top of page

By:

Waleed Hussain

4 March 2025 at 8:04:30 pm

Abhishek Sharma: The Fireworks Are Back

Somewhere in the dusty corridors of cricket history, a lonely footnote just sat up and demanded a raise. Abhishek Sharma, the left-handed wrecking ball from Punjab, has returned to form with the subtlety of a firework display in a library. One moment he was enduring the kind of lean patch that makes even your most loyal aunt start muttering about “maybe trying a different grip,” and the next he was turning Afghanistan’s bowlers into unwilling extras in a highlight reel that belongs in a...

Abhishek Sharma: The Fireworks Are Back

Somewhere in the dusty corridors of cricket history, a lonely footnote just sat up and demanded a raise. Abhishek Sharma, the left-handed wrecking ball from Punjab, has returned to form with the subtlety of a firework display in a library. One moment he was enduring the kind of lean patch that makes even your most loyal aunt start muttering about “maybe trying a different grip,” and the next he was turning Afghanistan’s bowlers into unwilling extras in a highlight reel that belongs in a museum of modern violence. The climax arrived on a Thursday night in Delhi that was supposed to be a dead rubber. Afghanistan had already been politely but firmly shown the door in the series. The crowd was there more out of habit than hope. Then Abhishek walked out and decided the evening needed a plot twist. Thirty balls later he had a hundred. Not a careful, graft-your-way-there hundred. A 30-ball hundred. The fastest by an Indian in T20 internationals, the fastest by anyone from a full-member nation against another full-member nation. Nine fours, eleven sixes, and a celebration that involved sitting cross-legged in a meditation pose as if he had just finished a particularly satisfying yoga class rather than dismantling an international attack. The numbers are almost rude. Strike rate north of 300. Afghanistan’s total in reply: 94. Margin of victory: 127 runs. Player of the Match. Player of the Series. Somewhere, Rohit Sharma’s old 35-ball record against Sri Lanka is quietly requesting a transfer to a less competitive league. What makes the whole thing funnier is the timing. Abhishek had arrived at this series with the kind of recent form that invites unsolicited advice from strangers on social media. There had been the England tour, the Ireland misadventure, the occasional nine-innings stretch without a fifty that had the pundits clearing their throats. Form, in cricket, is a mysterious and slightly vindictive force. It leaves without warning, stays away longer than it should, and then returns wearing a cape and asking if anyone missed it. Abhishek simply refused to panic. He kept talking about process, about playing like “Soormas,” about not letting one or two bad series define the batting group. Then he went out and scored 229 runs in three matches at a strike rate that would make a calculator blush. There is something almost comic about the way he does it. Other batters sweat and grit their teeth and talk about “taking the game deep.” Abhishek treats the first six overs like a personal invitation to rearrange the furniture. He doesn’t so much play shots as issue eviction notices to the ball. The bowler runs in with hope; the ball leaves the bat with a sense of urgency and a one-way ticket into the stands. By the time the fielding side has adjusted the field, he has already adjusted the scoreboard beyond recognition. Sensible Friend His opening partner Sanju Samson had the good sense to make a fifty of his own and largely stay out of the way, which is the cricket equivalent of being the sensible friend who drives the getaway car while the other one sets the building on fire. The rest of the Indian batting order came and went with the polite efficiency of people who know the main act has already finished the show. Afghanistan’s bowlers, to their credit, kept running in. They just ran in looking increasingly like men who had been told the fire extinguisher was full of glitter. The humour, of course, sits in the contrast. Cricket loves a redemption story, but it prefers them with a bit of struggle and soul-searching. Abhishek’s version skips the montage of lonely nets and late-night doubts and goes straight to the part where the hero casually rewrites the record books while looking mildly surprised that anyone is still talking about the earlier lean patch. “One or two bad series won’t define us,” he said afterwards, which is the sort of line that sounds humble until you realise he has just scored a 30-ball hundred and the opposition has been reduced to 94. What comes next is the usual cricket question: can he keep it going? Form is a fair-weather friend, and the next series will bring new bowlers with new plans and the same old hope that this time the left-hander might, for once, play a quite little thirty. History suggests those hopes are optimistic. (The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

The Damsel In Distress

Writer: Priya Samant
Priya Samant
Jan 26
4 min read

I don’t have an appetite for Hindi TV dailies. It’s frustrating to watch a family saga where a young, educated daughter-in-law clings to her selfish husband like a vine. Even after 365 episodes, she is still trying to win Pati ka Pyar and get rid of her Sautan. “Why can’t she just leave? Why can’t she take a stand, lead a good life with pride and bliss?” I asked my TV-glued mom and continued to read the Sunday paper, devouring every single line on world politics.


Lately, reading geopolitical news is getting equally irritating. You read about Mexico, Canada, Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, Cuba, Nigeria, and Gaza and know that the obsession of one man to control far-flung territories is unceasing; his hunger for oil, rare earths, technology and power is not diminishing. And his allies, like an obedient wife, sit quietly, looking at his vision of “Greater Dominance”, or soft-soap him in between. Until last week, their strategy was to manage him personally over dinners and dally to save the security alliance and avoid decoupling!


Yes! In the wake of World War II, the United States revitalised Europe from vast devastation. It has steadfastly shielded these allies ever since then. The US has maintained over 100,000 troops and has extended its nuclear umbrella across the ocean to guard these 27. When Russia, China, North Korea, Israel and Iran were modernising their nuclear arsenals, this damsel in distress was waiting for the US to shoulder the burden of her defence. Last year, Trump’s warning to withdraw from NATO finally compelled Europe to increase its defence spending; however, it is still nowhere near Europe’s current needs. In 2025, Europe contributed barely one-fifth of NATO’s total procurement. These eight decades of dependency have granted America a durable ascendancy over Europe.


And in these 80 years, under American protection, Europe became a princess wrapped in cotton wool, totally dependent on America for energy, technology, digital infrastructure, and much more. Today, about 60 per cent of Europe’s liquefied natural gas demands are met through imports from the United States and is expected to rise to 75 per cent within the next four years. The reliance on digital services is even more concerning, with nearly 80 per cent of these services coming from the United States. With the AI boom, these numbers are expected to grow up to 95 per cent soon. In other words, entire Europe runs on American technology that could be turned off anytime if America chooses to.


In 2025, when investors were “Selling America”, the Europeans accounted for 80 per cent of the foreign buying of these US treasuries. The EU holds around $3 trillion (approximately Rs 274.78 trillion), and Europe as a whole has $9 trillion (approximately Rs 824.34 trillion) in US treasuries. Once regarded as a “safe haven” asset, has turned out to be a double - edged sword. Europe cannot hold these long, knowing high credit risks, nor go short on them, due to a fresh threat from Trump!


Over these years, the bloc failed to capitalise on opportunities to forge international relations and diversification, and moved further away from multilateralism, nurturing a unipolar system. Apart from unipolarity, the EU’s international trade faces significant headwinds due to high taxes and complex rules.


In 2025, when Trump’s tariff threat brought global turmoil, neither the EU condemned America’s selective targeting and sanctions nor pushed for WTO reforms; it opted to appease Trump and negotiate bilateral deals instead. Trump targeted Iranian nuclear facilities during the ceasefire; at the beginning of 2026, Trump conducted a military operation in Venezuela that led to civilian and military deaths, and captured the Venezuelan president. He imprisoned the president and his wife without a trial. Trump encouraged a revolt in Iran and now appears to be establishing an alternative forum to the United Nations. And in response to all of these, European leaders resorted to flattery or chose to stay silent rather than calling for International law reforms!


Trump’s fixation on Greenland and Canada is known. His reluctance to maintain traditional alliances is apparent. With his MAGA motto, he departed from established norms, broke WTO rules, violated international laws and directly engaged adversaries. And yet Europe remained willfully ignorant; it chose to live in a castle heavily guarded by Americans. It was only when those guards turned against them that they realised the urgent need for reforms in international law and trade.


Trump’s recent reversal on Greenland and punitive tariffs against Europe cannot be attributed to European resistance or their toothless threat to withdraw from NATO. It was a typical Trumpian trap: he unleashes bold threats, acts unpredictably, and often secures precisely what he wants without much negotiation. Dependency weakens bargaining power, and now, when the EU is planning to permanently immobilise the Rs. 30.77 trillion worth of Russian assets, the European option of leaving NATO is totally off the table.


Now, in response to Trump’s retreat, as expected, the EU has also suspended all anti-pressure measures, including counter tariffs, trade deal freezes, procurement limitations, market access restrictions, and an anti-coercion mechanism. It seems Davos-fuss has fizzled out too soon. This troubled partnership may not dissolve, but sooner or later, the EU will have to diversify away from America to reduce its vulnerability and prosper.


My mother remarked, “Because the damsel is dependent, not a courageous knight.” Now, let’s wait and see what the “mother of all deals” has to say.


(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. View personal.)

Comments

bottom of page