In re: The freak who thought I was a freak.

So recently I met a freak at a gathering which had mostly horrid food.

An Indian Premier League cricket match organized by the BCCI was playing on the TV at the venue of the gathering. Unfortunately I was sitting next to the freak and he suggested to me that some XYZ team was doing well. Now while I am absolutely disinterested in sports, I do tend to be aware of some aspects of sports because of them being a social phenomenon. However I intentionally gave a blank expression in response to ensure that he does not further discuss what he was likely to. He then asked me whether I watch the Indian Premier League suggesting that I did not. I confirmed that I do not.

Unfortunately it so happened that I was seated next to him. Over the next couple of hours he started discussing things related to the litigations that he is involved in. I understood what he was trying to do – getting information – something that businessmen often do at gatherings in Delhi. I kept things vague and resisted getting into details. Of course, I could do that because I wear many hats, litigation being a very small (smaller than small) part of what I do.

I can imagine how most pedantic litigators would have approached that freak – telling him about their professional connections, cases that they are involved him (referring to cases as matters) and eventually sharing their numbers – never to be called by him. As mentioned in an earlier post, Delhi businessmen tend to have multiple litigating lawyers in their contact lists because of the nature of Delhi’s social structure.

The only thing they would want from random lawyers they meet at gatherings is guaranteed relief via fixing – which 99% plus lawyers are incapable of.

PS: Next time I have to attend a gathering where this freak is going to likely be invited, I will do everything I can to ensure that I sit away from him. The host is a very rich & useful individual, so I would have to go even though he served horrid food last time around.