Hindi → English transcript

Guys, there's a small controversy about me.

At first I thought I'd tweet it as a reply.

But I didn't have the energy to type that much.

It would be too long; nobody would read it.

So I'm sending a voice note instead.

This controversy involves Gautam Gambhir.

Some months or years ago — I don't remember the exact date.

I had tweeted that Gambhir could be a very good choice.

He would end the star culture for some and make the team more aggressive.

Whatever it is, that was just my opinion.

This was based on Gambhir's performance at that time.

On whatever he had done with KKR or Lucknow.

And I've written many times before that he had been good based on those performances.

This was my opinion.

Basing your hopes on someone's performance is a big mistake.

Now Gambhir saab didn't turn out the way I had thought.

Gambhir sir didn't really perform, whatever his policies may have been.

Even if he isn't solely responsible, he did take people's bats from them, saying, "You can't play spin."

Okay, fine—moral responsibility for everything does fall on him.

His decisions should mostly be the ones blamed.

If Gambhir didn't perform like that, I tweeted that I had thought one thing of him but he turned out to be something else.

I wrote that I thought he was Gary Kirsten, but he turned out to be Chappell.

I didn't; Chappell had also been brought in.

When he was about to burst onto the scene.

So actually it's like, when he...

When he was performing well, as a mentor and coach...

On that basis I had built my hopes on him.

Now he's not performing well, so I'm criticizing him.

Now, by posting these two screenshots together...

Some people, like Zubair, did that; some are Congress handles.

They're applauding as if they've discovered some kind of abnormality.

I don't understand what abnormality they're trying to point out to me.

That would be great.

In my view, this should be the natural or normal human way of thinking.

If something seemed right to you, you wrote it down.

Now if that thing turns out to be wrong, you're criticizing it.

Call it political or fan culture—this applies to everything.

Whether it's politics, cricket, or films, it's become so deeply polarized.

That if you believe in an opinion, you have to stick to it.

Even if it turns out to be wrong.

Like, even if your favourite cricketer doesn't score runs, you still have to stick with them.

No, no — this is amazing, this is amazing.

It's the same with politicians as well.

So now this conditional support people give has started to seem abnormal.

While it should be a normal human approach

that right should be called right, and wrong called wrong

But that's the problem with people

that once you've formed an opinion about something, you cling to it

If you change your view, people say you have double standards. That's not how it works, man

You may remember, there was an army officer who put a Kashmiri on a jeep and paraded him around

He faced a lot of criticism, but the Army Chief gave him a commendation card

By the army's standards, you did a good job and deserve praise. Here, take this commendation card. He was praised

That officer's name later came up in some offense related to sexual misconduct

So he was reprimanded for it and was punished

So is that the correct approach, brother? If someone is doing right, praise them; if the same person is doing wrong, you also have to criticize them — so what's the fuss here?

I thought Gambhir was right. If I hold onto that opinion despite so much evidence that he and his team did not perform well, then I'm wrong — I'm changing that opinion.

I thought he'd become a grek chapal who could perform, but he became that grek chapal who couldn't perform — so what's the problem, man?

Now, like these fan clubs — KL Rahul, he's already played sixty to seventy Test matches, he has a thirty-five average — how is he acceptable in Tests here, man?

But they have fan clubs, they defend him day and night like madmen. They think it's normal behavior that if Rahul didn't play in ten matches and then plays in the eleventh, on that day they'll make a big fuss and start answering everyone in turn.

They'll chant, "There — there — there, you kept saying Rahul wasn't playing, here you go, here you go, here you go."

Look, if he plays once in ten or eleven matches, then, man, even Ravindra Jadeja is scoring more runs than him — I mean, players who aren't even main batsmen are doing that too.

But this fan culture — whether it's cricket or politics, here or there — they think this is the normal behavior.

That once you've decided to support someone, you just have to plant your flag and stand there — otherwise you're two-faced. It doesn't work like that.

Gambhir is not my relative; I thought he would be good for the team, so I praised him. Now he isn't doing well, so I'm criticizing him. Just leave me out of it, man — what difference does it make to him?

Baagi is fine, man. Whoever wants to make fun, let them, it doesn't make any difference to me. I mean, one thing is, right, that when Congress itself handles it — especially the 'Spirit of Congress' account — it's posting old tweets and putting question marks on them, then मु�

Man, just drop it, brother — I mean, how are you even saying that? Anyway, that was it. Thanks, Justice Varakshy