The mainstream media in the US is deeply ambivalent about India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, and the political party he helms, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Modi’s five-year term is coming to a close, and for the last few weeks voters across the country have gone to the polls to elect a new parliament; results are expected on May 23, with exit polls predicting a BJP victory. While the prime minister is not directly elected, many commentators, both inside and outside the country, see the election as a referendum on Modi, who has ushered in a sea change in Indian politics.

As the contest unfolds — a massive seven-stage, five-week undertaking — US publications like the New York Times and Time have contorted themselves to show their simultaneous support for and condemnation of Modi. On economic issues, Modi is impeccably neoliberal, happy to follow the reform imperatives of the World Bank and ready to make India ever more open to international investment. On social issues, however, he is undoubtedly illiberal. A staunch follower of Hindu nationalism, or Hindutva, Modi has emboldened violent nationalist groups previously regarded as fringe: vigilantes lynch Muslims and Dalits (those formerly considered “Untouchable” by upper-caste Hindus); rationalists and anti-superstition activists are gunned down on the street; student leaders are arrested on trumped-up charges; and both media and state institutions are increasingly compromised by political inference.

For mainstream US outlets, then, Modi presents a conundrum — he’s a neoliberal in hyper-nationalist clothes. The Times has decided to split the difference, with one lengthy article praising all Modi has done to liberalize the Indian economy, and another equally lengthy article deploring the consequences of five years of Hindu nationalist rule. Time has followed the same Janus-faced approach, with a recent cover story decrying Modi’s divisiveness paired with an article lauding his agenda of “economic reform.”