Circle of Life

Take what you want, God said to man, and pay for it - Spanish Proverb

Recently, in a corporate training session, one of those beharioural sessions on ‘leadership and motivation’ which one mostly yawns and role-plays his way through, I took away something interesting. It articulated concisely something I had already known for some time. In a way that is the purpose of these sessions - to give structure to our confused, over-wrought mind, which knows a lot but understands little. Anyway, this is the model -

There are 5 things which are important in life for anybody - Family & Friends, Money, Career, Health and Hobbies. All these things require effort - some less, some more, but sizeable cumulative effort (unless of course one is already endowed with some of these such as born into a rich family, or with genetically good health). Another big reality of life is that not all of these are achievable, given the constraints of time and energies (as is philosophically said ‘You cannot have everything in life’). And I think that is true for entire humanity, and has been since beginning. Only in rare cases for someone extraordinarily gifted can he/she target all these. For a vast majority, only some of these are attainable.

So the big point is to prioritise - which of these to go for. This is the big life planning - to say that I want my relations (family & friends), my health and my hobbies. But, since we are talking about life, things cannot be so simple. The ponderables are -

• Some choices will be forced. It is not easy to do without money, at least some of it. So following money can become important, at least for some part of the life. Most unfortunate is the person who does not even have the power to chose any of these.
• Life can throw curve-balls - what if you are diagnosed with some disease which requires immediate attention. Or some family member needs greater attention, requiring one to withdraw from other pursuits.
• Career and money are largely inter-linked but career can mean doing something one truely believes in or likes without attaching the monetary value. For instance, an engineer may work with an advanced technology company even if it pays less, because greater learning gives the most satisfaction. Or somebody may work as a nurse (bless them!) because he/she truely believes in healing. For some, the job may not mean only money but also contributing to the society or doing something worthwhile, for oneself and for others.   
• Priorities will keep changing over the course of life. So at one point, career and money may be important while at another, health and family. It may seem that this way all can goals be achieved. But I think there is some trade-off. Relentless pursuit of money/career will take toll on health which is irreversible later on. In such instance health can only be managed in later stages of life, but not fully mastered. Similarly career and money would come by in good measure only if they are followed brutally at the expense of relations and health.
• Family is considered a given - you can always go back to your parents even after ignoring them for some time (mostly!). But relationships will also get fractured or lose warmth if not given adequate time during other pursuits. And friends (not the quid-pro-quo ones) are more difficult. Maintaining friendships requires time and letting go of part of oneself.   
• Hobbies look the easiest to let go off (to many that is). Mostly they are for our convenience and thus dispensable. But they can have great value - nourishment of mind and heart. They can be extremely therapeutic and cleansing. For some (say a blogger) following of hobby may become a biggest pursuit.   

So there is a lot to think. But this model is a good reference point to keep evaluating and making choices at different stage of life (school, college, advanced education, job, business, marriage, kids, retirement, senility etc.)

But the biggest caveat of following this model is - ‘No guilt!!’ Many a times, guilt is a trap which we fall into, because we forget. This model says that once you have made choices, do not let guilt of not achieving the other things haunt you. Always remember that it was your conscious choice. If you have decided to go to gym every day for an hour instead of spending that hour in office to please the superiors and it gives you just an average career and average income, so be it. Then do not compare your career with your peers and rue any underachievement. Or you may focus on career and money and find that you have only perfunctory relations.

Whatever it is - no guilt. There is only so much an individual can do and burden of guilt should not be added to the list.   

Have you already decided what you are going for!

Head in Sand

Recently two contrasting events stuck me in equal measure. A Member of Parliament thrashed an airline official (aged 60) for alleged misbehaviour. While the incident caused much outrage, the minister was unapologetic, instead saying that he had done it rightfully. Only when he was barred from all airlines for some days, did one get a half-hearted message of regret. Not a simple and straight ‘I am sorry’. While he may have not apologised because he was not remorseful, but the question to ask is would he have apologised had he been remorseful? I am not sure. We do not have that tradition in India, least of all among the people in power.

Now the second incident - in a recent public interaction, Abhinav Bindra, professional shooter and India’s sole individual Olympic Gold winner (in 2008) talked about his disappointing performance in the 2016 Olympics where he finished fourth. He mentioned later how he had been diagnosed with a neurological condition few years earlier which caused tremors in his hand. ‘Shooting with a trembling hand’ can be an idiom for trying to achieve something with acute disadvantage. In addition, his rifle malfunctioned just before the shooting began at the 2016 Olympics - talk about everything going against you. But this is what Abhinav Bindra had to say about his poor performance: "I ended up fourth in the Olympic Games in Rio and it wasn't because of neurological conditions, because of a tremor in my hand or because the sight on my rifle broke. The fact is that I ended up fourth because I wasn't good enough and that's important to know". I almost choked with emotion. It is so rare and yet beautiful to find admission of weakness. I am sure most people find admission of a mistake similarly touching. It is because all of us have weaknesses and all of us make mistakes, yet very few admit to either. Instead most like to maintain a facade of invincibility and perfection. For the more sensitive and self-critical, it can be misleading and unnerving to see every body around him so perfect.

Another person I have noticed being forthcoming in apologising is the Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. For Indians, the famous one is the formal apology for racist Komagata Maru incident (wherein more than 100 years ago, a Japanese steamship carrying passengers of Indian origin was not allowed to dock at a Canadian port, as per the then prevailing laws). He has also issued national apology for persecution of gay Canadians. But more than national apologies, he is willing to personally apologise for small misdemeanours - in Valentine's Day messages to Quebec anglophones, he expressed "sincere regrets" for refusing to answer questions in English; he also apologised for manhandling fellow parliamentarians (I saw the video, it was nothing given the ruckus we are used to in Indian legislative bodies). Mr. Trudeau appears to be profoundly unassuming. If it is political I do not know, but for one growing up in a country where people are pathologically against apologising, he is a refreshing role model.

Apologising, in private or in public takes courage, which many people are not able to muster. And acceptance of a mistake is close to acceptance of a shortcoming. Just like people find it difficult to say ‘I made a mistake’, saying ‘I cannot do this’ is equally tough. Both require a pricking of the ego, and ego is something we hold dearest. Admitting to a incapability makes a person more amenable to overcoming it or at least seek help from somebody who is better. By closing ourselves from accepting any weakness, we shut out any external source of help. Societies are increasingly interlinked and complex and people are getting increasingly specialised. So, while our needs have multiplied, our skills are very specific. For most things, we need help from others. While most people may be able to say ‘This is outside my domain of expertise’, saying ‘I need help in this’ is very difficult. Recently, I saw ads targeting people with mental ailment of ‘depression’, asking them to speak up and take help. Most people do not face situation as severe as depression, but everybody feels the need for help but most do not ask.

For those like me who spend much of conscious time in corporate environment, non-acceptance of mistakes/shortcomings (sometimes blatant) is a given, frustrating though it may be. Every action, every muscle movement, every utterance is linked to ‘appraisal’, to the pay packet. So saying that ‘I am sorry, I goofed up’ is to say goodbye to the increment. So most often people will keep trudging along with mediocrity making sure that they are not found out, instead of raising hand and saying ‘I need help’. Not taking help in something we are not good at also undermines something we are good at. Because we waste a lot of time, effort and bandwidth on our inadequacies instead of taking external help, we are not able to focus and strengthen our domain. Thus what we achieve is mostly an average of competencies and incompetencies.  

What is the real challenge? Some part is our base instinct, which is premised on competition, on superiority over other species. To be able to compete effectively, one has to be the best version of oneself. And then there is posturing - to appear to be better than you actually are. This thought process makes saying ‘I am sorry’ or ‘I made a mistake’ a sign of weakness. In addition this is a reflection of cultural and societal paradigms. Is the society forgiving towards mistakes and deficiencies? Does it believe in second chances? Does it give respect to one seeking forgiveness or help, or does it kick such a person in the shins? Mostly in Indian society I have seen this not to be the case. We have the concept of ‘kshama’ (or forgiveness). But mostly, I have seen people not willing to forgive? And thus nobody is willing to ask for it. An extreme example is how do we treat criminals of any degree. Do we allow them to enter the mainstream after they have served their punishment? A student who fails tends to get stigmatised. Our education system rarely allows a student to correct his course once he realises he is not good in the subjects that he has chosen. So if you have studied ‘Commerce’ in graduation, you cannot study ‘History’ post graduation. Even if you can do, your social circle will already brand you as a failure. Even on Indian roads, the rule is that even if you are the one who made a mistake in an accident, don’t accept it. Instead, be very quick in finding fault with the other side. And as one goes up the social hierarchy, it is made more difficult to apologise or accept inadequacy. I have never seen any individual in Indian politics or corporate do it (in case of politician they know that the legal system is flexible enough for them to flourish even after they are accused of any crime, so why get into the trouble of acknowledging). We rarely hear any celebrity admitting to any mistake, because it is generally believed that their popularity would diminish, their marketability wanes, the business loses.   

Nevertheless, saying ‘I am sorry’ or ‘I am not good enough’ can be the toughest yet the most therapeutic thing ever. It frees up the mind, it takes away a big burden, it relieves and releases. To the person on the other side too, it can be the most beautiful thing. Not that it gives a superior upper hand or bragging right. Instead it brings believability, truth, trust, and honour.    

Movie Review - Anupama

Dil ki tasalli ke liye, jhooti chamak jhootha nikhar
Jeevan to soona he raha, sab samjhe aayi hai bahaar
Kaliyon se koi poochta, hansti hain woh ya roti hain
Aisi bhi baatein hoti hai

This movie gives me goosebumps every time i see it. I keep wondering if only they made movies like this. ‘Anupama’, a Hindi word, means incomparable, and by extension also means ‘beautiful’. The movie fits the description. The movie has handful of characters and all of them are well etched - a rarity in Hindi films. Like most of his movies, Hrishikesh Mukherjee keeps the film believable, relatable and earthy, at the same time subtle (again a rarity in Hindi films), with deep character study, and nuanced. He is one director who believed in simply telling a story - in its purest form, without superficiality. There is never a large agenda, just telling about everyday people with their emotional turmoil. While there are always subtexts, none of his films ever get preachy. Anupama is about complex human relations, human pain and the journey which each character makes - communicated in a gentle tone. Another word I feel applies to his movies is frugal. There is never a scene out of place, a shot without meaning.

Anupama’s central character is Uma - played by Sharmila Tagore, in one of her earliest Hindi movies. Uma’s mother dies while delivering her, something which leaves her father Mohan (Tapan Bose) heart-broken. Mohan had married late and loved his wife Aruna deeply. Aruna is a beautiful, doting wife and their love is epitomised by the song Dheere Dheere Machal. This exemplifies Mohan’s misery when Aruna dies. He holds the new-born Uma responsible refusing to see or talk to her. His initial behaviour is justified in a brutally selfish way - his love for Uma’s mother has to be more than that for Uma -  who has just entered his life. He throws himself into work and alcohol. Only in drunken state is he able to get over his misplaced anger and accept Uma, showering gifts on her. But when he is sober, his mind takes over and he cannot see Uma beyond Aruna. And he is not able to let go of this thought - a typical human condition of holding on to a belief even when deep inside we may know that it is wrong, only out of fear of accepting one’s mistake (to oneself), or a perverse insistence to be consistent. The scene when he kisses her when she is pretending to be asleep and how she cries after this captures the fractured father-daughter relationship. Father loves her but is a prisoner to his hatred. The daughter yearns for his love and acceptance. She carries the guilt that she is responsible for her mother’s death and thus Mohan’s misery. Thus she has repressed herself. She grows into an extremely shy and timid girl, morbidly afraid of speaking to anybody. In fact Uma’s extreme introversion infuriates and embarrasses her father. Possibly, it is a justification that he gives to himself to continue to suppress his paternal love.

In this scenario enter Anita (Shashikala), Arun (Deven Verma) and Ashok (Dharmendra). Anita is daughter of Mr. Bakshi, a friend of Mohan. Arun is son of another deceased friend of Mohan and Mr. Bakshi. Ashok’s is Arun’s friend. The characters of the two central pairs is starkly opposite. Anita is vivacious, bubbly, determined and confident, while Uma is diffident, shy, deeply introspective. Arun is foreign educated, carefree, and happy-go-lucky. But Ashok is moody and thoughtful like a poet/writer/professor that he is. He has modest means and responsibility of mother and sister, but still is uncompromising on his beliefs and ideals. His hardships have made him more certain while Arun’s comforts have made him feeble. But still these characters have their virtues. Anita and Arun are guileless, warm-hearted, carefree about social statures, and welcoming to all despite their material superiority (actually a bit jarringly too good). And Arun, despite his difficult circumstances, is optimistic and content. At no point does he complain about his lot or critical of the wealthy. He mixes with them with confidence, exuding from his wisdom. In a way he is the ideal socialist.

As far as the appearance is concerned, both the lead pairs look strikingly beautiful. It is rare to find a movie where all the leads look so beautiful and have acted so naturally. Sharmila emotes with her eyes as her character is required to. Dharmendra looks gorgeous yet believable as a person of humble means. It is saddening that he is known more for his Gharam-Dharam image rather than such memorable roles where his acting stands tall. He has pitched the character perfectly evading the risk of sounding preachy - a Dev Anand might have made it caricaturish while a Dileep Kumar might have made it weepy and pitiable. Shashikala looks serene. Her character along with Uma’s matures as the movie progresses and she carries it well. And those who remember Deven Verma only for Angoor or Andaz Apna Apna would not believe how boyishly handsome he was - I wonder why he and Shashikala did not get/do more movies during their time.

Arun gets introduced to Uma while she is singing Kuch Dil ne Kaha. Let me stop here to discuss the songs of the film. The music is by Hemant Kumar and expectedly, it is other-worldly. I have not heard any other music-director give the sounds which he has. It is melodious, soft, smooth, rich, simple, minimal. One hardly hears any instrument - it is just music which one can hum, and roll around. And these are the qualities that one find in most of his movies - Khamoshi, Bees Saal Baad, Kohraa, Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam. Here, Dheere dheere machal is a typical Hemant Kumar song and Kuch Dil ne Kaha takes these qualities to another level. Lata Mangeshkar has almost sung it in whispers (the perfect blend of music, lyrics, voice, acting and cinematography created the freshness and inner feelings which it meant to). Kaifi Azmi’s lyrics show the poet’s superior understanding of the world and characters. The line ‘Kuch dil ne kaha, kuch bhi nahi, aisi bhi baatein hoti hai’ shows the central character’s dilemma who wants to say a lot but nothing. She wants to be understood without having to express.  

Or the song Arun sings ‘Ya dil ki suno duniyawalon ya mujhko abhi chup rehne do, main gham ko khushi kaise keh doon..’ shows the poet’s angst with the materialistic, pretentious world. The song represents Arun’s character - he is truthful but finds that truth has limited value in the world around him. Cinematically also, this song is presented amazingly - during the entire song, all characters are absolutely still. It takes skill for the actor to carry on a song by remaining still, emoting just with eyes, face and slight movements. And there are breezy Asha Bhosale numbers on Shashikala (Bheegi bheegi fazaa and Kyun mujhe itni khushi de di)- songs of unadulterated joy and sung as such.

Anupama has a rarity in the tradition of party-songs in Bollywood movies. Two songs are sung during Anita’s birthday - the ecstatic Kyun mujhe itni khushi de di sung by Anita followed by the melancholic Ya dil ki suno by Ashok (He warns beforehand that this will out of mood for the party, saying “main shayar hoon khoon pasine aur aansson ka”). This sequence  marks the shift in the movie - while Anita is proclaiming her lucky life, Arun is unraveling Uma’s misery and explaining how poor stay happy and how rich may be unhappy. He says to Uma “Insaan to zindagi main har cheez thodi mil jaati hai” not as an apology but as a fact. And when he sings Ya dil ke suno, Anita is standing in dark, introspecting, transformed, matured.

The relationship between Uma and Ashok develops beautifully - a maturity which is rare in Bollywood movies. Ashok is drawn to her because of her mystery, but starts loving her because she is emotional, thoughtful and caring. Their first exchange of love is a planted flower which Uma has left at Ashok’s house - Ashok face glows when he sees it. Uma is overwhelmed at being understood - for the first time somebody has penetrated her wall of silence. She opens up in the company of Ashok’s mother (reliable Durga Khote) because she finds the mother she never had. With Ashok, his mother and sister, she feels no pressure. They do not force her to speak. And they do not judge her or misunderstand her. They see her simplicity and innocense and care for her.

Gradually Ashok empowers Uma and she feels his contentment. He says “Bhagwaan par dosh mat lagaiye, yeh hum aap he hain jo apne liye dukh paida kar lete hain..” The major transformation happens when Ashok writes a book Anupama, basing the central character on Uma. He talks to Uma about Anupama - “Rukaweatein bahar nahi, uske mann main hain…”. All throughout we see transformation in Uma’s character - she is speaking more, expressing her feelings, desires. Ashok remarks “Icha bahut sundar hai, icha hi zindagi hai”. Ashok wants Uma to come out of her father’s shadow, something which sheis not able to. In another classic scene, he call her and says “Aap humko apna samjhe hamare ghar ko apna samjhe, aapka hum par poora adhikaar hai… yaad rahegi na yeh baat”. And Uma bursts crying on hearing such explicit utterance of love and care. She is being forced to marry someone else. Anita wants Ashok to be assertive, but he wants Uma to overcome the barrier herself. It is another maturity in the movie. Ashok says he does not want to cripple Uma by forcing his opinions on her like her father has done. Just like scores of parents do to their children (such bold and futuristic thoughts in 1966!!) He respects an individual’s freedom and choice. Ashok would not be able to love Uma if he has to emancipate her, he wants her to be bold to take the leap. Anita presents a contrasting view saying that there are people who need help and prodding. She sees life in action not thought. To each his own.

But Ashok has prodded Uma subtly - through his book Anupama, which brings her out of her cocoon. She reads the last line “Main jaungi, main jaungi..” and it overwhelms her. There is a serene scene here - after reading the book through the night, Uma switches off the night lamp and goes to the window and pulls the curtain. Bright sunlight pours in through a giant tree (mirroring a line from the book) and Uma basks in it. She has a bold look on her face. This scene portrays the development of her character which has moved out of the shadow of her father, of her doubt and guilt, and into the brightness of her freedom. The music builds gently to its peak as the curtains are pulled. This scene gives me goosebumps every time I see it.  

Finally she stands up to her father and bids him farewell to join Ashok. She turns the issue of her mother’s death around saying “Bless me because I am going to create the same place in someone’s heart as my mother made in yours”. And Mohan lets him go. Mohan’s tears are his redemption as he watches Uma leave with Ashok, hidden behind a pillar. Both Mohan and Uma are free from a web which they had created around themselves.  

The movie scores well on all fronts - solid storyline, script, well-etched characters (even smaller ones like Uncle Moses and Sarla have important presence), great music, and direction. Dialogues by Rajinder Singh Bedi and David (who also plays Uncle Moses) are pitch perfect and cinematography by Jaywant Pathare is stunning.

 

Sports - the ultimate

Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. - Samuel Beckett

And tattooed on forearm of Stanislas Wawrinka, at least till he had won his first grand slam

What’s there to not like in sports? They are founded on basic human traits - sense of competition, exhilaration of achievement, display of power, test of mental toughness, showmanship, overcoming barriers of human physique, overcoming any barrier for that matter. Life itself apart, sport is the closest representation of Life - with its uncertainties and its drama.

I have grown to love sports, embrace them, feel their warmth. Part of it comes from the cynical state I find myself in, partly justified by the current times, and partly my exaggerated emotions. It is so difficult to trust most things. The corporate world is fake, the society is deeply flawed, the government is corrupt, most media are biased and prejudiced. In such an environment, sports seem to be the only thing that is genuine, apart from art. (Of course, keeping aside the malice of ‘fixing’ or doping which can rob the authenticity of sports.) In sports, human emotions find expression in purest and instantaneous form. Nothing, other than an art form, can reveal a human better. The ancient Olympians competing nude were probably emphasising this fact, that nothing is hidden when playing a sport. (the word Gymnasium is derived from Greek gymos meaning nude!) When I am watching a sport - I know what I am getting - exhilaration, frustration, disappointment, rage, energy, skill, guts, good, bad, average, mind body, spirit - everything true and pure.

I have never played any sports with any seriousness. Thus I feel disadvantaged in appreciating the true soul of a sport, somewhat an outsider trying to force into an elite club. In fact it sounds rude and vulgar to have never played anything seriously and to write (sounding knowledgeable) about it. Nevertheless, I have tried to keep up by constantly reading and hearing about sports. And the more I explore, the more I am enamoured.

What’s there to not like in sports? At times I feel that when we see a sportsman perform, we are seeing yet another iteration of something that he has practised thousands of time. But that is yards away from truth. Because each iteration is different. And the human element comes in. Each time, the body feels different, the mind feels different. I have felt it myself on the rare occasions when I have played. Some days, the body flows smoothly and on others it refuses to yield.   

Sports have three aspects - the body, the mind, and the heart - just like life. Each sport has separate levels of importance of these three but none can be ignored completely. In fact, sports require a fine balance of the three. You can go through anything (life, job, marriage) by ignoring one or two of these, but not sports. Talking about the body part - in very few sports is this not very important - chess for example. Most sports are gruelling on the body and elite sportsmen train all a level which is beyond imagination for most. High intensity tennis matches running for hours, or each Formula One race can make players lose 4-5 kgs weight. In most sports movies (English or Hindi), the rigorous work-out parts where the protagonist slogs to gain strength are the most interesting (Imagine Rocky, Chak De, Dangal, Bhaag Milkha Bhaag). I read somewhere that cricket, fast bowling is a very unnatural action for humans, and thus requires rigorous practise. While seemingly an obvious point, I realised this only when pointed out. Wasim Akram said in an interview that they would run up and bowl hours on end in hot sun. I wondered why boxing or wrestling have rounds of just 2 minutes before realising how much stamina and power goes into fighting at such high intensity. I used to think badminton is about hitting smashes and ending points quickly before realising there is more deception. For the uninitiated, even fifteen minutes of good quality badminton can be draining - it requires stamina, agility, and nimbleness.

The physical aspect is constantly developing - the players keep pushing the limitations of the human body to take it to the next level. As sports get more competitive, the margins between the physical aspects of the players, at least what they can acquire through training, is reducing. I remember reading an interview by Edwin Moses where he mentioned how he had pioneered and planned many new training techniques. Increasingly, most elite sportsmen today are aware of advanced techniques and to that extent, the differences are getting fudged. If anything, some sportsmen would have innate, genetic advantage. I have read such articles on Usain Bolt and about Lance Armstrong. How they have the perfect height, body metabolism, oxygen burning rate etc.

However, very few sports are just about raw power, skills and technique are equally, if not more, important. It is difficult for a player to be all-conquering on sheer power or stamina. Nadal brought greater power in men’s tennis, but Federer was able to outpace him on many occasions. Cricket as a sport had lesser reliance on body strength (leaving apart fast bowling). It was more about batsmen’s technique, spinner’s tricks, and just holding yourself in the field. But this has changed dramatically - physical fitness is paramount and it shows in fielding, running between the wickets, hitting power. Fielders diving to stop the ball, spearing throws from the boundary, taking athletic air-borne catches are now common and expected. So are the videos of Virat Kohli’s gym training! Still one does come across cricketers like Romesh Pawar (very portly spinner) and Dwayne Leverock of Bermuda.  

Even the most physical sport would have a cerebral aspect. I can have an off day in office (mostly) but no sportsman can afford that. All elite sportsmen or teams are assisted by psychologists, counsellors, conditioning coaches etc. Each sport requires strategy, and presence of mind. A tennis player is assessing the opposite player’s strengths and weaknesses, court conditions, weather, crowd etc. even while he is playing a shot. Even sports like long jump, high jump etc. require constant strategising - assessing the body and the conditions. In cricket, a captain has to think of many things parallely - how are his players playing, how is the pitch playing, what is opposition’s strategy, field placings, team players who are in bad mood, umpires, weather conditions, crowd misbehaviour and so on. In a team sport while a lot of thinking is put on the captain’s shoulders, it is only partially so. Each player has to think for himself in the heat of the moment. Despite being a team sport, cricket remains, a duel between the batsman and the bowler. How tough it is to keep your wits when in the action is something only a sportsman can tell - imagine driving a car at 250 kmph and still being aware of the route, the maneuvering of other drivers, track condition, condition of the car, fuel position, tyre condition, next pit-stop etc. True that these people train hard and most of what seems challenging to a layman becomes intuitive to them. Still, to be successful internationally requires extreme mental sharpness. Captains like Mike Brearley, Mark Taylor, MS Dhoni are known for their nous. Tennis players like Agneiszka Radwanska, Martina Hingis, Justine Henine are known for their mental strength which allowed them to succeed against hard-hitting opponents. Sportsmen need to be able to constantly think, identify patterns and churn-up new responses or strategies to surprise the opponents.     

I feel the biggest part of any sport is the emotional. To realise that your body is not listening to you when a crucial game is underway requires reserves of mind over matter. Nowadays the differences in physical aspect can be minimised given that the training techniques are known and imitable. Even the strategy can be managed to some extent - hire good coaches, get ring-side opinions, video experts who pick smallest of nuances of the opposition’s game. But the heart cannot be outsourced or imitated. How will a player respond when he is physically pushed to the limit? When the opposition is intimidating? When the conditions are against him? How will a debutant handle himself when he walks into a stadium packed with antagonistic crowd? (While running one half-marathon, I got to enter the Jawahar Lal Nehru stadium in Delhi. I got goosebumps standing on the jogging track and looking around at the stands which seemed to engulf me, even when they were empty. I tried to project what a batsman would feel when he goes out to bat with his side in difficult position, the opposition on top, and a hostile crowd jeering him. I felt deep respect and awe for anybody who has gone through this. The amphitheatre is designed to be intimidating.) That is why comeback victories make the best stories, because they are about the ultimate achievement of confidence over doubt. Those are the occasions which truely distinguish a champion from a good player. A Steve Waugh hitting a century when his position in team was in threat.  

Sport is totally individualistic - it gives the life-lesson of ‘standing up’. A bowler at the start of his run-up bowling a crucial over, the batsman at the other end looking to secure a win for his team, a striker at the instant when he has to drive a pass into the goal, tennis player facing the championship point, or the one serving it, the formula one driver in his car, the long jumper at the start of his run-up, the boxer when he is getting thrashed ruthlessly, a gymnast mid-air, a shooter just before the gold-medal shot - each is on his own. No family, no team, no coach, no friend, nobody. But yourself. You may cry in anguish, look at the stands for family or the coach, they may nod sympathetically, even the entire crowd may feel for you - but nobody has to go through the experience but yourself - when the body is broken, the mind is scrambled, only the will survives. That is the honour of the sport and the making of a sportsman.

A sport requires determination and fighting spirit. And a champion mixes consistency and hunger into this. Watching tennis, on many occasions I have felt that a player is playing brilliantly, but after a year I find that he is nowhere on the circuit. I have realised that great players are able to do three things - be excellent consistently. seize the critical moments firmly, and invariably claw out of losing situation just by immense self-confidence. Javed Miandad’s last ball six, MSD’s six in world cup final, many Steve Waugh innings, AB de Villiers and Faf Du Plessis playing out an entire day against Australia, Goran Ivanisevic’s dream Wimbledon, Roger Federer’s 2016 Wimbledon are examples of players getting the result just out of their will. At such moments, I can almost see the image of a player drilling through a mountain. That today nothing is going to touch me.  

Still, the sport demands that you acknowledge that it is the biggest. Thus, the need to maintain humility in victory and courage in loss. Sports present both sides of the coin in the same instance. You need to take a loss calmly, with composure, and without ill-will. To be able to admit being ‘beaten by a better performance’. To have the balance to say that it is only a sport and a loss (even in the most important match of the career) is not the end of the world, yet at the same time have the hunger to correct the loss. On the other hand, you need to be able to be graceful in victory. There is always debate about how a player should celebrate a win - a bowler giving a send-off or abusing a beaten batsman. Adrenaline rush or ambition should have a boundary, which is till the respect of the opposite player. Instances of a strong team ill-treating the weaker side make for ugly viewing - although that too is a reflection of life. Instead it is inspiring to see grace in a strong side - Andrew Flintoff consoling Brett Lee during 2005 Ashes, or the West Indies team of 1980s and 1990s. The current bunch of tennis champions have shown this admirably.

An important aspect of any team sport are the team dynamics - how do the players mesh together. Very few teams can be consistently successful if even one player is not contributing. That adds to the complexity of a team sport. It is not always possible for each of the 11 players to like each other - still they function. I think it is more about the players having respect for each other, if not penchant. And it requires players to be always aware of their roles - some of which may not be as eye-catching as others. So a player with more flamboyant role would always be more visible than others - in cricket a striker against a run-accumulator or a searing fast bowler against a medium pacer, in football a forward against a defender or mid-fielder. A coach/manager/captain has to manage the egos in the team and contain the sense of deep envy which may pervade.  

I wonder how do players acknowledge a better player - within team or otherwise. In real life I have seen very few acknowledgments of somebody else’s superiority. For instance, in corporate world it is almost blasphemous to acknowledge that someone is better because it shows that you are not ambitious or competitive and, that you are paving way for the other person’s accelerated rise up the ladder. But I have heard or read about many players openly acknowledge that somebody is far superior. Two reasons - (a) in such a open world, it is difficult not to acknowledge somebody who is clearly a superior player - Tendulkar vs a Hugh Morris, or a Federer vs a Lukas Rasol, and (b) in sports, acknowledging that someone is better does not take away the opportunity to still get better on odd, or at times important occasions - Ponting run out by substitute Pratt in critical 2005 Ashes test, Robin Soderling ending Nadal and Federer’s French Open in two successive years. When the difference between the players is stark, how does a relatively weaker player, say a Radek Stapanek face a Roger Federer? How does he motivate himself in a grand slam? Possibly out of love for his sport, or the spirit, or the belief that he can find another notch and may catch Federer below his best (RS has beaten RF twice). Those moments become truely memorable - when a player may not be the most skilled but still creates a legacy by giving a tough fight, by transcending his/her abilities in that fleeting moment of glory and giving a lifelong memory.

Over time, sports teaches empathy. Because at core each sportsman has the same story - of toil, of relentless training, of grit, of determination, of failure, of frustration, of tenacity, of injury, of recovery, of unfairness, of glory. This story ties all of them together. They know that only they have gone through what most others have not. So even the superstar sportsman would have respect for the lesser talented - like a sergeant major and a foot soldier in a trench.  And the superstar knows that on many occasions the margin between them is not much.

This is not to say that sports does not have ugly moments - way too many. But in that again sports mirror reality - basic human traits - envy, competition, rage, greed, pride. On many occasions these traits surface in the spur of the moment - a nasty tackle in football or cricket, or an unnecessary argument with the umpires in tennis, and the players are able to grow out of these. Over a longer term, sports separates superior individuals.

Sports reflect life closely and an important lesson it teaches is that life is not fair. Or the role of chance (a better word than destiny) in life. So one has to accept a poor umpiring decision which can turn the match, or an injury caused by somebody else’s stupidity. What does one do? Nothing - grin and bear it. You may cry in frustration, or pure rage, but you cannot do anything. Almost all great players have this monk-like quality of getting over such instances. Tendulkar or Dravid would just walk off after being given out incorrectly. Such instances can destroy the concentration and mental balance which elite sports requires, but great players are able to get over them. So evident during a tennis match, when disturbances from crowd, or from poor umpiring call. or from ball boys is not uncommon. But they just hold the composure. Also as in life, so in sports - things have a way of balancing out. So all great players realise that mostly misfortunes are evened by good-fortunes.

I would like to end this piece with a favourite story -

Arthur Ashe, the legendary tennis player was dying of AIDS which he got due to infected blood he received during a heart surgery in 1983. From the world over, he received letters from his fan, one of them conveyed: "Why does God have to select you for such a bad disease?".

To this Arthur Ashe replied: The world over - 50,000,000 children start playing tennis, 5,000,000 learn to play tennis, 500,000 learn professional tennis, 50,000 come to the circuit, 5000 reach the grand slam, 50 reach the Wimbledon, 4 to semi finals, 2 to finals. When I was the one holding the cup, I never asked god "Why me?". And today in pain, I should not be asking GOD "why me?"