More Letters to Editor Against Anti-Hindu Narrative Go Unpublished

The anti-Hindu bias of the New York Times, Washington Post, and LA Times is widely known. However, the phenomenon of Hindu mongering in Western news media is far more widespread than just these news channels.

Here we publish two letters, one written to The Atlantic, and the other to San Francisco Chronicle, protesting against deeply Hinduphoic articles published by them. Both letters, as expected, were ignored by these publication houses.

Letter to The Atlantic

Date: August 5, 2019

Subject: “Modi’s Kashmir Decision Is the Latest Step in Undoing Nehru’s Vision” by Krishadev Calamur

Dear Editor,

As a Hindu-American, I found Krishnadev Calamur’s article titled “Modi’s Kashmir Decision Is the Latest Step in Undoing Nehru’s Vision” to be highly insulting and distasteful. In this article, Calamur insinuates that Hindus who favor the BJP government’s nationalistic view, are overwhelmed with fanciful ideas and obsessed with drinking cow urine for maintaining good health. Calamur’s absurd and baseless insinuation would be dismissed outright by most reasonable and fair-minded readers. Such readers would be aware of the Hindu civilization’s contributions to the world in the areas of Mathematics (e.g., the Hindu numeral system), Science (e.g., manufacturing of Steel), Music (e.g., a classification system for musical instruments), etc. Anti-Hindu bigots, on the other hand, would cherish Calamur’s wild insinuation and happily propagate the cleverly disguised racism that permeates the article. It is highly unfortunate that a long-standing and reputable magazine such as the Atlantic has given Calamur a forum to promote false propaganda and hatred towards Hindu-Americans.

Venkat Nagarajan

Letter to San Francisco Chronicle

Date: November 9, 2019

Subject: “Hindus rejoice, Muslims deplore court ruling on temple” by Sheikh Saaliq

Dear Editor,

The article entitled “Hindus rejoice, Muslims deplore court ruling on temple” by Sheikh Saaliq is misleading and biased. The article focuses primarily on the opposition to the Court’s ruling without providing any details on why the Court reached a unanimous verdict on the Ayodhya dispute. The Court’s ruling noted that the title of the disputed site relates to the land and not the structure/mosque. Based on strong archeological evidence from the Archeological Survey of India, the Court concluded that the mosque was built on top of an existing Hindu structure. The court also concluded that Hindus had extensively and continuously used the site for prayers. More specifically, Hindus had offered prayers at the disputed site since 1526, whereas Muslims had only started praying there from 1856 onwards. Based on these facts, the Court’s 5 justices, including a Muslim justice, unanimously ruled that the Hindus had a much stronger claim to the site. Additionally, the article also fails to note that many prominent Muslim community leaders have accepted the Court’s ruling and instead reference critical comments from Pakistan’s foreign minister, who has not is not a stakeholder in the dispute.

Venkat Nagarajan