Hindustan Times via Getty Images Prime Minister Narendra Modi is currently grappling with an economic crisis, protests against the CAA; as well as foreign media disenchantment with his rule.

How India's prime minister and his party are endangering the world's biggest democracy. Our cover this week https://t.co/hEpK93Al11pic.twitter.com/4GsdtTGnKe — The Economist (@TheEconomist) January 23, 2020

The change in the tone of coverage began even before the decision on Article 370. Soon after Modi won for the second time, The Washington Post’s editorial called the victory “India’s dangerous landslide”. “Having campaigned five years ago as an economic modernizer, the charismatic prime minister this year offered a platform of nationalism and sectarianism.” The editorial said that the government pursued an “anti-liberal agenda” and that some journalists critical of the regime were subject to intimidation. It also pointed out that attacks by Hindu extremists on Muslims rose significantly. Time’s cover story of May 9, 2019, written by Aatish Taseer during the 2019 general election termed Modi “India’s Divider in Chief”. Taseer said that Modi’s economic miracle has failed to materialise and he had also helped “create an atmosphere of poisonous religious nationalism in India”. In the same issue, Time also published a more optimistic article by Ian Bremmer, calling Modi India’s “best hope for economic reform”, which Modi supporters held up as a badge of honour. A few months later, however, Bremmer admitted that he had changed his opinion. ﻿Writing in December 2019, Bremmer said the Prime Minister was falling back on identity politics to capture political momentum. “And after securing reelection, Modi continued leaning his shoulder into Hindu nationalism, while neglecting issues like land reform or reducing trade barriers. As that nationalism has taken a more prominent role in government policy, it has begun directly threatening the country’s constitutionally mandated secular democracy,” he wrote.

Senior journalist Ammu Joseph pointed out that the change in the Western liberal media’s coverage trajectory is not dissimilar to that of many mainstream Indian media outlets or “even some liberals”. “The economic reforms and development mantra and the launch of various high profile programmes in the early years were obviously seen as positive, and the few lynchings and his silence about them were clearly seen as unfortunate aberrations,” she said in reply to emailed queries. However, she said, it was the government’s insistence on muzzling Kashmir and threatening Muslim citizenship at a time when crises such as unemployment and inflation stare them in the face that seem to have forced some to finally speak out. “It is hardly surprising that the government’s focus on these drastic, divisive measures while the economic crisis, unemployment and the rising prices of essential commodities that are adversely affecting people’s lives appeared to be getting no attention has forced at least some to question and even criticise the PM as a leader. There’s a limit to how far charisma and oratory can obscure reality. And I guess the scales have dropped from at least some eyes,” she added.