Some folks are agitated about India's threat of leaving the series mid-way. This post is a reply to the argument that Harbhajan deserved what he got and the Indian reaction is excessive.
The first thing to consider is what Australia might have done had so many decisions and administrative failures gone against them in a single test, which they ended up losing. The second thing is how much support would they have received from the ICC. If you are earnest enough to recognize the answer to these two questions then you already know that the Indian reaction is not only legitimate but also necessary.
For those with a love for procedure and due process - that is, the argument that India should just follow the process and not threaten to leave the tour - this whole line of thinking is moot until such time that concrete and irrefutable evidence is not presented against Harbhajan Singh.
The earlier posts on this blog were about the meaning and context of the word "monkey". But hang on a second - if we're going to be all legal and business-like about this - then first show me evidence that the word was uttered in the first place. Harbhajan did not confess to it, Sachin didn't hear it, the umpires (even in their somewhat affected state of mind) did not hear it, and Ricky Ponting (who didn't even miss the nonexistent nick from Dravid's bat) did not hear the word. But Mr. Procter went ahead and handed Bhajji a ban anyway.
Australia first have to prove that there is any truth to the allegations. And if they can ever do that, then they have to prove that the intent and racist nature of what was said. I don't see anything remotely convincing on either front. Surely we're not expected to take Ponting's word for it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You are a racist. You are also ignorant. Whether or not a term is racist is not up to the person who said it. Monkey may not be racist to Indians but take a holiday to the USA and say that to an African American. You will end up in the intensive care ward of a hospital. Monkey is a racist term when used to describe people of African decent. period.
YOU ARE RACIST
Is it racist to claim all Indians are wife burners?? What about the caste system you biggot?
The rest of the cricket world needs to step up and shut the Aussies up. Beating them is the only way to control them.
I accepted your comment, Mike, because it deserves a reply. Why you needed to take a shot at me personally, rather than at my ideas alone, I do not know. But we'll leave that for another day.
I am not a racist. I'm afraid you do not understand the first thing about racism as a system of beliefs and institutionalized repression of people. You might look into the history of Aborigines in Australia, Native Americans in USA, the pogroms in Europe, the conflict in Rwanda or the "incident" at Jallianwallah Bagh in Punjab in 1919.
Your problem is that you think I associate negative values with people based on the colour of their skin or other physical features attributable to race. I DO NOT. (Neither does Bhajji.)
I am merely making a case for the accused. It is false not only in fact (no evidence) but also in spirit (it wasn't racism that prompted the word). On the other hand, the reaction from Australia and ICC - the cold-blooded decisions made later - that's real racism for you. When you have an Australian's word against an Indian's and one is preferred over the other - that's racism. You should be protesting that.
You do understand (or do not want to) the difference between standing up for oneself and being racist. In Symonds's own words - he asked for it.
Defending a player of my country (of which Symonds himself has been singing sonnets lately) does not amount to racism. If you want to be taken seriously - you have to rise above namecalling and offer a proper counterargument to what I wrote.
"Monkey may not be racist to Indians but take a holiday to the USA and say that to an African American. You will end up in the intensive care ward of a hospital."
I do already know this. I'd probably not even live to see the hospital. But as you have omitted to note, after 9/11 it wasn't Indians abusing anyone else, it was Indians being the victims of racist hatred from US blacks and whites alike. Also, did you hear about the shootings on LSU campus lately? Ever heard of a race-related hate crime committed by an Indian in a foreign country?
Indian culture is very open to foreign influence and foreigners in general. (Again, I encourage you to look at the big picture... offering segregated instances doesn't amount to anything when talking about a population of one billion). Calling Bhajji a racist is like calling purring cat a maneater.
On the cricket field Indians have been the recipients of racial abuse from Australia for decades. The difference is that this team, indeed this India, doesn't accept it anymore. And some don't have the stomach to digest change.
We can also talk about the Caste System. But given that I DO NOT defend it, and that discrimination on this basis is illegal per the Indian constitution, that conversation is moot. I will concede that it has not been eradicated - but the worst of its ills are fading fast. Don't forget it has been around for thousands of years. Change takes time. But you will find few, if any, Indians praising the caste system in its entirety. Let's stick to the issue at hand if you want to carry on a dialogue. I have little patience for nonsense.
To reiterate: I DID NOT DEFEND racism or racist behaviour. If Bhajji confesses to calling Symonds a monkey because of his face - or some such - then I will apologize on this blog and decry the act.
But you should take a step back and look at what is really going on in the world. Peace to you man.
"If Bhajji confesses to calling Symonds a monkey because of his face - or some such - then I will apologize on this blog and decry the act". How can you argue that monkey is not a racist insult but then say if Harbhajan did it you would apologize for the stuff on your blog ...and presumably agree to him being suspended? That is an implicit acknowledgment that you understand that monkey is racial abuse when directed toward someone of African decent. You have acknowledged as much by agreeing that you would end up in hospital if you said it in the USA. So in the full knowledge that monkey is racist for someone of African origin you call your blog monkey symonds. Disgraceful.
Are you poor at reading comprehension or something? Have you bothered to read what I've written or are you just persisting with personal attacks because you are unable of reading a situation objectively.
I said, and you quoted me as saying, "for his face" ... yes, calling someone a monkey for racial characteristics would be racist - I have been arguing that this wasn't the case. That was the point of comparing the images.
You only see what you want to see. Grow up already.
*incapable of reading
Post a Comment