Skip to main content

Modi's governance behind "lynch-mob mentality", says NYT, warns democracy, economic reforms are at risk

Modi with Rajnath Singh
By A Representative
Influential US daily “The New York Times” (NYT) has blamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and his governance for what it has called “lynch-mob mentality”, which erupted in Delhi following the arrest of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student leader Kanhaiya Kumar on February 12 on charges of sedition.
NYT notes editorially, things have reached such a point that “India is in the throes of a violent clash between advocates of freedom of speech and the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and its political allies on the Hindu right determined to silence dissent.”
Particularly disapproving Union home minister Rajnath Singh’s statement on the day after Kumar’s arrest, Home Minister Rajnath Singh – that “if anyone raises anti-India slogans and tries to raise question on the nation’s unity and integrity, they will not be spared” – the daily demands, the sedition charge against Kumar should be immediately dropped.
NYT insists, “India’s Supreme Court has limited the definition of India’s colonial-era crime of sedition to speech that is ‘incitement to imminent lawless action”, adding, “Singh apparently does not realize that, in a democracy, voicing dissent is a vital right, not a crime.”
Asking Modi to immediately “rein in his ministers and his party, and defuse the current crisis, or risk sabotaging both economic progress and India’s democracy,” NYT approvingly quotes Pratap Bhanu Mehta, well-known policy expert, who said that members of Modi’s government “have threatened democracy”, which is “the most anti-national of all acts.”
The editorial, titled "India’s Crackdown on Dissent" (February 22), approved by NYT's powerful editorial board, says, “This confrontation raises serious concerns about Modi’s governance and may further stall any progress in Parliament on economic reforms.”
Giving a short summary of the current crisis, NYT says, it “began with the arrest of Kanhaiya Kumar... by the Delhi police on charges of sedition”, adding, “Kumar’s arrest followed an on-campus rally on February 9 that marked the anniversary of the 2013 hanging of Muhammad Afzal.”
Even as pointing out that Afzal was “convicted of participating in the 2001 terrorist attack by an Islamist group based in Pakistan on India’s Parliament”, the daily does not fail to underline, “The circumstances of Muhammad Afzal’s trial and execution remain controversial.”
The daily blames BJP’s student wing, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), and the “new university leadership appointed by Modi’s government for being “involved in calling the police on campus and singling out Kumar”.
It points to how the court in Delhi, where Kumar’s hearing took place last week was a scene of chaos, as lawyers and BJP supporters chanting “glory to Mother India” and “traitors leave India” assaulted journalists and students.”
“The police refused to intervene”, NYT says, adding, “A BJP member of India’s legislative assembly, Om Prakash Sharma, who was recorded on camera severely beating a student, said later, “There is nothing wrong in beating up or even killing someone shouting slogans in favor of Pakistan,” as some students were accused of doing.”
“Meanwhile”, it says, “Hundreds of journalists marched last week in protest from the Press Club of India to the Supreme Court in New Delhi. Thousands of students and faculty at universities across India have turned out to protest in recent days.”
Praising them, the daily says, “These Indian citizens are right to voice their outrage at government threats to the exercise of their democratic rights.”

Comments

TRENDING

Sardar made up his mind on Pakistan in Dec 1946 "before" Mountbatten's Partition Plan

By Hari Desai* One has to be extra cautious while dealing with the history of towering personalities of the Indian freedom struggle, especially that of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (October 31, 1875 - December 15, 1950). Present-day politicians prefer to "pronounce” on his life and quote him according to their convenience like a blind person describing an elephant.

The Guardian controversy and the moral question of 12 years of Modi's leadership

By Mohd Ziyauallah Khan    A recent opinion article published in The Guardian , titled "Can Narendra Modi Accept Any Medal?", reignited a fierce debate about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's international recognition and the moral legacy of his leadership. The article argued that while Modi has received numerous state honours and awards from foreign governments, a more fundamental question remains unanswered: Can a leader be celebrated internationally while presiding over growing concerns about democratic decline, social polarization , and civil liberties at home? The controversy quickly spread across political and media circles. Supporters dismissed the article as biased, while critics argued that it reflected concerns already expressed by international democracy watchdogs , human rights organizations, and sections of the global press. Yet beyond political loyalties lies a deeper question: How should the success of a government be measured, especially when it...

Beyond the Ayodhya theft: A tainted system, a crisis of trust

By Martin Macwan*   Recently, the issue of "theft of offerings at the Ayodhya Ram temple" has taken centre stage on social media. Whether "no theft occurred," or "this is the first such incident," or "the theft was limited only to cash" are now secondary questions, because the evidence has come not from the opposition, from people of other faiths, or from foreigners, but from ordinary devout believers, from saints and monks, and from sincere workers of the ruling party itself.