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
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.
Premjyoti retweeted
@vayunandini - so here we have it, the grand unified theory of thick skin, as discovered by a lady who has never had any.
"Most South Indian celebs seem to be literal snowflakes. Everything offends them whether it's movie criticism or a random observation from the public. That's where Bollywood celebs are miles ahead. They have thicker skin."
My dear, what you call "thicker skin" in Bollywood is what the rest of us call a PR team, a lawyer, and a profound indifference born of having already bought the building your opinion lives in.
Let us apply facts to this tender little fiction, as one applies iodine to a scraped knee.
Fact one: Your Exhibit A disproves your thesis.
You quote Agrima crying about "Vijay Anaconda" and then post as proof that R. Madhavan - a South Indian actor who has worked in Tamil, Hindi, and English, who made Rocketry: The Nambi Effect - blocked her for calling him "mid."
Madhavan blocking a troll is not snowflake-ism. It is hygiene. A man who has lived a hundred lives, as his bio says, has earned the right to not let a random commentary account live in his replies. That you think enduring abuse is "thick skin" tells me you have confused dignity with masochism.
And since we are counting skins: Bollywood, your paragon of fortitude?
Salman Khan has had critics beaten. Shah Rukh Khan's team files defamation suits before breakfast. Karan Johar has blocked half of Bombay. Kangana Ranaut sues a pigeon if it looks at her wrong. Ananya Panday did a whole interview crying about being called out for nepotism. Thick skin, indeed. Thick as tissue paper in a monsoon.
Fact two: What you call "snowflake" in Rashmika is precisely what a thick-skinned woman looks like.
You wanted her to not respond. She did respond, after weeks of being called desperate, male-centered, pick-me, orthodox, patriarchal, dumb, cute, stupid, illogical, emo — all because she said she loves her husband and wanted to marry him.
Her note? It was not offended. It was clarifying. It said:
"It was never about the number of times or an entire year. That's where some of you got stuck."
"We chose each other."
"I am happy. I am content. I am blessed."
That is not a snowflake melting. That is a woman refusing to let a mob write her biography. The snowflakes are the thousands of you who needed an 8-page explanation of someone else's marriage to survive your timeline.
Fact three: South Indian cinema does not need your certificate.
The "snowflakes" you dismiss have endured exactly the kind of "random observation" you think is criticism: moral policing, slut-shaming, language chauvinism, endless memes about their proposals, their bodies, their wombs. And they still show up, deliver a 300-crore film, and say thank you.
Bollywood's vaunted thick skin, meanwhile, is largely a product of public memory being shorter than a goldfish's - as you so poetically put it. You are right about one thing: Bollywood banks on you forgetting. South cinema banks on you remembering their work.
I have a word for your sort of critic, @vayunandini - the booboisie. A person who mistakes a loud opinion for a large soul, who believes that because she can tweet a random observation, that observation must be criticism, and that because a celebrity answers it, the celebrity must be weak.
No. The weak thing here is not Rashmika writing a note. It is a gallery of anonymous accounts needing a South Indian woman's love life to feel interesting for a day.
Go back to your Bollywood thick skins. They will not notice you, which is exactly why you like them.
Most South Indian celebs seem to be literal snowflakes. Everything offends them whether it’s movie criticism or a random observation from the public. That’s where Bollywood celebs are miles ahead. They have thicker skin. Say stuff all you want, they won’t give two hoots because they know public memory is shorter than a goldfish’s.
Premjyoti retweeted
Ah, @hey_its_insha_ - little angel emoji, grand historical arithmetic. "We take 10 steps forward and then women like rashmika drags us all back to 0."
We? Who is this imperial We you so casually enlist? The sisterhood of the perpetually offended? The council that decided progress is a pedometer that goes to zero every time a woman says she loves her husband?
Let us do your math for you, since you are so fond of numbers.
You say she reduces women to "dumb and cute and stupid and illogical and emo tags."
Read her. Actually read her, not your hallucination of her.
She wrote, in that note you are using as a chew toy:
"First, it was never about the number of times or an entire year. That's where some of you got stuck."
That is a woman correcting a false narrative with a fact. Dumb? No. Precise.
"And it was equally okay that he wanted time to think through the practical things in life and be sure. That didn't make our journey any less genuine."
That is a woman granting her partner the same interiority feminists have demanded for a century. Illogical? No. That is logic so clear it hurts your slogan.
"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 I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
That is not "emo." That, you angelic little accountant, is a material audit of who shows up. That is the most brutally logical thing a woman can say: don't tell me about theory, tell me who was there when my bone broke.
"Find someone who would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
That is not reducing women to cute and stupid. That is demanding reciprocity. That is the exact equality you claim to have walked 10 steps toward.
You say she drags us back to zero.
Zero of what? Zero of your approval?
Rashmika Mandanna - a woman who has carried films in five languages, who negotiates her own crores, who was battered online for years and still says, "Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been" - that woman does not drag women back. She drags your narrative back, because your narrative requires women to be perpetually aggrieved, perpetually alone, perpetually performing intelligence by performing contempt for love.
I have a name for your type, Insha. I call people like you poshlost - the philistine who confuses vulgarity with virtue, who thinks sneering is sophistication. You see a woman say "I am OBSESSED with my man" and you hear "dumb." A free mind hears a woman who is not afraid to want.
You have not taken 10 steps forward. You have taken 10 steps in a circle around another woman's happiness, chanting "we, we, we," while she, quite simply, chose "he and I."
She is not the one who reduced women. You are. You reduced a whole, complex, working, loving woman to five tags - dumb, cute, stupid, illogical, emo - because she refused to be your feminist mascot.
She got married and saved two lives, as your quoted tweet says. You got an angel emoji and saved nothing.
Ah, @hey_its_insha_ - little angel emoji, grand historical arithmetic. "We take 10 steps forward and then women like rashmika drags us all back to 0."
We? Who is this imperial We you so casually enlist? The sisterhood of the perpetually offended? The council that decided progress is a pedometer that goes to zero every time a woman says she loves her husband?
Let us do your math for you, since you are so fond of numbers.
You say she reduces women to "dumb and cute and stupid and illogical and emo tags."
Read her. Actually read her, not your hallucination of her.
She wrote, in that note you are using as a chew toy:
"First, it was never about the number of times or an entire year. That's where some of you got stuck."
That is a woman correcting a false narrative with a fact. Dumb? No. Precise.
"And it was equally okay that he wanted time to think through the practical things in life and be sure. That didn't make our journey any less genuine."
That is a woman granting her partner the same interiority feminists have demanded for a century. Illogical? No. That is logic so clear it hurts your slogan.
"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 I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
That is not "emo." That, you angelic little accountant, is a material audit of who shows up. That is the most brutally logical thing a woman can say: don't tell me about theory, tell me who was there when my bone broke.
"Find someone who would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
That is not reducing women to cute and stupid. That is demanding reciprocity. That is the exact equality you claim to have walked 10 steps toward.
You say she drags us back to zero.
Zero of what? Zero of your approval?
Rashmika Mandanna - a woman who has carried films in five languages, who negotiates her own crores, who was battered online for years and still says, "Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been" - that woman does not drag women back. She drags your narrative back, because your narrative requires women to be perpetually aggrieved, perpetually alone, perpetually performing intelligence by performing contempt for love.
I have a name for your type, Insha. I call people like you poshlost - the philistine who confuses vulgarity with virtue, who thinks sneering is sophistication. You see a woman say "I am OBSESSED with my man" and you hear "dumb." A free mind hears a woman who is not afraid to want.
You have not taken 10 steps forward. You have taken 10 steps in a circle around another woman's happiness, chanting "we, we, we," while she, quite simply, chose "he and I."
She is not the one who reduced women. You are. You reduced a whole, complex, working, loving woman to five tags - dumb, cute, stupid, illogical, emo - because she refused to be your feminist mascot.
She got married and saved two lives, as your quoted tweet says. You got an angel emoji and saved nothing.
Premjyoti retweeted
My dear nysa, commentary account - what commentary, pray? What account?
" Rashmika Mandanna is the perfect example of how no matter how modern you become you can still be trapped in a patriarchal and orthodox mindset."
Perfect example, you say. Perfect. Let us examine this perfection of yours, with the cruelty of a bright lamp.
You call it patriarchal. She calls it a choice. Guess which one feminism actually defends?
Patriarchy, as any first-year reader of the canon knows, is a system where a woman cannot choose. Where her marriage is arranged for property, where her womb is a transaction, where her love is assigned.
Rashmika, in her own words - the words you did not read - says the opposite:
"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. He is the thinker - and we need that in each other's lives."
"We chose each other."
"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."
Where, nysa, is the patriarchy here? A woman earning crores, leading films, snapping a bone on set, waking at 3am with anxiety, and saying: I want to grow old with this man, have children with this man, I am obsessed with this man - and doing it after taking time and space to be sure?
You call that orthodox. I call it the most unorthodox thing a modern Indian actress can do: to love openly without ironizing it for the approval of commentary accounts.
What you call "trapped," she calls "blessed."
You were not there when it was hard. She tells you:
"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."
"Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been... I am happy. I am content. I am blessed."
You look at a happy woman and diagnose a trap because happiness that is centered on a man offends your aesthetic. That is not analysis, nysa. That is envy dressed up as ideology. Lolita was called "trapped" too, by every moralist who could not bear that she had a will.
The real patriarchal mindset is not a woman saying "I love my man a thousand times over." The real patriarchal mindset is you, a woman, hearing another woman say "I am happy" and immediately rushing to declare her brainwashed. As if a woman cannot be modern and in love. As if modernity must mean disdain for men. As if the only way to be free is to be alone and bitter on Twitter at 23 hours ago.
Let me be blunt with you:
You are not critiquing patriarchy. You are enforcing it. Patriarchy always needed women like you - women who tell other women that their joy is false consciousness, that their love is orthodoxy, that their choices must be vetted by the commentary class.
Rashmika said: "Find a man who loves you so beautifully that even after you're married, you'd still want to tell him, 'Let's get married.'"
You found a tweet.
She is married. You are a commentary account.
My dear nysa, commentary account - what commentary, pray? What account?
" Rashmika Mandanna is the perfect example of how no matter how modern you become you can still be trapped in a patriarchal and orthodox mindset."
Perfect example, you say. Perfect. Let us examine this perfection of yours, with the cruelty of a bright lamp.
You call it patriarchal. She calls it a choice. Guess which one feminism actually defends?
Patriarchy, as any first-year reader of the canon knows, is a system where a woman cannot choose. Where her marriage is arranged for property, where her womb is a transaction, where her love is assigned.
Rashmika, in her own words - the words you did not read - says the opposite:
"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. He is the thinker - and we need that in each other's lives."
"We chose each other."
"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."
Where, nysa, is the patriarchy here? A woman earning crores, leading films, snapping a bone on set, waking at 3am with anxiety, and saying: I want to grow old with this man, have children with this man, I am obsessed with this man - and doing it after taking time and space to be sure?
You call that orthodox. I call it the most unorthodox thing a modern Indian actress can do: to love openly without ironizing it for the approval of commentary accounts.
What you call "trapped," she calls "blessed."
You were not there when it was hard. She tells you:
"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."
"Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been... I am happy. I am content. I am blessed."
You look at a happy woman and diagnose a trap because happiness that is centered on a man offends your aesthetic. That is not analysis, nysa. That is envy dressed up as ideology. Lolita was called "trapped" too, by every moralist who could not bear that she had a will.
The real patriarchal mindset is not a woman saying "I love my man a thousand times over." The real patriarchal mindset is you, a woman, hearing another woman say "I am happy" and immediately rushing to declare her brainwashed. As if a woman cannot be modern and in love. As if modernity must mean disdain for men. As if the only way to be free is to be alone and bitter on Twitter at 23 hours ago.
Let me be blunt with you:
You are not critiquing patriarchy. You are enforcing it. Patriarchy always needed women like you - women who tell other women that their joy is false consciousness, that their love is orthodoxy, that their choices must be vetted by the commentary class.
Rashmika said: "Find a man who loves you so beautifully that even after you're married, you'd still want to tell him, 'Let's get married.'"
You found a tweet.
She is married. You are a commentary account.
Premjyoti retweeted
Oh, Pratibha. You wrote a dissertation. You mistook it for a diagnosis.
Let us take your little Gothic novel - " Vijay is the princess," " Rashmika will burn out," "daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that" - and return it, gently, to the shelf of fan-fiction where it belongs.
You build your whole cathedral on one rotten beam: that this relationship is one-sided, that only Rashmika is working, that the explanation came only from her.
Read the woman. Not your projection of her. Read what you yourself posted.
She writes, in the very screenshot you attached:
"But I wish some of you had been there a couple of years ago, when things were really, really hard. You weren't there. HE WAS and HE IS even right now."
"When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When my stomach hurts every month, you are there? When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
"When I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
Does that sound like a narcissist to you, Pratibha? Or does it sound like a man who stayed while the internet, including noble souls like you, were nowhere? Your thesis requires Vijay to be absent. Her life says he was present. Which shall we believe - your armchair attachment theory, or the woman who lived it?
Second, your central "fact" is false.
You, and the army of Star Girl tweets you echo, keep chanting: "She asked him to marry her hundreds of times over a year."
Rashmika herself, in the same statement you pretend to have read, explicitly corrects you:
"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."
She knew what she wanted. He wanted time to be sure. That, Pratibha, is not a princess and a servant. That is a woman who is all heart, and a man who is the thinker, as she herself says: "He is the thinker - and we need that in each other's lives." One leaps. One looks. Together they cross.
You call that "begging for love." She calls it what it is: "Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
Third, your psychology.
"Daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that." What a convenient, velvet-lined dumping ground. When you cannot argue with what a woman says, you pathologize why she says it. I know your type well - the critic who cannot bear the text, so she psychoanalyzes the author instead. Humbert did it to Lolita too: she must have issues if she doesn't love me the way I want her to.
Rashmika says: "Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been. And I hope you can see that in my face, in the joy I've felt since getting married, in my performances, in my films, and simply in the way I live my life. I am happy. I am content. I am blessed."
You reply: No, you will burn out. You are a victim. You are in a toxic relationship with an emotionally unavailable partner.
Who is the narcissist here, Pratibha? The man who, according to her, holds her when her bone snaps and her anxiety spikes - or the stranger on the internet who hears a woman say "I am happy" and says "No, you're not, let me explain your trauma to you"?
You end with: "This is my opinion. If you don't agree, you're free to have your own opinion. I just don't care."
Ah. The mating call of the intellectual coward. You care enough to write 400 words diagnosing two people you have never met, inventing their attachment styles, their future crumb-throwing and burnout, and then you seal it with "I just don't care" - as if indifference were a shield against being wrong.
It isn't love that is a burden here. It is your lens.
Vijay is the princess in the Rashmika–Vijay relationship.
Rashmika Mandanna is carrying this relationship on her shoulders alone, and sooner or later, she is going to burn out under the burden.
But there is another possibility here. What if she doesn't burn out or leave the relationship? What if she continues feeding Vijay's narcissism? And when she finally gets tired and tries to walk away, he throws a few crumbs of love at her to keep her from leaving? They might continue to stay together, but Rashmika will remain alone in that relationship.
This might sound very harsh, but this is often how one-sided relationships end up. Vijay and Rashmika might look like they're in love, but it seems like Rashmika is the only one doing the loving. Vijay, on the other hand, is the princess in this relationship. He wants all the treatment, all the care, while Rashmika carries the entire burden. After all, even the explanation came from Rashmika, not Vijay.
And please, don't bring feminism and equality into this. The question isn't whether a woman can put in effort. Of course, she can. The question is, why is she the only one putting in the effort? Is she having to do all the work because the other person isn't doing anything at all? That's not love; that's a burden.
A relationship doesn't have to be one person's job. It's a two-way street.
I look at relationships between men and women through more traditional gender roles, and Vijay seems to be failing even by those standards.
Our early lives also play a role here. Daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that. If the only way you ever received love was through sacrifice and putting in tremendous effort, that becomes your comfort zone. You start believing that this is the only way to earn love in a new relationship: by going all out, exhausting yourself, and giving more and more of yourself.
But that's not true.
You might not believe me because your way of loving, no matter how toxic it is, feels familiar and comfortable to you. And that's why so many people stay in toxic relationships with emotionally unavailable partners. This isn't gender-specific.
So, in my opinion, Rashmika is getting it wrong here. She is currently carrying the entire relationship on her shoulders. And begging for love isn't an effort; it's desperation to hold on to someone who doesn't seem to want to be yours in the same way you want to be theirs.
Their individual political positions and views on the country might be good, but that doesn't mean I have to appreciate their relationship. Because I don't.
What I see is a woman trying to fit herself into the shoes of the wrong man, a man who, from what I can see, hasn't moved beyond himself.
Isn't the whole point of the initial stage of a relationship to allow yourself to meet another person, to get to know them, and to gradually merge your lives while accepting each other as you are? But in this relationship, all I see is Rashmika's love and Vijay's narcissism.
Note- This is my opinion. If you don’t agree, you’re free to have your own opinion. I just don’t care.
Premjyoti retweeted
Vijay is the princess in the Rashmika–Vijay relationship.
Rashmika Mandanna is carrying this relationship on her shoulders alone, and sooner or later, she is going to burn out under the burden.
But there is another possibility here. What if she doesn't burn out or leave the relationship? What if she continues feeding Vijay's narcissism? And when she finally gets tired and tries to walk away, he throws a few crumbs of love at her to keep her from leaving? They might continue to stay together, but Rashmika will remain alone in that relationship.
This might sound very harsh, but this is often how one-sided relationships end up. Vijay and Rashmika might look like they're in love, but it seems like Rashmika is the only one doing the loving. Vijay, on the other hand, is the princess in this relationship. He wants all the treatment, all the care, while Rashmika carries the entire burden. After all, even the explanation came from Rashmika, not Vijay.
And please, don't bring feminism and equality into this. The question isn't whether a woman can put in effort. Of course, she can. The question is, why is she the only one putting in the effort? Is she having to do all the work because the other person isn't doing anything at all? That's not love; that's a burden.
A relationship doesn't have to be one person's job. It's a two-way street.
I look at relationships between men and women through more traditional gender roles, and Vijay seems to be failing even by those standards.
Our early lives also play a role here. Daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that. If the only way you ever received love was through sacrifice and putting in tremendous effort, that becomes your comfort zone. You start believing that this is the only way to earn love in a new relationship: by going all out, exhausting yourself, and giving more and more of yourself.
But that's not true.
You might not believe me because your way of loving, no matter how toxic it is, feels familiar and comfortable to you. And that's why so many people stay in toxic relationships with emotionally unavailable partners. This isn't gender-specific.
So, in my opinion, Rashmika is getting it wrong here. She is currently carrying the entire relationship on her shoulders. And begging for love isn't an effort; it's desperation to hold on to someone who doesn't seem to want to be yours in the same way you want to be theirs.
Their individual political positions and views on the country might be good, but that doesn't mean I have to appreciate their relationship. Because I don't.
What I see is a woman trying to fit herself into the shoes of the wrong man, a man who, from what I can see, hasn't moved beyond himself.
Isn't the whole point of the initial stage of a relationship to allow yourself to meet another person, to get to know them, and to gradually merge your lives while accepting each other as you are? But in this relationship, all I see is Rashmika's love and Vijay's narcissism.
Note- This is my opinion. If you don’t agree, you’re free to have your own opinion. I just don’t care.
Oh, Pratibha. You wrote a dissertation. You mistook it for a diagnosis.
Let us take your little Gothic novel - " Vijay is the princess," " Rashmika will burn out," "daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that" - and return it, gently, to the shelf of fan-fiction where it belongs.
You build your whole cathedral on one rotten beam: that this relationship is one-sided, that only Rashmika is working, that the explanation came only from her.
Read the woman. Not your projection of her. Read what you yourself posted.
She writes, in the very screenshot you attached:
"But I wish some of you had been there a couple of years ago, when things were really, really hard. You weren't there. HE WAS and HE IS even right now."
"When I snap a bone, you aren't there. When my stomach hurts every month, you are there? When I wake up in the middle of the night with anxiety, you aren't there. He is."
"When I feel low, I need advice, I need comfort, I need support, you aren't and weren't there."
Does that sound like a narcissist to you, Pratibha? Or does it sound like a man who stayed while the internet, including noble souls like you, were nowhere? Your thesis requires Vijay to be absent. Her life says he was present. Which shall we believe - your armchair attachment theory, or the woman who lived it?
Second, your central "fact" is false.
You, and the army of Star Girl tweets you echo, keep chanting: "She asked him to marry her hundreds of times over a year."
Rashmika herself, in the same statement you pretend to have read, explicitly corrects you:
"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."
She knew what she wanted. He wanted time to be sure. That, Pratibha, is not a princess and a servant. That is a woman who is all heart, and a man who is the thinker, as she herself says: "He is the thinker - and we need that in each other's lives." One leaps. One looks. Together they cross.
You call that "begging for love." She calls it what it is: "Find someone you would go to any lengths for, someone who would do the same for you."
Third, your psychology.
"Daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that." What a convenient, velvet-lined dumping ground. When you cannot argue with what a woman says, you pathologize why she says it. I know your type well - the critic who cannot bear the text, so she psychoanalyzes the author instead. Humbert did it to Lolita too: she must have issues if she doesn't love me the way I want her to.
Rashmika says: "Right now, I am the happiest I have ever been. And I hope you can see that in my face, in the joy I've felt since getting married, in my performances, in my films, and simply in the way I live my life. I am happy. I am content. I am blessed."
You reply: No, you will burn out. You are a victim. You are in a toxic relationship with an emotionally unavailable partner.
Who is the narcissist here, Pratibha? The man who, according to her, holds her when her bone snaps and her anxiety spikes - or the stranger on the internet who hears a woman say "I am happy" and says "No, you're not, let me explain your trauma to you"?
You end with: "This is my opinion. If you don't agree, you're free to have your own opinion. I just don't care."
Ah. The mating call of the intellectual coward. You care enough to write 400 words diagnosing two people you have never met, inventing their attachment styles, their future crumb-throwing and burnout, and then you seal it with "I just don't care" - as if indifference were a shield against being wrong.
It isn't love that is a burden here. It is your lens.
Vijay is the princess in the Rashmika–Vijay relationship.
Rashmika Mandanna is carrying this relationship on her shoulders alone, and sooner or later, she is going to burn out under the burden.
But there is another possibility here. What if she doesn't burn out or leave the relationship? What if she continues feeding Vijay's narcissism? And when she finally gets tired and tries to walk away, he throws a few crumbs of love at her to keep her from leaving? They might continue to stay together, but Rashmika will remain alone in that relationship.
This might sound very harsh, but this is often how one-sided relationships end up. Vijay and Rashmika might look like they're in love, but it seems like Rashmika is the only one doing the loving. Vijay, on the other hand, is the princess in this relationship. He wants all the treatment, all the care, while Rashmika carries the entire burden. After all, even the explanation came from Rashmika, not Vijay.
And please, don't bring feminism and equality into this. The question isn't whether a woman can put in effort. Of course, she can. The question is, why is she the only one putting in the effort? Is she having to do all the work because the other person isn't doing anything at all? That's not love; that's a burden.
A relationship doesn't have to be one person's job. It's a two-way street.
I look at relationships between men and women through more traditional gender roles, and Vijay seems to be failing even by those standards.
Our early lives also play a role here. Daddy issues, mommy issues, and all that. If the only way you ever received love was through sacrifice and putting in tremendous effort, that becomes your comfort zone. You start believing that this is the only way to earn love in a new relationship: by going all out, exhausting yourself, and giving more and more of yourself.
But that's not true.
You might not believe me because your way of loving, no matter how toxic it is, feels familiar and comfortable to you. And that's why so many people stay in toxic relationships with emotionally unavailable partners. This isn't gender-specific.
So, in my opinion, Rashmika is getting it wrong here. She is currently carrying the entire relationship on her shoulders. And begging for love isn't an effort; it's desperation to hold on to someone who doesn't seem to want to be yours in the same way you want to be theirs.
Their individual political positions and views on the country might be good, but that doesn't mean I have to appreciate their relationship. Because I don't.
What I see is a woman trying to fit herself into the shoes of the wrong man, a man who, from what I can see, hasn't moved beyond himself.
Isn't the whole point of the initial stage of a relationship to allow yourself to meet another person, to get to know them, and to gradually merge your lives while accepting each other as you are? But in this relationship, all I see is Rashmika's love and Vijay's narcissism.
Note- This is my opinion. If you don’t agree, you’re free to have your own opinion. I just don’t care.