PRIDE!

The year 2016 has been a crazy one. Everyone will agree to that. Brexit and Trump – either of them in a year would have been enough. Both together of course was overkill! Still, there it was.

I am not going to try and find reasons for this nor am I going to spout lessons from all this -  people far better than me have tried and many shall keep trying. I, however was very intrigued by a slightly different aspect of this whole element – pride!

One of the key things in the Brexit campaign was about having pride in the UK. Not just faith that the UK could manage on its own but about pride that the UK would manage on its own. We didn’t need outsiders to tell us what to do…we were proud Britishers. I suppose, the point of making America great again was also about having pride in America.

Not that America or UK are unique in this. Pride, for example, is a very key part of India. “Garv se kaho hum… hain”…fill in any region or religion in India and I am pretty sure that slogan exists. People are exhorted to be proud of the place they are from.  And this is something I don’t quite follow. You had nothing to do with your Birth - what is there to be proud about it?

Now, I can’t speak for others but in general I think one can feel pride about something when one has actually had some role in that something coming to fruition – even if it is indirect. So, one can feel proud in one’s children’s achievements because there has been effort in bringing that child up. One can feel proud about the college one went to because there was some effort (one assumes) in getting into that college. One can perhaps feel proud of the place one works at because it took some effort to get into the organisation, in the first place and perhaps the work one has done has helped achieve that which one is proud of.

But it’s rather stretching things when one is proud of accidents of nature. Being proud of being Indian or American or whatever is like being proud of being tall or proud of the fact that you are less likely to catch malaria because of your genetic background. That’s just the way you are born – you didn’t choose it and you didn’t do anything to have it happen. I have never, for example, come across a South Asian who is ashamed of being more prone to diabetes. The logic, of course, is pretty much the same.

Not to say that the shame game does not go on – it’s just that people don’t normally get ashamed of who they are but try to make other people ashamed of  their birth. This normally comes in the form of using your birth to blame you for what your ancestors did. So, this takes the form of blaming the current crop of Britishers for the evils of colonialism, blaming 21^st century white Americans for the evils of slavery and making 21^st century Brahmins responsible for the evils of casteism. Rather stupid to my mind. There might be an argument for a societal response to some of these evils in the past but trying to blame individuals for the ills of their ancestors is never going to work very well.

What however is interesting is that while people do, quite naturally, recoil at being blamed for the actions from a few hundred years ago; they are still very happy to feel pride at that same ancestry even though they still had nothing to do with it. They are enough people who want to feel pride at the history of Britain as a maritime and colonial power but even if they are willing to accept that colonialism had its downsides they claim that they can’t be held responsible for it. Every region in India has had its past of some atrocity of some sort on another region but when  the “garv se kaho…” piece starts, no one ever thinks of “thodi si sharm bhi karlo…”

It isn’t very surprising that people want to remember the good bits and forget the bad bits – that’s natural. But when you are trying to claim ownership of a past which you had nothing to do with, it seems a bit unfair that you only want to claim ownership of the good bits.

And the fundamental point remains – what are you feeling proud of? And do you have so little to feel good about that you must search for it in things which have nothing to do with you.

Pride, of course is very closely linked to identity. Human beings seem to have the need for an identity. In reality, I feel the need is not so much about identity as it is just about the need to be part of a larger community. This is very clearly seen when one considers immigrant communities – such as Indian immigrants in the west. When the first wave of immigrants came many years ago, language was a problem for many of them. Further, within India, a lot had already grown up in communities which were regional rather than pan Indian. Hence communities in the West often grew up along linguistic and regional lines – so in London, for example go to Southall and you will find the Sikhs and Punjabi.  But, as time has passed, a more educated variety has landed up which already speaks English, at least as a second language, if not the first.  Such people can now be found in large numbers interacting with other Indians – who went to similar schools and colleges as they did and work in similar industries – and they can be found all across London, such as in Wimbledon, where I live. Their identity is  no longer Punjabi or Tamilian or Gujarati…but Indian because they can easily interact with Indians with similar upbringing. The next generation will probably not care that much for the Indian bit and have a more British identity.

But while I understand that people might need that sense of identity, what is still not clear to me is why the pride in that. Whether you view yourself as Tamilian, Indian, British Indian, or British is immaterial – that depends on your upbringing and your world view. But, on its own, it cannot and does not make you better than someone else. And if everyone understood that, we just might have a slightly more peaceful, less confrontational world. Now, that might be something for all humans to be proud of!!

Random thoughts on advertising

This post has no specific message – I am not trying to say something very deep or meaningful. Just some random thoughts – the sort of things you might put up as a facebook post; except this is perhaps a bit too long for that.

Some days ago I saw the new Airtel ad on ndtv – there was in fact a 20 min programme discussing the merits and demerits of the ad with some of the usual suspects in tow. Setting aside the quality of the ad, I started thinking of the different ways in which brands are advertised in India and the UK.

I studied the theory of marketing more than 15 years ago, so I might be getting things very wrong here…but my memory of marketing 101 seems to suggest that as the market evolves and as brands evolve, communication moves from focusing on the functional connect to the emotional connect. A mature market therefore would have brands selling almost purely on the relationship with the brand; especially as functional differences between brands would be minimal. So, in theory a detergent would not be just saying that it washes whitest but that it makes your family feel better, etc, etc.

What interested me was that advertising in India does indeed seem to have gone that way. Brands like Airtel, surf, google and so on have made very emotional ads where the functional aspect of the product is often minimal. And this has been the case for many years now …think of the original Hutch ads, the Titan ads for so many years, the Raymond advertising. Emotional connect has always been strong.

But advertising in the UK – arguably a much more mature market – does not seem to be so strongly emotional. In many categories one sees very functional “scheme” advertising rather than emotional “theme” advertising. A mobile phone company would talk about how many minutes it gives and what the latest iphone deal is- there is no brand differentiation. Telecom providers talk of how easy it is to switch service providers and how much download they are offering for such a low price. Banks keep on selling on the basis of low mortgage rates and the hard-nosed benefits of switching accounts to them (2% off on direct debits or 100 pounds into your account if you deposit 1000 pounds a month). Supermarkets almost exclusively play up short term deals; even though some of their by lines can be decently emotional, such as “every little helps.” And then there are the aggregators whose advertising ranges from the sublime (comparethemarket, which I guess is more emotional than functional…even though the take away is that for best car insurance one should visit comparethemarket.com) to the ridiculous (go compare); but the game there seems to be only top-of-mind awareness with brand connect not really a part of the marketing brief (my view, at least).

Of course, as a person who has not grown up in the UK, perhaps I do not always get the emotional connect. But when I see some of the earlier advertising in this country – some of it certainly was quite “theme based” rather than “scheme based”. The JR Hartley ad from the early 80’s, for example, is genius. But then again, perhaps, it is only those which remain in memory and the vast majority were always “scheme based”. I don’t know.

So, the final point is that I am still intrigued at this relative difference in communication strategies in these markets. Is it different in other mature markets? Or am I just getting my marketing 101 very, very wrong?

‘wots in ə skript

What constitutes a language – I would have said words and how they are used. That is the core of the language. Spelling, pronunciation and such like help in standardization and create dialects...but they don’t create a different language.

There is another aspect to a language; script – how it is written? Is that critical?

More than one language is written using the Latin script as is more than one language written using the Devnagri script. It is less common to find one language written in multiple scripts...but more of that in a minute. However, clearly there can be no one-one linkage between a language and a script. That, in itself is not a watertight argument - there can be no one-one linkage between words and a language- but if sufficient number of words are common, one is perhaps not looking at two different languages but dialects of the same languages. But, of course, the words are still going on to define the language (or the dialect); does script in any way define a language – at least in one direction (many languages may be written in script X but language A can only be written in script X)?

I have never considered script to be an integral part of a language. But over the last few weeks, I have come across a few things which suggest that not everyone thinks that way, and that intrigues me?

I was speaking to an old friend the other day about Urdu poetry and where to read some of it from. I suggested to her that the best place to start was urdupoetry.com. She had heard of the site but did not like it because it was in the Roman script- while she cannot read Nastaliq, she at least wanted to read in Devnagri. Now, I couldn’t understand that – perhaps because I have been used to reading/writing Hindi in Roman script for over 25 years - but she was quite vehement about it. She also added that she simply did not like many of the ads nowadays which wrote Hindi and Marathi words in the Roman script. It did not “seem” right. Again, I could not follow why the script made a difference - there is obviously a question of ease of reading but beyond that – why is it wrong when the same thoughts, indeed the same words are being expressed.

Now, this might seem, at the end of the day, a fairly minor thing but in the Indian context it has one very important outcome – the distinction between Hindi and Urdu. Quite independently of the discussion on script, I recently had a discussion with another friend over the basic difference between Hindi and Urdu. I am not going to go over the details of that argument, but broadly put I argued that these are both dialects of the same language – Hindustani or Khadiboli- which over the past century have diverged; whereas he argued, as I understood it, that they are historically 2 different languages which having co-existed for so many centuries have developed many similarities. Each of you can have his own view on this- I am not going to belabour this point.

But I do strongly believe that, for most people in India today, the biggest difference in their minds between Hindi and Urdu is the script. That, more than anything else, defines the difference. In speech one can’t easily identify the difference. How many people would really care to consciously make the difference between “mushkil” and “kathin” – they will probably say what they are used to saying. And if the person in front uses the other form, they would, without any effort, understand. Ditto for “mitr” and “dost”. Or “upyog” and “istemaal”. I remember Vajpayee’s speech during the 1996 confidence vote; he ended by saying some thing like –“adhyaksh mahoday, main rashtrapati ji ko apna tyaagpatr dene ja raha hoon”. I don’t think till that day I even knew that a word called “tyaagpatr” existed- it was always “istifa”. But at the same time “tyaagpatr” was immediately intelligible. The borders between the spoken languages are very fluid and it is personal context which would define one’s choice of words.

But when you see something written, in black and white in front of you, the difference in the script cannot be missed. Remember that Nastaliq is very similar to the Arabic alphabet while Devnagri is used for Sanskrit as well – and since these 2 languages have religious significance from an Islamic and a Hindu viewpoint there immediately develops a religious context to Hindi vs Urdu. One becomes a Hindu language while the other becomes a Muslim one. Suddenly script takes on a much more serious dimension –one, which frankly it should not be capable of taking on.

Unfortunately, this dimension has existed in India for sometime now. Many people think that Hindi is India’s national language. It isn’t- it is actually India’s official language. However, the sub committee (of the constituent assembly) on fundamental rights recommended that “Hindustani, written either in Devnagri or Nastaliq script, at the option of the citizen, shall, as the national language, be the first official language of the Union”. Southern opposition meant that the “national language” bit was dropped but Hindu opposition, including from many in the Congress, meant that Hindustani became Hindi and Nastaliq was dropped altogether. Add to this the fact that Pakistan chose to adopt “Urdu”, a language quite alien to most of its citizens, and wrote it in Nastaliq has meant that the “script-religion” linkage and distinction has perhaps became much more etched for many people.

And so script has played its part – not so much in defining a language but in defining a culture, maybe even in defining a nation; indeed two nations.

But it doesn’t make sense to me. After all...”what’s in a script, that which we read from left to right, if read right to left would mean the same”

AAP and the story of corruption

The last month has seen one of the most amazing political stories playing out in Delhi. Watching Arvind Kejriwal’s swearing in was like some scene out a Hindi film – except that there was no playback singer....it was the actor singing himself (at least, now we know why playback is used). The film would, in all likelihood end with that scene – sachai ki jeet and all that but of course, in real life it’s all going to start now. The history of Congress supported governments suggests that this one won’t last too long either. If I were Arvind Kejriwal, I would look to get the Congress to withdraw support a couple of months before the general elections (simply go after Robert Vadra on the day the elections are announced) and then have elections along with the general elections. That would perhaps ensure a victory for the AAP in Delhi as well as buy them a few more seats at the Lok Sabha elections as well.

This of course, assumes that the people buy into the vision which AAP is selling. It is fairly narrow- get rid of corruption. Now, there are, of course issues with this - their policies on foreign affairs, defence, the economy are not so clear. I have not read their manifesto but over the next few months they need to articulate this better. Which they well might. But for the time being the anti corruption stance has been strong enough to win minds and hearts. But, do we Indians, especially the middle class, really really want to get rid of corruption. The fact is, the Indian middle class is as corrupt as it can get. In fact, the Indian mind set is very corrupt. If the AAP can stop a government official asking us for money to get a ration card – great! But what if it tries to stop us being corrupt – will we be so benevolent when we are so used to getting things done with flouting rules.

Indeed, it is amazing how much we disregard the rules on just about everything and there are a litany of examples which can be provided for this.

Let me look at one journey I made from Bombay to Pune a few months ago. I got into the taxi at Dadar and drove off. I was sitting in the front seat and belted up as we started. The driver on the other hand merely crossed the belt over his body without fixing it in. And at the first option, once we exited Bombay, just took it completely off. He even told me that there was no need to wear it now. I would assume that if he had been caught some money would have changed hands with the cop and there would then have been a diatribe about how corrupt cops are. But wearing a seat belt—that's a big no, no!!! As you get out of Bombay, there are a number of traffic signals one needs to wait at. At each of these, all drivers have started inching forward and crossed the stop lines way way before the lights have turned green. Why? I wish I knew. Let the police crack down on this and I bet someone would make a comment asking why is the police harassing innocent citizens when the big fry are being left alone.

Anyway, we were on the express way and we stopped somewhere at Lonavala at one of the halts. I bought a packet of Chiwda at one of the shops. The printed MRP – Rs 48. On proferring a Rs 100 note, I was returned a Rs 50 note. I waited a few seconds for the Rs 2 change- clearly it was not forthcoming, so I asked. The response was – “do rupye ham nahin dete”. Kyon nahin dete, bhai? “Aise hi hota hai, yahan, koi nahin dega aapko”. I refused to buy it and went around to another shop to buy it. Same story to a point – Rs 100 given...Rs 50 returned...wait..ask for Rs 2. This time, very slowly the man returned me the Rs 2. But why did I have to ask? Is not, effectively pocketing Rs 2 off a customer fairly corrupt.

Incidentally, there used to some things in India it’s quite difficult to pay MRP. It’s often difficult to pay MRP for a bottle of mineral water, almost impossible to buy a bottle of Coke at MRP – especially at smaller shops. And everyone seems to have just accepted this. Why?

After some time I reached Pune station and got into an auto. Taking an auto/taxi in India can be quite an experience depending on which city you are in. Many friends of mine from North India or Chennai used to be surprised that autos and taxis in Bombay (and mostly in Pune as well) go by the meter. I guess one could argue that it is true market forces – every trip gets negotiated for and the best price is achieved for both parties. Again, I feel that this is another form of corruption which gets indulged in. But since I know Pune, I can get by decently. So, I was soon on my way to home in the auto.

On the way to our place, we cross the Pune Sholapur road which has 2 lanes in the middle (one on either side) which are dedicated bus lanes. As we approached, our auto driver nonchalantly drove into one of those lanes. I asked him – “arre bhai kya kar rahe ho...”. “Sir, aap bambai se aaye ho...yahan to aise hi chalta hai” And yes, the reality is that while perhaps 80% of people did not get into the bus lanes; there is a good 20% (of all types of traffic) which does it. Even if the other lanes have moving traffic.

Finally, we reach our society. My parents live in a place which has about 200 independent houses on about 20 roads- a single road down the middle with veins on either side. All the houses are single storey because for the last 20 years the gram panchayat has not given permission to built the 2nd floor. Just a few months ago they finally did, subject to the elevation being the same. I could see that some construction has begun. I could also see a couple of houses which had gone rather overboard – in flagrant violation of the guidelines and perhaps even encroaching on their neighbours. I asked my father – “how come this chap has built it like this?” The reply – “Yeah, some of the society officials asked him. He said –‘go to court, if you want’. Who will now go?” Again, we are very happy to violate rules when it favours us.

All this in one 4 hour journey from Bombay to Pune. The list of course is endless. The mid sized businessman who does not pay income tax and does everything on “cash basis”...and then says that the government does not give enough services; the householder who happily gets his meter “fixed” to pay less and then complains about “mehengai”; the person who smokes on the road knowing full well it is illegal. This is not about corrupt government, this is about a society where corruption is acceptable...until it affects us.

The AAP’s stated position is that the root cause of all evil in our society is corrupt politics. That may be true but the rot has now set in and it may not be enough to just remove the root cause. But does it have the guts to go ahead and look beyond politics. Some things can be changed relatively easily. It’s not too difficult to stop, say traffic violations. I seem to remember that few years ago Bombay police greatly reduced the number of drunk driving cases during the New Year season by picking up one South Bombay lad about a week before and keeping him in lock up for a couple of days. And publicizing this big time. Similarly, many other things can be stopped with some targeted action. But how will we react when the target is not a “bhrasht neta” but an “aam aadmi.” If AAP can get a few big scalps first they might be able to get away it with it. They could however find that their honeymoon with the people also ends very fast. And finally, that might be the biggest tragedy - that we are not willing to look at the mirror and see its reality. There is hope currently...but I am not yet sanguine.

The pen is mightier than the piano

Some days ago a friend had put up a link to “Ek akela is shahar mein” on facebook and had said that if anyone knows of a song with better lyrics he should point to it. Made me think a bit. At the outset, I can clearly say that, at least in my opinion, there are many songs with better lyrics than “Ek akela is shahar...”. What the post made me think of was whether there are songs which are dependent only on the lyrics – the music need not be all that great, the singing merely competent...but it is the lyrics which would take the song from “merely competent” to “memorable”. I don’t think “Ek akela..” is such a song but then nor are songs like “Sab kuch seekha humne”, “Chaudhvin ka chand” , “Jo vada kiya”, “Do divane shahar mein”, “Mera kuch saaman”, “Ek ladki ko dekha” – all of which are Filmfare best lyrics winners.

I have thought some time, on and off, for this. And I have finally come up with a few songs which I think fit the bill. Remember, it’s not just that the song has good lyrics-  it is that if the lyrics were not that good, you probably wouldn’t give the song a second look. Competent singing is a given...without that the most brilliant song would not get a second look. But there is nothing in the music per se which is outstanding. Nothing terrible, you see, just ok. But it’s the words which take it to a different level. So, the chances are that the first time you hear the song your response is likely to ambivalent or moderately positive. But after the second or third times; when you have taken in the lyrics, it’s likely to greatly improve. In some cases what becomes important is the context in which the song is placed in the film – after all the lyrics fit a scene in a film; in others it’s just the sheer beauty of the lyrics in itself.

So, here goes, in chronological order

1. Rahiye ab aisi jagah (Mirza Ghalib, Mirza Ghalib, 1956)

The film has any number of good songs which are generally well remembered, so much so that this song by Suraiya tends to get short shrifted.

But if one listens a little closer, the lyrics are a brilliant portrayal of the mindset of someone who has given up on life-  someone who has had enough and now wants to “get away from it all”. The desires are so anti social – a house with no doors or walls (be daro-deewar sa ik ghar banaya chahiye), no neighbours or guards (koi humsaya na ho aur paasbaan koi na ho),  no one to look after you or minister to you (koi na ho timardar) and no one to even mourn for you (nauhakhwan koi na ho). Just makes one feel very sad for someone who has reached this stage that he wants no more human contact of any kind

Click here to read the full lyrics

2. Sansar se bhage phirte ho (Sahir Ludhianvi, Chitralekha, 1964)

A brilliant portrayal of “duniyadaari” vs “sanyaas”. And a stinging criticism of sanyaas – by portraying it as an escapist philosophy rather than a spiritual one.

I think the lines “Is lok ko bhi apna na sake, us lok me bhi pachtaoge” and “ham janam bita kar jayenge, tum janam gava kar jaoge” are so scathing that they say it all. Similarly the contempt for “sacrifice” or “self restraint” is so brilliantly put – “ye bhog bhi ek tapasya hai, tum tyag ke mare kya jano...apman racheta ka hoga, rachna ko agar thukraoge”

I believe this is one of the best stands taken for worldliness and deserves to be applauded.

Click here to read the full lyrics

3. Rehte the kabhi jinke dil me (Majrooh Sultanpuri, Mamta, 1966)

This is one of those songs which just fit into the context of the film so perfectly – I can rarely think of another song which is so appropriate to the scene. The words are extremely hard hitting and suit so well Suchitra Sen’s feelings towards Ashok Kumar at the time that it is just brilliant. The context is that Ashok Kumar meets Suchitra Sen in a shop somewhere-  they were in love at some point but when he went abroad to study she was married off-and behave very decently with each other and walk away. However, Ashok Kumar’s friend tells him that she is now the leading tawaif in the city. To prove it to Ashok Kumar he invites Suchitra Sen home and she turns up. Ashok Kumar, hidden away, is disgusted and just wants to pay her off. But Suchitra Sen has spotted him and says that she would not take free payment but would at least sing one song.

The lyrics express her complaint and contempt very well – consider “daava tha jinhen hamadardi ka, khud aake na puchha haal kabhi; mahafil me bulaya hai hamper, hasane ko sitamagaaron ki tarah”. There really isn’t much else to write about the song – it’s just the lyrics are so powerful within context that it ascends a couple of notches. 

Click here to read the full lyrics

4. Guzren hai aj ishq me (Shakeel Badayuni, Dil diya dard liya, 1966)

The reason I like the lyrics of this song is that they cover the change in emotion of the  protagonist very well – 3 stanzas and each stanza conveys a different emotion.

The film is a pretty faithful rendering of the first half of Wuthering heights with Dilip Kumar as Heathcliff and Waheeda Rahman as Catherine. Now the book is very clear- once he is back, Healthcliff has very few redeeming features, is ruthless and vindictive and generally quite nasty. No real reason is given for the changes in him – but revenge on Edgar is very clearly prime in his mind.

Now a Hindi film hero can’t be nasty just for the sake of being nasty. So, Catherine’s (Waheeda Rahman) betrayal is shown as the reason for Heathcliff (Dilip Kumar) turning nasty and it has to be shown as not merely revenge, but revenging a wrong. Showing the mindset change is difficult – more often that not it is sudden (cf Dilip Kumar in Mashal) or brooding (cf Amitabh in Adalat). Here it is achieved by song. Each stanza conveys a different emotion – stunned disbelief (how could you do this to me), passive ill will (I hope things go badly with you) and finally active revenge (I will not take this lying down) – and completes the change in the character beautifully.

Click here to read the full lyrics

5. Mere dushman tu meri dosti (Anand Bakshi, Aaye din bahaar ke, 1967)

Poetry normally is positive. But this song is different. It is simply the most outstanding portrayal of red I have ever come across. If one asked “how much can one hate someone”, I think a pretty good limit on that would be this song. It is line after line of invective with some outstanding metaphors. The words are breath taking – and I mean the sharp intake of breath one has when one is humiliated or shouted at. The strength of negativity described by these words is scary and dark.  Consider “tu phool bane patjhad ka, tujh pe bahaar na aae kabhi” or “tere gulshan se zyada veeraan koI veeraana na ho” or “kisi ka pyaar kya tu berukhi ko tarse”

Click here to read the full lyrics

6. Jai bolo beiman ki (Verma Malik, Beimaan, 1972)

This may on the face of it look like a strange choice, given that Beimaan won the filmfare award for best music and Mukesh won the best male singer for this song. But frankly, Beimaan’s best music award is probably the worst decision ever in the 60 years of Filmfare history. There is practically no other song in the film other than Jai Bolo which is decent. And given that it is the same year as Amar Prem and Pakeezah, the mind boggles at this decision. And yes, Mukesh has sung well but it is really the lyrics which make this song.

And the lyrics are delightful. A satirical look at dishonesty, it takes the mickey of a lot of things. 

And some of the lines do ring true even today -  consider “apne desh ka kapda aur lagi hai muhar japaan ki” or (wrt temples)”andar bhagvan ki jay ho aur baahar beimaan ki”. Also in the stanza beginning “vrindavan ke ham sanyasi” notice at the end the “jai bolo bei...jai bolo bhagwan ki”. A lovely touch.

Click here to read the full lyrics

And that’s my list. What is interesting as I see it in black and white is that the tenor of the songs is clearly negative or sad. And so indeed is “Ek akela is shahar me” Maybe sadness does give better expression of emotion in writing. Or perhaps positive poetry is better suited to lovely music. Either way, just listen carefully to the words in these songs - hopefully you will appreciate the words.

Lessons from Cricinfo

Cricinfo is perhaps a one of a kind website-  I don’t know if any other game has quite the same sort of website which covers all the goings- on in the sport. It is most likely that there are such sites out there but I tend to think cricinfo is fairly unique. The reason, I think is that cricket is a sport where one has tended to follow all international games – not just the ones in which one’s team is playing. So, an Australia- South Africa series is often followed even if one is English or Indian.

And this has meant a more intense experience on cricinfo where one can follow all sorts of “literature” on different parts of the game.

But what is most interesting on cricinfo is not the varying views of the experts and journalists but the varying views which come from the fans through the  comments section. And one can learn a lot from that. I probably have a bias towards India related games and tend to read more of the comments on those articles and some of those learnings from such comments are shared here

1.      When foreign teams lose in India it is because the pitches have been doctored to suit India

2.      When Indian teams lose in foreign countries it is because Indian batsman do not know how to play outside of India

3.      A game which finishes in 3 days because of the pacemen wreaking havoc is a great example of fast aggressive bowling

4.      A game which finishes in 3 days because of the spinners wreaking havoc is a great example of a bad pitch and poor curatorship

5.      India is in a position to influence technology over DRS (ref WC semi final lbw decision of Sachin against Saeed Ajmal) and get the decision they want.

5a. That is why India is so much against the implementation of DRS (It is a very morally superior position, one must admit)

6.      There is no discussion related to cricket in which it is not possible to make a reference to Sachin Tendulkar

7.      Sachin Tendulkar should have retired after the 2011 world cup. But given that he’s playing now, he should play for as long as he wants

8.      The only important series in cricket is the Ashes. Every other game happening all over the world is merely preparation for that series

9.      Don Bradman was a useless player because he played only in 10 grounds and if he played today in the “modern” world he would not even average 50 (the fact that no one else in that period scored at 99 is happily ignored by all those who make this argument)

10.  The argument that a player has improved his record in matches against the “minnows” can only be made for players from other teams. However, when someone makes that argument about players from your team simply point out that other players do the same

And finally, without being tongue in cheek – I think the best comments one gets in Cricinfo are from the column “It figures” by Anantha Narayanan – only for readers willing to get highly involved with numbers...but an excellent column and an excellent set of comments from which one can learn a lot.

But then, even if you are not that involved, you have still learned a lot today, haven’t you?

The appreciation of art

A and I were invited a few days ago to the houses of parliament for a performance of “Maaya” put on by Akademi. Akademi is one of the organizations which does a lot of functions based on Indian culture in the UK; and a good friend of ours used to dance with them as a performer till she went back to India. As such when we were invited we were quite happy to go.

The performance, itself was quite nice. There was first a group piece which was full of energy and then a solo performance. The group piece was very nice to watch, especially as it was not on any stage but just in the middle of the hall. Quite interesting. The solo performance however was different – a more standard on stage performance which was nice…but to a philistine like me seemed like many other performances with no way for me to evaluate it. As we left the hall, I asked A what she thought about it and she said the solo performance was very good- and on being asked what made it good, she told me that one could make out – the way the dancer made her moves, the kind of steps, etc. Of course, A has had training in classical dance as a child whereas I have had none. And that lack of training makes me unable to appreciate or distinguish (at the very least) good from very good – though even I might be able to identify the poor.

But does that mean that in order to appreciate classical art once needs to have a core base of training? If so, is there a point in trying to widen the base of classical art among the general public? And is there a chance that among an audience which does not understand the details even sub standard art can be assumed to be great; merely because it is sold well?

I know very little of art but I realized that this thought can be extended to other forms – which are not pure art but contain a degree of beauty in it – such as many sports. What distinguishes one gymnast from another and why does Nadia Comaneci get a 10.00 while someone else gets a 9.9? The judges probably do understand because they are trained, but as a viewer I can’t make out. Ditto say, for diving. A bad dive is clearly discernible but what distinguishes the good from the brilliant? Is it again, the lack of training in the sport which makes it difficult to appreciate?

On thinking it over a bit more it struck me that there is an area where I can appreciate these differences. Assume a front foot straight drive played past the bowler…or even better, a punch off the back foot past the bowler. Now think of that shot being played by Harbhajan Singh, Virat Kohli and Sachin Tendulkar. Now, even A, who has no interest in cricket, might be able to figure out that Harbhajan’s way to play the shot is not the best but on casual viewing there might be little to choose between Kohli and Tendulkar’s shots. But I know I would go for Tendulkar everytime…as I think would most people who follow the game…but I can’t rationally explain why. There is something about the back lift, the angle at which the bat comes down, the stillness of the head, the depth in the crease from which the shot is played -  all of which go to make Tendulkar’s version of the shot that much more delightful than almost anyone else. But it is impossible to define. Would an angle of 80 degrees of the bat be better than 70 degrees? Would the player’s back foot need to necessarily be more than halfway in the crease? I don’t know - I can’t quantify it. But I know a great punch off the back foot from a good one. And I cannot explain it to someone else who does not know beyond saying –“look at it- it can’t get better”.

Which raises 2 issues – how do I “get it” in cricket but not other areas? And secondly, if after “getting it” I am not in a position to explain it any further then what hope is there for me to be able to “get” things in areas I currently don’t get?

One obvious answer is exposure. But let’s be clear, I have not played cricket at any level worth talking about. The exposure I have had however, is watching it continually and I think, importantly, having it explained to me over and over again on commentary by people who do know about the sport. So, I know the difference between reaching the pitch of the ball and driving in balance as opposed to driving when not to the pitch of the ball and being off balance. Of course, why the former is preferable is not known to me – it just is because anecdotal evidence suggests (which even I can corroborate having watched enough and having been explained often enough about the details) that you have a better chance of succeeding when you are not off balance.

But can the same be extrapolated to other art forms? First, is it really possible to have the same level of explanation provided for a painting or a dance routine without it destroying the piece in itself? Can you imagine someone giving a running commentary on a dance performance or trying to explain why the Sistine chapel is magnificent? And secondly, is it likely to hinder creativity in an area where success is not so clearly defined? It is easy to give hats off to the Dilscoop or the Tendulkar lob over the slips because they routinely score runs while tut-tutting over the reverse sweep because more often than not it leads to disaster. How does one evaluate creativity in an art form when one cannot define the value of that output? Who is it who puts the value – the common man or the connoisseur? And is the common man again in the situation of not appreciating the value because he does not see it or is he being forced to play along lest he look like a philistine. This is like going to a kavi sammelan or mushaira and saying “wah wah” at the end of every couplet irrespective of whether one has understood it or not.

Let me give you an example – Paul Potts! I don’t know how many of you have seen Paul Potts on Britain’s got Talent. If you haven’t then go to youtube and do a search for him. Look at the initial round, the semi final and the final. It is among the finest TV programming you will get to see. The look on Simon Cowell’s face when Paul first tells him he’s going to sing opera is classic. And his dialogue after he finished is also classic (go watch the clip for that). But the reality is that I don’t know the first thing about opera. And I would guess that nor did more than half the audience in the hall and neither did the vast majority of people who voted for Paul. What were they voting on the basis of – that he sang well? How did they know?

Of course, an ideal situation would have been that those who heard Paul Potts in the first round would have gone back and researched on opera and its finer points and been more able to appreciate him in the second round. But I am fairly sure that most people would not have done so. There might be the odd area one wants to explore - for example, over the period from around 2002 – 2006 or so I got fairly interested in Urdu poetry and have read a fair bit of a lot of poets of the last 200 or so years (thank you Nita Awataramani for a lot of this. Also Abhay Avachat and RMIM). I do have a better understanding of poetry now and a view of my own…though it is far from complete. But it is by far an exception and I have never really had an inkling of trying to develop an understanding of any other art form. I too watched Paul Potts (on you tube) and not once did I read up much more about opera.

So, then are we consigned to a fate where we must just go along with a minority (of experts) on all things artistic – without really knowing our own mind? Or alternately reject all things artistic as not rational enough – thereby depriving ourselves of something which clearly has some value. Frankly, I have no answer. Clearly, exposure to art from a young age is critical. But I am not sure that simply exposure is good enough. Not that exposure is not important but it does need to go a bit beyond that. I believe there are things like art appreciation classes but I have no idea what they do. I do know however that I have never come across one of these and that is unfortunate. Events like Maaya and organizations such as Akademi are doing a great job in creating the exposure to art. I think the next challenge they have to face is how to move from awareness to understanding among the common population. I have no idea how that can be done but I hope they think about it. In the meantime people like me will often be just left saying “wah wah” without a full understanding.

Unless, of course, Tendulkar is playing a straight drive – when it will come from the heart!