It's a reference to The Economist's book #1's Murong Xuecun complaining about Chinese censors not allowing him to write "India-flavoured farts"[1] in his books.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murong_Xuecun In his acceptance speech for the Prize, Murong wrote a scathing commentary about his editor that he worked with for China: In the absence of a remedy. He also launched into a critique of the state of censorship in China in general. The speech was banned at the awards ceremony, but made its rounds across the internet. The draft of the speech was translated into English and delivered to the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents’ Club in February 2011, followed by a publication by The New York Times in November 2011. In the draft, Murong alluded to a wide array of censorship restrictions, including limits on discussing current affairs, contemporary personalities, and being forced to change the phrase "Chinese people" to "some people" in parts of his work. More obscure restrictions were also discussed, such as scrubbing the use of "Henan people" because it carries the air of regional discrimination, and removing references to "India-flavoured farts" because the editor was concerned about a diplomatic rift between China and India. Murong wrote that "The only truth is that we cannot speak the truth . The only acceptable viewpoint is that we cannot express a viewpoint. We cannot criticise the system, we cannot discuss current affairs, we cannot even mention distant Ethiopia."

Such oppression. Much bravery.

The economist is known for it's heavy liberal bias. He could've set it in a more polite way but he's not wrong about the reputation of the economist. Ironically the list doesn't seem too liberal? There's a book against identity politics in there. The most liberal thing I see in this list is the excessive amount of books on the "patriarchy".