Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent...

min read

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Independence Day warning about “dimaagi Naxals” should therefore not be dismissed as another political label. His larger point was that an insurgency does not survive on ammunition alone. It survives on ideas and people willing to make violence appear morally fashionable. The most revealing feature of India’s Maoist movement was never simply its brutality. It was the strange attraction it exercised over sections of the metropolitan Left elite. The Naxalite with an AK-47 could be transformed into a romantic revolutionary while the policeman he killed became an instrument of an oppressive state. This was not merely naïveté. At its ugliest, it was the intellectual laundering of political violence. The fantasy of the romantic revolutionary has always been seductive. In this narrative, amplified through sympathetic media priding itself on telling ‘truth to power,’ India was not a constitutional democracy struggling with inequality and corruption but an inherently illegitimate state waiting to be overthrown. In the minds of this elite Left, Maoist violence has often been recast as resistance while attacks on infrastructure as blows against capitalism. The armed overthrow of the Indian republic was the liberation they craved for. Some of India’s most celebrated intellectuals have flirted dangerously close to that moral inversion. The issue here is whether intellectual prestige can be used to sanitise an ideology whose practitioners have murdered civilians, policemen and public servants and terrorised some of India’s poorest districts. A university cannot be the place where Maoist romanticism acquires the legitimacy of a fashionable campus cause. Professors who turn armed insurgents into heroic revolutionaries are not merely exercising academic freedom. If they knowingly excuse violence, they are helping to construct the moral vocabulary that makes violence possible. Let’s be clear here. A professor who criticises the Indian state is not a Naxal while a journalist who exposes state excesses is not an enemy of India. But an intellectual who repeatedly excuses, glorifies or rationalises political violence cannot hide behind the word ‘dissent.’ India has paid an enormous price for the Maoist fantasy. Thousands have died. Entire regions were held back by fear while development was obstructed. The people supposedly being liberated were often the first to suffer. The armed Naxal is now being pushed towards extinction. But the Indian republic cannot afford to leave behind the romantic mythology that made the gun respectable. A democracy can tolerate dissent. It should never be expected to tolerate the glorification of those who seek its violent destruction.

Shardul Thakur: A Masterclass in Mediocrity

Waleed Hussain
Jun 29, 2025
3 min read

Shardul Thakur, the self-proclaimed “Lord” of Indian cricket, how you’ve blessed us with your dazzling display of utter incompetence in the first Test against England at Headingley in 2025. The Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy opener was a stage set for heroes, yet you, dear Shardul, chose to audition for the role of court jester. Your performance was a tragicomedy, a spectacular implosion that left Indian fans clutching their heads and England’s batsmen chuckling into their tea cups. Let’s dissect this masterpiece of misery, shall we?

India, under the fresh captaincy of Shubman Gill, arrived in Leeds with a squad brimming with promise. The retirements of Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli had ushered in a new era, and Thakur, the so-called all-rounder, was handed a golden ticket to prove his worth. After all, he’d smashed an unbeaten 122 in an intra-squad game, bamboozled a few top-order batsmen with his bowling, and strutted into the Test side as the lone pace-bowling all-rounder. The selectors must have thought they’d unearthed a diamond. Instead, they got a lump of coal.

Let’s start with the batting, shall we? India’s first innings was a run-fest, with Yashasvi Jaiswal, Shubman Gill, and Rishabh Pant piling on centuries to reach 471. Thakur, batting at No. 8, had the perfect platform to showcase his much-vaunted lower-order grit. What did he deliver? A princely 1 run off 8 balls, caught by Jamie Smith off Ben Stokes. Bravo, Shardul! A single run—truly the stuff of legends. Perhaps he was too busy admiring the Headingley clouds to bother with trivialities like scoring runs. In the second innings, with India aiming to set a daunting target, Thakur upped his game to a staggering 4 runs off 12 balls, nicking one to Joe Root off Josh Tongue. Four whole runs! One wonders if he was practicing for the village cricket league instead of a Test match. India’s lower order collapsed like a house of cards, losing 6 wickets for 31 runs, and Thakur’s contribution was as substantial as a puff of smoke.

Now, let’s turn to his bowling, the supposed “golden arm” that breaks partnerships and turns games. In England’s first innings, Thakur bowled 6 overs, conceding 38 runs without a single wicket. His economy rate was a generous 6.33, as if he were hosting a charity run-donation drive for England’s batsmen. Ollie Pope (106) and Harry Brook (99) must have sent him thank-you notes for the buffet of loose deliveries. In the second innings, with England chasing 371, Thakur finally struck, removing Ben Duckett (149) and Harry Brook (0) in quick succession. Two wickets for 51 runs in 10 overs sounds almost respectable—until you realize Duckett was already feasting at 149, and Brook’s dismissal was a fluke down the leg side. Oh, and let’s not forget the hat-trick ball to Ben Stokes, which was about as threatening as a feather duster. England romped home in 82 overs, winning by five wickets, while Thakur’s spells were as impactful as a whisper in a storm.

The irony is palpable. Thakur was picked for his all-round prowess, yet he was neither fish nor fowl. His batting was a non-event, his bowling a masterclass in mediocrity. Former India wicketkeeper Dinesh Karthik didn’t mince words, questioning why Thakur was even in the XI if Gill and coach Gautam Gambhir didn’t trust his bowling. He bowled a measly 16 overs across both innings, while Jasprit Bumrah and Prasidh Krishna toiled for over 20 each. Was Thakur’s run-up marked with an invisibility cloak? Social media was ablaze with fans calling his bowling “filthy” and “awful,” with one user lamenting his “pathetic fielding” and lack of pace. Even Ajinkya Rahane, usually a beacon of diplomacy, urged Gill to give Thakur more responsibility, perhaps out of pity.

The Headingley pitch, with its 9mm grass and early seam movement, was tailor-made for a bowler like Thakur, who’s supposed to swing the ball both ways and extract bounce. Instead, he served up wide deliveries and leg-side gifts, making England’s chase look like a leisurely Sunday drive. When Sunil Gavaskar and Monty Panesar called for Kuldeep Yadav to replace him for the second Test, it was clear Thakur’s Headingley horror show had sealed his fate. Thakur, at 33, is running out of excuses. His 11 Tests have yielded 31 wickets and 331 runs, but Headingley exposed his limitations in brutal fashion.

Here’s a toast to you, Shardul—may your next outing be less of a farce. But don’t hold your breath, folks. This “Lord” has no divine intervention left to offer.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

2 Comments

MaryJane

Oct 14, 2025

Man, reading that breakdown of Shardul’s Headingley show was painful but also kind of funny. I came across this site https://batery.pro.in/aviator/ the other day, it’s a game where you have to decide the exact right moment to cash out before everything crashes. And honestly, that’s what Thakur needed — timing and judgment. Instead of knowing when to attack or defend, he just let chances slip, and by the time he did anything, the match was already gone.

Edited

billyy brown

Jul 02, 2025

It’s easy to be harsh on someone like Shardul Thakur, but I think calling him a “masterclass in mediocrity” oversimplifies his role. He’s not the star every time, sure, but he's delivered under pressure in ways stats don’t always capture—especially in crunch moments. As a cricket fan who follows both performance and odds, I’ve often found sites like https://bet365.pro.in/app/ helpful for understanding how players are valued by markets, not just fans. While you can't bet there, the data and form analysis give context beyond opinions. Thakur’s numbers might not dazzle, but his utility across formats is hard to ignore. He’s a player teams turn to when they need a bit of everything, and in modern cricket, that has real value—even if…