Based on the standard you are suggesting, yes. But not based on the Merriam-Webster definition you're quoting.
Criticism -- even the harshest criticism -- is not inherently for the purpose of injury.
Do you think this article is not attempting to damage the reputation of Modi?
Dictionary.com has an interesting definition "Law. any wrong or violation of the rights, property, reputation, etc., of another for which legal action to recover damages may be made."
Seems like it could possibly apply since there is an attempt to damage Modi's reputation.
Do you really think Vox, a left leaning news outlet, is not intending to harm the reputation of Modi, a right leaning politician?
This act of expanding the definition of propaganda to include the simple publication of harsh critical journalism is unbecoming.
To be clear I am not blaming the media for causing the reputational harm in this situation. The blame falls on the person who kicked the puppy, but it doesn't change the fact there was no damage until it was published.
I think the problem we are having is we are starting with different core assumptions about propaganda. I believe it is neutral and can be used for good or bad purposes. You appear to believe it is always bad.