NY Times & Two British Writers Distorting Indian History?

 

The utter bias of the New York Times against India, especially against Indian Dharma & Culture, is so deep that it boggles our mind. In our opinion, no publication in America is as virulently anti-Indian as the New York Times, especially the Editorial Board of The New York Times. That is why we have written more articles about the anti-Indian hate inside the New York Times than about any other publication.

We don’t understand this level of hate. Even ISIS or radicalized Middle Eastern Muslims don’t have this level of hate against Indians or Hindus as Muslims call them. So where does this level of anti-Hindu hate come from? Perhaps the New York Times may have inherited this revulsion-level hate of Hindus from the British.

America was the inheritor of the colonial British Empire and most of the Eastern Press is still close to British & European thinking. So the best way to witness & understand this deep intense revulsion-filled Hindu-hate is to read published comments made by elite British intellectuals like Macaulay, Mill, Kipling and British leaders like Winston Churchill  (See footnote below for a sampling of such comments from these all-British elite).

Daisy Goodwin Article in NYT with William Dalrymple book as source

This British-NYT teamwork became evident last week in what initially looked like a simple article in the New York Times. It was an article about one of the World’s most well known diamonds that was seized & sent to England during British plunder of India’s wealth. What plunder, you ask? According to published sources, India’s share of World GDP was 22% in early 18th century just before British began their annexation of India. When the British gave up their control of India in 1947,  India’s share of World GDP had dropped to 0.5%. If that isn’t plunder, what is?

The New York Times article dated December 1, 2017 is about the most well known piece of British plunder from India – the diamond called Koh-i-Noor, loosely translated as “mountain of light”. This diamond now sits in the crown worn by Britain’s native queen Elizabeth.

Given that this diamond was annexed from India, it would seem natural to ask an Indian writer to discuss the provenance & Indian history of this diamond, wouldn’t it? But history is written by victors and colonial victors have a proven track record for distorting history in their favor. Most would agree that the last writer the NYT would choose to write about European Jewish history would be an unrepentant German, especially a German Nazi. The Editors of the New York Times would agree as well, especially because European Jews were “white” victims.

But would they extend the same judgement for “brown” Indians victims, the “loathsome” “beastly” Hindus as the British described them? Remember these British writers were the ones the Editors & Writers of the New York Times have been brought up to respect, adore & revere. You guessed the answer. The New York Times Editors acted differently about “Hindus” than they would about European Jewish victims.

Not only did the NYT Editors get a British writer named Daisy Goodwin to write the article about Indian Koh-i-Noor but these esteemed editors permitted British Daisy Austin to use ONLY ONE SOURCE for her article. OK, but surely that solitary source was Indian, right?

Wrong. The ONLY Source for the entire NYT article of British Daisy Goodwin was a British writer named William Dalrymple. It was not even Dalrymple himself; it was his book about the Koh-i-Noor diamond. Not only did British Daisy Goodwin quote Dalrymple’s book; she treated that book as if it was Gospel. Read what Daisy Goodwin wrote about the claims made in the Dalrymple book:

• ” The book opens with the early history of the uncut diamond and tries to disentangle its provenance from the web of sinister myth that surrounds it (myth Wilkie Collins used in his 1868 novel, “The Moonstone”). In its first known appearance, the Koh-i-Noor adorned the famous Peacock Throne of the Mughal emperor in Delhi, but it was plundered by a Persian warlord named Nader Shah.”

Anti-“Brown” Racism of the Daisy Goodwin Article in NYT

First the obvious racism of Daisy Goodwin & of William Dalrymple’s book – Nader Shah was not a mere warlord; he was the Shah of Iran from 1736 to 1747. He is recognized as one of the most powerful rulers in Iranian history. Russian historians have studied and described his victories as “military masterpieces”.  And this Goodwin dismisses him as “a Persian warlord”? Didn’t any of the New York Times editors notice this brazenly racist description? 

Notice also the use of “plundered” for Nader Shah’s seizure of the Koh-i-Noor diamond. In contrast, Goodwin’s NYT article describes the “plunder” of this diamond by the British as a “gift” from Britain’s viceroy in India to Britain’s native queen. Goodwin describes this British ownership as the “proper resting place” of the Koh-i-Noor diamond. So when an Iranian Shah seizes the Koh-i-Noor, it is “plunder” and when a British viceroy seizes the Koh-i-Noor, it is a gift & placement of Koh-i-Noor in its proper resting place?

That may sound OK to a British bigot but how did it pass the scrutiny of the NYT Editors? Unless of course, the NYT Editors themselves share this colonial-British racist contempt for Iranians & Indians.

Blatant Falsehood in the Daisy Goodwin NYT article

Now we come to the blatant falsehood in the above article about the early history of the Koh-i-Noor. Notice the quoted paragraph above talks about the efforts of the Dalrymple book to “disentangle its provenance from the web of sinister myth that surrounds it“.

Why didn’t Goodwin simply check Wikipedia? The Wikipedia article about Koh-i-Noor states:

• “Babur, the Turco-Mongol founder of the Mughal Empire, wrote about a “famous” diamond that weighed just over 187 old carats – approximately the size of the 186-carat Koh-i-Noor.^[13] Some historians think Babur’s diamond is the earliest reliable reference to the Koh-i-Noor.^[14]According to his diary, it was acquired by Alauddin Khilji, second ruler of the Turko-Afghan Khilji dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate, when he invaded the kingdoms of southern India at the beginning of the 14th century. It later passed to succeeding dynasties of the Sultanate, and Babur received the diamond in 1526 as a tribute for his conquest of Delhi and Agra at the Battle of Panipat.^[12]“

Note:The numbered references above are as below:

[14] Lafont, Jean Marie (2002). Maharaja Ranjit Singh: Lord of the Five Rivers. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-566111-8.

[13] Streeter, Edwin William; Hatten, Joseph (1882). The Great Diamonds of the World. G. Bell & Sons.

[12] Rose, Tessa (1992). The Coronation Ceremony and the Crown Jewels. HM Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-117-01361-2.

Even simple readers like us have known for years that the Koh-i-Noor diamond was seized from the South Indian Kingdom of Warangal during Khilji’s invasion of South India in early 14th century. So when we saw this blatant error in the NYT article, we tweeted the New York Times.

Response from William Dalrymple

Right after our tweet to the New York Times, we got a tweet-response from William Dalrymple, the author of the Koh-i-Noor book used as the solitary source by Daisy Goodwin & relied upon by NYT editors.

Dalrymple’s tweet basically said “no firm evidence” exists for the case that Koh-i-Noor was seized from the South Indian kingdom of Warangal in early 14th century. No firm evidence is Dalrymple’s excuse? Dalrymple’s book tried to disentangle Koh-i-Noor’s “provenance from web of sinister myths” according to Goodwin’s quote and yet Dalrymple didn’t even bother to check a basic fact reported in books by other Western writers?

Note Dalrymple has proclaimed himself in the past as an “expert” on Babur. And yet, he didn’t check published sources on Babur & the Koh-i-Noor?

And why didn’t Dalrymple check his sources before shooting out a tweet to us about “lack of evidence”?

Now look what Dalrymple tweeted on December 12 to his followers!

• William Dalrymple‏Verified account @DalrympleWill Dec 12 – India Should Be Grateful to Alauddin Khilji for Thwarting the Mongol Invasions – https://thewire.in/203518/india-grateful-alauddin-khilji-thwarting-mongol-invasions/

Look what we found in the article tweeted by Dalrymple:

• “Khilji greatly expanded the empire that he inherited from his uncle, Sultan Jalaluddin Khilji, after killing him. Many of his conquests were of kingdoms ruled by Hindu kings, including Chittor, Devgiri, Warangal (from where he acquired the famous Kohinoor diamond), Gujarat, Ranthambore, and the Hoysala and Pandya kingdoms.”

So there you are. The article quoted & retweeted by William Dalrymple states that Alauddin Khilji acquired the famous Koh-i-Noor diamond from Warangal in his invasion. That was in early 14th century, more than 200 years before its placement in the Peacock throne which Dalrymple’s book calls “… first known appearance” of Koh-i-Noor.

This demonstrates that either Dalrymple wrote his book without even checking other texts or he didn’t even write the book that bears his name as author. Further, it demonstrates that Dalrymple didn’t even bother to check his facts when he tweeted to us about “lack of evidence”. 

And this is a man whose word the NYT Editors took without doing any due diligence on him? This demonstrates the utter & total contempt of the NYT Editors about Indian history and about accuracy of NYT articles in general.

Geopolitical Importance of the South Indian Ownership of Koh-i-Noor

The ownership of the Koh-i-Noor diamond is claimed by India, NonPakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and, according to a Dalrymple tweet, by Bangladesh as well. Currently, the Koh-i-Noor is in British control as a plundered property of the Mughals of Delhi. So to which country should the British return this plundered diamond is a big question.

The Pre-British India does not exist. It has been broken up into today’s India, NonPakistan and Bangladesh. So which of these countries can claim the Mughal sultanate? Perhaps none of them. Babur, the founder of Mughal rule, was the one who plundered Koh-i-Noor after his military victory. And Babur at that time was the King/ruler of Afghanistan. So Afghanistan also has a claim based on Babur’s ownership.

But what if Babur seized the Koh-i-Noor from the descendants of Alauddin Khilji who was the original plunderer of Koh-i-Noor? Khilji being a Gilzai Afghan, Afghanistan would have an additional strong claim on Koh-i-Noor.

But wait a minute. If the Koh-i-Noor diamond was mined in the Golkonda mines of South India (as even Dalrymple is willing to admit per his tweet) and if the original owner of Koh-i-Noor was the Southern Indian Kingdom of Warangal, then none of Afghanistan, NonPakistam, Iran, Turkey, Bangladesh would have any valid claim on the famous diamond. The ONLY VALID claim on Koh-i-Noor would be of India which still contains Warangal.

So you can see that what might appear as a simple harmless mistake of British Daisy Goodwin & of Dalrymple’s book is actually a major historical issue and of geopolitical importance today.

Responsibility of the Board of Directors of the New York Times Company

What do we have here?

• Extraordinary level of inaccuracy & possibly deliberate falsehood in a New York Times article compounded by an extreme level of Editorial incompetence & negligence.
• Obviously blatant racist terms used by a British author of a NYT article for an Iranian Shah who is a major figure in world history. Again a deliberate decision to ignore such racism by NYT Editors or an extreme level of negligence on their part.
• Total ignorance and/or total disregard of geopolitical issues involved by the Editors of the New York Times Editors.

The New York Times newspaper is the only major property of the New York Times Company. Therefore, it is a fiduciary duty of the Board of Directors of The New York Times Company to supervise the management of the New York Times newspaper and ensure that proper standards are upheld & appropriate control mechanisms are in active place to prevent acts that might damage the value of the New York Times newspaper.

Therefore we make a public appeal to the Board of Directors of The New York Times Company to fully investigate this matter that has already damaged the reputation of the New York Times and that could potentially have geopolitical consequences. 

NYT & William Dalrymple – Birds of a similar feather?

It seems obvious to many that the New York Times hates President Trump, perhaps even more than they hate Hindus. Does that have anything to do with why NYT editors waived all normal due diligence & accuracy standards for an article based on William Dalrymple’s book?

What could William Dalrymple have to do with NYT’s hate of President Trump? Look what we saw on Wednesday, December 13.

• William Dalrymple‏Verified account @DalrympleWill – William Dalrymple Retweeted The Associated Press – The beginning of the end for  Trump
  • The Associated PressVerified account @AP

    BREAKING: Democrat Doug Jones won election to the U.S. Senate from Alabama in a sharp blow to President Trump that narrows the GOP’s majority in the Senate to two. He beat Roy Moore, a former chief justice of the state Supreme Court who had been accused of sexual misconduct.

Man, how stupid is Dalrymple? Or a better question to ask is how blinded is Dalrymple with his obvious hate of President Trump?

You don’t have to ask, really. Just go through Dalrymple’s tweets using his handle @DalrympleWill and you will see that

1. he hates President Trump and,
2. the only Indian kings he features are those who surrendered to Muslim invaders of India.

So you see NYT Editors and William Dalrymple are indeed birds of a similar feather, kinda like Churchill & Hitler.

In the tradition of this Blog, we ask William Dalrymple, Daisy Goodwin & the NYT Editors to tell us if & where we might have been unfair to them. We will print their responses verbatim unless labelled “private”.

 

Footnote: Comments of eminent British figures whom the NYT reveres:

• (scholar James) Mill had declared that “the Hindu, like the eunuch, excels in the qualities of a slave,“³⁷ – page xxiv
• popular historian Thomas Babington Macaulay had dwelt on the emasculation of Bengalis, who’d “found the little finger of the Company thicker than the loins” of the prince Siraj-ud-daula³⁷.- page xxiv
• (Rudyard Kipling) – It was the Bengali male’s “extraordinary effeminacy“, as evinced by his diminutive physique, his flowing clothes, and his worship of goddesses, that best illustrated why he, and by extension India, had to be guided by the firm, benevolent hand of a supremely masculine race.”³⁷ – page xxiv
• “All those arts which are the natural defence of the weak are more familiar to this subtle race than to…the Jew of the dark ages,” Macaulay had written of the Bengali, who compressed into his diminutive form every loathsome aspect of the Hindu.⁴¹ – page 235
• Churchill exclaimed, “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”⁵⁶ – page 78
• According to Amery, the next day he “went off the deep end in a state of frantic passion on the whole subject…….India by the beastliest people in the world next to the Germans.”⁹ – page 106
• “Winston, after a preliminary flourish on Indians breeding like rabbits…….asked Leathers for his view.”³⁸ – page 205
• More often that not the small, brown, fangless, and numberless Indians whom the frail old pacifist personified brought to Churchill’s mind a prey species. – page 206

These page numbers are from the well-referenced book Churchill’s Secret War .

 

Send your feedback to [email protected] Or @MacroViewpoints on Twitter