Reminiscing about the good old days aside, this week we are going to discuss India becoming the Trump of world cricket, the rise of “boring” liberal leaders, JK Rowling’s courage, green card woes in America, and our meme of the week: JD Vance.
The Trump of World Cricket?
One of the more tedious tendencies of WENA columnists is their penchant for using the word “Trump” to describe anything they dislike, fail to comprehend, or cannot predict. Take, for instance, a random right-wing Hungarian politician who has been active since the 90s but is suddenly dubbed the “Trump of Hungary” simply because op-ed writers can’t be bothered to understand the world beyond their Occidental lens. The latest entrant in this overused lexicon is India, which has now been labelled the “Trump of World Cricket.”
While not entirely inaccurate, the analogy is particularly amusing. The fact of the matter is that when you see white dudes whining about India treating international cricket like its personal gully sport (and we do), remember—when you’re used to privilege, a little equality feels like oppression. To use a British phrase, the shoe is now on the other foot.
In fact, despite all its largesse, India let Pakistan host the tournament—unlike the so-called liberal West, which completely barred Russia from every sporting event. If the Indian cricket board didn’t want to make a quick buck, it could blackball Pakistan out of world cricket and threaten to cut all ties with countries that tour Pakistan. If it wanted, it could simply pull out of the 2025 Champions Trophy (instead of playing) and hold a mini-IPL, which would generate more revenue than the international tournament. But the Indian cricket board doesn’t go that far, even allowing ex-Pakistani internationals to commentate and appear on talk shows despite the fact that they have batted for Ghazwa-e-Hind—a fallaciously-interpreted fantasy about jihadists taking over the Indian subcontinent.
Simply put, it’ll be a long time before India becomes like Trump.
However, India’s role in the ICC does, in some ways, resemble America’s position in NATO—where Uncle Sam foots such a large share of the bill that Europeans are outraged when Trump asks them to contribute fairly.
Similarly, India generates more than 80% of cricket’s revenue. And much like the unwritten rules of gully cricket—where the bat owner is never out—tournament regulations are often tweaked to maximise Indian viewership. After all, if India doesn’t progress deep into the tournament, its revenue starts looking like NATO’s budget without America’s contribution.
Yes, it’s true that rules were adjusted to ensure India played all its matches in Dubai. But it’s still incredibly satisfying to read a BBC columnist complain about it—only to admit, albeit begrudgingly, that it wouldn’t be “possible to play the tournament without India.”
The thing is, like The Matrix, we’ve seen this simulation before.
Of course, today, the Ashes is an afterthought compared to the Indian Premier League—the brainchild of a man who once brought FTV to India and briefly convinced us he was dating Sushmita Sen. The IPL has reversed years of cricketing colonialism to such an extent that it’s now the white man braving Indian summers, dancing to Telugu reels, and smacking a few balls—a new form of glamorous indentured labour.
But none of this would have happened if the British hadn’t stubbornly played their Captain Russell role from Lagaan, determined to remind Indians of their place. As the story goes, in 1983, when India reached the World Cup final, BCCI President NK Salve requested a few extra complimentary passes from the Marylebone Cricket Club—only to be flatly denied. The BCCI’s young treasurer at the time, Jagmohan Dalmiya, took great offence and spent the next decade chipping away at England’s dominance, ensuring that the epicentre of cricket shifted from Lord’s to India.
To paraphrase a line from a popular Bollywood movie: “Lord’s ke Babu, aap kya jaano do ticket ka keemat.”
And as for the ever-angry columnists of the liberal-based international order, here’s a reminder: “When you are used to privilege, a little equality feels like oppression.” Or to quote the late great Bappi Lahiri, who came up with this classic during COVID: “It’s a tough time.”
Boring is the New Sexy
Ever since Barack Obama burst onto the scene – a man whose oratory is so charismatic that you immediately forget how many drones he dropped on little babies – liberal politics has been defined by the glitz and glamour of a well-produced Netflix special. Then there was Trudeau – a man of immaculate selfies and colourful socks calling everyone “peoplekind” – but eventually, the liberal order started moving away from such flash.
The new faces of the movement aren’t heartthrobs; they’re human spreadsheets. The likes of Mark Carney and Keir Starmer—men whose greatest political asset is their sheer ability to not inspire. Carney, the economist with all the charm of an annual budget report, made his name steering Canada and the UK through financial crises. Starmer, a former prosecutor, spent years resurrecting the Labour Party after Corbyn tanked it harder than an England batting collapse. They deal in competence, not charisma. But can they succeed where their predecessors floundered?
The liberal charm offensive worked until voters realised that inspirational speeches didn’t pay bills. Economic anxiety, the fallout of globalisation, and a general sense of being ignored led to the populist surge of 2016. Trump happened. Brexit happened. And suddenly, the West was full of angry people demanding to “take back control.” Trudeau, once adored, found himself bogged down by scandals and sinking approval ratings. Corbyn tried to fight fire with fire and got politically incinerated. The liberal dream was over; reality had checked in.
Now, the world is a mess. Trump is back in the White House, gleefully shredding global norms. Europe is juggling economic stagnation and rising far-right movements. There’s no room for viral moments or glossy PR campaigns. And that’s why Carney and Starmer might just work.
Their message is simple: stop the chaos, restore order, get things done. Carney is already taking a hard stance against Trump’s tariffs, signalling that Canada won’t be bullied. Starmer is trying to present himself as Britain’s much-needed stabiliser. They are here to manage, not mesmerise.
While Canada and the UK have course-corrected, the Democrats in America still can’t see how their gender ideology and culture wars gave impetus to Trump and Co. But will it be enough? The populists aren’t done yet, and if this experiment in “boring but competent” governance fails, the world could swing even harder to the right.
For decades, liberalism banked on its most charismatic figures. Now, its survival depends on two men who couldn’t go viral if they tried. And perhaps democracies will course-correct by realising that hiring able administrators is far more beneficial than hiring Instagram stars.
Trump vs Green Card
I have never quite understood the desire to move to the US, whether it’s spending Rs 55 lakh to take the illegal Dunki route or prostrating oneself before an official of a government whose populace’s only realistic political options are a former reality TV star with declining cognitive abilities or a politician with six vacillating accents who has reversed her position on every major policy. Imagine going to a foreign country where they actually stamp “alien on parole” on your visa. The America Will McAvoy dreamed of in his Newsroom monologue is long gone, and now it’s even stranger for foreign students with an itch for political activism.
The Trump administration has decided that visas and green cards are privileges, not rights, and anyone deemed “anti-American” might soon find themselves on a one-way flight home. Leading the charge is none other than Stephen Miller, Trump’s immigration hardliner-in-chief, who has made it clear: “If you support terrorism, we don’t want you here.”
This sweeping crackdown follows a New York judge’s decision to halt the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student accused of supporting Hamas. But if Miller and company have their way, Khalil will be just the first of many to be shown the exit.
Tom Homan, Trump’s ever-enthusiastic border czar, is equally gung-ho about rounding up those whose activism crosses an ill-defined line. “Did he attack Israeli students? Did he destroy property? Absolutely,” Homan declared on Fox Business, conveniently sidestepping the fact that no formal charges have been filed.
The legal justification? An old Cold War-era immigration law that allows the State Department to deport any foreigner whose presence is deemed a national security risk. The administration insists it’s about cracking down on pro-Hamas sympathizers, while critics argue it’s an attempt to silence political dissent.
Trump himself weighed in, gleefully announcing Khalil’s arrest as “the first of many.” Meanwhile, progressive lawmakers such as Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have called the move unconstitutional. MAGA diehards, however, are taking it a step further—arguing that even naturalized citizens who don’t toe the line should be sent packing.
Welcome to 2025, where free speech comes with a return ticket.
JK Rowling and the Order of Insanity
International Women’s Day – the one day corporations around the world pretend they care about people with XX chromosomes instead of calling them “people with vaginas” – began as a socialist reckoning, with garment workers in New York demanding better wages, shorter working hours, and voting rights. Similarly, in Russia, it led to women demanding “bread and peace,” eventually sparking the Russian Revolution and the fall of the Tsars. It is only fitting that this day has since been co-opted by capitalism to sell women things they do not really need. That capitalism always wins is uncontested, much like how it is the only system that works because it closely mirrors human nature—something thinkers of various eras have long acknowledged.
However, in recent years, a woman whose rags-to-riches tale is a true triumph of capitalism has been at the centre of a battle revolving around delusions of reality. J.K. Rowling, once the literary darling of an entire generation, has become a lightning rod for controversy—not because she committed a crime, plagiarised her work, or engaged in unethical behaviour, but because she stated a basic biological fact: sex is real.
For much of the 2000s and early 2010s, J.K. Rowling was untouchable. She was the ultimate success story—a single mother on benefits who, through sheer talent and determination, created a world that became a defining cultural phenomenon. She was celebrated, revered, and, for many, practically worshipped.
Then, she said something unforgivable.
In 2019, she defended Maya Forstater, a British tax expert who lost her job for stating that sex is immutable. In 2020, she wrote an essay warning about the dangers of erasing sex-based rights. She expressed concerns about children being rushed into medical transitions. She spoke about the need to protect single-sex spaces for women.
Across the West, the political landscape is shifting against radical gender ideology. In the US, gender policies played a key role in recent elections, with backlash against allowing male rapists into women’s prisons and replacing terms like “mother” with “birthing person.” In Europe, left-wing parties embracing extreme gender ideology are losing support. Even progressive outlets like The New York Times are reconsidering their stance on child transitions.
Biological sex remains binary, based on gametes—sperm or ova—despite claims that sex is a spectrum. While intersex conditions exist, they do not invalidate this reality. Gender identity, unlike sex, is subjective and does not alter biological facts, which remain relevant in sports, healthcare, and legal protections.
For the last few years, Rowling has been treated by the woke world much like Dolores Umbridge treated Harry Potter—forcing him to carve “I will not tell lies” into his hand simply for speaking the truth.
Meme of the Week: JD Vance
And finally, our meme of the week (when yours truly can’t find a word) is our very own Telugu jamai (son-in-law) and the Vice President of the United States: JD Vance. Ever since he asked Zelensky at the White House, “Did you ever say ‘thank you’?” Vance has been memed to kingdom come to such an extent that it’s now impossible for the human mind to remember what JD actually looks like. Instead, we have a phantasmagoria of various JD images imposed on popular characters, including Baby-Faced Vance, Minion Vance, Braveheart Vance, Leonardo Di Vance, Brother Vance, Goth Vance, Shrek Vance, and our personal favourite: Las Vegas Sphere Vance.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author's own.
Top Comment
{{A_D_N}}
{{C_D}}
{{{short}}} {{#more}} {{{long}}}... Read More {{/more}}
{{/totalcount}} {{^totalcount}}Start a Conversation