Sachin's word isn't outcome determinative and he doesn't have to say a single word until he knows what's happened. All this misdirected anger is because people assume that Sachin has the obligation to fight their battles. He doesn't. BTW your Messiah, Dravid, does the same.
Ordinarily fucking endless paeans will be written on Dravid's greatness but when suddenly it is time to take a stand, his unwillingness to do so is immediately forgiven and forgotten and suddenly we're reminded he isn't the legend that Sachin is. Make up your fickle minds.
Cricketers don't speak up because they are castigated when they do. They speak up in support of their nation against foreign interference seeking to ignite a bogus protest on an issue that there was national consensus on until the unfettered right to baseless protest arrived.
And if you've chosen Sachin to be another point of divide, good for you. You'll lose this battle too. Shows how little you understand the country. You can keep elevating others and trying to create narratives but you will never match the visceral connect that Sachin has. Never.
What would be infinitely more productive is if anyone from the current management spoke out. Or someone who has played under Jaffer in Uttarakhand or elsewhere. The reason this is being pinned on Sachin is because he didn't follow your narrative on #FarmLaws.
So basically Jaffer is just a pawn for you.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What is the exact problem with this thread? The ancient religions, globally, whether the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians or Indians never divorced sensuality from divinity. They never criminalised sexuality and they never demanded asexuality in either religious allegory or devotion
You may find an image offensive because I think you recognise the insulting intent of the maker of the statement. But please don't narrow down your theological constructs to accommodate a recognisable basis for this disapproval. The above-reproach system that the Abhrahamic
faiths have for their religion is leading them to a crisis. Can you ever imagine fighting over the rights of a woman/person to their bodily choices based on Indic religions like the Abrahamics fight over abortion? Why not? Because our theology doesn't lay down such constructs.
Since it is inevitable that #ShivSena will be secularised and portrayed as those who fought for Marathi pride, I think we should crowd source a reality check thread. Here's my first contribution: indiatoday.in/india/story/pe…
Man, I always had memory of the fact that the Sena was at par with a lot of the deranged Sadhu types when it came to crazy comments. Lovely to collate the evidence.
An election thread today. I don't do numbers; I'm not a psephologist. But I do understand strategic posturing. More specifically I'm intrigued by the behavior of the Congress of late. It is clear that their desire to not enter into coalitions across states is entirely by design.
What could be the motivation behind this? A) 2019 is a complete write off and they want to preserve their identity even if the means a total collapse in seats. To be in a coalition and end up with 50-75 seats again is an utter disaster for them even if they keep Modi out.
B) They are quite confident of their position in states where they are directly against the BJP. If they blunt the BJP in those states, the MGB is likely to take care of the BJP in the other states. I think this is their thinking and it is by no means baseless in the way many
Every time Sibal and the like have gone bench shopping, the CJI has had a riposte. Today's was perfectly executed by the CJI. Past actions much more questionable. Gone are the times, people used to wait for retirements and roster changes to file matters. Now they want an excuse
to select the bench for themselves. Any one of the great seniors would have either taken the bench head on on the legal question of impeachment or, knowing full well that the matter can't be decided against Dipak Misra during his tenure (for paucity of time), would have argued
anyway with the intent of having the question of law decided in the future - because the QofL matters more than a particular CJI. For all the moralising, it is the petitioners today who have not shown any regard for either the institution or the Constitution. Thus proving again