Corrective Lenses Needed: An essay on respecting history

 We are living in the age of information.  Not just data.  But information.  I have lived through a time when a Google search opened infinite possibilities for the kind of raw data that one could access but had to process.  Artificial Intelligence (AI) has dramatically transformed the process of obtaining information in ways that we could have scarcely anticipated a few years ago.  One can, with a bit of effort, obtain accurate, contextualized and synthesized information on just about any topic.  Thanks in no small part to AI, there are no acceptable excuses for ignorance.

Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and false narratives that are prevalent on media, especially social media, where controls are next to non-existent.  There is one area where I find the amount of falsehood, unwittingly created or otherwise, especially disturbing.  And that is to do with history.  Across completely different fields such as politics, movies and cricket, the amount of distortion that historical figures and events are subject to, bothers me considerably.

 

When it comes to sport, a prevalent but unhealthy trend on social media is to make unfair and uncharitable comparisons between current and former cricketers.  Some do it as part of a premeditated engagement farming strategy.  Others do it because they apparently do not know better.  It is not uncommon to see people diss former cricketers by stating that they could not possibly have survived in the current era.  I have never understood any merit in those statements, even if some of them (such as a comparison of batting averages or bowling strike rates) are in the ballpark of factual accuracy.  A cricketer from the 1960s is not going to be playing in the Indian Premier League as an octogenarian!  Why bring them down to bolster the image of a current player?  

As a keen follower of cricket history, I despise unfairly derogatory statements about past cricketers.  Let us take the example of the famous Indian spin quartet of the 1960s and 1970s.  Especially in the 1960s, before the arrival of a certain genius named Sunil Gavaskar (who debuted in 1971), Indian captains such as Mansur Ali Khan (aka ‘Tiger’ Pataudi) rarely had the luxury of the team posting tall scores that bowlers could fall back on.  Nor did they have many fast-bowling options.  By all accounts, pitches in India were not dustbowls that were doctored to give a huge advantage to the spinners. 

 

The spin quartet possessed a diverse set of skills, encompassing the artistry of Bishan Bedi, the unpredictable genius of BS Chandrasekhar, the guile of EAS Prasanna and the dogged persistence of S Venkataraghavan.  They had their highs and lows as most sportspersons do, yet bonded as a group that won India matches at a time when victories, especially abroad, were a rarity in Indian cricket.  The two right arm off-spinners Prasanna and Venkat mostly vied for one spot in the team. (The four of them played together as a quartet in only one Test.) Prasanna was more successful under the aggressive, adventurous Pataudi while Venkat flourished under the more conservative Ajit Wadekar.  They played at a time when money in the game was meagre and resources (be it for fitness training or cricket equipment) were barebones.  They had regular jobs that were their primary source of income, while cricket was played for the love of the game and the pride of representing one’s country.  They did it with distinction.  And they deserve approbation for what they achieved, not unwarranted comparisons to modern day spinners.

The levels to which some cricket ‘fans’ stoop are matched by some who claim to be movie buffs.  The issue is slightly trickier in the realm of cinema because works of art created in past eras are available for viewing today.  It is not unfair to say that some films, which may have been acclaimed critically during the time of their original release, have not aged well.  Not everyone sets out to make a film that stands the test of time.  And when it comes to the content of those films, discerning critics rightfully call out issues that are problematic when seen now.  And that is totally okay.  A “Thevar Magan” might be regarded by some (including yours truly) as one of the greatest films committed to screen.  While others might find parts of the film to be glorifying members of a certain caste and reinforcing caste-based hierarchies.  A healthy debate around art of the past is almost an essential ingredient of an artform’s evolution. 

 

Where things turn unhealthy and unsavory is when people completely divorce a work of art from the time during which it was made and completely dismiss the film and the filmmaker.  Take for instance, playwright and filmmaker Visu.  Sure, his films hardly boasted the kind of cinematic virtues that present day audiences, who have gotten exposure to world cinema, have come to expect in films.  Visu stuck to his style of making family dramas and did not really evolve significantly as a filmmaker.  But he was a force to reckon with in his heyday.  The dialogues of some of his films packed the kind of power that is rarely seen today.  So, in my book, to say that many of Visu’s films haven’t quite aged well is acceptable.  But what is wholly unacceptable is to just dismiss or mock him without giving due credit to what he achieved in his lifetime.

 

One other pitfall of not meaningfully engaging with doyens (regardless of their fields of specialization) is that we make ourselves bereft of the experiences and perspectives that they could share.  I remember a director mentioning how modern-day filmmakers would do themselves a service by engaging veterans like K Bhagyaraj in story discussions.  There is a tendency to dismiss yesteryear filmmakers as ‘outdated.’  While they may have their own imperfections or blind spots, they also built a wealth of experiences over the course of their illustrious careers.  A wise filmmaker would engage with veterans, tap into their experiences and distill it through their own vision of the cinema that they wish to create.  Tapping into the past is not the same as taking a backward step.  

 

In cricket too, we hear stories such as how Harmanpreet Kaur benefitted from the timely advice of Sachin Tendulkar before the women’s World Cup final.  I remember a story of how in 1987 when Pakistan faced India on a minefield of a pitch in Bangalore, the Pakistan spinners went to Bishan Bedi for advice on how to bowl in the last innings.  Apparently, Bedi told them that on a turning pitch, it is the straight ball that is most dangerous.  They followed his advice and bowled Pakistan to victory.  Why the Indian spinners never approached Bedi or any of the other member of the spin quartet for advice, is also a question worth asking.  That was nearly 40 years ago.  Now, in 2026, we are in a time when the cash-rich Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has resources aplenty to set up formal mechanisms where former players can meaningfully engage with current players through proper channels, not just relying on stray, one-off bits of advice.

 

A common refrain is that we must not view history through rose-tinted glasses.  Equally important is to not look at it through distorted lenses.  We do not have to be stuck in the past.  We can respect evolution without mocking or tarnishing all the historical building blocks that paved the way for the present the way we know it.  Ignoring historical accuracy in any walk of life that we claim to be passionate about is akin to claiming to love someone without having an accurate picture of their childhood.  If mockery of the past is disrespectful, distortion of history is dangerous.  Self-serving politicians, for instance, may do it for their own benefit.  But it behooves us to utilize the user-friendly tools that technology has gifted us, to sift out the real truth from the twisted versions of it.  The need of the hour is corrective lenses.  Lenses that are neither rose-tinted nor besmirched with the tints of negativity and disrespect.  The corrective lenses would enable a thoughtful reflection of the past, sans the glare of media distortions, whilst preventing us from being myopic about the choices we make.  Because let us face it.  In this age of information, there are no acceptable excuses for skewed vision.