In the light of the Economist’s editorial on a possible Modi govt, or various articles in the French Press, such as the Nouvel Observateur, titled “The dangerous ascension of the Horrible Modi”, it would be interesting - rather than perform the usual bashing-up of the Media – to try to analyse logically, without any animosity, why is it that the western press hates Mr Narendra Modi so much.
A thorough journalist, instead of judging an event or a phenomenon only by the present moment, tries to go back to the past, and see if there are any elements that built-up to the present moment’s happenings.
All right. So accusations against Mr Modi, mostly contain one word: ‘Hindu’ - ‘Hindu’ Nationalist, ‘Hindu’ radical, 'Hindu' murderer, etc.
Why is it that the word ‘Hindu’ evokes so much hatred?
Are not the Hindus one of the most peaceful people on earth? Hindus have never invaded militarily any country in the world in their 3000 years recorded history – on the contrary their influence went ‘softly’ towards the East – witness Cambodia’s Angkor; or towards the West, where yoga has become a staple diet.
Has not every persecuted religious community found refuge in Hindu India: the Christian Syrians, the Parsis the Jews, or today the Tibetans, and were they not allowed to practice their faith in peace?