Important historical hypocrisy:
1- England cancelled tours to Zimbabwe & Bangladesh citing safety
2- England benefits from ICC’s old Big-3 era
3- England hosted most ICC finals (home advantage)
4- 2019 WC Final decided on boundary count rule — later scrapped.England benefitted → rule changed after trophy was lifted.
England loved power when it owned cricket , now it hates power because it no longer does
Yet criticism is reserved only when India grows stronger. 😂😂😂
@vikrantgupta73 And he didn’t resign back then slamming the England Cricket Board for bullying the Zimbabwe Cricket Board.
The outrage today is performative and slightly driven by resentment at the fact that it is India, and not England, that is the powerhouse of cricket.
Nasser Hussain is a very important voice in world cricket. Calls a spade a spade - but did England, under his captaincy, not pull out of their 2003 World Cup game against Zimbabwe on “moral grounds”..
The world view is always idealistic. Problem is for those in the hot seat because we no longer live in an ideal world
@Olacabs please look into the issue faced against Ticket ID:18695883, even after contacting grievance cell, no support provided and gross negligence in reading the issue, while it was regarding cab’s flat tyre revert was regarding switching on AC. Undue excess fare charged. Help
@Swiggy Very bad response from customer care team, regarding delivery of snacks that are cold and stale, order was from @BikanervalaIN.. No one is ready to communicate, processing nominal refund of rs 30 against order value of more than rs 500 and that too without consulting
Not a single English language newspaper has covered the gangrape of a Pakistani Hindu refugee girl in Jaisalmer by Mohd Fazal, Mohd Qurban and Mohd Shabbir
Ruling BJP’s opposition has not taken it up either, despite refugees staging protest for three weeks
Survivor is from a Scheduled Tribe, but no so-called dalit organisation has raised it
Your annual reminder that satya, ahinsa, satyagrah had no role in Britain’s decision to free India. The real reasons:
1. WWII left Britain bankrupt, owing huge debts, making colonial administration too costly.
2. That debt was mostly from the US, which opposed old-style imperialism via the Atlantic Charter (1941) and pressured the UK to decolonize.
3. The Labour Party came to power in 1945 in the UK. It was openly anti-imperialist, seeing the empire as a burden and focusing on building the welfare state instead of maintaining colonial rule.
4. The western world was seeing a rise of anti-colonial sentiments. WWII’s rhetoric of freedom and democracy clashed with imperial rule; colonialism was increasingly seen as hypocritical and illegitimate globally.
5. The United Nations came into existence, and its 1945 Charter encouraged self-government; Britain faced international scrutiny and moral pressure to grant independence.
6. The rise of armed nationalist movements in colonies like India and Palestine made governance costly and unstable. The British army was overstretched, under-equipped, and war-weary, unable to manage widespread armed insurgencies.
As a result, Britain freed over 60 colonies after WWII, usually based on their economic value and the resources needed to control them. Only one of these had satya, ahinsa, satyagrah. If that really worked, India would have been free decades earlier; Gandhi had been waving that banner for years, and the British didn’t budge until they were broke and exhausted.
So the idea that dedi hame aazadi bina khadag bina dhaal is is simply not true.