50 shops at Revdi Bazaar 
   
4. 9 convicted in post-Godhra riot case
5. Post-Godhra riots: DNA test nails 4 killers

 

One reason why the inquiries into the riots were inconclusive is that a great deal of evidence was lost or willfully destroyed.

Many Muslims and Hindus have been convicted and incarcerated (including a BJP minister). But if Modi is given clean chit by a SIT (a team of specially selected experts by India’s Supreme Court), then the mal-intentioned Economist counters it with ‘evidence was lost of willfully destroyed’.

Laughable code of journalistic ethics! What about the evidence that was not destroyed, so diligently brought forth by Teesta Setalvad. Every single one of the 13 evidences of murder and orgy by Hindus, the Courts found to be carefully concocted by her and her NGO. (before which, she was duly given the Padma Bhushan by Congress GOI, to lend credence to her claims). Occassional evidences coming from Pradeep Sharma and Vanzara (given huge publicity by the anti-Modi media) have found to be eventually fabricated and false.

Some references on sources of The Economist’s truth

1. Court snubs Teesta Setalvad for interfering in proceedings 
   
2. Activist Teesta Setalvad plans High Court move to evade arrest after claims she misused riot relief funds
3. D G Vanzara goes coy on exposing ‘real culprits’ behind fake encounters (Reasons not far to seek. Goes coy because no one to expose)
4. Even CBI felts Vanzara would tamper: CBI is Central Government Controlled “Independent” 😉 agency
5. Pradeep Sharma shown the door by court 

Just because Modi is proudly Hindu and he doesn’t play the communal, divisive or appeasement politics of the Congress, doesn’t make him anti-Muslim. This is in no uncertain terms amounts to saying Hinduism is anti-Muslim. (If at all, Islam can be said to be anti-other-religions because only a Muslim can go to Jannat, every one else is a Kafir). The mis-informed Economist should be publicly condemned for denigrating the oldest and most inclusive and pluralistic civilization of the planet, with its basis in Hinduism or more appropriately Sanatana Dharma. The Economist is well advised to read this piece: “Man and myth collide as Modi eyes final ascent to power“  Clearly Communalism of Modi who never used the word “Hindu” – as per Outlook study of 68 speeches and used word “Development” >500 times doesn’t match up to The Economist’s standards of Sickularism.

 

He could put the pogroms behind him by explaining what happened and apologising. Yet he refuses to answer questions about them.

Has the ignorant Economist heard of Google or the World Wide Web. Or the SIT (Special Investigation Team) who grilled Modi not once or twice but 5 times. Everything has been explained, if only you care to listen or want to know! About apologizing, was George Bush asked to apologize for attacking 2 countries under false pretexts, killing millions of people? Besides why should Modi apologize for doing his best to contain the violence.  Would the founder of the Economist apologize for doing his best for starting the Economist. (actually this is a wrong analogy. I think he should, after reading the above article).

Just for the records, though he need not have apologized for having done his best:

1. Myth: Narendra Modi never expressed sadness for the post-Godhra riots
2. CM Narendra Modi’s appeal Telecast on Doordarshan on 28th February 2002 
3. 140 killed as Gujarat bandh turns violent  (Where is Modi Blamed during those days? The blame game started at a later date when he became a super-performer)

Mr Modi has refused to wear a Muslim skullcap…

The childish Economist fails to grasp that difference between personal preference and respect and work he has done for the Muslim community. Since 2002, no riots have happened and the Muslim community feels safe and cared for in Gujarat. A chance visit to Gujarat (with an open mind, mind you), could clear the muddled Economist’s misconceptions. The Economist must have missed what real Muslim living in Gujarat has written on this topic:  Debunking the ‘facts’ on Narendra Modi and Muslims Of course there are bigger issues like Muslims refusing to sing our national song ‘Vande Mataram’. But well, I have never read about that in the Economist.

Earlier on in the article, the Economist mentions, In 2002 Mr Modi was chief minister and he was accused of allowing or even abetting the pogrom.

Credit where credit is due. This is true. Actually, this was true, in the past! Cut to current affairs (which is where I feel the prejudiced Economist got embroiled in history and failed to come to the present), Modi has been exonerated by the highest court in the country. And moreover on the day The Economist published those lies, Supreme Court of India Praises progress made by SIT

And even now, raking up the issue on the pretext of ‘evidence lost or destroyed’ could easily be held as contempt of court. Any lawyers would like to take that up?! 

The rest of the article just stretches the above mentioned nonsense babble. I must confess I am increasingly getting embarrassed to even acknowledge that I am an occasional reader of the Economist.

Resting the Matter!!!

You can reach Sri Dinesh Ghodke

on Twitter here and on Facebook here

And Bawa and Dinesh blog on “Sounds Interesting“