(Submitted title was "Indians “extraordinarily successful minority in America”, “burgeoning new elite”".)
While this doesn't fit into the 80 characters HN enforces, and The Economist may have been "editorializing" by using that alternative title, they editorialize by definition and I'm not sure stepping in and changing the title was necessary here.
The surprisingness of The Economist making that statement is what made that widely retweeted and made for interesting discussion here. Or was it the quotes that were "problematic" / offensive?
On HN, the submitter of a story doesn't get to frame it for everybody else. Since the title of a post is the single most important influence on the discussion, this is important.