India for the World

T here is to be no respite from India-bashing by some foreign publications, not even during a pandemic. As an energetic and fully paid-up critic of India, I bow to no one in my capacity for faulting India, but the relentlessly negative coverage that spews forth from publications such as The New York Times and others reeks of a hostility that is hard to fathom.

The irritation does not arise from patriotism. Nor any liking for the current regime.  Rather, it’s fatigue with the same jingle being played on a loop. All governments must have their feet put to the fire regularly but do it fairly and use the same yardstick for India that you would use for other countries.

On the relatively low coronavirus casualty figures so far, Shekhar Gupta in his excellent piece in this paper last week wrote: “We aren’t dying in droves as some predicted, but can you handle this truth?” He went on: “That good news, or absence of expected bad news, is the truth that so many….seem unable to handle.”

On that note, what is one expected to make of the latest example from The New York Times? The lockdown has been moderately successful and that’s not an easy feat in a country of 1.3 billion people. It has been marred by tragedies such as the exodus of migrant labourers and far too much hunger and hardship. But, for once, many Indians normally prone to anarchy, impatience, and selfishness, have obeyed the rules.

Yet even this — and this takes some talent — is twisted by The New York Times into a negative.  “Powered by Fear, Indians Embrace Coronavirus Lockdown”, was the headline on April 19.  Why “fear”? Where in the world is a lockdown powered by anything other than fear?  “India has pursued its coronavirus lockdown — the world’s largest — with remarkable zeal”. Now, zeal is not a good word. It is always used negatively in the context of extremism. If Indians had disobeyed the lockdown, they would have been mocked. If they obey it, they are “zealous” with the clear implication of some strange flaw at work.    

Then this sweeping statement: “Volunteer virus patrol squads are popping up everywhere, casting an extra net of vigilance over the entire country.”  Reading this, you would be forgiven for thinking vigilante mobs imposing their own arbitrary rules were terrorising the populace.

Generally, journalists try to refrain from treating a couple of isolated incidents as indicative of a wider trend. But BBC World carried a coronavirus story on India showing two anonymous doctors saying some patients in their hospital had died of respiratory illnesses and had not been tested. This, they feared, masked the true scale of the epidemic.

Fair enough. You can rarely trust anything coming from the government. But what is the rationale for choosing to highlight these two doctors rather than doctors who would have said the opposite? Are their credentials weightier? If not, their remarks are purely anecdotal, just as those of doctors saying the opposite might be anecdotal too. The reason is that when you work to pre-conceived ideas, you find material that fits your slant.

The Guardian also runs opinion pieces that routinely trash India, mostly written by Indian liberals of the self-hating persuasion who seem to delight in pandering to western stereotypes.

What is striking is the different tone reserved for stories in other countries. It tends to be matter of fact without any suggestion of inferior, backward behaviour at play.  For example, one headline in The Guardian recently was “Domestic abuse killings 'more than double' amid Covid-19 lockdown”. Note that it was not “What is wrong with the British men’s mentality that domestic violence continues even in lockdown?”

Observe, if you will, the lack of essentialisation. There is no ascribing certain kinds of behaviour to a national character trait. Not a word exploring why the misogyny of British men continues apace even during a pandemic. And this is as it should be. Domestic violence, like rape, sadly, is a universal problem not peculiar to any nationality.

But after the 2012 gang rape and since, even though India’s per capita rape figures are lower than those of Europe, rape was written about as intrinsic to the Indian male and Indian culture. 

Back to The New York Times. “Mr Modi has tried to cultivate a sense of fraternity under the lockdown. Recently he asked all Indians to stand in their doorways at a certain time and clap and make noise. Likewise for a nationwide candle-lighting ceremony. In both instances, millions obeyed.” Sound sinister doesn’t it? Millions obeyed. In both instances. Yet when Italians obey the appeal to come out onto their balconies to sing arias, oh how charming!

Another staggering generalisation: “Lower castes are being shunned more than usual. The term ‘social distancing’ plays straight into centuries of ostracism of certain groups who until recent times were called ‘untouchable’.” All publications like The New York Times have to do is this: Criticise India without restraint. Criticise ferociously. Only stop essentialising and using a tone implying Indian inferiority, avoid too many sweeping generalisations, provide some balance, and, once in a while, leaven the criticism with a counterpoint to provide variety. Is that too much to ask for?