According to The Economist:
The good that's happening in India is due to Modi having "turbocharged" what his rival party Congress set out to do. How? By "pouring in" money, as if that alone is ever sufficient for any country's infrastructure.
The bad that's happening in India is due to Modi standing in the way of progress ("Yet Bhubaneswar also illustrates what is holding Indian cities back... Mr. Modi must try to give them more power")
Yes, The Economist can have political opinions, and it can (and does) call out what it dislikes about a party even when it really is not relevant, but if it does not have the courage to lay out facts with an open mind, it should stop pretending to have any measure of truthfulness or objectivity.
The real question is whether we as the public are doing a good enough job at holding these esteemed publications accountable for their mission -- especially as they continue to hold the position of authoritativeness in the public eye. (NYT holds a cachet that no number of Twitter handles or Medium sites combined would come close to.)
At the same time, there is something about Indian cities (and a lot of Asian cities) that America just doesn't seem to have - families living in core city downtown-like areas. Families demand convenient walkable stores and cheap public transportation. And these are available in abundance in even small cities in India.
