Narendra Modi isn’t Donald Trump and Trump isn’t Modi. In The New Yorker, Steve Coll joins a growing number of journalists that seem to equate the two. Coll, however, manages a trifecta of subtle racism, orientalism and shoddy journalism.

First, the throwaway line. Coll writes “India is racked by severe poverty and hindered by illiteracy; many citizens in the countryside cannot name a world leader or even their own national leader. After November 8, many more knew Modi’s name.”

The first part of the sentence is inarguably true. One could start any story about India with that line. “India, racked by severe poverty and hindered by illiteracy, launched a probe to Mars.” “India, racked by severe poverty and hindered by illiteracy, won Cricket’s World Cup.” “India, racked by severe poverty and hindered by illiteracy, has sent two Bollywood stars, Priyanka Chopra and DeepikaPadukone, to star in Hollywood movies.”

The first part of the line throws into question anything an India or Indian does. Why, with all of this poverty, do Indians go to space or play cricket or watch movies. It’s a line all too often used by western media outlets to delegitimise anything an Indian or India does.

Perhaps, the opposite line could be used: “Britain, whose imperial rule led India and countless nations into a sustained period of poverty, chooses to leave the European Union.” Or “Britain, whose imperial rule led India and countless nations into a sustained period of poverty, failed at the football World Cup.”

Poor or not, Coll’s argument is neither augmented nor supported by the fact that India is “racked by severe poverty”.

For Coll, notebandi is a way for Modi to reach into the pockets of every Indian and make himself felt - for Coll, this is much like Trump sending a tweet. The subtext of Coll is clear: “See these poor hapless Indians don’t know world leaders or even their own leader; when they look at a rupee note today, they see a picture of Gandhi and wonder who this fakir is. Since they can’t read, many now think it's Modi. In fact, Modi has started calling the rupee note, the Modi.”

As we know, none of that is true. Indians who didn’t know Modi before haven’t learned about him because of notebandi. Of all the reasons for notebandi, increasing Modi’s name recognition has never been one. Most, the preponderance, the vast majority of Indians know who their Prime Minister is.

It’s easy to see the rise of Nigel Farage, Marianne Penn and Donald Trump and try to equate them with Modi.

Google India and Modi and surveys and a report dated September 2016 appears - “India and Modi” - the report is conducted by Pew Research Center, a recognised and noted polling and research centre.

The reports says 81 per cent of Indians view Modi favourably. The methodology says they conducted the survey in nine languages in face-to-face interviews across urban and rural India.

Modi and Trump are different. Modi won a mandate, fair and square, no Russian help here. Modi is experienced in government; he has been CM of a state for 15 years. Coll notes that Trump has his son-in-law and daughter sit in meetings and then says that’s normal from Pakistan to Indonesia.

It may be, it’s a vast swath of people to include as one (the defining characteristic of this 1/3rd of humanity is that it isn’t white), but the one place that isn’t normal is Modi’s government. Modi doesn’t have relatives in power, he hasn’t surrounded himself with billionaires or hereditary politicians.

From his foreign minister to his finance minister to his defence minister, he has men and women in place that are established politicians in their own right, who didn’t get there because of mommy or daddy (or father-in-law). There is no sycophancy in Modi’s government.

Modi is closer to Barack Obama in temperament and policy than Trump. Both Modi and Obama believe in science and are internationalists. Climate change is something both believe in and have helped develop international treaties to fight it.

As any president or PM is wont to do, Obama and Modi wanted the best for their countries, but they believed in the international order and global institutions. Modi, at the 2nd Raisina Dialogue, spoke of the need for international institutions and structures.

Obama and Modi came from humble backgrounds and rose to power. Coll says Modi pressures the press like Trump. Again, where has Modi made up brazen stories and spouted them as true? Trump’s embrace of birtherism and stories such as the one where he said Ted Cruz’s father (his Republican opponent) may have helped in the Kennedy assassination (absurdly false) make anything Modi has done pale in comparison.

Obama also had a feisty relationship with the press and kept a tight knit circle of advisers around him. Obama and Modi are alike in another way, there is barely a hint of corruption around them. In neither Obama's nor Modi's administration have there been accusations of corruption.

Contrast that to the previous Indian administration where every day a new corruption scandal emerged. Modi hasn’t amassed a fortune, doesn’t seek too for himself or his family; Modi is an internationalist by nature and belief; Modi believes and respects the power of Indian democratic institutions, fighting and winning and losing state and national elections and respecting the outcome (no one accuses Modi of disregarding the elections).

It’s easy to see the rise of Nigel Farage, Marianne Penn and Trump and try to equate them with Modi. Being a strong leader doesn’t make you a fascist. Angela Merkel is a strong leader. Obama is a strong leader. Modi has his faults, Merkel does too and so did Obama.

At worst, Modi believes in himself and sees himself as someone who will help save India from being racked by poverty and illiteracy. There is no crime in that.

Also read: Why Modi is as bad as Trump