Privilege? Yes, because if you frequently encounter the tedious, then you begin to appreciate the value of the interesting. Or the ‘other’. In fact, the value of the ‘other’ is in direct proportion to the value of the bore. The more bores you come across, the more you are likely to esteem the opposite breed.
Bores may put you to sleep but they are necessary. They make our universe a safe place to inhabit since they are invariably risk-averse, prudent, don’t like to rock the boat, exude an air of safety. Interesting people may be interesting, may keep you wide awake, may be scintillating conversationalists; alas, they are risk-prone. In short, they are dangerous. If a country is blessed/cursed with an abundance of the interesting, that country is likely to be unstable. From Napoleon to Narendra Modi, the pantheon is unvarying. These individuals are a journalist’s dream but they can be a historian’s nightmare.
From the above, one might deduce that bores are generally nail-biting, nervous introverts who weary you with their dullness and their somnolence. And when they say something, it will generally be banal. They don’t make demands on one’s attention or intelligence. It doesn’t matter where you run into them—an airport, bar, train—you can be sure they won’t interfere with the book you are keen to finish.
Unfortunately, the other kind also exists. The extrovert bore. He or she is excessively garrulous, and like the Ancient Mariner desperate for an audience. The extrovert bore pretends he knows a great deal about everything under the sun, from cabbages to kings. Sadly, the knowledge is third-hand. The exuberant bore, unlike the quiet bore, is persistent, won’t let you go until you have heard his full tale, which is usually over-long and complicated. If I had to choose between spending time with an introvert bore or an extrovert bore, I would unhesitatingly pick the former.
Where do bores live? Where can you be sure to find them? In India, they are over-represented in politics and in public life. I better be careful here because I still have a few friends left among the netas. Thus, while many names from contemporary politics come to mind, I’ll avoid naming them. Discretion is, after all, the better part of valour.
Again, the politician-bore is indispensable to the health of party-baazi. He keeps the government and the Opposition going. The politician-bore is generally a “safe pair of hands” (in other words he is not gaffe-prone), follows orders, stays firmly within the bounds of his mandate, and is generally liked by his colleagues since he challenges nobody. The competence of the ministerial bore is average. It is important to make this point because the reader may assume that such an individual is a complete dud. That would be a disservice to the creature under discussion. The ministerial bore is mediocre, passable—the kind of student who, as it were, passes exams every year without ever excelling.
The opposite of the politician bore is rarer to find, but the genre is not yet extinct. For good reason. In our republic, at least, such a maverick does not prosper. He is brought down by his own brilliance, his over-confidence, his craving to be a star. And by the jealousy of his teammates.
The burning ambition to be a star leads to quick ministerial demotion and wild fluctuations in career graph. Mani Shankar Aiyar is a prime example. Jairam Ramesh is another (although he is going through a good patch currently), Shashi Tharoor comes to mind, as does the late Pramod Mahajan. Anand Sharma, who is unlikely to hold anyone spellbound, by contrast has plodded his way up the greasy pole without anyone noticing it. He has risen without trace. There is a moral in this somewhere.
In cricket too, bores are essential. The Wall was a quintessential bore as a batsman. However, only an alert statistician will tell you how many Tests and one-dayers Rahul Dravid helped India to win by being boring. Alastair Cook, Jonathan Trott, Graeme Smith are other bores who have served their countries magnificently precisely because they never set the stands on fire. Once upon a time India specialised in producing serial bores. Just think back. Chandu Borde, Vijay Hazare, Bapu Nadkarni, Vijay Manjrekar have put thousands of spectators to sleep. Nevertheless, who can deny their fabulous contribution to Indian cricket.
Currently, Kevin Pietersen, Michael Clarke, Hashim Amla constitute the ‘other’. It will be fascinating to see how long they last and what entertainment they provide. Two of the players named above are as volatile on the field as they are off it. Sehwag and Pietersen make for good copy which makes up for their lack of consistency. Sehwag is already walking into the sunset. His time is up.
Another kind of bore to run a mile from is the one who claims he has a juicy piece of gossip or the latest yarn heard in the Central Hall of Parliament. Without prompting, he will in great detail reveal his nugget. The only problem is that he is repeating something he heard from the person he is relating it to. Not only is that cheeky, but he is also claiming authorship for something he has stolen. If I am in a bad mood and wish to be discourteous, I remind the offending person who the joke/piece of gossip belongs to. His reply is a bland, “Sorry”.
Finally, there is the bore with a bad memory. One’s face falls as he gets ready to repeat the anecdote or the incident he has told you umpteen times before. Because he is telling his tale with such gusto and enthusiasm, the listener does not have the heart to tell him to shut up.
These days in the capital, a new kind of bore has emerged: the name-dropper. Now, name-dropping is a delicate art, it has to be done subtly. “I was at a party talking to Ratan Tata when Sunil Mittal tapped me on the shoulder and told me Chidambaram was looking for me” is the crass kind of name-dropping. The more sophisticated kind is, “I had a brief opportunity to talk to Nelson Mandela....”
One last generalisation. Bores are more often than not self-obsessed. They need to constantly prove they amount to something, when the plain fact is that actually they don’t.
Am I a bore? In my Diary column, I go on about Editor and many other trivial matters which I assume make for compelling reading. I leave the verdict in your hands!
Your Jan 14 edition on Bores was brilliant...shades of MAD magazine.
Nilesh Korgaokar, on e-mail
Your issue was a wonderful New Year gift. Bores Inc never allowed one to go to sleep. The New Year Diary referring to a demi-god’s retirement was spot-on—a well-pitched ball on the middle stump!
Soli Canteenwala, Mumbai
In his piece Have You Heard This One..., Vinod Mehta says a new kind of bore, the name-dropper, has emerged in the capital these days. For his information, name-dropping has been a ‘tell-tale’ sign of a Delhiite ever since...well, forever. Residents of India’s more self-confident cities have known for long that you are nobody in Delhi unless you know somebody. Anyway, why the introspection now? Is it that, post-retirement, VM isn’t so important anymore and it chafes to see others dropping more names than him?
Vinod’s piece prompts me to modify Kabir’s couplet: Bores bhi niyare rakhiye, kursi, couch, charpoy; bin kauwwa, gadha bina, koyal nahin lubhaye.
Rajneesh Batra, New Delhi
Vinod is not a bore in print, but certainly on TV (where he’s becoming ubiquitous). His traffic cop-like hand-waving and seemingly toothless jaws put pressure on fans like me to cut off the jarring signals the eyes are receiving and concentrate only on the soundbites the ears are getting.
Anand Misra, on e-mail
“The politician-bore,” says VM, “is indispensable to the health of party-baazi. He keeps government and opposition going. The politician-bore is generally a ‘safe pair of hands’ (in other words he is not gaffe-prone), follows orders, stays firmly within the bounds of his mandate, and is generally liked by colleagues since he challenges nobody.” Is this the closest VM has come to criticising Manmohan Singh?
K. Suresh, Bangalore
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
'Am I a bore?"
On TV, definite yes. You have a hard time to make what we call a "point". You simply ramble.
But as a writer, you are not a bore. You do have a talent to write a coherent and captivating article-substance notwithstanding.
In short, Males are boring.
Do you agree?
Vinod is not boring. Love him or hate him but can't be ignored as a boring routine journo. So what if he is not a Hinduwadi ? That makes him more interesting. I rarely read pro right wing media. The idea is to read minds of those who do not believe in your ideology and laugh it off.
You describe an opposite of a political bore as "He is brought down by his own brilliance, his over-confidence, his craving to be a star. And by the jealousy of his teammates." This description fits Narendra Modi 100%! So he is a bore, an opposite of a political bore, but a bore nontheless! But then you also call him an interesting erson when you say "If a country is blessed/cursed with an abundance of the interesting, that country is likely to be unstable. From Napoleon to Narendra Modi, the pantheon is unvarying" So what is he, a bore, or an interesting pesrson?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT