I thought I should write something really measured and accessible explaining why this headline from @nytimes is so misleading. I wanted to do it in a way that would make sense to people who don't already see the problem. So first, I meditated. You know, to calm down. Then I looked at the headline again and thought: WHAT THE ACTUAL REFRIGERATOR. Okay, breathe in...and out. To begin with, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is not a "new" hero to Indians and Hindus. That's a laughable proposition. Even I know that, and I grew up here in the United States before the internet. This is like saying George Washington is a new hero to Americans. Buildings, airports, train terminals, roads, universities, and public institutions have borne Shivaji's name for decades. Long before the current administration took office. So the question is not whether Shivaji is actually a new hero. The question is why the Times would frame him that way. And this is where media literacy becomes useful. Notice the language. Not "new memorials have been built." Not "additional statues have been commissioned." Not even "Shivaji statues have become more common." Instead, we are told that statues of Shivaji are "rising across India." It is a fascinating choice of verb because statues do not normally "rise" in journalistic writing. Movements rise. Armies rise. Extremism rises. Threats rise. The word "rise" transforms what could have been described as commemorative acts into something vaguely threatening. The image it conjures is almost cinematic: Shivaji statues menacingly erupting from the earth across India like something out of a Marvel movie. What makes this especially frustrating is that there are genuine debates taking place in India about history, textbooks, colonization, historical memory, and the representation of Hindu civilization. Some scholars and members of the public argue that post-Independence narratives minimized aspects of Mughal conquest, neglected Hindu resistance movements, or failed to adequately account for Hindu civilizational contributions. Others disagree. But these are real debates, and they are neither new nor confined to one political party. In fact, Americans should find this entirely familiar. We revise textbooks all the time. We revisit historical narratives. We argue about whose stories were centered, whose stories were marginalized, and whether previous generations of historians got important things wrong. We understand that academic consensus is not infallible and that history is constantly being reexamined as new evidence emerges and new questions are asked. Yet when these debates about Indian history are translated for Western audiences (often by Indians themselves), they often become a much simpler story: the Hindu right is resurrecting forgotten heroes for political purposes and to oppress the minorities. The problem is that Shivaji was never forgotten in the first place. The debates themselves disappear, replaced by a narrative that is far easier for Western readers to recognize and consume. This is why bias is often less about outright falsehoods than about framing. The article does not simply describe Shivaji Maharaj. It encourages readers to understand him through a very particular lens: not as a historical figure who has occupied a central place in Indian historical memory for centuries, but as a symbol recently manufactured by "the Hindu right." Yet Shivaji was never forgotten. The framing tells us far more about how the Times wants its readers to view contemporary India and Hindus than it does about Shivaji himself. Of course, for those of us who have been paying attention to how @nytimes covers India and Hinduism for a long time, this distorted reportage isn't out of the ordinary. Absurd? Yes. Intellectually dishonest? Absolutely? Clearly seeking to manufacture negative public associations regarding the third-largest religion in the world? 100% Surprising? Not even a little bit.