This gem comes from distilled experience in expansively greeting various groups of people -- friends, acquaintances, strangers and some one would not want to know in a few life times -- and walking into their conversations. Such instinctive but careless bonhomie may frequently result in one quickly bearing the unmistakable resemblance to a sacrificial goat, which has taken on the mantle voluntarily. This situation is pretty familiar territory for many, but still sucks them in like quicksand even before they can contemplate the options open to them. This is for the benefit of that segment of the population, which cheerfully wades into such pow-wows, gets roiled, pummelled or plain bored to the bone in the end. Here goes.
In India, there are some subjects like cricket, politics, secularism (this is just a sample list, there are multitude of such subjects), in which one billion of the 1.3 we have are seasoned campaigners and self-anointed experts. And for some inexplicable reason, such people are avid talkers, who hate to yield a few seconds to another and have frenetic, grating voices, as accessories. If five such specimens get together and limp home after a few hours, maimed and scarred, that is fine because they have acute consciousness of what melee they are creating and are part of. But, my heart bleeds for those individuals who innocuously and naively step into the discussion, without realising they do not have the wherewithal to cope with the manic intensity or mindless abrasiveness prevalent. It is usually multiple times worse than the Arnab show with thirteen extra-large and ultra-wide mouths (twelve panelists and Arnab himself) which simultaneously have uncontrollable verbal diarrhea. To avoid the physically bruising and mentally traumatising consequences of such conversations, one should just be determined to point the nose in the opposite direction and walk away, whatever the temptations to stay or however strong one's friendship with the participants. But, but, it is so very pathetic that more often than not we don't choose that simple option and end up like a Shakespearean tragic hero eventually.
Take Cricket, it is a real low-hanging fruit for this context. How does 'A' convince four fractious and on-the-edge friends that Rahul Dravid is a greater contributor to Indian cricket and role model than Sachin Tendulkar (he heartily says stats be damned, look at the overall picture). His argument that apart from all the runs both scored, Dravid's timely retirement in a very dignified manner should score over how Tendulkar dragged his feet, huffed and puffed before being almost asked to disappear. 'A' soon realises this is a battle he cannot win, but as a true-blue, pugnacious cricket expert, he dare not give up. This testy argument will go on and if you have any sense, you will side-step this one. So are other juicy topics like what should Kholi have done around the 15th over of the match against KKR in IPL 2016 or if Ray Illingworth should have taken the new ball when available in the Lords test against Australia in the 1960s!!
How about this 'chor/chowkidar' slogans which have flooded the airwaves these days? Even at the tender age of 6-8, smart kids discover that it is futile to run around as police, trying to catch thieves. Look at these seemingly educated adults strutting as political leaders playing `Kallan/Police' endlessly. If X is trying to harangue his friends into acceptance of his argument that it is terrible form for a real 'chor' to be calling anyone else (chor or otherwise) that, it is not going to be a cake-walk. How do you argue with people who just throw numbers (different ones, plucked fresh from the air just for that moment) on the same subject, without producing an iota of proof, and brazenly keep insisting that something has been stolen and there has been a scam! X will end up being hoarse and probably be deprived of half his larynx but it is downright stupid to expect him to win this one.
If ever three older men (with sincere apologies to all old men from one of their own) are talking in hushed tones, there is an even chance that it is about their ailments, doctors, treatments etc. Please banish yourself from the vicinity post-haste. Do not err to lend an ear, for that body part will be gone for a walk for a while. I understand that being sympathetic is good, but my own experience is that sympathy in some such contexts brings you a bountiful harvest of unwanted personal information. That, interspersed with agonising dissection into minutest details of individual anatomy, what is out of whack (of which there is a whole compendium), updated details on hundreds of efficacious medicines consumed and useless ones rejected - all shared with intuitive wisdom. All ending up with almost a fervent wish that you also should go through the ailment so that you can appreciate the value of the discussion. I am not being very sympathetic in such circumstances any longer - do you blame me??
Any group which looks like having broods distributed over the western world is usually avoidable because the conversation is predictable and emotionally charged. The onslaught begins with a benign statement which goes like `My son is in Seattle and daughter in San Francisco'. In the next 15 minutes, you are subtly or overtly but mercilessly stripped of all family history. You get to hear in fantastic detail why Cupertino is a better neighbourhood than Milpitas. Thrown in as a bonus is a conviction-based-declamation as to why Trump has got it all wrong (only because India's sons and daughters holding H1B visas have all become endangered species suddenly) and should be impeached. For someone like me who struggles to comprehend the politics of our homeland, deciphering the complexity of the Trump immigration policy is going beyond the pale. The problem usually is that one cannot walk away because one is part of a captive audience!
Always look around to see if anyone in the group you are joining, especially someone unknown to you, looks like a financial or economic wizard before venturing opinion on anything that vaguely sounds like economics. Because theories of Keynes and Adam Smith, details of micro and macro economic situations in all corners of the world as well as inside information on what the central bank governors and Finance Ministers are thinking at that moment-- all these and more are pulped and swallowed by these chaps continuously and they are so ready to regurgitate what they have read and heard. There is just no way of contravening them because this situation is akin to a dam-burst -- you just get swept away in a whoosh! You listen and be damned or ignore and be damned, that is all the choice you have.
By now, I am sure, you have come to the same conclusion as I have. The problem is not the topic, but the people engaged in the conversation. I try to see if what is going on is a reasonable discussion or a seemingly simple argument which will turn violent any time. And, beware of those sworn founts of wisdom, spewing forth knowledge in all directions. You can easily identify these with a bit of practice - they generally carry a halo around their whole body, not just the head. Then there is that species which vigorously waves the flag always for what it has been part of -- the bestest restaurant or saree shop or jeweller and seldom brooks any dissension. So, if you want to save your skin, do watch out for the signals before stepping into a likely mine-field or develop a strategy to extricate yourself at the earliest point.
In India, there are some subjects like cricket, politics, secularism (this is just a sample list, there are multitude of such subjects), in which one billion of the 1.3 we have are seasoned campaigners and self-anointed experts. And for some inexplicable reason, such people are avid talkers, who hate to yield a few seconds to another and have frenetic, grating voices, as accessories. If five such specimens get together and limp home after a few hours, maimed and scarred, that is fine because they have acute consciousness of what melee they are creating and are part of. But, my heart bleeds for those individuals who innocuously and naively step into the discussion, without realising they do not have the wherewithal to cope with the manic intensity or mindless abrasiveness prevalent. It is usually multiple times worse than the Arnab show with thirteen extra-large and ultra-wide mouths (twelve panelists and Arnab himself) which simultaneously have uncontrollable verbal diarrhea. To avoid the physically bruising and mentally traumatising consequences of such conversations, one should just be determined to point the nose in the opposite direction and walk away, whatever the temptations to stay or however strong one's friendship with the participants. But, but, it is so very pathetic that more often than not we don't choose that simple option and end up like a Shakespearean tragic hero eventually.
Take Cricket, it is a real low-hanging fruit for this context. How does 'A' convince four fractious and on-the-edge friends that Rahul Dravid is a greater contributor to Indian cricket and role model than Sachin Tendulkar (he heartily says stats be damned, look at the overall picture). His argument that apart from all the runs both scored, Dravid's timely retirement in a very dignified manner should score over how Tendulkar dragged his feet, huffed and puffed before being almost asked to disappear. 'A' soon realises this is a battle he cannot win, but as a true-blue, pugnacious cricket expert, he dare not give up. This testy argument will go on and if you have any sense, you will side-step this one. So are other juicy topics like what should Kholi have done around the 15th over of the match against KKR in IPL 2016 or if Ray Illingworth should have taken the new ball when available in the Lords test against Australia in the 1960s!!
How about this 'chor/chowkidar' slogans which have flooded the airwaves these days? Even at the tender age of 6-8, smart kids discover that it is futile to run around as police, trying to catch thieves. Look at these seemingly educated adults strutting as political leaders playing `Kallan/Police' endlessly. If X is trying to harangue his friends into acceptance of his argument that it is terrible form for a real 'chor' to be calling anyone else (chor or otherwise) that, it is not going to be a cake-walk. How do you argue with people who just throw numbers (different ones, plucked fresh from the air just for that moment) on the same subject, without producing an iota of proof, and brazenly keep insisting that something has been stolen and there has been a scam! X will end up being hoarse and probably be deprived of half his larynx but it is downright stupid to expect him to win this one.
If ever three older men (with sincere apologies to all old men from one of their own) are talking in hushed tones, there is an even chance that it is about their ailments, doctors, treatments etc. Please banish yourself from the vicinity post-haste. Do not err to lend an ear, for that body part will be gone for a walk for a while. I understand that being sympathetic is good, but my own experience is that sympathy in some such contexts brings you a bountiful harvest of unwanted personal information. That, interspersed with agonising dissection into minutest details of individual anatomy, what is out of whack (of which there is a whole compendium), updated details on hundreds of efficacious medicines consumed and useless ones rejected - all shared with intuitive wisdom. All ending up with almost a fervent wish that you also should go through the ailment so that you can appreciate the value of the discussion. I am not being very sympathetic in such circumstances any longer - do you blame me??
Any group which looks like having broods distributed over the western world is usually avoidable because the conversation is predictable and emotionally charged. The onslaught begins with a benign statement which goes like `My son is in Seattle and daughter in San Francisco'. In the next 15 minutes, you are subtly or overtly but mercilessly stripped of all family history. You get to hear in fantastic detail why Cupertino is a better neighbourhood than Milpitas. Thrown in as a bonus is a conviction-based-declamation as to why Trump has got it all wrong (only because India's sons and daughters holding H1B visas have all become endangered species suddenly) and should be impeached. For someone like me who struggles to comprehend the politics of our homeland, deciphering the complexity of the Trump immigration policy is going beyond the pale. The problem usually is that one cannot walk away because one is part of a captive audience!
Always look around to see if anyone in the group you are joining, especially someone unknown to you, looks like a financial or economic wizard before venturing opinion on anything that vaguely sounds like economics. Because theories of Keynes and Adam Smith, details of micro and macro economic situations in all corners of the world as well as inside information on what the central bank governors and Finance Ministers are thinking at that moment-- all these and more are pulped and swallowed by these chaps continuously and they are so ready to regurgitate what they have read and heard. There is just no way of contravening them because this situation is akin to a dam-burst -- you just get swept away in a whoosh! You listen and be damned or ignore and be damned, that is all the choice you have.
By now, I am sure, you have come to the same conclusion as I have. The problem is not the topic, but the people engaged in the conversation. I try to see if what is going on is a reasonable discussion or a seemingly simple argument which will turn violent any time. And, beware of those sworn founts of wisdom, spewing forth knowledge in all directions. You can easily identify these with a bit of practice - they generally carry a halo around their whole body, not just the head. Then there is that species which vigorously waves the flag always for what it has been part of -- the bestest restaurant or saree shop or jeweller and seldom brooks any dissension. So, if you want to save your skin, do watch out for the signals before stepping into a likely mine-field or develop a strategy to extricate yourself at the earliest point.
