Why as an Educated Liberal Hindu Indian I am disgusted by Western Media?

I recently read an article by Sadanand Dhume in WSJ titled 'Hindu Supremacism Turns Deadly in Delhi'. I was not surprised by the blatant one-sidedness of the so-called opinion as well as the lack of the likes of WSF, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. to even include any disclaimer or even reach out to discuss the other aspect of the debate. After all, if the opinion of an individual is published in a news media the audience should be entitled to balanced information filled with detailed facts, not personal interpretations.

Here are examples from the article which is an unashamed manner promoting the entire episode of violence as Hindu Supremacism. 

Example 1:

The article states that in the Delhi riots most of the killed are Muslim. It shamelessly tries to portray this as an anti-Muslim or a pogrom as Pakistani prime minister likes to call it. Yet it fails to mention that it was, in fact, a riot where both Muslim and Hindu community lost civilians. It fails to mention that a (Hindu) Indian Intelligence Bureau office was abducted from his home and then murdered during the riots. You'll notice the duplicity in the latter part of the article on this.

      It fails to mention that a local government party's councillor by the name of Tahir Hussain has been arrested when slingshots to hurl stones and a repository of petrol bombs were found in his factory in the middle or the riot-hit area. If Tahir Hussain is innocent until found guilty so the claim that this was a pogrom targeted at Muslims is equally guilty of bias and divisiveness; most importantly shouldn't presume the riots were anti-Muslim.

       If Hindu supremacists (or can we simply call them rioters & looters i.e. unlawful elements) are guilty then so are the hardliners (here the preferred word is rioters apparently) from Muslim community who murdered and looted properties. So let's not paint it as ethnic cleansing but rioting by unlawful elements who selfishly used the misinformation. At least that will be close to ethical journalism, not hate-mongering masquerading as 'opinion' in WSJ.

Example 2:

It states that the divide between Hindus and Muslims originated about 100 years old when Vinayak Savarkar espoused the idea that India belongs to the followers of "so-called Indic faiths". The author has taken wide liberty to pick and choose Savarkar as the origin of the 'divide' while ignoring the history of India both ancient and modern. Using Savarkar as a punching bag is lazy journalism at the least because the divide is a part of our history, so let's not try to avoid the tough questions that this conversation will stir up.

      In the same spirit of writer's liberty, I want to choose the iconoclastic nature of Caliphate invaders or various Muslim invaders who destroyed & looted temples, or burnt the library of Taxila, or the beheading of Sikh Guru Teg Bahadur by Aurangzeb as the occurrences in the long-troubled historical timeline of India as the origins of the divide. 

       A quick peek at the modern history of India will reveal this divide continued in the last century as well when a separate electorate for Muslim was sought by political leaders in undivided British India, or FIR lodged in a police station in 1858 which reveals the historical nature of Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute, or the Hindu-Muslim Salem riots of 1882 (a year before Savarkar's birth), or the fact that any revered Hindu temple has a controversial mosque in the vicinity (for example, holy city of Mathura was renamed as Islamabad during Mughal rule). So aren't these equally responsible for creating or furthering divide?

     If Savarkar is the originator of the divide why is the article not including a disclaimer telling its reader that Savarkar also said the following;

"We shall ever guarantee protection to the religion, culture, and language of the minorities for themselves, but we shall no longer tolerate any aggression on their part on the equal liberty of the Hindus to guard their religion, culture, and language as well. If the non-Hindu minorities are to be protected then surely the Hindu majority also must be protected against any aggressive minority in India.”(ibid, Page 298)."

Example 3:
It states that the 'idea of civilizational conflict with Abrahamic faiths may appeal to die-hard Hindu nationalists'. Yet Abrahamic religions freely consider conversion to their faith as a 'human right'. If the idea is to spread the message of God how is that related to conversion? The author seems to portray Hinduism as the party creating the conflict in the first place. 

Example 4:
It states that the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 are a manifestation of 'this' ideological schism. Is he trying to say that the 1984 riots were ethnic cleansing of Sikhs in Delhi? Apparently then Congress Party, the ruling party of India, was ethnically cleansing Sikhs. 

And apparently (if we are to follow the author's logic), it was yet another Hindu scheme; at least that's what the author is claiming. And ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's justification of the riots in a speech is a manifestation of a Hindu supremacist scheme per the author. So Congress Party is equally culpable which is a "secular" party for the Western media, right?

Example 5:
It states that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 'pointedly excludes all Muslims - including Pakistan's persecuted Ahmadiyya Muslims and Shia Hazara minority.' 

• However, it fails to state that this is only for persecuted minorities who are non-Muslim in the three Islamic republics surrounding India. 
• Also, it fails to state that Muslims from these Islamic republics can (and are) getting Indian citizenships under the wider Citizenship Act.
• And the mere fact that CAA doesn't impact any Muslims in India as the Home Minister has stated time and time again.
• Another flaw in the author's thinking (or probably is just part of the overall misinformation campaign) is that the national register of citizens, and I quote, 'will force Indian Muslims to produce documentation proving their citizenship, or risk disenfranchisement or being herded into detention camps.' The question here is why is the author assuming it will unilaterally impact all Indian Muslims but why not the 800 Million Indian Hindus as the lack of documentation is driven because of a poor background who are more likely to have a lack of documentation.
• And finally, it fails to mention that the same recommendations were proposed when India was under the government of Congress Party. You can read it here. And then after you've gone through the entire document please tell clarify if Congress Party is a supporter of far-right Hindutva.  

There are many such flaws in his argument and the fact that the Indian Supreme Court will have the final say if any part of this law is unconstitutional.

Example 6:
The author himself is saying that, and I quote, 'the rough count based on the official list of victims' names suggests that more than a quarter of the 44 killed were Hindu. In some neighborhoods, Hindus suffered disproportionately at the hands of the Muslim mobs'. 

Viola, so the first paragraph the word 'most' switched from Muslims to Hindus. At least some consistency from the author or from the editing staff of WSJ will be useful here, right!

Example 7:
Since the riots cannot be painted as anti-Muslim the next best thing is to paint the police force as Hindu. With that senile aim the author states 'police force in Delhi, overwhelmingly Hindu and under the command of BJP's hard-line Home Minister, did not even pretend to be evenhanded.'

In a newspaper of WSJ's reputation, I would have assumed that only verifiable evidence should have been used but when the author claims 'there's evidence they (police) actively abetted Hindu rioters' there is a complete lack of any sources in the article. After all, a 'Hindu' Delhi Police should have prevented the loss of Hindu lives? So if nothing suits the narrative of Mr. Dhume he is ever-ready to use unverifiable and unnamed sources for his smear campaign. 

Example 8:
The author concludes by saying that 'a sensible government' will work out a way to show compassion for persecuted religious minorities in India's neighborhood without stoking fears among Indian Muslims. But the duplicity of this appeal can be seen brazenly because despite's Home Minister assurances as well as an appeal against misinformation; the entire article is just regurgitating the same illogical and misguided claims.

Why am I using the cartoon from the NY Times? Because of the fact that there is a divide in the Western media the way they perceive and portray India with their lenses that are layers of colonialist, eurocentric, left-liberal academia bias and others; one over the other (as Raj Vedam talks about it so clearly).