Let's be quite clear about this

The Economist, a socially liberal, economically reactionary, weekly magazine whose articles about the state of the world are invariably well-informed, comprehensive in scope, and clearly and humorously written, quite naturally prides itself on the accuracy of its information. When it makes a mistake, even a small terminological error, it apologizes and makes sure we know what's really what. So when it made a bubu in a story about India a couple of weeks ago, it didn't hesitate to set things right, even if its tongue seemed to be just itching to get into its cheek:

"Clarification: Last week's Banyan column used the term "Maratha" in a sense that was interchangeable with "Marathi" or "Marathi-speaker". "Maratha", however, also refers to one of the dominant castes in the state of Maharashtra, and so is potentially misleading. Many Marathis, in this sense, are not Marathas." (The Economist, February 27, 2010, p.48)