Your article on Narendra Modi as India’s Prime Ministerial Candidate

I follow The Economist regularly and often appreciate your reporting for its analysis. This differentiates you from other reporters.

Over the past few months, I have followed with interest, your reporting and analysis on India's elections and in particular your views on Narendra Modi as a Prime Ministerial candidate. This was followed up by your cover article in the issue of April 5^th, 2014.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone

Your analysis has some merit. I have been following the progress of Modi over the years. In my opinion the inability of the government to speedily halt the 2002 Gujarat riots was a low point in Indian history. Modi as the head of the government was responsible. I also thought that this event would trigger significant communal violence and rioting in Gujarat in times to come, as inevitably such events spark off. However, much to my relief and to significant credit to the Gujarat government, Gujarat has remained quiet for more than a decade in stark contrast to the rest of India. In fact the record of the rest of India on terrorism and violence has been the worse in its entire history and government has been completely ineffective to halt any of this. In contrast, Gujarat has, as a result of (and also inspired by) strong policy support, delivered growth and prosperity for its people over the past 12 years.

This brings me to question your views and analysis on two counts -

The first is that your principles don't seem to be consistently applied.

For eg. when US under junior Bush attacked Iraq without evidence of any aggression towards US by Iraq (on murky evidence at best on WMDs) or any terrorist connections and without international/UN backing, you did not come out against the policy with any great force. Even when you did, you never ever associated Bush with these decisions in the way you do Modi now. In the ultimate analysis, as against the 1000 people who died that week in Gujarat, almost hundreds of thousands have lost their lives through indiscriminate actions of Bush for seeming end of pride and ego, pursued through a high handed pronouncement of the Axis of Evil, which has irreversibly damaged world peace, destroyed US image both at home and globally and brought misery to millions. This in the popular view across the world is a far far greater crime than what you have held Modi responsible for. However, you have never sent Bush to the Gallows or even painted him in the same light as you do Modi now.  Maybe the difference is in how he projected his image?

Of course if you had chosen to report the connection, it would have been apparent that economic motives (read corruption) were at the heart of the issue. The largest beneficiary of Iraq reconstruction projects has been Halliburton, a company where Dick Cheney was a director just before he took up office with the Bush Government. You have chosen to write about Guantanamo Bay prison, atrocities and torture, how all this is unacceptable is a developed county, but you have ignored to mention that Bush and his ideologies are unacceptable and that such a figure is unacceptable as a leader of any country, leave alone the world's largest economic power. I find this reporting as an evidence of your double standards.

The second is related to the alternative suggested by you.

You have chosen to back Congress. You have however, ignored the continuing spate of country-wide violence under the Congress regime over these years. Countless Indians have lost their lives due to government ineptitude and they continue to this day. Over the years, it has suited the Congress to foment Hindu-Muslim hatred. The role of Modi in 2002, has been widely scrutinized. However, the role of the Congress in inciting the violence could not be as it would be under the surface. Their role in 1984 has been much discussed in India. In many similar riots or violence, the governments have been unable to control including recently in Assam and in Mumbai in 1993, no one has blamed the government in all these instances. Congress has in the last few years completely failed to protect India from within or from international threat. When Mumbai is attacked or Indian border is breached on China side or LOC is breached by Pakistan and the government is silent, and is made aware of these breaches by the press, how can you condone the ruling party? Would you pardon a US President who failed to protect the US? Or ask for him to be reelected? When Bush reacted by going overboard in reaction to 9-11 attacks on the US attacking two countries, taking on the entire muslim world and regarding them as enemies, threatening war on Iran, and igniting a war which continues to-date with countless deaths and untold misery, torture and economic ruin, you are OK - because he projected 9-11 as an attack on the country. For offence much smaller in magnitude which is not even proven to be directly linked to Modi, why do you wish to send him to the gallows permanently?

Then again is the issue of economic plunder of the country by the congress regime, which is comparable to the worst economic crime perpetrated in any county. The scams surfacing currently and those yet unpublished are akin to murder in a poor county such as India. The Gandhi family is among the worst offenders, with large sums stashed away in Swiss banks or the like. Their son-in-law is a corrupt criminal with large fortune amassed unscrupulously and several allegations of murder. The family has used its position unscrupulously and are not answerable to any authority in the country. Any attempts to bring charges against the family always result in trouble for the authorities trying to bring them to book. The situation is not much different from any unscrupulous dictator. The country is fed up with them. These guys cannot be allowed into power again, surely!! So much that Muslim Clerics in India have been leaning towards BJP since some time now.

The UPA alliance leaders such as Mulayam Singh and Abu Azmi have recently passed unacceptable remarks about women and rape. Such People have no role to play in a progressive India.

Over the years, I have come to admire your paper for your analysis. At the same time, I have often noticed that you apply different yardsticks of principles towards your favorites (read USA) and others (Modi included). The end result is a colored or skewed world picture. However, by suggesting that Rahul Gandhi be elected as the PM by the Indian public, you have gone too far. Even if you had suggested a third front, one could have excused your judgment through the principle of “benefit of doubt”. I now question your objectivity and wonder whether there are other motive and incentives in your reporting.

India today needs strong leadership to provide hope and direction to the millions of young, make economic opportunities accessible to them, provide strong leadership to maintain internal and cross-border security and play a strong role in catalyzing offshore investment and facilitate trade. The rent seeking, corrupt and meek leadership of UPA-2 is an unacceptable alternative. It is obvious to anyone who reads Economist regularly that your editorial team understands this as well as anybody. In fact, more than others. That you back the Congress at this stage can be only due to either dubious or misinformed reporting.