Times when Rajnikanth stood with bjp:

Caa ✅
NPR ✅
NRC ✅
Tuticorin ✅
Thiest politics ✅
Surgical strike ✅
Against protest ✅
No elegible leader in TN✅
Against periyar/Dravidam✅
Don't cares about rajiv murderers release ✅

Videos of these speech ? Here you go, thread👇

Rajinikanth:

NPR- Essential and is just population ✅
NRC- To know the people inside ✅
CAA- CAA is not against Muslims ✅

2/n
Rajinikanth:

Tuticorin shootout:- Tuticorin riot done by anti-nationals. ✅

3/n
Rajinikanth:

Thiest politics- Dravidian party is anti-religion, but we are for all✅

4/n
Rajinikanth:

Surgical strike:- Surgical strike and 370 abolishment is right and now everyone knows that Amit shah is the boss✅

5/n
Rajinikanth:

Against protest:- Congress and its allies are misusing students. Consult and discuss with friends and professors before protesting. Also, these religious leaders are behind it.✅

6/n
Rajinikanth:

Against protest:- These blind protests will make this country road run red.✅

6.5/n
Rajinikanth:

No eligible leader in TN:- YES, we have a vacancy for a good leader in TN politics.✅

Note: this statement was given before L Murugan and Annamalai become leaders

7/n
Rajinikanth:

Against Periyar/Dravidam:- YES, we have a vacancy for a good leader in TN politics.✅

8/n
Rajinikanth:

Don't care about Rajiv murderer's release:- Who are they?✅

9/n
Rajinikanth:

Modi BJP is fighting 10 parties like a lion and yes MODI IS POWERFUL.

Now you guys know whom will Rajini's finger point to during the 2021 election.
https://t.co/0uCwRoEXJk

Last but not least. He always stood with Modi and his actions also rarely criticized if any mistakes were made.

More from India

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?