If Indian franchise owners begin excluding Pakistani players in foreign leagues, it could open the door for accusations that India is unfairly influencing the sport’s global ecosystem.
The current Iran war has laid bare a fundamental reality: 20 per cent of global energy trade cannot afford to rely on a single artery, no matter how resilient and cost-effective.
Regulator seeks feedback on allowing firms to repurchase shares via exchanges after tax changes, as markets reel from war-led selloff and foreign outflows.
It’s easy to understand why the government can’t speak the hard truth. When this war ends, as all wars do, India’s interests will lie with both the winner and the loser.
This is Peacenik Punditry at Its Worst.
The author calls Indian outrage puzzling — what’s puzzling is this breathtaking selective amnesia.
The same world that cheers Russia’s Olympic bans, debates Afghanistan’s ICC status over Taliban governance, and sympathizes with boycotted Israeli athletes suddenly demands sport stay “pure” — but only when Indians react.
Calling Indian fans bullies while completely ignoring Pakistan’s documented “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” doctrine, state-sponsored terrorism, and decades of cross-border carnage isn’t neutral commentary. It’s a political choice wearing a sportswriter’s jacket.
Furthermore, Indian capital, Indian audiences, and Indian eyeballs built the commercial value enabling Sun Group’s global ownership ambitions. Expecting accountability to primary stakeholders isn’t hyper-nationalism — it’s basic logic.
You cannot ask Indians to compartmentalize their grief, their dead soldiers, their bombed civilians — then label them bullies for not complying. Demanding Indians alone separate sport from politics while the rest of the world freely conflates them isn’t peacekeeping.
It’s asking the victim to be more civilized than the aggressor.
There is no unfair influence, countries get banned from olympics, other sports, economic activities get sanctioned and so on when Western countries don’t like someone. There’s no need for us to act like Saints.
This is Peacenik Punditry at Its Worst.
The author calls Indian outrage puzzling — what’s puzzling is this breathtaking selective amnesia.
The same world that cheers Russia’s Olympic bans, debates Afghanistan’s ICC status over Taliban governance, and sympathizes with boycotted Israeli athletes suddenly demands sport stay “pure” — but only when Indians react.
Calling Indian fans bullies while completely ignoring Pakistan’s documented “Bleed India with a Thousand Cuts” doctrine, state-sponsored terrorism, and decades of cross-border carnage isn’t neutral commentary. It’s a political choice wearing a sportswriter’s jacket.
Furthermore, Indian capital, Indian audiences, and Indian eyeballs built the commercial value enabling Sun Group’s global ownership ambitions. Expecting accountability to primary stakeholders isn’t hyper-nationalism — it’s basic logic.
You cannot ask Indians to compartmentalize their grief, their dead soldiers, their bombed civilians — then label them bullies for not complying. Demanding Indians alone separate sport from politics while the rest of the world freely conflates them isn’t peacekeeping.
It’s asking the victim to be more civilized than the aggressor.
There is no unfair influence, countries get banned from olympics, other sports, economic activities get sanctioned and so on when Western countries don’t like someone. There’s no need for us to act like Saints.