Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Is New York Times anti-Modi?

Is New York Times anti-Modi?

Recruitment ad for India-based journalist sparks anger and support in equal measure

THE New York Times, one of the world’s most influential newspapers whose motto since 1896 has been to publish “all the news that’s fit to print”, itself made headlines last week when it was accused of being biased against India’s prime minister Narendra Modi – and being “anti-Indian” and “anti-Hindu”.


The controversy was triggered by the wording of a recruiting advertisement the paper posted for a reporter to join its bureau in India.

Others, however, defended the publication and argued there was nothing remotely contentious about the ad.

The job description read: “The New York Times is seeking an experienced, enterprising journalist to lead economic and business coverage of India, an aspiring global superpower with a rich history on the cusp of a major inflection point.

“India will soon surpass China in population, if it hasn’t already, and has ambitions of winning a greater voice on the world stage. Under Narendra Modi, its charismatic prime minister, India has moved to rival China’s economic and political heft in Asia, a drama playing out along their tense border and within national capitals across the region.

“Domestically, India is a melting pot of people and languages grappling with difficult questions of class and wealth disparity. It has a well-educated and aspiring middle class coveted by Amazon, Walmart and other major global companies. A new class of Indian business tycoon has won a rapt audience on Wall Street and London.

“Yet hundreds of millions of people are struggling for a better life for their children, and India’s once fast-growing economy is showing signs of stalling.”

The paragraph that stirred up the strong backlash from Modi supporters read: “India’s future now stands at a crossroads. Mr Modi is advocating a selfsufficient, muscular nationalism centered on the country’s Hindu majority. That vision puts him at odds with the interfaith, multicultural goals of modern India’s founders. The government’s growing efforts to police online speech and media discourse have raised difficult questions about balancing issues of security and privacy with free speech. Technology is both a help and a hindrance.”

It went on: “The position includes coverage of neighboring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and the Maldives, each with its own rich history and complicated relations with its enormous neighbor.

“We are looking for a self-starting correspondent who can explain these forces to a global audience. The position requires a strong writer with the ability to juggle breaking news, smart analysis and ambitious enterprise. We want someone eager to react quickly to news as necessary, but who is also able to write thoughtfully and deeply about important issues and events, with an empathetic ear for the people of India and the region.”

It said: “This position will be based in New Delhi. The ideal candidates will have experience developing a network of journalists, a critical foundation for covering such a broad region.

“The ideal candidate will have some of these qualities – knowledge of India, the region and its place in the world. Broad international reporting experience, preferably for a global news organization. Experience working in multiple languages. A keen eye for news and other great stories, borne of experience reporting and writing. Commitment to the New York Times’s strategy, standards and mission.”

An army of Modi supporters took to social media, more or less echoing the criticisms levelled against the newspaper by Kanchan Gupta, who describes himself as “senior adviser, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, government of India, New Delhi”.

He tweeted: “The @nytimes has dropped all pretences of impartiality with this job ad for a south Asia correspondent. They are clearly looking to hire an anti-Modi activist who can also stoke anti-India sentiments in our neighbourhood. With this, the paper qualifies as a foreignfunded NGO.”

He was backed by hundreds, including someone called Vivek Ranjan Agnihotri, who describes himself thus: “I exist because you do. Philosophy. National Award Winning Filmmaker. Bestselling Author. Free Thinker. #CreativeConsciousness #UrbanNaxals #WhoKilledShastri”

He tweeted: “A quick lesson in how to become an international journalist with @nytimes. If you are a Modi/RSS/BJP/Hindu hater, NYT is for you. Doesn’t matter if you are even a dreaded criminal.”

Referring to individual commentators and groups who are not regarded as being ardent Modi supporters, he added: “Young Rana Ayub’s, Barkha Dutts & #UrbanNaxals – pls apply.”

However, among those who defended the New York Times was India’s Quint general news and opinion website, which pointed out that “contrary to the proclamations by some Twitter users and media outlets, nowhere does NYT’s job description state that its requirement is a candidate with an ‘anti-Modi’, ‘anti-Hindu’, and ‘anti-India’ stance.”

It argued: “What the media organisation has put forward in its job description is a critical view of the political climate and the government of the day, and has sought a candidate ‘who can explain these forces to a global audience’ – as should be the job of the media in any democratic country, to hold those in power to account, providing a critical perspective.”

The author and opposition MP from the Congress party, Shashi Tharoor, agreed. He picked on the attacks mounted by pro-Modi groups: “Don’t understand Sanghi objections to @nytimes job post’s scene-setting descriptive paragraph on India. Isn’t NaMo in favour of self-sufficiency & muscular nationalism?

Doesn’t BJP stand for Hindu Rashtra? & attack the secularism of the Founders? So what exactly is the fuss about?”

The paper sets out its own forward looking responsibilities as an employer: “The New York Times is committed to a diverse and inclusive workforce, one that reflects the varied global community we serve. Our journalism and the products we build in the service of that journalism greatly benefit from a range of perspectives, which can only come from diversity of all types, across our ranks, at all levels of the organization.

“Achieving true diversity and inclusion is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing for our business. So we strongly encourage women, veterans, people with disabilities, people of color and gender nonconforming candidates to apply.

“The New York Times Company is an Equal Opportunity Employer and does not discriminate on the basis of an individual’s sex, age, race, color, creed, national origin, alienage, religion, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation or affectional preference, gender identity and expression, disability, genetic trait or predisposition, carrier status, citizenship, veteran or military status and other personal characteristics protected by law. All applications will receive consideration for employment without regard to legally protected characteristics.

“The New York Times Company will consider qualified applicants, including those with criminal histories, in a manner consistent with requirements of applicable state and local ‘Fair Chance’ laws.”

More For You

Will government inaction on science, trade & innovation cost the UK its economic future?

The life sciences and science tech sectors more widely continue to see out migration of companies

iStock

Will government inaction on science, trade & innovation cost the UK its economic future?

Dr Nik Kotecha OBE

As the government wrestles with market backlash and deep business concern from early economic decisions, the layers of economic complexity are building.

The Independent reported earlier in January on the government watchdog’s own assessment of the cost of Brexit - something which is still being fully weighed up, but their estimates show that “the economy will take a 15 per cent hit to trade in the long term”. Bloomberg Economics valued the impact to date (in 2023) at £100bn in lost output each year - values and impact which must be read alongside the now over-reported and repetitively stated “black hole” in government finances, being used to rationalise decisions which are already proving damaging.

Keep ReadingShow less
Deep love for laughter

Pooja K

Deep love for laughter

Pooja K

MY JOURNEY with comedy has been deeply intertwined with personal growth, grief, and selfdiscovery. It stems from learning acceptance and gradually rebuilding the self-confidence I had completely lost over the last few years.

After the sudden and tragic loss of my father to Covid, I was overwhelmed with grief and depression. I had just finished recording a video for my YouTube channel when I received the devastating news. That video was part of a comedy series about how people were coping with lockdown in different ways.

Keep ReadingShow less
UK riots

Last summer’s riots demonstrated how misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric, ignited by a tiny minority of extremists, can lead to violence on our streets

Getty Images

‘Events in 2024 have shown that social cohesion cannot be an afterthought’

THE past year was marked by significant global events, and the death and devastation in Ukraine, the Middle East and Sudan – with diplomatic efforts failing to achieve peace – have tested our values.

The involvement of major powers in proxy wars and rising social and economic inequalities have deepened divisions and prolonged suffering, with many losing belief in humanity. The rapid social and political shifts – home and abroad – will continue to challenge our values and resilience in 2025 and beyond.

Keep ReadingShow less
Values, inner apartheid, and diet

The author at Mandela-Gandhi Exhibition, Constitution Hill, Johannesburg, South Africa (December 2024)

Values, inner apartheid, and diet

Dr. Prabodh Mistry

In the UK, local governments have declared a Climate Emergency, but I struggle to see any tangible changes made to address it. Our daily routines remain unchanged, with roads and shops as crowded as ever, and life carrying on as normal with running water and continuous power in our homes. All comforts remain at our fingertips, and more are continually added. If anything, the increasing abundance of comfort is dulling our lives by disconnecting us from nature and meaningful living.

I have just spent a month in South Africa, visiting places where Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela lived, including the jails. They both fought against the Apartheid laws imposed by the white ruling community. However, no oppressor ever grants freedom to the oppressed unless the latter rises to challenge the status quo. This was true in South Africa, just as it was in India. Mahatma Gandhi united the people of India to resist British rule for many years, but it was the threat posed by the Indian army, returning from the Second World War and inspired by the leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose, that ultimately won independence. In South Africa, the threat of violence led by Nelson Mandela officially ended Apartheid in April 1994, when Mandela was sworn in as the country’s first Black president.

Keep ReadingShow less
Singh and Carter were empathic
leaders as well as great humanists’

File photograph of former US president Jimmy Carter with Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi, on October 27, 2006

Singh and Carter were empathic leaders as well as great humanists’

Dinesh Sharma

THE world lost two remarkable leaders last month – the 13th prime minister of India, Dr Manmohan Singh, (September 26, 1932-December 26, 2024).and the 39th president of the US, Jimmy Carter (October 1, 1924-December 29, 2024).

We are all mourning their loss in our hearts and minds. Certainly, those of us who still see the world through John Lennon’s rose-coloured glasses will know this marks the end of an era in global politics. Imagine all the people; /Livin’ life in peace; /You may say I’m a dreamer; / But I’m not the only one; /I hope someday you’ll join us;/ And the world will be as one (Imagine, John Lennon, 1971) Both Singh and Carter were authentic leaders and great humanists. While Carter was left of Singh in policy, they were both liberals – Singh was a centrist technocrat with policies that uplifted the poor. They were good and decent human beings, because they upheld a view of human nature that is essentially good, civil, and always thinking of others even in the middle of bitter political rivalries, qualities we need in leaders today as our world seems increasingly fractious, self-absorbed and devolving. Experts claim authentic leadership is driven by:

Keep ReadingShow less