Turn left after Hotel
Figaro, then right at the next crossroad and the second door is that of The
Café (why is a pub called that?). There is no guard or usher at the heavy
wooden door. It is a small establishment (reviews say ‘cosy’). The door opens
to a small hallway with three tables. The hallway leads to the bar in the inner
sanctum which is only marginally bigger. There are no stools at the bar. In the
inner area, four tables crowd against the wall one arm-span from the bar. Even
two at a table would have to sit sideways to avoid knocking knees (reviews
could say ‘lover friendly’). Those at the tables can’t escape the large
flat-screen TVs in front and back. The rest of the wall-space has framed
posters of brews like Guinness (not served there). The way to the restroom is
next to the bar. A whiff of pee creeps in when the restroom’s door is opened.
There is a bartender
and a waiter, young men with plastic smiles and dispassionate service, polite
but minimal. The manager, who has an office somewhere inside, flits in and out.
A recording of an English premier league game is on one screen (ManU vs. ManCity),
and Eminem is inciting trouble on the other.
At the first table,
there is a man in his forties; hair peppered white, trim built giving way to
fat, pleasant untroubled face; sipping draught beer (asks for Guinness, settles
for Kingfisher), munching free crisps; watching the game, listening to Eminem.
The man at the second
table is of that age too; dark hair, stocky, haughty, edgy, sullen; nurses a
large peg of whisky; tries to catch the attention of the bartender or the
waiter or the man at the first table to share a complaint; frequently turns to
scowl at the crowd at the last two tables.
There are ten youngsters at those two tables,
four of them girls; mid-to-late twenties; young professionals partying at the
end of a working day, celebrating bonus or promotion or anniversary, or without
any particular reason. They are noisy. They have shots together, one after the other;
bourbon, tequila, they know their drinks. Couples move to the hallway during
breaks, sit close, talk, hug or kiss; then go back to their friends for the
next round of cheer.
Eight men enter the
pub. They order the couples in the hallway to join their friends. They ignore
the two men at the first two tables. Seven men face the ten youngsters; their
leader stands apart, behind his gang, near the first table. They take out canes
from within their shirt, pants. There is hardly any space to raise an arm. The
leader nods at the bartender. The bartender switches off the CCTV cameras. The
waiter slips behind the bar. The manager is nowhere to be seen.
The leader is in his
early thirties; medium height; round pudgy face with a wisp of a moustache; not
fat but sporting a pot-belly. He stands with his feet apart, hands at his
waist, his cane poised awkwardly in front (is that a phallic symbol?); stares
menacingly; trying a pose of generals in battlefields (or, that of landlords doling
out punishment to errant slaves?).
Apart from a
superficial difference in their attire, casual formals of the professionals and
the casuals of the newcomers, the two sets of young men can’t be distinguished.
Some seem to be from well-off families, some from poor background but now doing
ok, some nouveau riche. Their families can’t be different either; they might
marry similar girls, kids might go to the same school; probably remind each
other of friends or enemies they had in school. Seems a lot like ragging in
college, seniors bullying juniors who will be the bullies the next year.
The leader says that
it is a shame to see such activity; disgusting to see the young who should lead
us (us?) to greater riches wasting time and energy; polluting (it’s good to use
that word in every context) one’s own brothers and sisters.
One of the girls (not
the biggest, not the oldest either) stands in front of her cowering group and
dares to defy (‘polluted your brain!’ she says).
They do not touch her
(they must have orders not to touch the girls; they do look at the one sporting
a daring décolletage but then all the men there, including the forty-year-olds,
were guilty of that). The seven move in. They select one man (the toughest, the
biggest) and cane him from all sides. The girl who challenged watches that in
horror.
‘You filthy lot,’ the
leader shouts. His gang of seven followers close in on the young scared men,
caning, showering blows and kicks in that small space.
The man at the second
table urges them on, ‘Oh yes, they have been asking for it for quite some
time!’
The man at the first
table finishes his beer. He stands up, the mug in his right hand. He swings his
right arm freely in a wide arc and the mug of hard glass crashes against the
leader’s face. The man turns and knees the surprised bloodied (broken nose,
lost teeth, split lips) leader in the groin. The leader collapses, groaning,
barely conscious.
His gang realizes this
only after everyone else in the room. The young professional, who first bore
the brunt of their caning, charges and brings down two. The other young men
decide that odds are in their favour and that it is safe to save face in front
of their girls and charge too. The girls join too, throwing glasses and kicks.
The man at the second table tries to escape but the man at the first table
blocks his path, and ends on the floor bloodiest of all.
The bartender, or the
manager, calls the police. The brawl lasts till the police manage to quell the
uprising. The press is also there by then.
...
Most of the
newspapers had photos of the drunken unruly youngsters, especially the
dishevelled girls (the décolletage got the caption ‘OMG!’). Some of them lost
their jobs. Two rags referred to the leader as a social worker. He kept a low
profile till the local elections. Every wall had a photo of him then, a
near-martyr with a golden smile (two golden and two silver teeth actually). One
journalist tried to sell the story of the uncle (a Naxal mastermind of the 60s)
of the man at the first table but failed to find a buyer. Another was more
successful with his story about the two men at the first two tables being lover
and husband of the same woman.
Little filmy
ReplyDeleteTrue. Thx a lot for reading. :-)
DeleteHi Arjun,
ReplyDeleteThis story reminds me of a caption I like, "my life is much more interesting in my head". At times social injustice calls for heros and one rarely becomes one... Liked the concept of the abused becoming abuser at least to some time...
Coming back... Liked the comparison between reality and the review of pub... When it started I felt that it is about the two men... Well it was right?? Wonder who was the husband or the lover...
Thanks,
KP
Thanks for reading this, KP.
DeleteYes, it probably has a Mittyesque feel to it.
I guess it is more interesting as a ruse to bash up a rival in love. Hahaha...
Ok, let's bury this... why talk about a story whose story is over... :-)))
Cheerio