What's new

Scathing British Media Calls Narendra Modi 'Former Persona Non Grata', 'Ex-Pariah'

No, this thread proves that I call BS as BS wherever I see it, esp on a forum where I come to pass some free time.

You are just a person with no facts, who has not heard any of the evidence present, have not been on any side of the conflict, whereas the SC of India has and therefore is in a better place to judge who is guilty and who is not.

I know you will never agree, but then again there are many who think as you said emotionally and have perceptions rather than facts.
This entire argument IS about perceptions, I'm not arguing about if Modi is guilty or not. Get off your high horse, and stop pretending you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

The very fact that you and I disagree proves that perception differs from person to person. Western nations perceived him to be a criminal, whether or not he is a criminal is completely irrelevant; Factual evidence, in this case, is completely irrelevant.

You can say whatever you want about me, but the FACT remains is that you're completely and utterly missing the point.
 
.
This entire argument IS about perceptions, I'm not arguing about if Modi is guilty or not. Get off your high horse, and stop pretending you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't.

The very fact that you and I disagree proves that perception differs from person to person. Western nations perceived him to be a criminal, whether or not he is a criminal is completely irrelevant; Factual evidence, in this case, is completely irrelevant.

You can say whatever you want about me, but the FACT remains is that you're completely and utterly missing the point.
Shifting goal posts now are we? You said and I quote

To myself and many others, Modi is guilty. To you and the SCI, he's innocent.

Source: Scathing British Media Calls Narendra Modi 'Former Persona Non Grata', 'Ex-Pariah'
You need to get your narrative straight, you and I can have perceptions but SC does not judge on perceptions.

You can think he is guilty, that is your wish but when you say someone is guilty what you are doing is BSing. Most Indians do not care what the Guardian says or what their perceptions is, he got a good reception in GB by Indians and that's what matters to Indians in GB and back home.

And keep repeating "Western nations perceived him to be a criminal", Nations act according to how their actions will buy them diplomatic currency or how they benefit strategically, they don't care about people dying in a far off land.
 
.
So, we have Supreme Court of India which exonerated him based on EVIDENCES (or lack thereof) while a news-paper calls him former pariah based on PERCEPTIONS?

Since when are perceptions the measure of somebody's culpability?

What people don't realize (or pretend that they don't) is that Congress, which formed the government almost immediately in the aftermath of 2002 and stayed in power for 10 FULL years during which they literally owned all the central intelligence/investigating agencies like IB and CBI. Congress had the motivation, intent and capability to indict Modi even if they had a shred of evidence. But in the end, they couldn't even stop the Supreme court from clearing Modi's name!

How are foreign newspapers or 'Pakistani Analysts' more qualified to judge Modi than the Supreme Court of India?

Old one but here is what their own Member of Parliament says what's wrong with people relying on "perceptions" rather than the Supreme Court Judgement!

Paid Media Get Slapped by British MP Barry Gardiner over Narendra Modi being invited to UK

Perhaps he himself has got the wrong kind of 'perception'?

Ridiculous!
 
.
The louder the foreign media criticize modi (especially UK) the Bigger Hero Modi becomes in India :lol:

This has been true since before 1947 :disagree:
Agreed, so was indira gandhi. Haters gonna hate, they cannot stomach the fact that india no longer cares to give a hoot about them. Putin expressed it directly (no valid source) about brittain's status (Russia mocks Britain, the little island - Telegraph

Does putin care about british/usa/french in syria ? nope . Strong leaders are always despised by western countries as they cannot be manipulated.

You can call it BS all you want, but Modi WAS considered a pariah before his elections. The only reason why Modi isn't being treated like the US and UK treat Hamas, is because India has money. Like the article says, the relation between the west and India is more important than one man. If congress had won, Modi would still be considered a criminal by western nations.
Pakistan is the epicenter of world terrorism. Why does the US still call them ally ? for the very same reason.

To myself and many others, Modi is guilty. To you and the SCI, he's innocent.
Modi is our democratically elected PM, there are institutions in our country that ensures fairness & equality even though it takes time. Even powerful indira gandhi was shown the door when she abused power.

Who cares what you think or your country thinks? Neither you nor your country are qualified to pass judgement on others.
You can still go ahead think and pass judgement that pakistan is jannat but certainly that is not going to change anything on the ground. My advice/opinion (just like your poor judgement) stop thinking its not making any thing better. :partay:
 
.
This attack has NOTHING do do with Modi.

British Left hates Modi: Why Guardian attacked him

I wept watching Prime Minister Narendra Modi's address to the British parliament. I found his desi accent difficult to follow, but cried nonetheless. In fact, I wept because of it, raising as it did so many personal issues for me. Watching him, I remembered how my mother - a village girl who left Punjab to wash dishes in London - was treated with disdain and condescension for her poorly spoken English, both by the British and bourgeois Indians who are, to this day, quick to assert social superiority at any instance.

Hearing Modi address parliament, Cameron et al paying painstaking attention to his every mispronounced word, spoken in an accent thick enough to cut with a chainsaw, was to sense a personal journey come full circle.

Equally interesting was to see how Britain's media responded to him, to witness how this low-born Leviathan, who speaks English in the manner of curry-house waiter, dredged up various British neuroses - of race, class and nostalgia. Modi proved to be a litmus test of many British anxieties.

The left-wing press predictably abhorred his visit. The Guardian had a nervous breakdown, publishing a series of scathing articles attacking India for its religious intolerance, caste discrimination and oppression of women. Fair enough: all of these problems are unresolved in Indian society and demand reporting. What was telling, however, was that the visit of China's unelected one-party tyrant - sorry, I mean 'president' - two weeks earlier hadn't triggered a similar slew of criticism about that country's myriad human-rights abuses.

That welcome was reserved for Narendra Modi, who received a bigger democratically decided mandate than any other politician in human history. Indeed, why is it that now, when Indians are more prosperous, open, longer-lived and democratically engaged than ever, the British Left has taken to heaping criticism on India as never before - a contempt pointedly expressed by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party leader, who couldn't stand to be in parliament when Modi gave his historic speech?

It is, of course, not out of any solidarity with India's poor and suffering millions on whose destinies the British Left has zero influence, people who've never heard of The Guardian or Jeremy Corbyn, and for whomThe Guardian could easily have provided a Hindi-language edition long ago if it were genuinely concerned with empowering them. The neurotic hysteria of Britain's leading left-wing newspaper this past week has a more local and nastier motive.

The sad truth is that Indians came to Britain and, through much struggle and sacrifice, made a great success of themselves: the British Left - and its trust-funded propagandists at The Guardian - will never forgive them for that. Indian success in Britain, undermining as it does the Left's demented ideologies of race and class, is simply unbearable. Those labels were never going to fit Indians, who don't define themselves within such simplistic limiting boundaries, but for the British Left, to succeed in the face of racism and poverty as most Indians here did, is to commit a crime that cannot be punished enough.

If Indians in Britain were to riot, lower their academic performance or blow themselves up more, The Guardian's coverage of India would surely be more positive. Of course, they can't focus their ire on British-Indians themselves - the racism would be too obvious - so the motherland is scorned instead. The British Left has a similar relationship with British Jews, another self-made and conspicuously successful minority. The Left's hatred for them reveals itself as an obsessive contempt for Israel - or 'Zionism' as the lefties term it.

Neither the travails of the Indian masses, nor the politics of Israel and its neighbours, are of the slightest interest to the British working-class - the constituency Britain's Left supposedly exists to serve - but they occupy an inordinate amount of space in this country's left-wing psyche. This deeply prejudiced viewpoint is rooted in its neurotic fixation with class and the toxic resentment that stems from that.

A class-based perspective can only see life through the prism of a zero-sum game, an oppressor-victim dynamic. When anyone, particularly those of humble origins - like immigrants from India, for example - achieves success in Britain, the Left can only suspect it took place at someone else's expense. And hence the stewing resentment that finds expression by shovelling scorn on India.

Britain's India-loathing Left has its Indian soulmates, to be sure. Pankaj Mishra and Arundhati Roy have their specially reserved seats in London's liberal salons, where they are regarded as champions of the teeming downtrodden. Of course, neither Mishra or Roy gives a shit about India's masses: if they did, they would write in Hindi or Malayalam, or any of the other vernaculars in which ordinary Indians could actually read and be possibly inspired by them. But they deliberately don't, knowing that the aam admi wouldn't wipe his backside with the shrill whining rubbish they produce.

India's poor are merely props for Roy and Mishra's self-styled sainthood among western lefties. And they truly are saints of a twisted sort. Their incessant railings against the liberalising of India's economy - which has lifted millions of Indians out of poverty - is simply the legacy of their uptight Brahmin backgrounds, an inherited revulsion of the material world and the spiritual pollution that comes with trade and manual work. Capitalism, and the physical toil and pleasures that come with it, offends their repressed and febrile high-caste sensibilities, and so they take to the pages of Britain's press to inveigh against it.

Besides these two, The Guardian this week also commissioned a ridiculous piece by abstract artist, Anish Kapoor, declaring that India is ruled by a 'Hindu Taliban'. No doubt the editor, Katharine Viner, regards Kapoor as a perfect representative of India's diverse impoverished multitude given that he is a Doon-schooled, London domiciled multimillionaire.

Such is the warped idiocy behind the British Left and its attitude to India. Even more absurdly, when Modi was elected Prime Minister, the BBC's Newsnight programme brought Kapoor on the show to discuss with William Dalrymple - another elite-schooled millionaire, and one who isn't even Indian - what the election would mean for India's barefooted rural masses. The editor of Newsnight, Ian Katz, previously worked, of course, for The Guardian.

The West's viewpoint of India is profoundly skewed by the fact that English-speaking Indians have historically come from highly privileged and secure backgrounds - people whose views are to be the most distrusted because they are precisely the people most unsettled by India's increasingly upwardly mobile population. I have learned to pay careful attention to the accent with which Indians speak English. When I hear dulcet Rugby-educated tones such as Salman Rushdie's, I know the opinions on offer will resonate within a salubrious south-Delhi enclave and pretty much nowhere else on the subcontinent. When I hear the masala twang of Chetan Bhagat's or Swapan Dasgupta's English, I know I ought to pay attention - just as I did to Modi's tar-thick Hindi-medium accent. These voices, rooted in a broader and more representative India, are deliberately ignored by Britain's left-wing media because they challenge its nonsensical ideologies.

I've focused on The Guardian, because it pays more attention to India than the other British papers. The right-wing British press just collectively shrugged and tried to look the other way this week, resigned to Britain's decreasing significance in the world, exemplified by a parliamentary address by a man whose English they couldn't understand.

But just because someone's paying you a lot of attention, it doesn't mean they like you or have your well-being at heart. And when it comes to India, The Guardian most certainly doesn't. I've written for the paper a fair bit myself - though I suspect I won't be again after this article - but I found its coverage this week simply disgraceful. Indians should not mistake the sanctimonious pronouncements by the British Left towards India's many problems - problems that Indians alone can resolve - for a genuine concern for India.

The British Left is locked in its own parochial neuroses of class and resentment, and its attitude towards India will only ever be a projection of that. Indians are largely an aspirational and enterprising people, and as such will always trigger the disgust of British lefties who are not, and never will be, India's friends.
 
.
This attack has NOTHING do do with Modi.

The sad truth is that Indians came to Britain and, through much struggle and sacrifice, made a great success of themselves: the British Left - and its trust-funded propagandists at The Guardian - will never forgive them for that. Indian success in Britain, undermining as it does the Left's demented ideologies of race and class, is simply unbearable. Those labels were never going to fit Indians, who don't define themselves within such simplistic limiting boundaries, but for the British Left, to succeed in the face of racism and poverty as most Indians here did, is to commit a crime that cannot be punished enough.

If Indians in Britain were to riot, lower their academic performance or blow themselves up more, The Guardian's coverage of India would surely be more positive. Of course, they can't focus their ire on British-Indians themselves - the racism would be too obvious - so the motherland is scorned instead. The British Left has a similar relationship with British Jews, another self-made and conspicuously successful minority. The Left's hatred for them reveals itself as an obsessive contempt for Israel - or 'Zionism' as the lefties term it.
.

The reason for the butt hurt of the Pakistani is this:

British Indians: a remarkable story of success - Telegraph

Can you imagine what would happen to a British politician who announced that he would give a speech in a football stadium, not on match day but on a Friday night, expecting the masses to flock to hear his words? Such a politician would be lucky to get away with ridicule.

Which makes what will happen at Wembley this coming Friday all the more striking. More than 60,000 people, including families with their young children, will crowd into the stadium to hear a politician speak. Not a British politician, but Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India. Mr Modi will enjoy the sort of reception that supposedly popular British politicians can only dream of.

He will be in Britain as part of a visit that, while it will not quite have the same ceremonial fanfare of Xi Jinping’s stately progress last month, is arguably as significant, and almost as controversial.

The controversy is a personal one. Mr Modi is the leader of the BJP, a party long associated with more aggressive forms of Hindu nationalism. In 2002, when he was chief minister of the state of Gujarat, rioting broke out that eventually left more than 1,000 Muslims dead.

Mr Modi’s precise responsibility in those events remains angrily disputed, but for a decade after the riots, Britain refused any official contact with him. British officials concluded that his administration had supported the violence.

The ban was lifted in 2012 as Mr Modi’s ascent to the premiership of a future economic superpower looked inevitable. This week, he will meet the Queen, address Parliament and visit David Cameron at Chequers – a remarkable reception for a man Britain effectively accused of having blood on his hands.


Disputes about the decision to embrace Mr Modi (a shameful climbdown that puts money above principle? Or the sensible pursuit of British national interest?) will be familiar from Mr Xi’s visit, another part of a wider debate about British foreign policy in a century where economic and strategic power will increasingly belong to countries that do not subscribe to Western norms.

Welcoming Mr Modi marks, at the very least, a new chapter in Britain’s post-imperial history. Victoria was Queen-Empress of India. This week, the Government of Queen Elizabeth II confirms that Britain cannot even pretend to dictate terms to independent India and must deal with whomever its 814 million voters chose to lead them.

Mr Modi is a fascinating man, worthy of more attention and scrutiny than he often receives in Britain. But for all that, he should not be the main focus of our national attention at that Wembley gathering. Far more worthy of note – and admiration – are the people who will turn up to hear him, and the hundreds of thousands of other Britons of Indian descent, of all political persuasions.

There is a very good case to be made that British Indians are not just the most successful immigrant group in this country’s recent history, but the most successful group of people full stop. Their story is cheering, inspiring, and surely holds lessons for a country gripped by worry over immigration and the population flows that should be recognised as an inevitable feature of life in this century.

The 1961 Census recorded 166,000 Indian-born Britons, but that figure probably included more than 100,000 white Britons, the children and grandchildren of Empire who, after India’s independence (and bloody partition), came “home” to a country they barely knew. What the Office for National Statistics describes as ethnic Indians were thus a tiny presence in this country.

The last census, in 2011, recorded 1.4 million British Indians, and some estimates put the figure today at 1.7 million. More extraordinary than the rise in numbers is how it has taken place so harmoniously and profitably for this country and those in it.

"British Indians are barely 2 per cent of the population, but 12 per cent of all doctors"


British Indians, quite simply, are among the most industrious, accomplished and creditable among us – the best of British, if you like.

This starts at school. More than 75 per cent of British Indian students in England get five or more “good” GCSEs, compared to 61 per cent of white British students. Later, 14 per cent of British Indian students obtain three A* or A grades or better at A‑level. It’s 10 per cent for white British students.

Then 26 per cent of British Indian students in England go on to a top-flight university, compared with 15 per cent of their white British classmates. And more of them go into professions such as medicine. British Indians are barely 2 per cent of the population, but 12 per cent of all doctors.


For such reasons, some Conservatives see British Indians as natural Tories; the party’s successful campaign to win over non-white voters at the general election focused much effort on them – Samantha Cameron’s wardrobe contains more than one sari as a result.

Yet comparisons with white Britons can tell us only so much, and the success here of British Indians is also a comment on the underperformance (still not properly addressed by any politician) of white working-class children, particularly boys.

"Do the Hindus and Sikhs who make up most of the British Indian population fare better than Muslims of Pakistani origin because of their faith?"

Perhaps a more useful – but potentially inflammatory – comparison is with British Pakistanis, whose educational and economic results lag sadly behind their British Indian compatriots. Barely 6 per cent of British Pakistani students get three A grades at A-level; among British Pakistanis as a whole, only half are classed as economically active.

This comparison becomes almost painful when it comes to indicators of social integration: British Indians are twice as likely to marry outside their ethnic group as British Pakistanis are; 70 per cent of British Indian women work, which is close to the national average. And according to the think tank Demos, they are far more likely to live in multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, instead of the homogeneous areas where many British Pakistanis reside.


This throws up questions that can be difficult to discuss without arousing strong emotions, including questions about the role religion plays: do the Hindus and Sikhs who make up most of the British Indian population fare better than Muslims of Pakistani origin because of their faith?

Given his history, the week of Mr Modi’s visit is not the time for a dispassionate discussion of that issue, but the differing situations of the two groups is something any politician interested in immigration should be studying – not least because of our current levels of immigration. Establishing what it is that has made British Indians such a roaring success might help others follow their fine example.
 
. .
Shifting goal posts now are we? You said and I quote

How about YOU read. It's right there in the quote you posted, "to myself and to many others". If you want to lie, at least don't post proof of your own incompetence.


You need to get your narrative straight, you and I can have perceptions but SC does not judge on perceptions.
Read above. Also, many feel the SC simply let him go due to politics, nothing more.


You can think he is guilty, that is your wish but when you say someone is guilty what you are doing is BSing. Most Indians do not care what the Guardian says or what their perceptions is, he got a good reception in GB by Indians and that's what matters to Indians in GB and back home.
That's the point, to Indians, not anyone else. GB only rolled out the red carpet because of Indian money.

And keep repeating "Western nations perceived him to be a criminal", Nations act according to how their actions will buy them diplomatic currency or how they benefit strategically, they don't care about people dying in a far off land.
Tell me, do you even read other people's comments before replying? I guess not, because you obviously didn't read anything I said. You pretty much repeated what I said in this part, albeit with some negligible differences.

Pakistan is the epicenter of world terrorism. Why does the US still call them ally ? for the very same reason.
Apparently, you've been living under a rock. Speaking of a rock, Iraq is current the epicenter of global terrorism. If you want to make a point, at least be factual.

Your point is valid, your example is completely stupid.


Modi is our democratically elected PM, there are institutions in our country that ensures fairness & equality even though it takes time. Even powerful indira gandhi was shown the door when she abused power.

Fair enough, but I don't see how that contradicts what I've said.

Who cares what you think or your country thinks? Neither you nor your country are qualified to pass judgement on others.
You can still go ahead think and pass judgement that pakistan is jannat but certainly that is not going to change anything on the ground. My advice/opinion (just like your poor judgement) stop thinking its not making any thing better. :partay:
First of all, I live in Canada, so your entire attempt to insult me is completely and utter dumb. Instead of addressing my point, all you did was try and rile me up, and get me angry. Your opinion/advice is as worthless as your attempts to piss me off.
 
.
What matters is... Modi is the 9th most powerful person in the world today. :)
 
.
How about YOU read. It's right there in the quote you posted, "to myself and to many others". If you want to lie, at least don't post proof of your own incompetence.



Read above. Also, many feel the SC simply let him go due to politics, nothing more.



That's the point, to Indians, not anyone else. GB only rolled out the red carpet because of Indian money.


Tell me, do you even read other people's comments before replying? I guess not, because you obviously didn't read anything I said. You pretty much repeated what I said in this part, albeit with some negligible differences.
How about YOU stop shifting goalposts from declaring someone guilty to having an perception?

Who are these many, what basis do they have for saying it? The dispensation at the centre was Congress which was after modi's blood, so what was political angle?

And as I said the Wembley stadium was not by GB but by Indian/ British Indians in GB and as I said orginally, Indians are not buying this BS from Guardian.

Oh I did and I know how twisted you all become when it comes to Modi and India, people perception and nation having perceptions :lol:. Go sell this perception to Pakistanis/Nepalis supporting the protest against Modi, they were the only ones who bought/will buy this perception hook line and sinker.
 
.
middle finger to Guardian, other newspapers and some butt hurt pak members...
 
.
200 protesters turned up against the same "persona non grata" and Wembley was jam packed with 65k+ people just to get a glimpse of that same "ex pariah".
And i thought, people here knew about some parts of British media being not just anti Modi but anti India.
 
.
How about YOU stop shifting goalposts from declaring someone guilty to having an perception?

Who are these many, what basis do they have for saying it? The dispensation at the centre was Congress which was after modi's blood, so what was political angle?

And as I said the Wembley stadium was not by GB but by Indian/ British Indians in GB and as I said orginally, Indians are not buying this BS from Guardian.

Oh I did and I know how twisted you all become when it comes to Modi and India, people perception and nation having perceptions :lol:. Go sell this perception to Pakistanis/Nepalis supporting the protest against Modi, they were the only ones who bought/will buy this perception hook line and sinker.
Lol, you still have no point to make, In fact, you're STILL completely missing my point as well, not to mention openly lying.

Come back when you learn to read before commenting.
 
. .
Lol, you still have no point to make, In fact, you're STILL completely missing my point as well, not to mention openly lying.

Come back when you learn to read before commenting.
I made my point abundantly clear, you cant understand it? I am not going to spoon feed a TT here.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom