The Economist

Western Media: Modi’s new India has learnt to ignore the barking dogs

(This is a reprint from NewsBred).

Who’s afraid of Western media? Certainly not Modi’s India. The telltale signs of recent times convey a stunning departure from India of old when every censure from a New York Times or British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) sent a chill down the government corridors of New Delhi.

Now an extremely well-networked Western journalist Aatish Taseer, who writes for Time, Sunday Times, Sunday Telegraph, has his OCI (Overseas Citizenship of India) card revoked by New Delhi for concealing his parentage and despite a personal written appeal by 260 celebrated men of letters, including Salman Rushdie, to the Indian prime minister, it hasn’t elicited a word in response from Narendra Modi.

It’s nearing four months since the political heavyweights of Jammu and Kashmir were put under house arrest by the Modi government after it abrogated the “special status” of state of Jammu and Kashmir and broke it into three separate territories. Despite the din and orchestrated campaign in Western media, the Modi government hasn’t bothered to put a timeline on their release.

In the altered reality of our times, the gravity of the world has shifted to Asia where India along with China, and Russia, have popular leaders in control of the destiny of their countries. Nationalism is at the heart of their policy which by its very definition runs counter to the liberal narrative of the Western media.

Western media isn’t just about the United States or the United Kingdom—it by and large represents most West European countries and comes in a language-bouquet of English, French, German, Spanish, Italian etc. Western media is the foot soldiers of West in winning the public perception in latter’s favour. It has a veneer of independence but actually is an extension of the liberal establishment which acquired hegemony after World War II.  West detests any assertion of sovereignty and nationalism and so does its media. Brexit is a case in point.

The evidence too is hard to ignore. The Economist openly urged Indian voters to vote for Congress and not Modi’s BJP in both 2014 and 2019 elections. Yet voters overwhelmingly voted for BJP. The Guardian bemoaned Modi’s win as “India’s soul lost to a dark politics.” The New York Times found India to be suffering from Modi’s “raw wisdom.”  Washington Post believed Modi won because “India had no credible alternative.” All through, the Western media narrative has been the demonization of Modi, on the “divisive” politics of beef and “lynchings” of Muslims. Yet it made little dent to Modi’s popularity.

Modi’s India thus sees no benefit in trying to cultivate a network which is fundamentally in conflict with their sovereignty. It relies on its strong domestic base which won them a second successive term with full majority this summer. As an economy which could be third largest in coming years, it knows it’s attractive to the world’s largest corporations and business. It received its largest Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) ever this financial year. India now ranks very high in the Ease of Doing Business rankings too. It’s also aware that millions of Hindus, quite a few well-heeled and a force in Western capitals of New York and London, are quick to pick up the cudgels against orchestrated campaigns.

India appears to have hedged its bets well. The two strongest cards West and its’ media plays are “human rights” and “democracy.” West uses these two weapons to wreak havoc in countries as diverse as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan are from Bolivia, Chile and Cuba. Sometimes there are direct military interventions overriding international laws; on other occasions, there are suffocating economic sanctions; at other times it’s stage-managed internal eruptions as have been witnessed in Ukraine, the Middle East and now Hong Kong.

India bets against such a scenario because it’s not only economically attractive to the West but also  Donald Trump’s United States hopes to ride on its shoulders for its’ Act Asia policy.  Internal eruptions are a powerful tool which the United States has perfected over the years. But India is assured it won’t happen to them in the near future, at least till the 2020 US presidential elections are over, a year from now. Without an active US intervention, New Delhi’s streets won’t be filled with demonstrators as it’s happening in Hong Kong or Bolivia. Modi knows well within he could ignore the barking dogs.

 

How Lutyens’ Medi shielded Rahul Gandhi on his lies

You must have read in English mainstream media on Thursday morning that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in Parliament called out Congress President Rahul Gandhi for “speaking five lies in a day.” But I bet you wouldn’t have read the instances Jaitley cited in support. Be it your Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu or The Times of India—all the Lutyens’ Media have edited out the “instances”.

It’s not the first time—the Lutyens’ Media never nails down Rahul Gandhi on his lies. Mr Gandhi knows he can lie with impunity and the English MSM would gush and swoon. There was never a word against his mother Sonia Gandhi for over two decades. NOT ONE WORD. There is none against Rahul Gandhi in the last five years. You can watch this video of Jaitley’s speech of Wednesday and judge for yourself how your newspaper cheats you every single day. And firewalls Rahul Gandhi as if it’s lives depended on it.

Maybe it does depend after all.

I bet you haven’t read what Jaitley said about Rahul Gandhi’s lies on offset partners and the supposed favour to Anil Ambani’s Reliance. “They keep citing Rs. 1.30 lakh crores (the amount of favour). Now it was UPA which decided in 2005 that offset partners in India must get 30-50 percent of total work. Since the total deal is Rs 58,000 crores, it would amount to Rs. 29,000 crores. Dassault has said the business (to Reliance) comes to only 3-4 percent, or only around Rs 800 crores over 10 years. How the figure of Rs 1.30 lakh is cited when the entire deal is only Rs 58,000 crores?” Did you find it in your newspaper?

Jaitley then tore into Rahul Gandhi for somehow linking PM Modi to Rafale deal. “(He said) The procedure was wrong. No negotiating committee, no defence acquisition council, no cabinet committee on security—just one man (Mr Modi). But the panels (put together) had 74 meetings…the details of which were submitted to the Supreme Court. SC said it was satisfied with the process.” Did you find it in your newspaper?

Jaitley then shed light on why Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was not chosen as an offset partner. “UPA itself had refused the contract to HAL.” HAL quoted “2.7 higher man-hours”required for the job—so not only price would’ve escalated but Pakistan and China would’ve gone stronger too.” Did you find it in your newspaper?

“The press statement which was issued (after the deal) said it was an inter-governmental agreement. That it would be cheaper than the price which UPA had negotiated.” Did you find it in your newspaper?

Jaitley then chided Congress leader Shashi Tharoor over Rafale pricing and said at least the latter was expected to have read the Supreme Court judgment. “SC asked for price, we gave them the sealed envelope, they opened it and then SC gave the judgment that it was satisfied with the judicial review of the pricing.”

Jaitley mentioned that UPA contract provided for 11 years for the delivery of first batch of Rafale jets. “And they are asking us why no jet has been delivered in 2018 when the contract was signed in 2016.”

Jaitley dismissed the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) probe outright. “JPC is on matters of policy” and not on “investigations.” Besides, Jaitley said the JPC is on “partisan party lines.” He cited the instance of Bofors where a hand-picked JPC had termed the bribes given not as “kickback” but as “winding up charges.”

Jaitley struck hard at lies which the Congress president and his party have spread over the years. “He (Rahul Gandhi) said the French president (Macron) had himself said (about Reliance as offset partner) to him. The French government later denied it.” He also cited the case of forging of papers by Congress to show (former PM) VP Singh’s son had a foreign bank account at St. Kitts. Yes readers, you must’ve missed this bit too.

Jaitley took a broadside against the Congress and its leaders. “The Economist” wrote about a “prime minster who is in office but not in power” on Manmohan Singh. “This man (Rahul Gandhi) lies repeatedly. He lies five times a day.”

So disgraceful were Congress during the Parliament session that speaker Sumitra Mahajan spat out in disgust: “If you don’t want to listen, you shouldn’t have asked for it.”

Yes, Rahul Gandhi had asked for it. But you wouldn’t have known thanks to the cover-up which English MSM does as a matter of editorial policy.