A rebuttal of Aatish Taseer’s Time magazine article on Modi the Divider – Team PGurus

Time Magazine May 20, 2019

PGURUSThe TIME magazine published Narendra Modi as India’s Divider-in-Chief by Aatish Taseer on May 20, 2019. Here is a point by point rebuttal by @WindsOfChange72.

1) Taseer asserts “The cherished achievements of independent India—secularism, liberalism, a free press—came to be seen in the eyes of many as part of a grand conspiracy in which a deracinated Hindu elite, in cahoots with minorities from the monotheistic faiths, such as Christianity and Islam, maintained its dominion over India’s Hindu majority.”

Taseer makes this assertion sound like something very bad/alarming without bothering to understand the motivations on both sides and offering any counter-view. This is a very primitive argument.

If India is truly secular then why is it that the Church owns the largest portion of non-agricultural land despite being a minuscule part of the population? Is this not an example of the establishment being in cahoots with the minorities?

4 lakh acres is the land Wakf properties account for as of 2009.

Wakf Acts: The 1954 and 1995 central laws endow huge powers with the state governments that set up and run Wakf boards in their states.

Why is it that in a “secular” India only temples are under government control and mosques and churches are free to operate whilst they amass massive land banks. @AatishTaseer Do you not see the irony in this?

@AatishTaseer, don’t the above examples already demonstrate that minorities are maintaining dominion over the majority? I have used facts to disprove your claims which dismiss this idea as a conspiracy.

2) You also claimed that “The country had a long history of politically instigated sectarian riots, most notably the killing of at least 2,733 Sikhs in the streets of Delhi after the 1984 assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards. The Congress leadership, though hardly blameless, was able, even though the selective profession of secular ideals, to separate itself from the actions of the mob.”

Firstly what happened in 1984 was a state-orchestrated Sikh genocide. These weren’t riots unless by your apologetic definition even the Holocaust was an anti-Semitic riot.

Nanavati Commission Report clearly mentions that the instructions to kill the Sikhs came directly from the PMO.

The then President and the Home Minister wanted to call in the Army but the decision was vetoed by “father of mob lynching” PM Rajiv Gandhi.

Exactly how is Congress “secular” by your definition despite 1984 is something only a bigot or an apologist could explain.

You blame Modi for not apologizing for Gujarat riots but you absolutely fail to mention that the army was called in Gujarat unlike secular 1984.

You also fail to mention that Modi had sent a letter requesting CMs of three neighbouring states to immediately send additional police forces. It is a well-known fact that police force ratio for the population is really low.

The source for the letter sent to 3 CMs can all be found here. Why was army not deployed in 1984?

Instead of apologizing for 1984, Rajiv said: “When a big tree falls, the Earth shakes.” Yet he is secular.

Andy Marino writes in his book “Modi appealed to the Chief Ministers of Gujarat’s three neighbouring States—Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan, the late Vilasrao Deshmukh in Maharashtra and Digvijay Singh in Madhya Pradesh—to send aid in the form of law enforcement and paramilitary personnel. ”The letters of the request were sent to the three Congress Chief Ministers on March 1, barely a day after the violence broke out. What was the response Marino notes, “Maharashtra eventually sent a very limited number of personnel to help, but the others flatly refused.” Why haven’t you mentioned why Congress-ruled states didn’t help stop the riots by sending additional forces?

Modi did his best to tackle the riots, why should he apologize when he wasn’t the perpetrator?

In a perfect display of your bias and selective secularism, you failed to mention why is Congress silent on its cadres linked to the Godhra carnage.

58 Hindus were burnt alive, mostly women and kids. 140 litres of petrol was stocked from before.

3) @AatishTaseer writes “in 1992 had destroyed a 16th-century mosque, said to stand at the birthplace of the Hindu epic hero Ram”

This is pure bigotry. What do you mean by “said to stand”. The Archaeological Survey of India has already given proof that the temple existed. The same ASI which also had Muslim members who also agreed that a temple existed.

Also, what do you mean by Hindu epic hero? Rām isn’t just some “epic hero”, he is the Supreme Personality of Godhead as per our Vedic texts. I dare you to say the same thing about Abrahamic faiths.

4) @AatishTaseer writes “They feel their culture and religion has been demeaned; they entertain fantasies of “Hinduphobia”.


@nytimes also had to apologize for it’s racist, Hinduphobic cartoon on Mangalyaan success.

Those who deny Hinduphobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are all bigots just like @AatishTaseer.

Based on my above facts, racist @nytimes is rightly called “New Yuck Times”.

5) According to your article “cow protection mobs have killed at least 46 people since 2015″.

In a country of 1.3 billion people, 46 people killed in a span of roughly 4 years. Is this statistically significant enough to claim that there’s majoritarian violence?

In the Godhra carnage in one day 58 Hindus were burnt alive vs 46 people who were killed due to cow-related violence in a span of four years.

I would believe that there’s a case for majoritarian violence if the data calculated based on % terms would prove that victims are mainly Muslims.

Purely on the basis of a mathematical argument, if for every 100 humans one is a bigot perpetrator of hate crime then logically speaking the hate crime perps will always be more from the majority in any country, the community at any point in time. The only case when this would be alarming is when in % terms there’s a trend of perps being from a particular community.

Your argument is absolutely specious with no logical/statistical basis.

FYI 49 Muslims died in New Zealand in the mosque attack. 49 Muslims die in one day in NZ in a hate crime vs 46 deaths in India due to cow-related violence over four years!

Also, the population of NZ is minuscule compared to that of India.

Truth is India needs better hate crime stats.

6) You also make a point lauding Nehru for his scientific temper but obviously omit to mention that he used to go to astrologers and tantriks. An astrologer had also warned Nehru of a Chinese attack coz of which Nehru flew into a rage.

Even J.B.S. Haldane, polymath biologist, who was Marxist in his ideological leanings, was disenchanted by the dominance of bureaucracy and politicians in the scientific establishment in India during Nehru’s time and criticised it.

7) You go on talking about all the controversial statements made by BJP leaders but carefully omit the statement of Owaisi who called for a genocide of Hindus in 15 mins.

You also omit the statement on Sikh genocide by Sam Pitroda “Hua to Hua.”

You also fail to mention that increase in the Haj subsidy under Modi and the laptops etc given to modernizing madrasas.

Yes absolutely, so much hatred for Muslims.

8) “Modi’s record on women’s issues is spotty.”

Really, I don’t understand why our secular government till now never banned triple talaq when even the country not known for women empowerment Saudi Arabia has banned it.

Six women in cabinet compared to four during UPA. Also, Defence and MEA are extremely critical ministries both run by women. Here in this link is a list of all schemes for women.

9) “Amit Shah, speaks of women as having the status of deities, ever the refuge of the religious chauvinist who is only too happy to revere women into silence.” So now you have a problem with the deification of women?

Do you know anything about the idea of Shiva & Shakti, Hinduphobe?

10) “What Modi cannot—or will not—do is tell India the hard truth that if she wishes to be a great power, and not a Hindu theocracy, the medieval Indian past, mired in superstition and magic, must go under.”

This proves exactly how deracinated you are who feels Indian culture = superstitions. We have a lot to be proud of.

Did you know that “A little known school of scholars in southwest India discovered one of the founding principles of modern mathematics hundreds of years before Newton“?

In 600 BCE, ancient Indian physician Sushruta performed nose surgeries and skin grafts and wrote treatises on the same.

This 2500 years ago!

Thomas Sankara said “The greatest difficulty we have faced is the neocolonial spirit that exists in this country. We were colonized by a country, France that left us with certain habits. For us, being successful in life, being happy, meant trying to live as they do in France, like the richest of French.” In a similar vein, success for imperialist elites like @AatishTaseer might be to live like the richest American/European however it will never be what success means for us India.

We worship Ram, although Ravana’s Lanka had all the material wealth and was literally built of gold. Rām signifies family values, egalitarianism. Yes, think about the incident with Kevat and Shabari, compassion, valour, noblesse obliges, spirituality (discourses with various saints) etc.

All values which vapid Western materialism can never replace. Mukesh Ambani bailed out his brother. @Ra_Bies had drawn a parallel to how Munshi Premchand’s stories illustrated these same family values.

India will have its own values, it’s own definition of success, it’s own narrative. We won’t ape the West.

The name “Bhagavan” means the one who is full of all six opulence (bhaga), i.e., fame, beauty, wealth, knowledge, strength and sixth and most importantly renunciation. Ponder that if you can.

Also, Indira may have forcibly inserted “secularism” in our Constitution but it will never be a part of Indian culture because Indian culture is pluralistic just like all Indic religions. Secular France bans the burqa and secular Italy bans Sikhs from carrying Kirpans. India respects all religions and that inherent pluralism is part of our culture.

The same West which is so “enlightened” persecuted Galileo, Socrates, etc and went on with witch trials and [Goa] Inquisition and what not.

Hindus can be atheists to like the followers of Carvaka philosophy. Hinduism never persecuted homosexuality, atheism, etc.

And our greatest texts like Srimad Bhagavatam are thousands of pages of questions and answers sessions discussing rationally and logically doctrines of theism.

Very different from Sky God books that demand believers and expect blind faith as compared to a culture which encourages curiosity—Brahma jijnasa is supposed to be the foundation of every spiritual journey.

Dualistic doctrines of Abrahamic faiths will always find it difficult to grasp the beauty of non-dualism.

Suffice to say, India will write its own destiny, not the West! PGurus, 11 May 2019

» Team PGurus are a team of focused individuals with expertise in the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.

Modi the Divider


One Response

  1. Aatish Taseer

    How Aatish Taseer is playing the victim now – Abhishek Banerjee – OpIndia – 13 May 2019

    Aatish Taseer is the man behind TIME magazine’s now-infamous headline describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Divider in Chief”. The other day I wrote a piece bitterly criticizing TIME magazine for this, the agenda, the propaganda, the half-truths and the thinly disguised Hinduphobia. I believe I did not even name Taseer in my article, keeping my criticism strictly within the realm of ideas.

    Now the internet being the internet, some people dug up the fact that Aatish Taseer’s father was a powerful Pakistani politician and tried to link his criticism of PM Modi to his parentage. Perhaps unfortunate, perhaps not.

    What I do know is this: Aatish Taseer does not seem too pleased with people talking about this.

    It is only a matter of time before the “victimhood” of Aatish Taseer becomes a full-fledged national tragedy and part of the liberal lore of “intolerance” in Modi’s India. Who knows, it may even become fodder for another article in TIME or NYT or Economist or something like that.


    It appears that the current wave of sympathy in Lutyens for Aatish Taseer is yet another attempt to establish a double standard in public life. It would appear that all forms of “ethics” exist only to protect the sentiments of the privileged liberal elite. Should you dare to associate with the party of the cultural subalterns, everything is suddenly fair game.

    Except it isn’t. Unless you are willing to speak up for the freedom of expression of those you do not like, you don’t really believe in free speech at all. Unless you are willing to take an ethical stand for the dignity of your political opponents, you don’t believe in ethics at all.

    But they wouldn’t understand. They have gone so far down the wrong path that it’s become a way of life for them.

    > For the complete article, click HERE.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: