India v Australia - January 7th, 2008: the Harbhajan Incident

I've a bit of a bone to pick.

As you may have guessed from the title this post deals with the second test match between India and Australia. I didn't watch the match, so it's hard to comment on that.

What I have seen however are endless articles dealing with how Australia sulked about Harbhajan Singh (in the Indian side) calling (allegedly) Andrew Symonds a "monkey". This, they feel, was a racial slur; they accused Harbhajan of racism; and the match referee through a court proceeding found Harbhajan guilty of racism and has banned him from 3 test matches.

First, calling someone a "monkey" is offensive, not racist.

Second, the umpires didn't hear anything, no Indian player heard this - and Tendulkar did testify as well, and he's a bit old-fashioned when it comes to telling the truth - and no recording was found of this comment/slur. It was solely the testimony of the Australian players that was used as evidence. So, when Procter (the match referee) says that his decision was not a case of the Australian players' statement versus the Indians' he is either
(a) an idiot, and does not understand how a logical thought is constructed
or ( b) is lying, trying to protect his decision.

Third, no one is asking why Procter made his decision. People go on and on about how the Australian team has started behaving like a "pack of wild dogs" (Peter Roebuck), but why did the referee take what appears to be an illogical decision? Apparently, the Australians made a case saying that Harbhajan was a "repeat offender".

Well.

If someone is making racist remarks, and you do not respond to the first (or second, or third, whatever the case may be), but you do make a fuss about it eventually, it can only mean that the abuse does not really strike you as racist, or that you've received so many racist remarks that this particular one does not matter.

Given the Australians' enthusiasm for abuse and/or "sledging" as they like to (dishonestly) put it, I find it hard to believe they are continually abused with racist slurs. And if they were, then they really should have complained earlier.

If a racist comment is made, and it is felt that this is out of hand, it should be communicated immediately. If Harbhajan has been calling people monkeys, it is irresponsible of Ricky Ponting and co to have let it slip.

Fourth, as to whether the Australians played the game in the right spirit. Ponting and McGrath believe they did, pretty much the rest of the world does not. Ponting did deny he had a clean catch in the first inning, which is what the pro-Aussie lobby keeps bringing up, but of course they forget Clarke's standing of ground when he knew he was out.
To be fair, a batman does not have to walk.
Also, Ponting did claim a catch that wasn't clean, but it's fairly possible that he believed he did hold it clean. From whatever little personal experience I have, it is hard sometimes to tell if you catch a ball cleanly or not.

Which brings me to my next point.

What in the name of all that is cricket were the umpires doing, asking a member of an opposing team in a tight match whether a catch is clean or not? THERE ARE VIDEO REPLAYS!!! Poor leg before's I can understand, not relaying stumpings I can understand, but really this is just stupid.
Finally, the obvious point - it is more than a touch hypocritical of the Aussies to start sulking about "sledging", considering they defend it so much.

Awright, it was a "racist" remark.

Now, who believes calling someone a monkey amounts to racial abuse? Procter states he's from South Africa, and thus "knows" what racism is about. Perhaps, but Mr Referee, whatever this is, aparthied it certainly isn't. Harbhajan Singh wasn't part of a ruling political power trying to maintain his control by introducing a false division.

And if he knows what racism is all about, (this statement itself smacks of so much arrogance it's crazy!) he should explain how calling someone a monkey is a racist remark.

No, I do NOT believe Harbhajan was making a racist jibe at Andrew Symonds. Oh of course he was provoked, there is no doubt about it. Ricky Ponting feels mighty pleased with his method of mental intimidation as part of a strategy of victory, and we know this is not cricket, but it's all left on the field isn't it?

Clearly, the Australians were targetting Harbhajan through whatever means they could. They supplied the bait, Harbhajan bit, and wowee let's catch the bugger wriggling out of this one eh!! Ozzie Ozzie Ozzie....

Calling in a subject like racism into what was a heated argument between to players, the Australian team has taken a clear, and what can be seen as a slightly scary, step. That is, using whatever means - on or off the field or in a court - to keep the opposition angry, contained (now that Harbhajan has been banned, catch any player saying anything to the Australian team), and self destructive. This isn't a new tactic, but it has certainly been taken to a whole new level.

Clap clap Ricky. Well done.

Whatever happens, it is clear that the Aussies have used a flimsy excuse to deal with Harbhajan - but one which carries enormous weight. Racism is a subject that is not to be dealt with lightly, and by using it as a strategy, the Green and the Gold have done just that.

For that, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh and the ICC sucks balls.

Incidentally, does anyone feel Harbhajan is racist? I'm pretty sure that Ponting doesn't believe that, irrespective of his suddenly taking on the moral high ground. And to accuse someone of a prejudice you know in your mind to be untrue is terribly immoral.

Update - it appears that Harbhajan has called Symonds a monkey in the past, and Symonds spoke to Harbhajan after that particular match, and everything was sorted out. This only makes it even clearer that the Aussies were out to get Harbhajan. I'm sure they feel pretty happy about it. Ooh boy! You can admire this kind of thing, though it is not very nice.