An ex-paratrooper, SF operator, fitness enthusiast, berserker, veteran of 20 years in the Indian Armed Forces, and powerlifter.
Sennan-shi, Osaka
Joined December 2017
- Tweets2.4K
- Following360
- Followers36
- Likes103
Oh, @RitikaChopra__ . Darling, that editorial.
You tweet "underwhelming, raises more questions than it answers" like it's a verdict, when it's just @IndianExpress grading its own homework and giving itself an A.
Let me fix that little illusion for you with facts, since The Truth seems to be on deadline:
1. The "one-man show" fairy tale is dead. The ECI's 248-page affidavit filed Oct 26 before the SC says - under oath, not in an op-ed that all three SIR orders across 2025-26 were "unanimous decisions passed with the collective consensus of the full Commission." Not Gyanesh Kumar soloing. Unanimous. Including Sandhu and Joshi. The thing you called a one-man dictatorship? It had two co-signers.
2. Form 6 was never touched. ECI told the Court it has NOT amended Form 6, the statutory form for new voters. What was added was a separate declaration for SIR. You screamed "unauthorised/illegal change to Form 6" - the affidavit calls it an addition, not an amendment. That's like accusing someone of forging a will because they added a sticky note.
3. The Court isn't buying the hysteria. If the affidavit was so underwhelming, why did the Supreme Court on Oct 27 give your heroes 10 days to file a rejoinder instead of passing orders? Courts don't give homework time to petitions that have already won. They say: "prove it."
And yes - the affidavit even confirms your scoop that the two ECs wrote to the Cabinet Secretary. It didn't hide it. It put it on record in 248 pages with annexures. That's not a "silence." That's what transparency looks like when it isn't wearing an Express masthead.
Your editorial raises more questions than it answers because you filed questions and called them journalism.
The ECI filed answers under oath. You filed vibes on X.
Do come back when you've read past the headline you wrote.
.@IndianExpress editorial today:
“The affidavit that the Election Commission of India has filed before the Supreme Court is underwhelming, raises more questions than it answers.”
indianexpress.com/article/op…
For @Erishuuu:
"I don't support any political party" - Sentence 2: "I hate BJP and I always will."
You just debunked yourself in 7 words. That's not apolitical, that's just political illiteracy with a halo on top.
You don't hate patriarchy, casteism, extremism - you have a selective subscription to it. You hate BJP, so everything else you hate gets clubbed with BJP by default. That's not principle, that's branding.
"I believe every creature is equal. Humans are not superior." - Then why is your entire timeline about human identity politics? You can't claim to be above human hierarchies while your whole personality is ranking humans by caste, gender and religion.
Best part: "I can't hate any human just because they don't share my beliefs" - You literally opened with "I hate the BJP, and I always will." That's 40%+ of this country. That's crores of humans you just pre-hated because they don't share your beliefs.
You don't hate hate. You just hate the hate that doesn't agree with you.
If you want to be anti-BJP, be anti-BJP. Own it. Don't wrap it in this fake Buddha-kin, all-creatures-are-equal, I-am-above-politics nonsense. That faux-neutral enlightened act is the oldest trick on Indian Twitter, and everyone sees through it.
I don't support any political party, whoever is in power.
But I hate the BJP, and I always will.
I hate patriarchy.
I hate casteism.
I hate religious extremism.
I support gender equality.
I believe every creature is equal.
Humans are not superior.
I don't know who I am, but I can't hate any human just because they don't share my beliefs, follow a different religion or caste, or live in another country.
And I will always hate every system or every person who hates anyone because of their religion, caste or gender.
So summary:
Express headline: "EC says unanimous, BUT big question unanswered"
Translation: EC produced file, affidavit, dates, unanimity - we have no counter-document, so we will keep "question" alive.
Unanimity = fact on oath.
Objections = file chatter.
Form 6 law = unchanged.
This is not investigative journalism, this is headline trying to survive its own fact-check.
दिव्या कुमारी वाला पोस्टमॉर्टम नहीं, व्हाट्सएप यूनिवर्सिटी का पोस्टमार्टम का नाटक है। रितिका चोपड़ा की रिपोर्ट को चाट कर उस पर अपना तड़का लगाना पत्रकारिता नहीं है। तथ्य सुन -
1. "फैसले पहले, सूचना बाद में" - झूठ का पहला अध्याय
ECI ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट में हलफनामे में साफ लिखा है कि SIR से जुड़े तीनों फैसले सर्वसम्मति से थे। अलग राय होना सामान्य है, आखिरी फैसला unanimous था।
और जिस 28 जुलाई वाले ऑर्डर को लेकर हल्ला है, ECI ने कहा है - 30 जुलाई को दोनों आयुक्तों के संयुक्त निर्देश के बाद वो ऑर्डर कभी लागू ही नहीं हुआ। तो जो लागू ही नहीं हुआ उसका रोना क्यों?
इलेक्ट्रॉनिक अप्रूवल अर्जेंट मामलों में होता है, ये कोई चोरी नहीं है। इसे "कैबिनेट सचिव को पत्र" बोलकर साजिश बनाना बंद करो।
2. "Form-6 में खेल" - खेल तुम्हारी समझ में है
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने खुद कहा है - हमने कोई Modified Form 6 अप्रूव नहीं किया है। चीफ जस्टिस ने कहा रिकॉर्ड पर आना चाहिए किसने बदला।
ECI ने भी माना - हमने Form-6 बदला ही नहीं। Declaration अलग से अटैच किया था SIR के लिए। ECI का अपना शब्द है - "It is NOT a part of Form 6"। वो ऑनलाइन पेज पर "entered" किया था bonafide objective के लिए।
यानी कानून की किताब वाला Form-6 वही है, ऑनलाइन में एक घोषणा जोड़ दी थी। इसे संसद की मंजूरी वाला मुद्दा बनाना बौद्धिक दिवालियापन है।
3. "डेटा सुरक्षा और ECINet पर खामोशी" और "अंदरूनी कलह"
रितिका की पूरी इन्वेस्टिगेशन का सार सिर्फ इतना है - 10 महीने में 14 बार आपत्ति दर्ज हुई। आपत्ति मतलब लोकतंत्र, कलह नहीं।
ECI एक कॉलेजियम है, वहाँ नोटशीट पर असहमति लिखी जाती है। इसका मतलब ये नहीं कि संस्था टूट गई। ECI ने हलफनामे में इसे "misconceived" कहा है।
और रही ECINet की स्वतंत्र निगरानी - ECI कोई प्राइवेट सॉफ्टवेयर कंपनी नहीं है जो तुम्हें अपना सोर्स कोड दे दे। वोटर डेटाबेस पर Representation of People Act है, तुम्हारी ट्विटर थ्रेड नहीं।
ये पोस्टमॉर्टम नहीं, अफवाह का पंचनामा है।
पत्रकार रितिका चोपड़ा ने फिर किया बड़ा धमाका 🔥🔥
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दाखिल चुनाव आयोग (ECI) के हलफनामे का पोस्टमार्टम किया
1. फैसले पहले, सूचना बाद में: दोनों चुनाव आयुक्तों को नीतियां लागू होने के बाद पता क्यों चला?
2. Form-6 में खेल: बिना पूरी बेंच को बताए जुलाई 2026 में ऑनलाइन फॉर्म में बदलाव किसके इशारे पर हुआ?
3. डेटा सुरक्षा पर खामोशी: वोटर डेटाबेस और ECINet सॉफ्टवेयर की स्वतंत्र निगरानी वाले सुझावों पर आयोग चुप क्यों है?
3. अंदरूनी कलह: शीर्ष आयुक्तों को आंतरिक शिकायत के लिए सीधे कैबिनेट सचिव को पत्र क्यों लिखना पड़ा?
कागजी सर्वसम्मति के पीछे का सच अब सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने है!
अरे प्रज्ञा लाइव! जरा लाइव फैक्ट चेक भी सुन लो:
"11 में 5 तो जीतेंगे ही, भाजपा घुटनों पर"
घुटनों पर कौन है? आंकड़ा देखो:
11 सीटों में अभी तक BJP - 5 सीट जीत चुकी है [मेरठ ग्रेजुएट, मेरठ टीचर्स, लखनऊ टीचर्स, बरेली-मुरादाबाद टीचर्स, आगरा ग्रेजुएट], और 2 पर लीड में है।
समाजवादी पार्टी - सिर्फ 2 सीट जीती है - वाराणसी टीचर्स और आगरा टीचर्स।
5 जीतने का सपना देख रही थीं, 2 पर अटकी पड़ी है। ये शानदार रणनीति है या शानदार सेल्फ-गोल?
"बनारस की दोनों सीटें भाजपा हार की कगार पर"
एक और झूठ की पुड़िया।
वाराणसी टीचर्स - हाँ, सपा के लाल बिहारी यादव जीते, 10,958 वोट बनाम भाजपा के 6,060। मान लिया।
पर वाराणसी ग्रेजुएट? वहाँ सपा सिर्फ लीड कर रही है, जीती नहीं है, और दूसरी तरफ मेरठ में भाजपा ने सपा को दोनों सीटों पर धो डाला। दोनों हार गई वाली कहानी तुम्हारी कल्पना है, काशी की जमीन नहीं।
"गोरखपुर में कितनी बेईमानी करके जीता"
अरे भाई, गोरखपुर-फैजाबाद टीचर्स पर भाजपा के ध्रुव कुमार त्रिपाठी शुरू से लीड में हैं। गिनती अभी जारी है, और तुमने पहले ही बेईमानी का सर्टिफिकेट छाप दिया?
जब जीतता है विपक्ष तो लोकतंत्र, जब हारता है तो बेईमानी? ये कौन सा नया संविधान है प्रज्ञा जी?
MLC चुनाव में अखिलेश यादव की शानदार रणनीति ने भाजपा को घुटनों पर ला दिया है...11 में 5 तो जीतेंगे ही ..बेईमानी की इतनी खबरों के बीच सुबह हो गई.. बनारस की दोनों सीटें भाजपा हार की कगार पर है... गोरखपुर की सीट पर ये नहीं देखा जाना चाहिए कि कौन जीता... ये देखा जाना चाहिए कितनी बेईमानी करके जीता.. थोड़ी बेईमानी या निक्खा बेईमानी...
My dear Suhani,
What a fascinating little help-wanted ad you've posted for a husband. Most women want a partner. You want a unicorn who does the dishes.
Let's take your bare minimum, which is, if nothing else, barely minimal thought.
1. Virgin, but submissive.
You want a man untouched by women, yet fully trained by one. A virgin who is also an expert in obedience. That's not a husband, darling, that's a rescue puppy you found on celibacy.com.
2. Has to give me a female child.
This is my favorite. Biology called — it wants its high school textbook back. It's the father's sperm that determines sex, yes, but neither of you gets to place an order like it's a Zomato delivery. You can't demand a female child any more than you can demand it rain only on your ex's house. That you think you can, tells us everything about your understanding of science and nothing about genetics.
-> He will take my last name after marriage.
He can. Legally, he can take your last name, your credit card debt, and your cat. The question is not whether he can, but why any self-respecting adult with options would sign up to be legally rebranded by someone whose entire personality is a bullet-pointed ransom note.
3. Can cook, clean and raise kids by himself.
So he is to be virgin, submissive, chef, maid, nanny, and sole parent. May I ask, what exactly are you bringing to this marriage, besides the list? Your presence? A sort of decorative, supervisory role?
You call this bare minimum. It reads less like minimum and more like maximum delusion. You've described a man who earns, cooks, cleans, gestates your ideology, and erases his own family name while raising your demanded daughter alone.
That man doesn't exist. And if he did, he wouldn't be submissive - he'd be too busy running in the opposite direction.
You don't want a husband. You want staff that doesn't get a salary, a day off, or an opinion.
Take a rest, dear. The bare minimum for a husband is not a man who does everything. The bare minimum for a wife is knowing you have to do something.
अरे ओ व्हाट्सएप यूनिवर्सिटी के कुलपति बिट्टू शर्मा जी!
जिस महिला को तुम "घर चलाने के लिए लेक्चरर की नौकरी" बता रहे हो, उसका नाम है डेम जैसिंडा अर्डर्न।
और तुम्हारा पूरा ट्वीट 100% कचरा है, सुनो तथ्य:
1. मजबूरी में नहीं, इज्जत से बुलाई गई है:
वो ऑस्ट्रेलिया में कोई प्राइमरी स्कूल की टीचर नहीं बनी। सिडनी यूनिवर्सिटी ने उसे Professor of Practice बनाया है, 5 साल के पेड कॉन्ट्रैक्ट पर। वो गेस्ट लेक्चर, मास्टरक्लास और मेंटरशिप देगी "एम्पैथेटिक लीडरशिप" पर। दुनिया की टॉप यूनिवर्सिटी लाइन लगाकर बुला रही है।
2. तुम्हारे मोदी जी वाला Whataboutery बंद करो:
जैसिंडा हार्वर्ड यूनिवर्सिटी में डुअल फेलोशिप कर चुकी है, ऑक्सफोर्ड के ब्लावतनिक स्कूल ऑफ गवर्नमेंट में Distinguished Fellow है, प्रिंस विलियम के Earthshot Prize की ट्रस्टी है, और 2025 में उसकी किताब "A Different Kind of Power" बेस्टसेलर है। उसको तुम्हारी तरह घर चलाने के लिए नौकरी नहीं करनी पड़ रही, उसके पास रॉयल्टी से ही तुम्हारी 7 पुश्तों से ज्यादा पैसा है।
3. वो हारी नहीं, खुद छोड़ी है:
तुम्हें लगता है नौकरी इसलिए कर रही है क्योंकि सत्ता चली गई? मैडम ने जनवरी 2023 में खुद इस्तीफा दिया था, हारी नहीं थी। 2020 में तो 50% वोट लाकर इतिहास बनाया था न्यूजीलैंड में। तुम्हारे यहाँ तो कुर्सी से चिपके रहते हैं आखिरी सांस तक।
4. और ये विधायक वाला ज्ञान?
न्यूजीलैंड में पीएम को पेंशन, सिक्योरिटी, प्रोटोकॉल मिलता है, लेकिन वहाँ कल्चर है कि रिटायर होकर भी काम करो। वो फकीरी का नाटक नहीं करती, ईमानदारी से काम करती है। तुम्हें फकीरी और भिखारी में फर्क नहीं पता।
तुम्हारी प्रॉब्लम पता है क्या बिट्टू? तुमने कभी किताब नहीं पढ़ी, बस फॉरवर्डेड मीम पढ़ा है। तुम्हें लगता है विदेश जाना मतलब मजबूरी है। अरे, वो सिडनी के नॉर्दर्न बीचेज़ में रहती है, पति और बेटी के साथ, अपनी मर्जी से गई है। तुम दिल्ली से शिलांग जाओ तो भी तुम्हें वीजा जैसा लगता होगा।
अगली बार जब किसी महिला पीएम पर ज्ञान देना, तो गूगल कर लेना, वरना ऐसे ही नंगा हो जाओगे।
भारत में ऐसा हो सकता है? हाँ, अगर नेता तुम्हारे जैसे चाटुकारों के लिए नहीं, देश के लिए काम करें तो।
क्या आप कल्पना करेंगे कि अगर मोदीजी 15 साल पीएम रहकर अपना घर चलाने के लिए किसी जगह पर जाकर नौकरी करते?
तस्वीर में दिख रही मैडम Jacinda Ardern हैँ
जो कि न्यूज़ीलैंड की पूर्व पीएम हैँ. 2017 से 2023 तक देश चलाने वाली इस महिला को पता है अब क्या करना पड़ रहा है??
ऑस्ट्रेलिया में जाकर इनको यूनिवर्सिटी में लेक्चरर की नौकरी करनी पड़ रही है.
कोविड के समय देश को आपदा से बचाने वाली महिला को विदेश जाकर घर चलाने के लिए काम करना पड़ रहा
सोचिये, हमारे यहाँ तो एक विधायक भी सारी उम्र बैठकर खाता है, इन्होने साहब की तरह फकीरी वाला जीवन जिया होता तो ये दिन ना देखने पड़ते
क्या भारत में ऐसा होना संभव है??
So little Mickey has discovered humor. "I think u were recruited in Siachen and retired from there itself."
A witticism so historically illiterate, it deserves to be preserved in formaldehyde.
Even the dullest recruit in the dimmest company knows an Army career is not a tent pitched forever on a glacier. One is not recruited in Siachen and retired from Siachen like some abominable snowman with a pension. There are academies, Young Officers courses, tenures, postings, promotions, wars. There is a cartography of service you have never unfolded, because your entire atlas is your timeline.
But what else to expect? From a mind that operates at absolute zero - and I mean that literally, Mickey. Zero. Perhaps a dash below.
"Didn't go for any training or YOs, only went where you urine froze. Brains as well."
You imagine this is a jab. It is, in fact, a confession. You have no facts, so you counterfeit jokes. No argument, so you peddle abuse. Profanity, you see, is the last refuge of the lexically bankrupt - what fools use when facts desert them.
Why, pray, should I unroll my twenty years of service particulars - my courses, my commissions, my ops in J&K - before a tribunal of one, whose sole qualification is an anonymous handle and an inexhaustible supply of vulgarity? You demand proof, yet you bring no evidence. You mock names because you cannot master nouns.
Facts require research. Research requires a brain. Do you possess either, or is invective your only inheritance?
You confuse seniority with senility because you have known neither. I have forgotten more of cold, of courage, of comradeship than your entire curated life will ever contain.
You mistook my restraint for weakness. A common error among the chronically irrelevant. Let me correct it, once, with precision : I am restrained because I am secure in what I did. You are abusive because you are nothing, and you know it.
Now - bye, as you so eloquently put it.
He's done it again, hasn't he? Our Sushant - actor, ex-soldier, perennial Cassandra of the cantonment - leaning against a lamppost with a newspaper clipping as if it were evidence, whispering: "The dangers will be consequential."
My dear Sushant, consequential is your imagination. Let me tell you what is actually consequential: facts.
You hold up that newspaper photo - a sea of turbans and rifles - as a trial by fire. How literary. How entirely hollow.
The Great Bogeyman You Invented Does Not Exist.
You suggest, with that exquisite, mournful pause of yours, that 75% of Agniveers released into the world will become some feral, unemployed, weaponized militia. That they will be lured by criminal networks. That India will reap what it sowed.
The Government of India, unlike your tweet, anticipated this fiction and dismantled it before you even typed it.
Myth #6: Agniveers will pose a danger to society.
Fact: This myth is an insult to the ethos of the Indian armed forces. That's not my line. That's the official busting of your exact paranoia.
And another: The claim that Agniveers will pose a law-and-order threat is unfounded. No security threat post-retirement.
Do you hear that, Sushant? Unfounded. Your consequential danger is a ghost story you tell other liberals at dinner parties.
Let me show you what actually happens after four years, since you clearly haven't bothered to read beyond the headline:
The first batch? 18,300 Agniveers are already transitioning — with yoga, psych tests, and a 50% CAPF quota in the pipeline. Not roaming the badlands with rifles, but doing breathing exercises and filling out application forms.
The Government has given in-principle approval for reservation of 10 per cent of vacancies for ex-Agniveers in recruitment to constable and rifleman in CAPFs and Assam Rifles. The Government has announced a reservation of 10% for ex-Agniveers in constable vacancies in CAPFs and Assam Rifles - plus three years relaxation in upper age limit.
States have already started absorbing them. Maharashtra alone has inducted 282 former Navy Agniveers into its Police Force, specifically into coastal security. Odisha, UP, MP - 10% horizontal reservation in police, forest, fire, excise. These boys aren't becoming dacoits, Sushant. They're becoming the police that will catch dacoits.
And the economics you conveniently omit: Rs 11.71 lakh tax-free Seva Nidhi, plus Rs 44 lakh disability cover, plus Rs 1 crore death cover, plus skill certificates. That is not "released to the wolves." That is released with a bank balance, a skill set, and a reserved job queue.
You, who played a soldier once in uniform and then quit to play one on Twitter, should know better than to insult the discipline of the men who actually wore it.
An Army man does not become a gangster because his tenure ended. He becomes a BSF jawan, a CISF guard, a Maharashtra coastal policeman, a businessman, a coach. To suggest otherwise is not just wrong - it is, as the government rightly said, an insult.
So please, Sushant. Put down the clipping. The Agnipath trial by fire is over. The boys passed. It's your narrative that failed.
And consequential dangers? Darling, the only consequential danger here is that people might actually start believing you.
Bro… you have no idea how happy I am to see your post. All evening I’ve been scrolling through the posts of that particular species of feminist - not the kind that reads books, but the kind that reads captions - who simply cannot survive the sight of a happy woman.
The poor things. Uneducated in love, illiterate in happiness. They have mastered every word of liberation and understood none of it. They can spell “autonomy” but short-circuit at “choice.”
The bonkers brigade believes feminism means a woman must never choose a man. And if she does, she must apologise every ten minutes, submit a written declaration, and assure the committee that she is still empowered.
She chose him. That was the empowerment. You just weren’t invited to the meeting.
The poor, uneducated feminists are pulling their hair out - though honestly, with that much rage, the roots gave up long ago.
Feminism was never about hating a woman’s happiness. It was about giving her the freedom to find it - with a man, without a man, with a career, with a kitchen, with a crown, or with all of the above.
But some people only want liberation when it comes with an audience, a hashtag, and a villain.
A happy woman is their final boss.
My two cents on the current discourse:
When clips started going viral alleging Rashmika was playing "prince" to a self-obsessed partner, I almost bought into the red flag narrative myself. But then I actually sat down and watched the Koffee with Karan episode to judge for myself. The internet, as usual, completely blew things out of proportion.
Here’s what people are missing:
> Nurturing love isn’t a sign of weakness. It is entirely valid to shower your partner with affection and fight for a connection you truly believe in. Great relationships require intentional cultivation early on.
> Vulnerability gets mischaracterized. Vijay openly admitted his fear of being hurt and staying guarded, a natural defense mechanism in an era where modern dating dynamics can easily derail a person’s life and mental well-being.
> Commitment hesitation is real. Given how heavily skewed modern legal and marital frameworks can be, men are naturally going to approach marriage with caution. That isn't a red flag; it's self-preservation.
> Family values are a green flag. Loving a man who deeply respects his parents and siblings isn't a flaw; it’s a sign that he understands duty, loyalty, and how to hold a bond together.
> Love isn't a neat 50/50 transaction. Real relationships are fluid and evolve in phases. If one partner gives more in the beginning, the balance naturally shifts as trust deepens and mutual worth is proven. You can't judge a lifelong journey by a 45-minute edited episode.
Miserable armchair critics smoking in dingy rooms love preaching about how relationships should look while never building anything meaningful themselves. Everyone’s definition of love is different, stop projecting and let people celebrate what works for them.✌️
My dear Colonel Gurjar,
With all due respect which, after reading your tweet, is rapidly dwindling to a vestigial courtesy - you have committed that most unpardonable of intellectual sins: you have conflated emotive rhetoric with empirical reality, and then draped it in the tricolour for immunity from scrutiny.
Let us, with far less melodrama and far more data, dismantle this sanctimonious soliloquy.
1. On your "disability pensions fought tooth and nail" canard:
What hyperbolic tomfoolery! Do you not know that in 2019, this very government withdrew appeals against disability pensions? The Ministry of Defence itself has clarified on record that it has not reopened old withdrawn cases. observervoice.com/no-cases-w…
And when the Defence Ministry in its infinite bureaucratic wisdom attempted in October 2023 to file fresh writ petitions against Armed Forces Tribunal orders favouring disabled soldiers, who do you think intervened? The judiciary. The Delhi High Court dismissed 300 such petitions by the MoD, observing unequivocally that disability pensions acknowledge sacrifice. The Supreme Court has repeatedly frowned upon the policy of denying rounding-off benefits and has dismissed the Centre's appeals against disability pensions.
So, Colonel, the system is not "fighting soldiers" - the system, flawed as all systems are, is being corrected by the courts, under this government, not despite some imaginary past golden age you invoke.
2. On your Short Service Commission sophistry:
Your juxtaposition of a 14-year SSC officer with a 10-year civil servant is a masterpiece of false equivalence, the kind that would make a first-year law student blush.
Do you know what happened in March 2026? The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict, held that women Short Service Commission officers released after 14 years shall be deemed to have completed 20 years of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Full pension. One-time relief. Justice Surya Kant's bench. cnbctv18.com/india/sc-grants…
And as for ECHS? The Supreme Court itself appreciated the extension of lifelong ECHS and medical cover to invalidated cadets as a "laudable measure." The disparity you lament is being adjudicated, not ignored. You speak as if nothing has moved. Everything has moved — except perhaps your reading list.
3. On the Agniveer "two-tier Army" bogey:
Ah, the pièce de résistance of every armchair strategist's outrage!
This "two-tier" Army you bemoan? Let me educate you with numbers, not nostalgia.
An Agniveer who suffers 100% disability attributable to service receives up to Rs 44 lakh as compensation. On death, his family receives up to Rs 1 crore including Seva Nidhi and unserved salary. During service, he receives identical risk allowances - Siachen, field, high altitude - as any regular sepoy. On exit after four years, he receives a tax-free Seva Nidhi corpus of Rs 11.71 lakh, not to mention 10% reservation in CAPFs, Assam Rifles, and state police forces, plus credit for skill India. asombarta.in/agnipath-scheme…
25% are absorbed into the permanent cadre with full pension thereafter. The remaining 75% leave at age 21-25, employable, insured, and funded. What did the old system give us? An army with an average age of 32, a pension bill that devoured 30% of the defence budget, and jawans doing sentry duty at 40.
Your two-tier is actually a two-time-bomb defused: one that makes the force younger, leaner, and technologically more adept - average age now trending to 26.
In Conclusion:
You write, "A soldier's contract is not a commercial deal. It is a one-way promise." Quite right. Which is precisely why it should not be reduced to a transactional tweet for engagement farming.
This government delivered One Rank One Pension after four decades of prevarication by the very dispensation whose intellectual camp followers now cheer your post. It granted pension to SSC women, it insured Agniveers for a crore, it is litigating less and granting more.
Your introspection, dear Colonel, is indeed overdue. But not for the government.
For you.
Kindly introspect, then retire from this discourse with the same dignity with which our soldiers retire from the border - quietly, and without demanding applause.
🔥 Soldiers sign a blank cheque of their lives for the nation.
🚨 Introspection is no longer optional. It is overdue.
They don’t negotiate terms. They don’t ask for guarantees. They simply go.
Yet under this government, serious questions are being raised across the rank and file about the state of Army welfare:
Why are disability pensions of soldiers still being fought tooth and nail in tribunals and courts, years after the injury?
Why do Short Service Commission officers, who serve on the same borders and missions for 14 years, still have to fight for ECHS and pensions through the courts? (In civil services, the minimum pensionable service is 10 years, without the harsh conditions of the Army.)
Why has the Agniveer scheme created a two-tier Army, one that serves for four years with limited benefits, and another that bears the full risk and burden of a lifelong career?
Why is there a growing sense among veterans that the system that once protected them is now testing their patience instead?
A soldier’s contract with the nation is not a commercial deal. It is a one-way promise.
When that promise starts looking conditional, the government must answer, not with slogans, but with clear policy.
Introspection is no longer optional. It is overdue.
Ragebaiting for chillars isn’t influence; it’s digital begging with better grammar. Go build something real instead of chasing validation from people who’ll forget you by tomorrow.
Today, I visited a juice shop called Juice Adda.
When I was about to pay, I noticed Modi Ji’s picture hanging in the shop. I asked the owner why he had put it there.
He replied, “Ye bahut acche insaan hain, hum inki daily pooja karte hain instead of God.”
So, I refused to take the juice.
Did I do something wrong??
सुन निशांत आनंद, ज्ञानचंद!
तू ट्विटर पर क्रांति करेगा? सड़कछाप व्हाट्सएप यूनिवर्सिटी का कूड़ा उठा के शायर बन रहा है - "जिंदा नजर आना जरूरी है" - अबे जिंदा है तो पहले दिमाग जिंदा कर!
तेरे हर झूठ का पोस्टमार्टम सुन:
1. CJI को पैनल से हटाया - अबे अनपढ़, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने खुद अनूप बरनवाल केस में कहा था - "जब तक संसद कानून नहीं बनाती, तब तक CJI रहेंगे"। संसद ने कानून बना दिया। PM, LoP और एक कैबिनेट मंत्री। ये है लोकतंत्र, तेरे बाप की जागीर नहीं कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ही कानून बनाएगा। विधायिका का काम विधायिका करेगी।
2. ECI को इम्युनिटी - कौन सी इम्युनिटी बे? सेक्शन 16 पढ़ा है? Good faith में किए काम के लिए प्रोटेक्शन हर संवैधानिक पद को मिलता है, जज को भी, अफसर को भी। इसका मतलब ये नहीं कि कोई मर्डर करके घूमेगा। झूठ फैलाना बंद कर।
3. अनिल मसीह CCTV में पकड़ा - अबे मूर्ख, वो चंडीगढ़ मेयर का चुनाव था! वो ECI करवाता है क्या? वो UT प्रशासन करवाता है। और हुआ क्या? सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उसी CCTV के दम पर तेरे चोर को पकड़ा, चुनाव पलटा, और लोकतंत्र बचाया। यही तो सिस्टम का प्रूफ है, तेरे प्रोपेगेंडा का नहीं।
4. 4000 EVM जली - तो? EVM जलने से वोट बदल जाता है क्या? EVM में वोट स्टोर होता है, VVPAT होता है, मॉक पोल होता है। जल गई तो दोबारा चुनाव होगा। तेरे जैसे लोग ही हैं जो लाश पर भी वोट चोरी का भूत देखते हैं।
5. हरियाणा पंचायत रिजल्ट बदला - अबे गधे, हरियाणा पंचायत में EVM होती ही नहीं है! वहां बैलेट पेपर से होता है। कोर्ट ने रीकाउंट करवाया और सच सामने आया। ये तो अदालत की जीत है। इसमें ECI कहाँ से आ गया? कुछ भी बक देता है।
6. CCTV कानून बदला - कानून इसलिए बदला कि तू जैसे सस्ते जासूस बूथ के अंदर की फुटेज मांग कर ये देख सकें कि किसने किसको वोट दिया। वोट की गोपनीयता नाम की भी कोई चीज होती है, संविधान में लिखी है। फुटेज लीक होगी तो गुंडे घर-घर जाकर धमकाएंगे। समझा?
7. Form 6 और 26.09.2026 की प्रेस नोट - ECI ने कहा है SC के अप्रूवल से बदलाव हुए, और तू ट्विटर पर SC बन गया? तेरे पास प्रेस नोट से ज्यादा सबूत है क्या? कागज दिखा, नहीं तो मुंह बंद रख।
असली बात सुन - तुझे लोकतंत्र से नहीं, मोदी-शाह-ECI से नफरत है इसलिए तू हर संवैधानिक संस्था को गाली देता है।
तेरी क्रांति ट्विटर के 280 अक्षरों में ही खत्म हो जाती है।
जहाँ अक्ल पर आंच आए, वहाँ टकराना नहीं, वहाँ पढ़ना जरूरी है!
निकल अब, दोबारा इस कचरे के साथ मत आना।
CJI removed from selection panel, ECI gets immunity,
Anil Masih caught on CCTV in Chandigarh election,
4000 EVMs burnt,
Haryana Panchayat results changed after EVMs checked in court,
CCTV law amended after court asked for footage, and
ECI press note (26.09.2026) claiming SC approved Form 6 changes.
जहाँ असूलों पर आंच आए, वहाँ टकराना जरूरी है...
अगर जिंदा हो तो जिंदा नजर आना जरूरी है!
प्रोफेसर के चोंगे में छिपे हुए जोकर @mukeshbudharwi, सुन -
तू बुद्धि के विकास की बात करता है? तेरी बुद्धि तो JNU की कैंटीन में चाय के साथ ही घुट कर मर गई थी।
जिस बुजुर्ग को तू जीता-जागता सबूत बोल रहा है, उसने 1946 से आज तक इस देश को रोज़ दिया है। तूने क्या दिया है? ट्विटर पर चार लाइन की हगाई के अलावा?
शाखा में जाना शुरू किया तो सोचना बंद हो जाता है, ये तू कह रहा है?
अबे अक्ल के अंधे -
शाखा में जो 80 साल का बूढ़ा रोज़ जाता है, वो तेरे जैसे 100 प्रोफेसरों से ज्यादा फिट है, ज्यादा अनुशासित है, ज्यादा देशभक्त है। वो सुबह 5 बजे उठता है। तू 11 बजे तक बिस्तर में टट्टी की तरह पड़ा रहता है और फिर ज्ञान पेलता है।
तूने सोचना कब शुरू किया था जो बंद हो जाएगा? तेरा तो कभी शुरू ही नहीं हुआ। तूने सिर्फ रटा है। व्हाट्सएप यूनिवर्सिटी नहीं, तू तो JNU की जूठन-यूनिवर्सिटी का प्रोडक्ट है - जहाँ सोचने के नाम पर सिर्फ हिंदू को गाली देना सिखाया जाता है।
एक बात कान खोल कर सुन ले -
वो आदमी 1946 से स्वयंसेवक है। उसने बंटवारा देखा है, युद्ध देखे हैं, इमरजेंसी देखी है, इस देश को बनते-बिगड़ते देखा है। और फिर भी हर सुबह लाठी लेकर खड़ा हो जाता है। ये समर्पण है, भीख पर पलने वाली तेरी प्रोफेसरी नहीं।
तू बुजुर्ग का मजाक उड़ा रहा है? अरे, उसकी चप्पल की धूल भी नहीं है तू। वो रोज़ शाखा जाता है इसलिए आज तक जिंदा है, रीढ़ सीधी है। तू रोज़ नफरत की शाखा में जाता है इसलिए तेरी रीढ़ कब की बिक चुकी है।
तेरी बुद्धि का विकास नहीं, तेरी बुद्धि का सत्यानाश हो चुका है। शाखा में तो शरीर और दिमाग दोनों बनते हैं। तेरी पाठशाला में सिर्फ जहर बनता है।
निकल ले यहाँ से। अपनी इस सड़ी हुई सोच के साथ कहीं और हग।
ऐ बहन, ज्ञानचंद बनने से पहले फैक्ट चेक कर लिया कर, WhatsApp यूनिवर्सिटी की टॉपर मत बन:
1. कोर्ट ने रोजी को मुजरिम घोषित नहीं किया है, जाहिल!
दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने 27 अक्टूबर को साफ कहा है - जांच पर रोक नहीं लगाएंगे, पुलिस को नोटिस जारी किया है, अगली सुनवाई 16 नवंबर है। जस्टिस मिनी पुष्करणा ने कहा मेरिट पर बाद में सुनेंगे।
कोर्ट ने ये कहीं नहीं कहा कि रोजी दोषी है। तूने अपने दिमाग से फैसला सुना दिया?
2. केस उल्टा है, समझी?
ये SC/ST वाला FIR रोजी ने नहीं, ACP विवेक भगत ने रोजी और गजेन्द्र सिंह पर 13 अक्टूबर को पार्लियामेंट स्ट्रीट थाने में करवाया है। आरोप क्या? - जातिसूचक गाली और ड्यूटी में बाधा, 3 अक्टूबर को बूटा सिंह चौक / जंतर-मंतर पर CEC के खिलाफ प्रोटेस्ट के दौरान।
रोजी का आरोप उससे पहले का है - उसी प्रोटेस्ट में ACP ने यौन उत्पीड़न किया। वो शिकायत क्राइम ब्रांच को ट्रांसफर हुई है, इम्पार्शियल जांच के लिए।
तो ये बदले की FIR है, ये खुद रोजी ने अपनी याचिका में कहा है। तू इसे क्रॉस FIR को दबाने के लिए नहीं, दबाने के लिए की गई FIR बोल रही है, वही तो है।
3. "सबूत नहीं था इसलिए मुजरिम बन गई" - कौन सा नशा किया है?
SC/ST केस में जातिसूचक टिप्पणी का आरोप है, यौन उत्पीड़न के सबूत से इसका क्या लेना-देना? दो अलग-अलग FIR हैं। एक में सबूत नहीं है तो दूसरे में मुजरिम कैसे बन गई? लॉजिक तो मायके छोड़ आई हो क्या?
और सुन, यौन उत्पीड़न के मामलों में पीड़िता की गवाही ही शुरू में सबूत होती है, तेरे जैसे लोग ही कहते थे "MeToo में सबूत कहां है", अब जब FIR हुई तो कह रही हो रिकॉर्डिंग नहीं है?
4. गिरफ्तारी पर रोक - आधी अधूरी जानकारी मत फेंक
हाईकोर्ट ने जांच पर रोक से इनकार किया है, स्टे नहीं दिया। ये नहीं कहा कि गिरफ्तारी पर रोक लगी रहेगी, ये तेरा अपना मसाला है। कोर्ट ने सिर्फ नोटिस जारी किया है।
आखिरी बात सुन Nargis -
पत्रकारिता का मतलब तलवे चाटना नहीं होता। एक दलित अफसर के नाम पर SC/ST एक्ट का दुरुपयोग करके एक महिला पत्रकार की आवाज दबाई जा रही है, और तू उसको "मासूम बेटी ने गलती की" बोल के जस्टिफाई कर रही है?
थोड़ा कानून पढ़ ले, थोड़ा शर्म कर ले। अगली बार ट्वीट करने से पहले LiveLaw, The Hindu पढ़ लिया कर, न कि किसी IT सेल के स्क्रीनशॉट से ज्ञान पेल।
दिल्ली पुलिस के ACP विवेक भगत पर गलत तरीके से टच करने का आरोप लगाने वाली पत्रकार रोजी अब बड़ी मुश्किल मे फंसी ,
रोजी पत्रकार की एक गलती ने उसको कोर्ट के चक्कर काटने पर मज़बूर कर दिया , गलती ये थी कि देश की मासूम बेटी रोजी ने ACP भगत सिंह पर आरोप तो लगा दिया लेकिन इस आरोप को साबित करने के लिये रोजी के पास सबूत नहीं थे , कोई रिकॉर्डिंग मौजूद नहीं थी ,
इसका नुकसान ये हुआ कि रोजी मजलूम की जगह अब मुजरिम बन गयी और कोर्ट मे उसके खिलाफ़ फैसला आ गया , कुछ समय पहले जो रोजी इंसाफ मांगते हुए ACP विवेक भगत पर FIR की मांग कर रही थी , उसी ACP महोदय ने रोजी पर ST , SC एक्ट के तहत FIR दर्ज करवा दी ,
इस पूरे मामले मे दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने आज सुनवाई मे पुलिस की जांच पर रोक लगाने से इंकार कर दिया , लेकिन पत्रकार रोजी की गिरफ़्तारी पर रोक लगी रहेगी , ये अच्छी बात है , अगर दिल्ली पुलिस जांच मे रोजी पर लगा आरोप साबित कर देती है तो रोजी और उसके साथी गजेंद्र को पुलिस गिरफ़्तार कर लेगी , लेकिन ऐसा होगा नहीं क्योंकि सबूत दोनों के पास नहीं है , ये क्रॉस FIR मामले को दबाने के लिये की गयी है ,
A Column on Rashmika, and the Ladies Who Went Bonkers Over Her
I have been reading, as is my habit when there ain't much else to do, the case of one Rashmika Mandanna and the great feminist hair-pulling that followed.
The facts, as near as I can collect them without getting bit, are these.
Miss Rashmika, who is an actress down South and appears to be both rich and employed - two things that already make half the internet mad - fell in love with one Vijju, which is short for Vijay Deverakonda.
She did not fall in love according to the approved Government Form. She fell in love the old-fashioned way, which is to say she knew what she wanted, and she said so.
She wrote it down herself, in three little notes that the whole internet has now chewed like tobacco and spit out. Let me quote them straight, because if you leave it to the commentary accounts, they'll tell you she wrote Das Kapital.
Note One says:
"My lovely people of the internet... My lil' 2 cents on this whole issue concerning me and Vijju... The current frenzy over one interview feels less like people having opinions and more like an angry mob looking for someone to vent at."
Note Two says:
"We've been bombarded with opinions, comments and unsolicited advice on all our profiles, mine and yours, unnecessarily... I was like, WHAT THE FK IS GOING ON?... First, it was never about the number of times or an entire year. That's where some of you got stuck. Yes, that conversation happened. But neither of us was looking for a grand proposal. The conversation was about him wanting both of us to take the time and space to understand each other, to be sure that despite all the highs and lows, the joys and stresses of life, this was what we wanted and the right time for it. And we did. We chose each other."
Note Three says:
"It's okay that I knew exactly what I wanted. And it was equally okay that he wanted time to think through the practical things in life and be sure... For us, marriage was never about a proposal, getting down on one knee or putting a ring on a finger. That's the decorative part. For us, it was about building a life and a future together... And yes, I am OBSESSED with my man. When did that become a bad thing? If I'm not IN LOVE with the man I'm marrying, then why in the world would I marry him? He's going to be my companion for life. My friend through the ordinary days and the extraordinary ones. The father of my children. The man I grow old with. I would do it a thousand times - 100 is nothing. It's really that simple."
Now that is the whole scandal. A woman said she loves her husband and would marry him a thousand times.
There is a particular kind of feminist - not the kind that reads books, but the kind that reads captions - who cannot stand a happy woman. The poor things. The uneducated in love, the illiterate in happiness. They have got all the vocabulary of liberation and none of the comprehension.
I have seen them on X , pulling their hair apart like they were making rope.
One says she is "trapped in patriarchal and orthodox mindset."
Translation: She loves a man and I don't like it.
Another says she "drags us all back to 0 by reducing women to dumb and cute and stupid and illogical and emo."
Translation: She said she is obsessed with her man, and that makes my ten steps forward feel like they was taken in mud.
Another says "when someone who enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement settles for a certified insecure manchild, society loses."
Society loses! I have heard society lose many things, but this is the first time I heard society lose because a girl in Hyderabad said her husband was there when her bone snapped and when she woke up at 3 a.m. with anxiety.
And that is the part they skip every time. She tells you plain:
"When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
"When things were really, really hard, a couple years ago, you weren't there. HE WAS."
That ain't a manchild. That is a man who stayed. The feminists who are bonkers over this were not there then, and they ain't there now, except to offer to catch her when she falls — which is a mighty Christian offer from folks who are pushing her off the ladder.
The whole complaint boils down to this, and I have boiled it as clean as river water:
Rashmika committed the unpardonable sin. She exercised choice.
Feminism, as it was taught to me by my mother-in-law and by any sensible woman, said a woman could work, could earn, could choose her life, and could also - if she damn well wanted - choose a man, love him out loud, and call him her future.
The bonkers brigade thought feminism meant a woman must never choose a man, or if she does, she must apologize for it every ten minutes and assure the committee she is still empowered.
Rashmika did not apologize. She said, "I am happy. I am content. I am blessed. Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
That is not illiteracy. That is the oldest literacy there is - knowing what you want and saying it.
As for the poor, uneducated feminists pulling their hair - ladies, leave your hair alone. You are going to need it when you realize that a woman being obsessed with her husband did not, in fact, set you back to zero.
You set yourselves back the moment you decided another woman's joy was your oppression.
A Column on Rashmika, and the Ladies Who Went Bonkers Over Her
I have been reading, as is my habit when there ain't much else to do, the case of one Rashmika Mandanna and the great feminist hair-pulling that followed.
The facts, as near as I can collect them without getting bit, are these.
Miss Rashmika, who is an actress down South and appears to be both rich and employed - two things that already make half the internet mad - fell in love with one Vijju, which is short for Vijay Deverakonda.
She did not fall in love according to the approved Government Form. She fell in love the old-fashioned way, which is to say she knew what she wanted, and she said so.
She wrote it down herself, in three little notes that the whole internet has now chewed like tobacco and spit out. Let me quote them straight, because if you leave it to the commentary accounts, they'll tell you she wrote Das Kapital.
Note One says:
"My lovely people of the internet... My lil' 2 cents on this whole issue concerning me and Vijju... The current frenzy over one interview feels less like people having opinions and more like an angry mob looking for someone to vent at."
Note Two says:
"We've been bombarded with opinions, comments and unsolicited advice on all our profiles, mine and yours, unnecessarily... I was like, WHAT THE FK IS GOING ON?... First, it was never about the number of times or an entire year. That's where some of you got stuck. Yes, that conversation happened. But neither of us was looking for a grand proposal. The conversation was about him wanting both of us to take the time and space to understand each other, to be sure that despite all the highs and lows, the joys and stresses of life, this was what we wanted and the right time for it. And we did. We chose each other."
Note Three says:
"It's okay that I knew exactly what I wanted. And it was equally okay that he wanted time to think through the practical things in life and be sure... For us, marriage was never about a proposal, getting down on one knee or putting a ring on a finger. That's the decorative part. For us, it was about building a life and a future together... And yes, I am OBSESSED with my man. When did that become a bad thing? If I'm not IN LOVE with the man I'm marrying, then why in the world would I marry him? He's going to be my companion for life. My friend through the ordinary days and the extraordinary ones. The father of my children. The man I grow old with. I would do it a thousand times - 100 is nothing. It's really that simple."
Now that is the whole scandal. A woman said she loves her husband and would marry him a thousand times.
There is a particular kind of feminist - not the kind that reads books, but the kind that reads captions - who cannot stand a happy woman. The poor things. The uneducated in love, the illiterate in happiness. They have got all the vocabulary of liberation and none of the comprehension.
I have seen them on X , pulling their hair apart like they were making rope.
One says she is "trapped in patriarchal and orthodox mindset."
Translation: She loves a man and I don't like it.
Another says she "drags us all back to 0 by reducing women to dumb and cute and stupid and illogical and emo."
Translation: She said she is obsessed with her man, and that makes my ten steps forward feel like they was taken in mud.
Another says "when someone who enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement settles for a certified insecure manchild, society loses."
Society loses! I have heard society lose many things, but this is the first time I heard society lose because a girl in Hyderabad said her husband was there when her bone snapped and when she woke up at 3 a.m. with anxiety.
And that is the part they skip every time. She tells you plain:
"When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
"When things were really, really hard, a couple years ago, you weren't there. HE WAS."
That ain't a manchild. That is a man who stayed. The feminists who are bonkers over this were not there then, and they ain't there now, except to offer to catch her when she falls — which is a mighty Christian offer from folks who are pushing her off the ladder.
The whole complaint boils down to this, and I have boiled it as clean as river water:
Rashmika committed the unpardonable sin. She exercised choice.
Feminism, as it was taught to me by my mother-in-law and by any sensible woman, said a woman could work, could earn, could choose her life, and could also - if she damn well wanted - choose a man, love him out loud, and call him her future.
The bonkers brigade thought feminism meant a woman must never choose a man, or if she does, she must apologize for it every ten minutes and assure the committee she is still empowered.
Rashmika did not apologize. She said, "I am happy. I am content. I am blessed. Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
That is not illiteracy. That is the oldest literacy there is - knowing what you want and saying it.
As for the poor, uneducated feminists pulling their hair - ladies, leave your hair alone. You are going to need it when you realize that a woman being obsessed with her husband did not, in fact, set you back to zero.
You set yourselves back the moment you decided another woman's joy was your oppression.
Premjyoti retweeted
Well now, @ghajni_chudail - OnlyScams is right, there is a scam in here, but it ain't Rashmika's marriage.
"when someone who enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement settles for a certified, insecure manchild, society loses"
Society loses. Lord, what a burden you carry. Society. I have seen society lose many things - a good riverboat pilot, a decent whiskey, an honest election - but I never seen it lose on account of a woman in Hyderabad deciding to marry the fellow who held her hand when her bone snapped.
You call him a "certified, insecure manchild." Certified by who? By you? By the Board of Commentary Accounts that meets nightly over cold popcorn?
Let me tell you what this certified manchild did, according to the very woman you are pitying - not according to your certificate, but according to her life:
She says: "When things were really, really hard, a couple of years ago - you weren't there. HE WAS and HE IS even right now."
She says: "When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
She says: "When I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
That ain't a manchild, madam. That is what we used to call, back before Twitter taught everybody to be a psychologist, a man.
You say she "enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement." You are correct. And what is that fruit? I'll tell you what it ain't. It ain't the right to become exactly like you. The fruit of that movement was that a woman could earn her own money, lead her own films, buy her own house, and then - and here's the part that seems to stick in your throat - marry whoever in the Sam Hill she damn well pleases, and say she is obsessed with him, without asking your permission.
You write: "dw girl, when it wears off, which it will, the very girls you're shading rn will still be here to catch you :)"
That smiley face at the end - there's more venom in that colon-parenthesis than in a whole barrel of rattlesnakes.
You ain't offering to catch her. You are praying she falls so you can say "I told you so." That is not sisterhood. That is a spectator at a hanging who brought a lunch pail and calls it compassion.
I never knew a feminist who enjoyed seeing another woman happy, but I do know plenty of folks who enjoyed seeing another woman humbled, and called it society losing.
Rashmika says: "I am happy. I am content. I am blessed. Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
You say: It will wear off.
One of you is living a life. The other is waiting for it to wear off.
If society is losing, it ain't because Rashmika settled. It's because we got a whole generation of girls who think calling a woman's husband a manchild on the internet is feminism, and who think kindness is a future IOU - "we'll still be here to catch you."
She don't need catching. She needs you to get off her porch.
Well now, @ghajni_chudail - OnlyScams is right, there is a scam in here, but it ain't Rashmika's marriage.
"when someone who enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement settles for a certified, insecure manchild, society loses"
Society loses. Lord, what a burden you carry. Society. I have seen society lose many things - a good riverboat pilot, a decent whiskey, an honest election - but I never seen it lose on account of a woman in Hyderabad deciding to marry the fellow who held her hand when her bone snapped.
You call him a "certified, insecure manchild." Certified by who? By you? By the Board of Commentary Accounts that meets nightly over cold popcorn?
Let me tell you what this certified manchild did, according to the very woman you are pitying - not according to your certificate, but according to her life:
She says: "When things were really, really hard, a couple of years ago - you weren't there. HE WAS and HE IS even right now."
She says: "When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
She says: "When I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
That ain't a manchild, madam. That is what we used to call, back before Twitter taught everybody to be a psychologist, a man.
You say she "enjoys the fruits of the feminist movement." You are correct. And what is that fruit? I'll tell you what it ain't. It ain't the right to become exactly like you. The fruit of that movement was that a woman could earn her own money, lead her own films, buy her own house, and then - and here's the part that seems to stick in your throat - marry whoever in the Sam Hill she damn well pleases, and say she is obsessed with him, without asking your permission.
You write: "dw girl, when it wears off, which it will, the very girls you're shading rn will still be here to catch you :)"
That smiley face at the end - there's more venom in that colon-parenthesis than in a whole barrel of rattlesnakes.
You ain't offering to catch her. You are praying she falls so you can say "I told you so." That is not sisterhood. That is a spectator at a hanging who brought a lunch pail and calls it compassion.
I never knew a feminist who enjoyed seeing another woman happy, but I do know plenty of folks who enjoyed seeing another woman humbled, and called it society losing.
Rashmika says: "I am happy. I am content. I am blessed. Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
You say: It will wear off.
One of you is living a life. The other is waiting for it to wear off.
If society is losing, it ain't because Rashmika settled. It's because we got a whole generation of girls who think calling a woman's husband a manchild on the internet is feminism, and who think kindness is a future IOU - "we'll still be here to catch you."
She don't need catching. She needs you to get off her porch.