WaPo’s Anti-India Bias: Twisting Truth with Selective Reporting

The Washington Post is facing a lot of criticism because it decided not to endorse any candidate for the upcoming U.S. presidential election. This decision has led many people to cancel their subscriptions to the newspaper. Since 1976, The Washington Post has usually supported candidates in elections, but now it says it will not endorse anyone and wants to go back to its old ways of not choosing any political sides.

The current election features Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate and former President Donald Trump as the Republican candidate. The Washington Post won’t endorse either of them.

This decision has raised bigger concerns about corporate control in the media. Many loyal readers believe that under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, The Washington Post is moving away from its promise to honest and fearless journalism. Their disappointment is clear, as they feel that the Post’s choice to stay ‘neutral’ shows weakness, especially when they think the country needs strong voices.

Except, if we were to see it objectively, the media’s job is to stay neutral and let the readers make an informed choice and not let the editorial opinions become front page headlines to fit a political ideology. That is an ideal scenario. But we do not live in an ideal world.

Notable figures like author Stephen King and filmmaker Paul Feig have publicly canceled their subscriptions, expressing disappointment with the newspaper’s decision. They, along with others, feel that the Post is not fulfilling its duty by not endorsing a candidate in such an important election.

This move makes The Washington Post the second major newspaper after The Los Angeles Times to not endorse a presidential candidate this year. The situation has also led to the resignation of a prominent editor at the Post.

Except, what is good for the goose isn’t quite good for the gander. You see, WaPo has regularly interfered in Indian politics and elections. That the West has been racist towards India has been known but since 2014 when Modi came to power, the dynamics changed quite quickly and WaPo, along with many other western publications, trained their guns on India led by PM Modi and actively tried to influence world opinion on India through its biased reportage.

From referring to pro-Khalistani terrorist Gurpatwant SIngh Pannun, who regularly issues threats against India and PM Modi is often described as an activist. What can one expect from a publication that had watered down ISIS chief Abu Bakr-al Baghdadi as ‘austere religious preacher’ instead of a terrorist that he was. And while it course-corrected itself and changed the atrocious headline to describe al Baghdadi as ‘extremist leader’ for Pannun, WaPo continues to whitewash him. In fact, recently it even published a hit job on India’s Union Home Minister Amit Shah accusing him of being involved in an assassination plot on Pannun on Canadian soil. It must be noted that there is no evidence provided by Canada on these allegations levelled by PM Trudeau. He has only claimed that intelligence was shared on an alleged plot to assassinate Pannun on behest of Indian government agencies, but no evidence was provided.

WaPo also indulges in propagating that India under PM Modi has become a Hindu nationalist country. As if it is a bad thing. India is culturally a Hindu nation and a natural home to Hindus. And what is wrong with being nationalist? Doesn’t America work towards protecting its own interests? Why should India and Indians not protect its interests?

Further, a cursory glance at the headlines WaPo has published for India-centric news shows a concerted effort to paint India under PM Modi as Nazi Germany under Hitler. Almost every news headline screams that a particular actor was cancelled because he was Muslim or Christian or a journanalist, such as a columnist associated with their publication, was targeted because of her vocal anti-Modi views. But it would not acknowledge the fact that the said columnist was indeed accused of financial irregularity in the donation she had collected in the name of COVID relief. Somehow, for WaPo (and various other so-called liberals), all your crimes are forgiven as long as you are anti-Modi. Law of the land does not apply to you if you hate PM Modi.

WaPo even actively indulged in fearmongering during the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act. The Act that aims to fast-track Indian citizenship for the non-Muslims in India’s three neighbouring Islamic countries, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, was painted as a anti-Muslim law which stripped off Indian Muslims of their citizenship. Except, the law was not applicable to Indian citizens irrespective of their faith. It only fast-tracked Indian citizenships for those who had to flee these countries and seek refuge in India owing to religious persecution in these countries. One would want to assume that at least Muslims are safe in the Islamic countries and are not facing religious persecution. But WaPo never quite tried to clear this. It continued to indulge in fear-mongering and painting Indian Muslims as victims in CAA, when they are not even party to the act.

Such biased reportage is hailed by everyone for ‘speaking truth to the power’. But it seems, the ones who cheered WaPo’s bias towards India are suddenly unhappy when the media giant chose to not endorse their favorite Kamala Harris for President.