​Charles Manson and nature of violence

I came to know about the history and legacy of Charles Manson when I read the news of his death in prison recently. For those as uninitiated as me, this is a Wikipedia excerpt on him:

Charles Milles Manson (November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and cult leader who formed what became known as the Manson Family, a quasi-commune in California in the late 1960s. Manson's followers committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971 he was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Manson was originally sentenced to death, but after California invalidated the state's death penalty statute in 1972, his sentence was commuted to life with the possibility of parole.

At the time the Family began to form, Manson was an unemployed ex-convict who had spent half of his life in correctional institutions for a variety of offenses. Before the murders, he was a singer-songwriter on the fringe of the Los Angeles music industry. Manson believed in what he called "Helter Skelter", a term he took from the Beatles’ song of the same name to describe an impending apocalyptic race war. He believed the murders would help precipitate that war. From the beginning of his notoriety, a pop culture arose around him in which he ultimately became an emblem of insanity, violence and the macabre.

I am sure there are details and intricacy to the whole episode but this is what I could understand in a quick research. His thoughts led him to galvanise individuals to commit crimes. Of course, like most cult leaders he possessed charisma, which was quite an achievement given he was a short person - just 5'2''. He had been a lifelong criminal who had grown up with an unweeded teenage mother without a father, and spent almost half his life in foster homes and correctional homes. He had history of armed robberies, and other crimes before he decided to become a cult leader. His thoughts and mobilisation culminated into two heinous crimes in particular, committed over two consecutive nights by his followers. The Manson Family members who committed the said crimes mainly included 1 guy and 4 females out of which 1 did not actually commit any murder but mainly acted as an accomplice and eventually turned witness for the prosecution.

Now this was the history which forced me to read further. While the group had committed more crimes, their sentencing was focused on the murders done over the two nights which were called Tate-Labianca murders. I am sure the fact that among those murdered was Sharon Tate, a Hollywood actress and then wife of famous Hollywood director Roman Polanski, gave greater mileage to the case. The fact that Sharon Tate was heavily pregnant when the incident happened brought extra attention. The reading itself of the crimes was enough to make me feel nauseous, leave along seeing any images. And I consider myself fairly solid as far as being able to absorb graphic and written material of gore. Over the two nights the group killed eight people, inflicting more than 100 stabbings. The motive behind the murders is highly bizarre - a mix of revenge as well as an ignition of revolution, one from which Manson was to emerge as the saviour. While there was some randomness in the choice of victims, the pattern or intention was to be brutal and to horrify and shock. As per the news accounts I read, Manson had given instruction for murders at the Tate residence as “totally destroy anyone... as gruesome as you can”. So the targets were repeatedly stabbed and shot, at times even when they had died. And after the crimes, the murderers relaxed in the house of their crime - dining, taking bath, washing the blood stains. And the gang included three women who one expects to be more sensitive. The reading of these details just shocked me and made me pause.

The psychology of cult is a widely researched topic, something which I do not have much knowledge (although India has its own endless stream of cult leaders). But mostly I understand that it is a mix of religion, charisma, desperation, mental conditions, economic depravity, and social ostracism. These form a cocktail of emotions which can push people over the edge. Charles Manson had his own interpretations of Beatles songs and the religious text of the Book of Revelation. And his Family found solace in his preachings, along with drugs, alcohol, and sex. These seem to be the common themes in most cults - possibly as means to brainwash, delude and to give the feeling of liberation. Such people usually end up arguing that wrong ways may have a right goal, that history would remember the end and not the means - as it has always done, examples being all those rulers who butchered and massacred their way to glory. Or that most visionaries are misunderstood and it is only natural for people to detest what they do not understand or foresee.

Still this did not diminish my shock. And I kept thinking what went behind this. First thing to strike me was the randomness of the events. It seemed so needless, unprovoked, and bizarre. And the brutality made it worse. The experience of reading about this case was worse than seeing violence in any other fictional form - be it movies (where it is more live and graphic) or literature. The key difference is that subconsciously one differentiates between fiction and reality. With fiction, one has the false comfort of assigning it to the creativity of the maker and presuming that it does not happen in reality. It is only when one sees it happening in reality that it hits the gut.  

Interestingly throughout the trial, the accused behaved most gailly. There did not seem to be any remorse, which makes the whole thing more cringy. There are pictures of the accused smiling, laughing during the trial. News give descriptions of how the trial bordered on farce at times - the Manson family members would suddenly start to sing, chant, laugh, shout slogans during the trial, or the proceedings would have to be stopped due to contempt of court. One news article describes the trial as ‘bleak circus’. More I read this, more I think that the defendants, especially the three females were not under any hypnotic spell. You would expect a spell to get broken at some point - after committing the crime, after being arrested, on being read the charges, on seeing the grieving family of those killed, on seeing the entire trial with lawyers arguing, on seeing the reaction and interest of the entire country. At some point you would expect them to realise what they had done, the senselessness and randomness of their crimes. But it was not a spell, it was more a brainwash. They believed in what they were doing, even if it was utter nonsense. They had conviction in their actions, and its consequences.      

As I wrote this piece, I kept going back to read more about the murders and the trial, including fishing out pictures. Was there something voyeuristic about extreme violence which appealed? I think it was more the case of my curiosity getting better of my loathing. A strong desire to know more, find clues about what went on in the heads of those people to do such heinous deeds. And how did the administrators or the people of the time deal with it? How did the policemen, security-men who were around the accused behave? Did they not have an urge to rough them up? Or how could the defending attorney bring himself around to defend such people (whatever is the right to representation!). What courage it took for the prosecution lawyer to build the case (Vincent Bugliosi got famous from the trial). And how did the judge and the jury sit through the trial? I mean how did all the people around those murderers keep their calm, balance, and neutrality?

Why the violence? From where does violence originate? Is it a base instinct for humans? It is definitely an animalistic trait - animals indulge in violence variously to: find food, protect territory, obtain a suitable mate, or to defend the offspring (that’s all I know). Humans too indulge in violence for all these reasons. But for humans, more reasons get added because we can think and perceive more. So humans indulge in violence also for power, money, ideology. Fundamentally, violence is a result of other vices, but it comes from one of the three needs - need to defend, need to gain/enhance, and need to punish/seek revenge. While there can be arguments for each, mostly violence cannot be justified by any of these reasons. Legally, violence of any form is prohibited, apart from self-defence. But is that like trying to suppress an irrepressible basic human trait?

Interestingly, violence is gender indifferent. While females are associated with gentleness, docility, lesser physical expression, cases like Charles Manson bust this presumption. Again a case of basic human traits. Also violence may not just be physical but can be emotional/psychological and verbal, where females are equally, if not more, capable. This form of violence can be very subtle and difficult to adjudicate legally, but can be equally devastating. Bullying, nagging, exploitation, all form in the category of non-physical violence.  

My own experiences with violence (meaning a physical altercation) have been limited. I shudder at the thought and any direct experience of violence. In my growing-up, it has been ingrained in me to avoid violence at all costs, even at the cost of pride or self-respect. And having doubts about my ability to physically rebut or inflict violence has only accentuated that feeling. Consciously or subconsciously, violence has been a vivid part of my psyche, such that I keep imagining it. During school days, there were incidences where I indulged in physical skirmishes, like most kids do. And on each occasion, I have been chastised at home which has deterred me.

Some incidents have stood out - once I was slapped by a guy in my apartment, for no great provocation. I was with a friend and neither of us did anything. I just turned back and returned home. I cried inside a lot and my father showed some disappointment at my chicken-heartedness. In another incident, I once saw a person slapping a taxi driver (the slapper was much burlier than the taxi driver) mercilessly. The taxi driver had a meek, submissive, imploring-for-mercy expression on his face. This was during early evening hours at an intersection and there were other vehicles around. Nobody did anything. I actively considered getting out of my taxi and intervening. But I did not and very soon the light turned green and my taxi drove away, taking me away from my misery. I recounted this incident to a friend, telling him that I had thought of intervening and he only guffawed and almost rebuked me for my thought, advising me to stay away in such cases. Yet another time, I was in a taxi when the taxi driver minorly brushed a car ahead of him. It was just a touch and there was not even a scratch on the other car. I would have understood the other driver getting irritated and mildly angry but I did not expect what followed. He was furious as he came out of his car. And then quickly retracted, took out a wrench, rushed to the taxi driver in rage and brought the wrench down on him with full force, but just stopping short of hitting him. The taxi driver apologised profusely and the other guy drove away. But the taxi driver was in a state of shock. While he was driving, he started crying - the incident had shaken him emotionally, hurt his pride. He stopped some minute later to wash his face and regain his composure.   

The reason I remember these incidents vividly is because of the way violence overpowers my psyche. One place where violence comes readily is the road, especially Delhi roads. Here I go through two, almost opposite experiences. One - despite my self-control, on many occasions when I see someone driving rashly, or wronging me, I have a strong urge to pull him out of his car and punch him, or even worse. In short, be extremely violent. On the other end, I keep wondering that if I were to mistakenly brush another car, would I be able to respond to the violence which may come my way. Beside the road context, I keep having visions of facing extreme violence to which I am not able to respond. A big part of such visions comes from my cynical view of the world and our times wherein I feel that violence is closeby and one has to be careful to avoid it.

Q - Should the Manson Family have been given parole?

The five members of the Manson Family who were the main players in the Tate-LaBianca murders were given life imprisonment in 1972. Since then, some of the them have died in prison. All throughout the prison term, they have applied for parole multiple times, all of have been rejected. Reminds me of the parole hearings of Red in the movie Shawshank Redemption. When he finally got the parole, you feel happy, because in the movie, you have seen a version of the character far removed from the murderer that he was in his youth. And also because the character is played by Morgan Freeman, whom one finds difficult to hold grudge against. Back to the point, there has been lot of media follow-up on the Manson Family over the years, with documentaries, interviews, detailed news pieces. I was reading one such interview where over the years, the perpetrator has mellowed down. She has realised her mistake and knows that what she has done cannot be reversed. Should they have been given parole? I am not sure. My first impulse is no. They were sentenced to death, it was only a change in the law which led to life imprisonment. But this is a larger issue of revenge, forgiveness, and prisoner reform. Can there be some criminals on whom these should not apply at all or everyone should have a chance of forgiveness? That time is the biggest punisher and change agent, that nobody would be tomorrow what he is today. I am too passionate and unbalanced to say.   

Roman Polanski footnote

As I had said earlier, the Tate murder got the attention that it did partly because Sharon Tate was a Hollywood actress and wife of the famous director Roman Polanski, who was away when the incident happened. I kept thinking what he would have gone through to find his wife and about-to-be born baby being brutally killed. But his later life is a study in balancing of crimes/guilt. Excerpt from Wikipedia - In 1977, Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. He was released from prison after serving 42 days, and as part of an apparent plea bargain, was to be put on probation. When he learned that the judge had changed his mind and planned to reject the plea bargain, he fled to Paris before sentencing. Since then, Polanski has stayed away from United States. This apart many other accusations of sexual assault against Polanski have surfaced over the years, all of them pertaining to 1970 onwards, after the Tate murder. Interesting life study in itself.  

PS: over the last few months, three persons have made me very uneasy, rationally or irrationally, about the United States of America - Trump, Weinstein and Manson.

ToI Delhi Litfest 2017

After desiring for many years, and getting thwarted by lack of company, I finally mustered sufficient enthusiasm this year to attend the Times of India Delhi Litfest alone. I did not seek any company and out of sheer will left for the event nice and early. I had kept the decision at the back of my mind, to be taken at the last minute. On the day, I just rolled with the flow, did not overthink it, and rushed when I realised that I might be running a bit late. It was a lazy, winter Sunday morning and I reached the venue in the fastest possible time - the deserted and verdant Lodhi road was a sight to behold. The venue itself seemed sleepy and unprepared. I felt I have come too early and this may be a dampener. I was already uncertain about how much I would enjoy this and how long I will stay. And this cold introduction made me rethink the timing, and that my over-exuberance was misplaced. Not to mention that somebody commented that yesterday had better panels.

Nevertheless, I collected the day’s schedule - which comprised parallel sessions of one hour each at six different locations. And given that it ran from 11 am to almost 8 pm, there was a lot to chew on. I ended up spending almost the entire day, way more than I had imagined doing, attending seven sessions and some. In summary, it was thoroughly enjoyable day although not all sessions were inspiring or thought-provoking.

Filmi baatein: the changing face of Indian cinema through the decades. Bhawana Somaaya and Jai Arjun Singh in conversation with Anna MM Vetticad

This was the first session, in the garden of Margosa, with only a sprinkling of audience, which I found discouraging. I was seated by 10.50 am and given the crowd I was expecting a late start. A few youngsters wearing ‘Organiser’ tees were loitering around. The place hardly seemed prepared to hold a serious event with celebrities on stage. But come 11 am and everything was good to go.

(Over the length of the day I would be amazed by the sharp punctuality of the event. It was ahead of Indian standards. And despite having panelists of reasonable popularity and stature, the event had a professional and grounded feel. There were no heavy-duty security, no high-handedness, no ruckus of any kind)

I have not been a great fan of Bhawna Somaaya but had growing adoration for Jai Arjun Singh, whose columns I had consumed in HT Mint. Overall, I found the discussion average. Upfront, the journalist-anchor AMMV admitted to not having any particular agenda. She started with the raging controversy around the release of the film Padmavati. JAS agreed that it was a shame and the cinematic freedom is getting trampled. Both he and Anna brought up a valid point that why do people with influence (Sanjay Leela Bhansali in this case and others like Karan Johar in the past) not stand up to this pressure and hit back instead of bowing down easily. Examples were quoted of Shahrukh Khan having done so in the past and recently a small director refusing to edit his film at the expense of being removed from a film festival. To this BS retorted that the sheer pressure faced by the filmmakers is immense and it is easy to comment from arm-chairs but very difficult to face it, what with commercial interests and what not. I could see some point but not a lot of it. If people with means and influence cannot handle pressure then who? JAS tried to counter and remain objective but ended up largely clarifying himself, in presence of senior journalist BS. JAS mentioned that the cult movie like Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron too had an anti-establishment story and scenes with religious connotations, something that would have been difficult to get away with today (imagine, we are regressing as a society) but the director Kundan Shah found a way out by being equal-parts derogatory to all.

Beyond this, BS threw up some anecdotes of how Bollywood journalism was in her times, 70’s-80’s that is. She mentioned that Bollywood did not get so much attention or print space in those times. I thought the opposite is true what with so many other modes of entertainment today. Anyway, BS sounded so fawning of the Bollywood personalities, which dashed hopes of an objective opinion. And at many an instance, BS seemed disinterested in what JAS or AMMV were saying, looking elsewhere and in a world of her own.

I had thought they would touch upon questions like: “Why does the level of experimentation in Indian cinema largely remain low, especially in comparison to world cinema?”, “Was story and acting given more focus in the initial years, say 50’s and 60’s then today?”, “Don’t they think most Hindi movies today are bland and unpalatable?”, “Is entertainment the only objective for cinema?”, “If not, then why do we not find more movies which further the art form or convey a message or at least tell a story?”, “Aren’t Indian actors mostly timid and only interested in using their star power to amass wealth, maintaining an overall state of well-being, or getting away with law?”. Never mind.

After the discussion, a gentleman from the audience walked upto JAS. He had earlier asked a question on what should a budding author like him, who may be writing on a controversial topic, expect. JAS told him after the event that he should not expect any support of help from the publisher. And AMMV mentioned that her Hindi is good because it is not her first language, that you pay more attention to the language you have to learn.

​Republic of Rhetoric: can free speech ever be an absolute freedom in a country like India? Abhinav Chandrachud in conversation with Akhil Sibal

I joined this session a bit late and thus missed the introduction of Mr. Chandrachud and Mr. Sibal and did not know about them a priori. My initial impression was that they looked like fresh business school students and were conducting the session in a very robotic manner. One posing a question and the other answering, all the while looking monotonously in front of them, without much of voice modulation or emotions. It was only much later that I came to know or realised the background of these two, who came from strong legal lineage, educational background and rich experience as lawyers. The discussion was on freedom of speech and around AC’s book  Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India. I missed the initial discussion about sedition rule in India, which is a shame because it would have been interesting to hear thoughts on this.

Gradually I warmed to the discussion with AS making impassioned points on why the freedom of speech is getting stifled, and referencing Padmavati, mentioned how as a society we are increasingly being held hostage by some people who choose to take the moral high ground or have deeply vested and malicious interests. He echoed my emotions when he said the government keeps setting wrong precedent by willing to entertain illegitimate outcry in the first place. He gave the example of the Chief Minister of a state who brokered peace between the movie producer and a demagogue political party, which entailed the movie producer having to pay some money to a charity fund to assuage emotions. (The incident sets bad precedent on so many counts - from the role of government, to the real intention behind raising the ruckus, to the fact that no cause is above money.) The larger point by AS was that we as a society need to be more thick skinned and get out of the mob mentality. Later in the discussion the fact was revealed that AS had defended MF Hussain against charges of obscenity in his paintings, a case which ran very close to the themes of freedom of speech and artistic independence.  

I heard new concepts like ‘The chilling effect of law”, “Heckler’s Veto”, and ‘Shouting fire in a crowded theatre”. The first one means that irrespective of the outcome, being pushed into litigation can have a chilling effect or inhibit a person towards invoking law against any wrong. That having to go through the process itself is so repugnant. All these phrases have origin in American legalese but have common interpretations as well. I got a broad gist but understanding the legal and social aspects would require greater study.

As to the topic of discussion, the speakers agreed that freedom of speech cannot be absolute, it has to be relative - to situations, times, even individuals. Nevertheless, our society should be capable of handling criticism and allowing a person the right to criticise. It was pointed that western world gives more freedom of expression, even allowing mockery of religion and state. An important point in favour of free speech was that it should include the right to offend because only then do we get plurality of ideas, and incite a debate. Only from debate can the truth emerge. The society should allow condemnation, of the harshest nature, of a person for his opinions but it should not allow silencing of the person.

AS expressed a degree of dissatisfaction at the inadequacy if law to deal with the situation but rounded it off by saying that law cannot cover everything in a civil society, that it would always work under a framework and that too only when invoked. The society has to become more responsible, which was refreshing coming from a lawyer.

This was a very interesting session and I ended up liking both the gentlemen variously for their speech, diction, legal skills, intelligence and pedigree. The topic can be debated at greater length and it is difficult to have a last word. While I agreed with most of the views that were presented, I had some uncomfortable rejoinders. A prominent one was that the debate around free speech is premised on the fact that words are less harmful than actions. That while it is acceptable to be vicious, insulting in your writing or speech, but not in your actions. But can speech not be more violent than actions? A ready example is ‘hate speech’ which our politicians give frequently for their gains, especially during election campaigning. Freedom of speech should mean allowing such speeches as well.

​Sense and solidarity: jholawala economics for everyone. Jean Dreze in conversation with Abheek Barman

While I had heard about John Dreze and his work in public policy and developmental economics, I did not know the extent of his connection with India. Turns out, he had spent most of his life in the country and lot of it in the lesser savoury places of UP, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh etc. He came across as opposing the current regime and favouring the past one. He spoke softly but in effective and economical language. He was fluent yet chose his words carefully and no word seemed out of place.

One pertinent point that was discussed was the use of linking Aadhaar for most financial transactions almost to the point of making it an identity document - he mentioned that it could have benefits but not in the form in which it is being used. He highlighted that as per his research on the ground it has not helped the rural poor in any significant way - in giving direct benefits, alleviating poverty or mitigating corruption. If anything, it had increased corruption by legitimising it. So while it had limited advantages in its present form, it posed the greater challenge of being misused to violate civil liberties. This has been my own worry with increasing government interference and impositions, an insidious entry in the name of transparency and progress. JD raised a pertinent point that when people know they are being watched, they tend to become conformist, which goes against the ethos of democracy. In the longer term it can stifle dissent. Given the insistence in the audience that Aadhaar linking is good as it would bring greater transparency and long term benefits, I marvelled at the effectiveness of government’s marketing and the extent of brainwashing that had been achieved.

An interesting means of formulating public policy that JD highlighted was on experience based evidence. He argued that it can be as effective as policy based on empirical data collection. Indeed, such evidence collection tapped into those working at the grassroots. Of course this is not without pitfalls as it can be marred by individual biases, opinions and mutual distrust.  

JD also highlighted that social indicators remain poor in the country. I wanted to question that are we getting too fascinated by the headline economic indicators and keen to appease a particular set of people - big businesses, investors, analysts - largely the literate and elite, and not too concerned with the social impact.

Keynote Address: A few lessons for followers. Arun Shourie

This session I attended in the passing. Of course it was not difficult to guess the tone the discourse would have had given that Mr. Shourie had been part of the government that is now in minority and a distant second to the ruling government. So he kept highlighting the follis of the present regime. Two classic takeaways was when he quoted Mr. YV Reddy that 'India can afford to make great decisions but it cannot afford to make great mistakes'; and his view that Mahatma Gandhi was a great manager in that he could always identify what a person can be good at, howsoever minor that task is and allocate work accordingly.

Cricket as Indian democracy's alter ego. Shashi Tharoor, Rajdeep Sardesai and Bishan Singh Bedi. Moderator: Nalin Mehta (TOI)

This was by far the most frivolous session with no speaker having anything meaningful to say. There was just one point - that while cricket has become more homogenising and meritocratic, politics has become more dynastic and least meritocratic. And this was in sharp contrast to the situation say 100 years ago when the reverse was true. The blame on the current political situation was largely levelled on ST - the only politician on the panel. ST made many rejoinders, aided in large part by his command over language and his finesse. But RS (the fact that he is cricketer Dileep Sardesai's son was news to me) kept hammering his point, in loud, bombastic, ungraceful manner and after a point he was boring. He kept harping on same examples - Palwankar Balu in cricket (I think we owe it to Mr. Ramachandra Guha for introducing him to the larger audience) and Mohammad Shami, Umesh Yadav and Mahindra Singh Dhoni as examples of democratisation and equality of the sport. And despite being told so, he kept romanticising and playing with cliches, possibly hard selling his book. On the surface, he blamed all political parties for making politics dynastic, unjust, and unequal. (to my mind, while being more meritocratic, Indian cricket had also developed and exported other diseases like big-ticket corruption, undue influence, big-boys culture, and unmitigated greed to the detriment of the sport)

The only good part of the discussion was that all agreed that there should be cricket with Pakistan. ST made a valid point that after 26/11 his government had decided to snap cricketing ties but that was a decision of that time. After a passage of time while we have reconvened our relations on other fronts we have not done the same with cricket - possibly because it is very visible and more political mileage can be got by snobbery here. RS rightly questioned if in all these years anything has improved by not having cricket between the two countries (although he did invoke lot of fake fervour, and cliches), valiantly rebutting objections from the crowd. An insight from ST was that diplomacy has failed to resolve the Indo-Pak standoff over the years and it does not seem to have any solution. If anything, solution may be found in greater interactions between the two countries on different levels, one of which can be cricket.

BSB made no meaningful contribution apart from an anecdote when he went to play cricket in Pakistan with an entire case of alcohol. When he was cautioned that he may be caught and charged for this illegal activity, he said in Pakistan he is Bishen Singh Bedi. Also possibly he associated more with Pakistani cricketers than those from different parts of India because of the common North Indian lineage and legacy he shared with the former. He has always been forthright and blunt in expressing himself and his not contributing to the discussion was disappointing. Probably he did not want to spend himself and court controversy in what was a minor event.

Shooting for glory. India's only individual Olympic Gold medalist Abhinav Bindra in conversation with Rajesh Kalra (Times Group)

I was looking forward to this session because of my liking for AB, based mainly on few of his comments. But this session had the weakest moderator who had no plan or agenda other than idolising AB. Indeed he and AB knew each other well (both had together been part of a committee which was advising government on achieving more olympic medals) which had only been used to rehearse the questions. The common pattern was Mr. Kalra praising AB or leading the dialogue to bring out his qualities and AB downplaying it all immensely. Nadir was reached when Mr. Kalra re-enacted the conversation where AB responds on why he failed to win a medal in Rio olympics. AB had been suffering from a form of epilepsy which made his hands shake and also his rifle broke just before the event. But he refused to blame his failure on anything, instead admitting he lost because he was not good enough. Indeed this remark was memorable and inspired me (as I have mentioned in a blogpost before), but to reenact it was farcical and robs its integrity and impact. AB looked a show monkey.

Still, there was a lot to like, mainly the facets of AB. While it was not a gradual revelation, but more of AB explicitly enumerating his personality types which again takes away the sincerity, I found it fascinating - because of his achievements and my adoration for sportspeople. My takeaways:

• AB is a negative person, he hates competition, and is an introvert. I could associate with most of these. He emphasised how difficult it was for him to learn to compete, how he would be happy just practicing alone in the shooting range and dreaded competing with others.
• He admitted that he has average skills. But a quality that he has always had was the ability to work hard. He attributed all his achievements to be able to work tirelessly towards his aim.
• Margins in elite sports are very thin. He mentioned that the disparity between the top 20 in an olympic event would be just 5%. That it all came down to either raw talent or hard work.
• Sports is mentally tough. That mostly sports will hurt, that the proportion of tears, sorrows, dejections would be higher than success. In the same breadth, a sportsperson has to constantly overcome these, keep picking himself up and keep trying and going for it. This is a beautiful and profound thought.  
• India as a country has to decide its priority. Do we value sports achievement? As a society, are we willing to commit to sports? If yes then we need to understand and institutionalise many things. We need to understand the needs of sportspersons. We need to understand what all goes into winning an olympic medal, the vision, the focus, the planning and hard work.
• Somebody raised an interesting point about giving some social security to sportspersons so that they are confident of their livelihood when they retire. AB said that there should be a program to impart employable skills to sportspersons. It was impressive that he was not talking about a dole or a grant but about making sportspersons capable of earning their living once they quit sports.
• There was a lot of excitement and awe amongst the youth in the audience, and many asked questions. Some of these tried to establish some proximity to AB, citing same school, same college or similar career trend. But AB was not much impressed, as if he gets such comments routinely.
• When asked why Indians fail at the highest level in olympics, AB attributed it to mental toughness. He highlighted how olympics are held once in four years and the amount of pressure that creates. When you have just a few minutes to prove yourself or else efforts of many years goes in vain. It takes mental toughness not to be overawed by the enormity of the moment and focus on giving your best.
• If there was one chink in the entire aura around AB, or the way it was created by the moderator, it was that AB was born in an affluent family. So things were easier for him, for instance he could be blunt and still get away with it. He had a lot going for him while he was targeting his olympic medal. He could afford a personal shooting range at his house and the best coaches in the world. Somebody in the audience rightly called so, but his farcical reply was that he is now trying to learn to earn and it is tough. Guffaw.
• In the end, I wanted to ask if there is a cultural impediment to our sporting underachievement? That we as a country do not understand the way olympic level sports work. It is a different animal all together. When AB’s high performance training center came into discussion, he was having trouble explaining to the audience what they do. The thing is that elite sports is highly nuanced, complex, multifarious, technical, precise, covering wide range of disciplines - diet, psychology, kinetics, genetics, motion, medicine, logic. It takes a collaborative approach, years of practice, coaching from the best in the field, perfecting everything to the last fraction, and intensive use of technology. And all this is expensive. Despite this, success is not guaranteed. While in India we do not appreciate beauty of most things unless we can put a monetary value to it.
• Another question which I had at a slightly philosophical level was that how does one choose between hard work and talent? Should not the glory be reserved for the talented or those born gifted? While success requires both, but isn’t hard work boring? A kind of manufactured robots against natural prodigy.  

Inside the world of Indian cricket: BCCI and beyond. Former CAG Vinod Rai in conversation with Nalin Mehta

The most futile panel of the day. It looked prepared, staged, and defensive. Vinod Rai is the head of Committee of Administrators, a body formed by the Supreme Court of India to implement specific reforms in the BCCI which the BCCI had itself been reluctant to implement despite lot of pressure from the SC. So the COA was supposed to be a empowered group. But even after almost a year of its formation, it had failed to implement the said reforms. In fact starting with four members, it was now down to two with one member Mr. Ramchandra Guha resigning citing many issues in working of COA and of the cricket administration in the country.

As per me, the problem seemed widespread and perplexing - starting from the root i.e. BCCI to SC to COA, nobody had resolved the issue which had been identified 2-3 years back and which all had vowed to address. Imagine! These were the most powerful bodies in the country and if they cannot achieve what they claim they want to, then you have to question the intent, and integrity. I have always found it puzzling that BCCI has been repeatedly able to get away with not following SC’s orders? Does a common man have similar leeway?

VR comes with a strong background, ex-head of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, involved in auditing accounts of public entities. During his tenure CAG had highlighted many cases of corruption, misappropriation of public wealth, and malpractices. However a lot of these were contested and in one case that I had gone into in detail, CAG’s stand made no sense to me. Despite following the BCCI/SC/COA saga with some interest for some time, I had not heard of VR’s stand on the matter so what. So I was looking forward to it.

But it was a disaster. He had nothing to offer other than platitudes. He laid all blames at BCCI’s door and that too without going into the next level of details - just mentioning that BCCI continues to refuse to implement the said reforms and COA is looking at SC for direction. I kept wondering - what then is COA’s role? If it was powerless to force BCCI in any way and SC has to give directions, then why was COA formed? In fact VR mentioned that the first step to implement the reforms is to change BCCI’s constitution/charter and BCCI had failed to hold the General Meeting which is required to do that. I kept wondering, what a smokescreen? Who is to blame here, everything seemed fishy. And this at a time when the larger narrative in the country is around maximum governance, rooting out corruption, and greater surveillance on the common man.

On top of it all, VR was so fawning of the current Indian team that it seemed improper and disproportionate. At the start of the discussion, Nalin Mehta quoted that Indian cricket is like a patient on the operating table, which is opened up and nobody knows how to stitch it up. To this VR said why do you call it a patient when the Indian cricket is doing so well. A classic case of end justifying all means, it was so hilarious that it seemed futile to ask that if performance of the cricket team is the parameter then he or COA was not needed in the first place, that as long as the team is doing well, all corruption, misdemeanour is permissible. What a state of public offices in India.  

VR had a diplomat’s poise and he was swatting questions with consummate ease, either laying things at BCCI’s door, or using the veil of subjudicity, or using success as a bargaining chip. He had readymade answers to all questions on malaise of Indian cricket, of which there are plenty. That we have got the highest revenues in this year (again we may be corrupt but we are profitably so), that the revenue share model with ICC is under discussion, that the Kumble saga was a non-issue (despite contradictions in his arguments), that BCCI is fully compliant with WADA (despite news to the contrary). While he may be better informed than what media knows, but he sounded more like BCCI spokesman, the very body he is entrusted to reform. The fact that he showed no urgency, no sense of frustration or anguish at the state of affairs was frustrating. I didn’t sit through the entire piece.  

Dissent and Democracy: is dissent being choked in New India? Ashok Vajpeyi, Hansda Sowvendra Shekhar, Perumal Murugan and N Ram. Moderator: Sanjiv Shankaran (TOI)

This was the last session I attended and it saw big audience, inside the Stein auditorium. The discussion was weak, not helped by the fact that it started late but the organisers wanted to finish on time. The moderator seemed out of sync and Mr. Shekhar had very limited point to make, while Mr. Murugam spoke in Malayalam, with much being lost in translation by the moderator. The topic was very relevant in present times and all the panelists agreed that while there have been instances in the past when freedom of expression had come under pressure, the present state is the most precarious in Indian civil society. When an artist is in his creative zone, all that is going inside him manifests in his art, in various forms. But there should not be shackles around that. An artist cannot be an artist if he is in fear, because then he is not expressing himself. N Ram mentioned that as a journalist and editor of The Hindu newspaper, he has seen times of extreme pressure and dangers, but nothing like the present times.

Audience was highly animated, and interestingly somebody accused Mr. Vajpeyi of being so critical now because a different regime is in place while he was not as unbiased in his opinions in the earlier government.   

**************

All in all, a great day. The overall sense was that we are living in very difficult and fragile times. Most people sounded worried, but hey, Jaane bhi do yaaron.