on the mark anna.

India should have left australia after the ruling. If there's one place that south asian countries seem to come together, its at their reactoin to the double-standards in the cricketing world. With better organization, the ICC could easily become India's bitch.

Harbhajan got Ponting out cheaply many times and had the temerity to boast about it (a move straight from the Aussie playbook). I can see why Ponting would want him out.

Thanks for posting this. I am of the opinion that Harbhajan should be banned if the allegations against him are true. The incident would not be without precedent (Mumbai, Oct). I really can't put it any better than Mukul Kesavan did so in this article - http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/316219.html

Monkey chants are common in Spain, where African football players are subject to hoots and banana skins. I would not be overly surprised to see it in stadiums in India. Face it, we all have an uncle, aunt or even parent (yikes!) who occasionally make blatantly racist remarks. I know I have.

Heh heh, my inbox has been inundated with email forwards on this for the past few days. Some samples:

Bucknor: (n) (adj)
1. Temporary blindness leading to missing out on the obvious. Laughing
Laughing Laughing Laughing
2. To be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
3. Situations leading to grave judgemental errors.
Usage: I feel bucknored by my boss; Life often throws a bucknor at you.

Benson: (n) (adj)
1. Something that legitimises a severe bucknor.
Usage: First they bucknored me and then they bensoned it! I am toast.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Also see bucknor

Ponting: (n) (adj)
1. A substance or entity or even a person of unquestionable integrity
2. An act of uncivilised behaviour. [Also, pontingness (n)]

(1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.

(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.

(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.

(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.

(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACISM only.

(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.

(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.

(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - “THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET” more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.

I don't know what Symonds and Ponting think they're up to: complaining about sledging is hardly likely to make anyone look mature, especially for something as unimaginative as a monkey. At least pick a serious fight, not some monkey poo.

At the high end of the imagination scale, you have this:

Glenn McGrath of Australia tried to get Eddo Brandes of Zimbabwe out quickly but failed, then wandered over to him and asked "Why are you so fucking fat?". Brandes responded in a matter-of-fact way, "Because every time I fuck your wife, she gives me a biscuit". [link].

And at the low end, you have this:

Inzamam-ul-Haq of Pakistan once blew up at a spectator. Quote: "For getting called several kinds of potato, Inzamam went into the stands ... and attempted to attack a mouthy fan, triggering a nasty mini-riot that could easily have escalated to world-wide ugly." [link]

Harbhajan got Ponting out cheaply many times and had the temerity to boast about it (a move straight from the Aussie playbook). I can see why Ponting would want him out.

Innnteresting.

None of the half-dozen articles I frantically waded through today mentioned this. Please to be excusing, saar.

It was an excellent game of cricket ruined by umpiring and now this. I clapped for Very Very Special's knock and Sachin finally reachin three figures. I jumped out when Bhajji had Ponting...again! But all this is jus turning out to be more of a soap and saas-bahu serial than Sports. oh and thanks ANNA for posting this, I know you didnt expect all this drama when you first took a liking to Cricket ;) Funtastic!

Apparently Indian cricket player Harbhajan Singh called Australian player Andrew Symonds a monkey. Symonds is black.

That is extremely racist when you combine it with these pictures of Indian spectators taunting Symonds with monkey chants reminiscent of Soccer Nazi hooligans in Europe taunting black players with similar monkey taunts.

For those who came in late, Bucknor and Benson were the two officiating umpires for the said match.

I feel bucknored by my boss HAHAHAHAH

5 · pingpong said

Inzamam-ul-Haq of Pakistan once blew up at a spectator. Quote: "For getting called several kinds of potato

:D Yeah, that's why I titled one of my posts "Farewell, my Aloo" back in March.

Monkey chants are common in Spain, where African football players are subject to hoots and banana skins. I would not be overly surprised to see it in stadiums in India. Face it, we all have an uncle, aunt or even parent (yikes!) who occasionally make blatantly racist remarks. I know I have.

There is one fact that does not support this hypothesis. No Caribbean player has been called a monkey by Indian fans. Nor has it happened for anyone from Kenya, or any black player from Zimbabwe or South Africa. I'm inclined to believe that the monkey thing was targeted specifically at Symonds, and he would probably have been singled out for the name-calling even if he were in an all-black team. It's like Inzamam attracting the calls of "Aloo" - even if he were surrounded by people of a similar build, it would still be Inzamam who gets called the Aloo. In that light, I personally don't think this was racial slurring. Being a bit of a dickish and offensive boor, yes. But not racist.

::de-lurks::

I didn't watch the one day series where the whole "Monkey" chants erupted, but I have been following the tests this time. Now, this is just something I've been wondering about, and I hope that this doesn't come across in the wrong way, so I'm trying to be careful with my words.

It's the weird sunscreen/lipstick that Symonds dons everytime on the field. Pardon my bluntness, but it often brings the image of a monkey to my mind, or those obnoxious black faces and golliwogs of earlier times. I think for crowds in India, the name calling is based on his appearance and not his race. Have we ever heard any complaints about racism when we played against the West Indians (and got comprehensively beaten then too)? Not that this justifies the name calling. It doesn't. It's offensive to the individual, and I'm horrified and disgusted (though not completely surprised) at this behaviour of the Mumbai crowd. But I'd put it in the category of calling former (current?) Pakistani captain Inzamam Ul-Haq "Aloo". Another illustration of the same point, Dubya being called "Chimpy", and all the caricatures that show him as such.

Anyway, I'd still believe Tendulkar over any of the obnoxious and boorish Australian players any day. If Bhajji retaliated, then he was also obviously provoked. Why isn't anyone trying to find out what Symonds said to him?

::re-lurks::

There is one fact that does not support this hypothesis. No Caribbean player has been called a monkey by Indian fans. Nor has it happened for anyone from Kenya, or any black player from Zimbabwe or South Africa. I'm inclined to believe that the monkey thing was targeted specifically at Symonds, and he would probably have been singled out for the name-calling even if he were in an all-black team. It's like Inzamam attracting the calls of "Aloo" - even if he were surrounded by people of a similar build, it would still be Inzamam who gets called the Aloo. In that light, I personally don't think this was racial slurring. Being a bit of a dickish and offensive boor, yes. But not racist.

This is not racist? Look at this comment on SM: Symonds just happens to look like an ape - nothing else to it!! from the other thread.

Yep and nothing derogatory is every said about Blacks in the desi community.

SM Intern, I request your divine blessing for rectifying my comment #5. The links, which have become garbled, should be link #1 and link #2.

Also, I had no idea that Andrew Symonds was black before this whole ruckus started, he is fairer than most of the Indians out there. So the monkey chants in football is not a comparable analogy.

Spotted: John Rocker riding the subway with Harbajjan.

This is not racist?

If it were racist, then why has Brian Lara never been called a monkey? Or any one else in the Caribbean? Or in Kenya? Even Makhaya Ntini or Henry Olonga for that matter, who were for a time the only black players in their respective teams? I'm not saying that Indian spectators (or society) are paragons of non-discrimination, but I don't believe that the Symonds case is racially motivated. I suspect that it was more individually driven than racially in this particular case, and consequently it wasn't the right decision to ban Harbhajan on the grounds of racial discrimination. If he deserved the ban for individual name-calling or bringing the game into disrepute or whatever, so be it.

Mighty sporting of Peter Roebuck to ask for Ponting's head. But I tend to agree w/ Greg Baum who wants everyone to grow the hell up.

Also, this controversy is rather convenient for the underperforming bums in Indian batting lineup. Those who made low scores and those who made attractive runs, but forgot to land the killer blow.

If it were racist, then why has Brian Lara never been called a monkey? Or any one else in the Caribbean? Or in Kenya?

So unless everybody is called racist names in a particular class, there can be no racism directed exclusively against individual members of that class?

Wazzup macacas?

I had stopped paying attention to cricket (after the match fixing scandals of the late 90s) and started shedding my tears for the NY Mets. I have been following cricket with a renewed interest this year since the Indian tour to England. Australians have always been pushing the line on what can be considered hard, aggressive and professional playing to territories that can be considered abusive and unprofessional. If I am to believe what I have been reading in the papers, the Australian sledging begins at the lowest rungs of the sport when they are kids, and they are well-trained professional sledgers when they reach the national level.

It also seems like they are good at dishing it out, but can't really take it. Case in point: During Australia's tour of West Indies in 2003, the Australian bowler Glenn Mcgrath tried to get on the nerves of the West Indian batsman (of East Indian origin, btw) Ramnaresh Sarwan.

GM : What does Brian Lara's $%^& taste like? (Lara, being the Great West Indian Batsman)
RS : I don't know. Ask your wife.
GM : (After being taken aback) If you ever $#%^&*# talk about my wife, I will $%^&@#$ kill you.

I was shocked to read that sledging had reached such levels. I had always assumed that the insults were largely limited to the Batsman's cricketing skills or the occasional jab at the dieteray habits of the more rotund players. While there is no place for racist insults in sport, I am not sure personal insults should be taken any lightly either. This brings us to the current nighmare scenario at Sydney. The Aussies claim that (a clearly provoked) Harbhajan used the racist term "Monkey" to refer to Symonds. Harbhajan (backed by Sachin Tendulkar, a Gentleman if there ever was one) refutes the claim. To add fuel to the fire, the Indians have made the counterclaim that Brad Hogg abused Kumble and Dhoni by calling them "Bastards".

There is a cultural aspect at work here too. While it is culturally admissible for an Aussie (or an American, if I may broadly generalize the cultures) to make a gay joke or call somebody a bastard, anything race related is clearly not kosher. Whereas in India, racial insults, which have significance in Europe or elsewhere, have no context. A Monkey insult (or a macaca) is meaningless. In fact, kids are routinely admonished for acting like monkeys when they misbehave.

Indians are no angels either (Anna's favorite Sreesant kuttan is a wannabe sledger). If Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey, then he indeed needs to be punished, but so should every Aussie who hurls personal insults at Indians and others. We should not see this from green-tinted cultural point of view of the Aussies alone.

This controversy has been bubbling for a few years and finally has reached boilign point. It is time a no-tolerance policy was instituted, not for racist taunts alone, but any type fo insult, period. I think the Aussies should be forced to shut-up and play the game the way it is supposed to be played. Unfortunately, they are still going to dominate the world of cricket because of their talent alone...

16 · Mumbaikar on January 8, 2008 01:53 PM · Direct link · “Quote”(?)

Also, I had no idea that Andrew Symonds was black before this whole ruckus startedanalogy

Me too.

I just assumed that he was just another over-tanned Aussie.

Harbhajan got Ponting out cheaply many times and had the temerity to boast about it (a move straight from the Aussie playbook). I can see why Ponting would want him out.

Innnteresting.

None of the half-dozen articles I frantically waded through today mentioned this. Please to be excusing, saar.

Anna here is the link

Pingpong,
I've been in the cheap seats at Wankhede Stadium. Dark folk, even local ones like Kambli cop plenty of abuse.

Also, this controversy is rather convenient for the underperforming bums in Indian batting lineup. Those who made low scores and those who made attractive runs, but forgot to land the killer blow.

This Australian team did what they've always complained about subcontinental teams: haranguing the umpires and performing histrionics worthy of a Sivaji Ganesan or a latter day Amitabh to put pressure on an already incompetent pair (Symonds' emoting about being hard done on LBW decisions not given when the ball was heading firmly towards a leg gully should definitely qualify him for an Oscar nom). While India did lose the game, it is a little difficult to compete when Symonds is out twice, on 30 and 50-odd, but is allowed to continue till he makes 160 thanks to umpiring errors, and when two of India's frontline batsmen are wrongly given out, on the word of a player - Ponting - who claimed a catch which he grassed. Truly crass display by the Aussies, exemplified by Michael Clarke standing around after clearly edging the ball and being caught at first slip with the ball always at least knee to waist high, in the hope that the umpire would declare him not out (or the charitable explanation of "shock"). And Bucknor has a history of horrendous decisions against India: the brilliant LBW decision last time around when Tendulkar was hit on the head ducking into a not-quite-bouncer from McGrath, and the Dravid ball tampering allegations.

It is high time these umpires are penalized very severely for mistakes, and for the game to make much better use of the high quality technology at its disposal. "Glorious uncertainties" do not mean coin tosses by paid officials, they mean a high quality contest on the field and display of athletic ability, thinking, and reflexes.

I think the Indian team should have sacrificed Bhajji and asked him to have a go at Bucknor and Ponting, given that he was going to be banned in any case.

Excuse my rant :)

If Bhajji used that slur he deserves the punishment but there is no proof of what he said except for Symonds' words against Bhajji's. The Indian team is POed because Bhajji was handed a 3 match suspension with zero evidence unless of course you can count on Symonds' word.

21 · maize, blue and brown It is time a no-tolerance policy was instituted, not for racist taunts alone, but any type fo insult, period.

But wouldn't that be unfair to the Australians, who have been finely honing their sledging skills since early youth? ;-)

So unless everybody is called racist names in a particular class, there can be no racism directed exclusively against individual members of that class?

I don't see it happening - the biggest reason for my doubt is that Ntini (South Africa) and Olonga (Zimbabwe) weren't targeted for special taunting even though many circumstantial parallels exist with Symonds in the current Australian lineup. In particular, all three were for a time the only black players on their teams ("standing out" from the crowd as it were), and all three have been effective (to varying degrees) against India (Olonga was particularly devastating in the 1999 World Cup), plausibly giving reasons for Indian fans to dislike them. I don't see a strong case for ascribing the conduct to racism simply because there has been only one player involved (Symonds) and one taunt (monkey). That is not enough to conclusively establish a pattern, and I am not comfortable with invoking racism for this reason. I used to think that it was directed against Symonds more because he was Australian than because he was black, but then I could not answer "Why Symonds alone? Why not Ponting? Or anyone else?". My only conclusion is that as far as cricket goes (not talking about society here), the Symonds case must have been an individual attack.

But I'll play devil's advocate with myself and put forth an alternate hypothesis which you can build on:

While other players like Ntini and Olonga have "stood out" as much as Symonds does, Indian fans hate Australia much more than they do South Africa or Zimbabwe, and didn't feel the need to call names equally. Hence Symonds was targeted both for being black and for being Australian.

On the topic of racism, I am inclined to believe that Harbhajan used the word against Symonds, but belief is not evidence, nor is the word of the aggrieved (Symonds) who hasn't exactly shown a predilection for honesty on the field, especially when contrasted against somebody like Sachin who has gone out on a limb in Harbhajan's defence.

Personally, I found the behavior of the Aussies completely disgusting, and when somebody as decent and quiet as Kumble, who actually made a gentleman's pact with Ponting about accepting the fielding captain's word on catches before the series, feels so strongly as to make a remark on the unsporting nature of the Aussies (which, in my opinion, is among the worst charges that you can level at a sportsman), it says a lot. I would feel like walking away from this nastiness just out of spite, and I sympathize with the Indian team on this one.

Pingpong, I've been in the cheap seats at Wankhede Stadium. Dark folk, even local ones like Kambli cop plenty of abuse.

Thanks, Shodan. I'll amend my position then, and say that the Symonds case is the only one that has been publicized, while there could be unreported instances with other players. But, hell! Kambli? Getting abused in Maharashtra? The mind boggles.

But, hell! Kambli? Getting abused in Maharashtra? The mind boggles.

Yes, I read about this in one of the flurry of recent articles on the r-word in cricket. Of course, the other explanations thrown around were his bad performance compounded with his bad attitude. I am inclined to believe the skin color prejudice argument though.

To add to the mess, some Aussie columnist recently wrote an article about how selection was casteist as 7 of the 11 players are Brahmin, or some such thing. Somehow, he forgot to mention how racist the Aussie team is given the limited, if at all, aboriginal presence, and non-existent presence of any non native Aussie origin players (England and South Africa have players of Indian origin, for example). I think the composition of the Indian team could reflect disproportionate access to resources, but I hardly think there is any caste agenda in the selection. (And I mention the Aussie counterpoint, not because I think that should be a primary criterion in team selection, but the limited vision of the writer of the article).

I'll amend my position then

You are herewith banished to forward short leg.

14 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

Yep and nothing derogatory is every said about Blacks in the desi community.

people called symonds a monkey, because he like president bush in the eyes of many, resembles one. calling someone a monkey is not a striaght up hateword only used to derogatorily refer to people who are black. There is also no proof that bhajji said this as there is no proof symonds said anything to bhajji. So how can the indian be guilty and not symonds?

Yea aunties and uncles may say racist things, learn from them and dont do it yourself and dont let your kids do it, i just dont see how that justifies someone to be wronged because they're Indian and their mom's brother has racist things to say.

Its screwed up to assume the best of someone because they are of similar cultural background, but some of us seem to have real identity issues by assuming the worst of someone for being from the same background.

I wish Babu never emailed you! Seriously Anna, do you have anything new to add apart from your dumb-ass comments? I wish you left this post to be done by someone who knows more about cricket at SM. Have you even read other posts on this subject that were so thought provoking and intelligent?

Captain Kumble (that’s fun to say!) called the Aussies out on being dirty bastards ..........

The problem is the inconsistency in applying the rules. Adam Gilchrist accused Rashid Latif of Pakistan of racially abusing him, but Latif was exonerated when checks of the stump mike and checks with the umpire showed no evidence of that whatsoever. Yet Mike Procter has banned Bhajji on the hearsay of some Australians whose integrity is not all that. Procter said he is satisfied that only one party is telling the truth. So he implies that Tendulkar, who was with Harbhajan at the time, is lying, whilst Ponting, Hayden and others out of earshot are telling the truth. Procter also banned Latif for five matches for claiming a grounded catch while captaining Pakistan. Procter told Latif that as captain he had a duty not to do that. Yet Ponting claimed a grounded catch, and also took Michael Clarke's word for a likely grounded catch and acted as fourth umpire in raising his finger. No ban for him. Imagine if Ganguly had raised his finger in such an imperious manner. The papers would have been full of stories about the Prince of Kolkata and his snootiness.

It is no small coincidence that this came up just days before a documentary on the whole Symonds affair in India was scheduled to be shown on Australian TV. And suspicious that Ricky Ponting suddenly now claims that Bhajji also racially abused Ponting in Mumbai months ago, but the Aussies "gallantly" decided not to say anything about it then. Right. How convenient then that he should leak that info on the day of Harbhajan's hearing for an allegedly repeated offence. It's clear that once Sreesanth was unfit to go to Australia, the Australians were going to target someone else. They themselves say that they hunt like a pack of dogs (with due apologies to the dogs). Harbhajan called them vulgar, Ponting is his bunny lately, and Bhajji and Tendulkar were taking the match away from them at the time. Who asked Symonds, and then Hayden, to come all the way in and interject themselves in a private matter between Harbhajan and Brett Lee?. Lee didn't even seem to care or get riled by Harbhajan tapping him on the behind. If Bhajji racially abused Symonds, he should be banned, but it should be on more evidence than what the Aussies say. Also, Symonds should come clean on what he said to Bhajji. He seemed to have no problem coming clean on not walking despite the nick heard around the world.

should read Ponting accused Harbhajan of racially abusing Symonds in Mumbai.

You are herewith banished to forward short leg.

Hey! Whose forward leg are you calling "short"? I've got 24 inches. Really, I've got 2 feet, enough to touch the floor.

Excuse my rant :)

34 · Yapsee said

I wish Babu never emailed you! Seriously Anna, do you have anything new to add apart from your dumb-ass comments? I wish you left this post to be done by someone who knows more about cricket at SM. Have you even read other posts on this subject that were so thought provoking and intelligent?

Captain Kumble (that’s fun to say!) called the Aussies out on being dirty bastards ..........

Saar, why don't you go and read those intelligent posts? we prefer this wonly!

Between everything that has been said about this issue in the past two days, I saw a gem on the rec.sports.cricket new group. Titled " The Harbhajan ban: a cross cultural view", the author attempts to look at this whole from a "difference in culture" perspective. He feels, and I quite agree that the whole fracas ultimately is an issue of justice vs process. You could also term it as an ends vs means argument.

As a desi, you feel justice has not been done, because you cannot essentially trust a system where on one day the adjucator (Mike Procter) says on public tv that he has no documentary proof apart from the word given by the Aussie players. Just before play started on Day 5 (or was it Day 4), Mike Procter tells Mark Taylor that he will hold a hearing after the test ends, but he does not know what will happen since there are no witnesses apart from the Australians. Not even the umpires heard anything. And then this same man comes out and says that he is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt that Harbhajan Singh directed that word at Andrew Symonds and also that he meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds’ race or ethnic origin".

Now 2 days after the hearing and the verdict, we still have no idea of what changed between his initial television interview when he did have no evidence and now when he is convinced. There certainly seems to be no audio evidence, because stump mics are turned down/off in between balls/overs. So everybody's guess is that the verdict hinged on the words of five Australian players. Hence all the indignation, effigy burning, name calling etc. in India.

On the other hand, if you trust the process, you will say that due process was followed, witnesses were interviewed and an impartial judge gave his verdict. Never mind that in doing so, he has basically sullied the reputation of the witness that the accused brought forward (in this case, Sachin Tendulkar who has gone on record to say that no reference to simians were made).

This "trust the process" argument and the general view (in England and Australia, mostly) that the Asian bloc is twisting the arms of cricket's governing body, the ICC, is what has soured things.

In all this though, one thing is universally agreed upon. The ICC is run by a bunch of incompetent jokers who cannot be trusted to take a decision.

Sorry for lauging. I just returned from India. I mean suppose it was the opposite. An Australian that called an Indian player a monkey. We would not hear the end of it, no problem really. But would you have Australians arguing that calling a blackman "monkey" wasn't racism? When it comes to racism, few, very few can be more hypocritical than us Indians.

It is one of the greatest feelings in the world when the aussies lose, they simply can’t take it, they have no class and skilled as they may be they resort to cheap sledging which is fine and dandy, but don’t go crying like a baby when someone erupts.

I have no sympathy for the aussies, they called ol’ Monty a “raghead!”

Captain Kumble (that’s fun to say!) called the Aussies out on being dirty bastards

Missed this link in my last comment - The Harbhajan ban: a cross cultural view

Also have to agree with #41. We are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to racism. But I think its an argument for another day because, IMHO, the fact that Harbhajan called him a monkey is still unproven. Another thing, the fact that the BCCI and the team needs a media manager has never been more apparent, in spite of the presence of the wonderfully articulate Kumble. (video link)

What the hell is going on, you might be asking. No? Well, I was asking…this is a lot of story for a blogger of little cricket brain. Apparently Indian cricket player Harbhajan Singh called Australian player Andrew Symonds a monkey. Symonds is black.

In the areas of India where hindi is spoken, goras are often referred to as "lal bandars", pink monkeys, because their fair skin resembles the same skin tone as the monkeys that populate that belt, the rheusus monkeys.

Unless Harbhajan lives in an area populated by black skinned monkeys, and hence black people are frequently referred to as such, this is not neccessarily a racial slur.

I'm two minds about the suspension, even if it was a racial slur.

I guess it's kind of like that radio dj who referred to a team of female basketball players as, "nappy headed hos" on air. That was more of a gender issue, I feel.

"But would you have Australians arguing that calling a blackman "monkey" wasn't racism?"

I agree, I don't think Indians should go down the road of claiming that calling only a black person a monkey out of all the Australian team members is not racist. However, Indians don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy. I know some Australians who think that calling people "w*gs" and other less savoury names is not racist. The Sydney Morning Herald had a blog on this after the Symonds incident in India, and the number of words that Australians use to call others that they don't think are racist/offensive boggles the mind. But maybe that's their culture, maybe over there it really is ok to call people these names.

goday* sez

Procter also banned Latif for five matches for claiming a grounded catch while captaining Pakistan. Procter told Latif that as captain he had a duty not to do that.

something reeks man.

maizeblu* sez

To add fuel to the fire, the Indians have made the counterclaim that Brad Hogg abused Kumble and Dhoni by calling them "Bastards". There is a cultural aspect at work here too. While it is culturally admissible for an Aussie (or an American, if I may broadly generalize the cultures) to make a gay joke or call somebody a bastard, anything race related is clearly not kosher. Whereas in India, racial insults, which have significance in Europe or elsewhere, have no context. A Monkey insult (or a macaca) is meaningless. In fact, kids are routinely admonished for acting like monkeys when they misbehave.

agreed. i'm guilty of calling kids monkeys or fooling around with them making grunting chimp noises. (Oh! COME ON! like you dont horse around with kids). unortunately I was just messing with a buddy's kid (buddy is zambian)... and I said something like "you little monkey..." and realized only by the shocked expression on buddy's face that I hurt him. :-( sorry yaar. i learn. but for someone who's grown up in the crush of desi society, i can see this as being a problem.

* easier handles yaar. vat is this "who is like a libidinous coleoptra out for supping on amber pistils" like names .. khoofia lazy. khoofia stupid.

and the number of words that Australians use to call others that they don't think are racist/offensive boggles the mind. But maybe that's their culture, maybe over there it really is ok to call people these names.

I don't know if Australia's words are more crass than the ones used in hindi, but those alone (hindi name calling words) are shocking enough to someone who is not familiar with the culture. It is not at all uncommon to refer to people by their physical characteristics, which when translated into english, comes across as totally rude and offensive, but in hindi somehow the edge is taken off.

ANNA, ignore yapsee. You knew someone like him would pop up eventually right? Dogs will bark. And although I'm not a cricket fan I've been peripherally aware of this controversy... thanks for taking the time to write this and post it here.

Dogs will bark.

You racist!

Whose God is it anyways?

You have some Australians, emphasis on SOME. I mean everyone that I know in India, relatives, friends, neighbors argue that

1) He didn't call him monkey, he's only lying. They know this. How?
2) Calling someone monkey isn't racism. One nutcase in OZ argues that since we have gods that are monkeys it couldn't be racist to call Symond monkey. Yeah sure, he meant that Symond is a God!?

Even the Aussies take our side in all this, wouldn't be refreshing if there was just one Indian voice admitting that it is racist to call Symond a monkey? Just one! I know it's my country, but it's not my country right or wrong.

"Dogs will bark".
"You racist"!

but dogs do bark :)

but dogs do bark :)

And monkeys hurl feces :)

Even the Aussies take our side in all this, wouldn't be refreshing if there was just one Indian voice admitting that it is racist to call Symond a monkey?

Kram, I am inclined to believe that Bhajji was being racist (given what Bhajji and Sreesanth did in India too), but belief, suspicion, and hearsay are not evidence and not grounds for punishment.

Just in case people failed to notice WGIIA's comment (#35), the whole thing started with Harbhajan giving a friendly tap to bowler Brett Lee's kundi as he was walking past. Both bowler and batsman did exchange a friendly smile (I saw the whole thing unfold on TV). And then Symonds waded in to the scene.

A SEEMINGLY simple tap of the backside was the origin of cricket's biggest crisis since the match-fixing scandal.

The race row threatening to derail India's cricketing relationship with Australia was ignited on day three of the second Test when Harbhajan Singh patted Brett Lee's bottom while running between wickets.

Andrew Symonds questioned Harbhajan's actions from the field - and for several balls the pair then traded verbal barbs.

At the end of Lee's over, Symonds moved fielding positions and it was then Harbhajan allegedly called the Australian a "big monkey".

Incidentally, Symonds is not known to be the sharpest mind in the Australian team, as Will Luke says here

In an era where Australians are untouchable on the field, the news of Andrew Symonds' recent verbal gaffe comes as a pleasant surprise. Symonds, or Roy as he is known by his team-mates, is no stranger to the verbal banana skin and, according to the Age, produced a corker last week. Reading an article on relationship breakdowns in a women's magazine, Symonds exclaimed to his colleagues: "What a stupid question: 'When was the last time you had a row with your partner?"' After his team-mates picked themselves up from the floor, it was explained to Symonds that the question referred to an argument, not the boating activity.

Salam Nastes respones at #45 is the typical lame ass response that Indians have to this. This is the kind of bullshit that David Duke would excuse racist slurs with.

In the areas of India where hindi is spoken, goras are often referred to as "lal bandars", pink monkeys, because their fair skin resembles the same skin tone as the monkeys that populate that belt, the rheusus monkeys.

Unless Harbhajan lives in an area populated by black skinned monkeys, and hence black people are frequently referred to as such, this is not neccessarily a racial slur.

jeeeeez

If I was Olbermann I would vote you the worst person in the woooooorld.

1) He didn't call him monkey, he's only lying. They know this. How?

-- I guess the same way Procter knows that the Aussies are telling the truth and the Indians are lying. This is why you have to have more proof for these convictions. I'm not saying he didn't say it. But it's a serious charge and a conviction should rest on more than the say-so of the Aussies. Do you think they would tolerate the conviction of Ponting on the mere say-so of Harbhajan?

2) Calling someone monkey isn't racism. One nutcase in OZ argues that since we have gods that are monkeys it couldn't be racist to call Symond monkey. Yeah sure, he meant that Symond is a God!?

-- I read that, and I don't buy into that silly argument. I am not saying calling Symonds a monkey is not racist. I am Indian, so yes there is at least one Indian who admits that it is racist to call Symonds a monkey. There are many Indians who think it is intended as derogatory in the context in which it occurred in Mumbai, including in my own circle of family and friends. Just as it was racist when people in the West Indies called me a coolie. I had a family friend who was called "that stinking Indian" during a trial in the West Indies. So I can't accept that only Indians are hypocritical about race, sorry.

To cool down frayed tempers, here is something fun, Sreesanth at his best.

Kram, it is a slur for sure, but whether or not it's a racial slur, I don't know, because I've heard "bandar" bantered around so much in India, in reference to all kinds of people.

There seems to be some confusion/consternation about how I characterized what Anil Kumble "said".

Relations between the teams deteriorated during the most recent test match, the second of the tour. India captain Anil Kumble accused the Australians of not being sportsmanlike

That's what the IHT said. This is how I paraphrased that, in the post:

The second test match of the tour = drama. Captain Kumble (that’s fun to say!) called the Aussies out on being dirty bastards while his team rolled their eyes the fifth time the umpires made a stupid and unfair decision.

Calling someone out on being dirty = saying they aren't very sportsman-like.

Hope that clarifies things. Now if you were ungrateful and unsportsmanlike enough to type this:

Seriously Anna, do you have anything new to add apart from your dumb-ass comments? I wish you left this post to be done by someone who knows more about cricket at SM. Have you even read other posts on this subject that were so thought provoking and intelligent?

There IS no one else who either knows about or follows cricket at SM. It was this post or nothing. I blew my lunch hour trying my best to write this out of respect for our DBD mutineers, despite it not really fitting in with this blog's mission or outlook AND knowing that if I wrote this, I would double my moderating work on my busiest day of the week.

Your comment was mean. It's unreasonable to demand a professional, expert essay from me, someone who repeatedly admitted IN THE POST that they were new to a sport which most Americans ignore. SM isn't obligated to write about anything, least of all something we aren't familiar with, which isn't American or second-gen-related; if we try to go beyond those borders, try being gracious instead of being a jerk.

A sizable portion of the Aussie population (SMH) believes that the Aussie team has not acted 'in the spirit of the game'. The Aussie public conciousness is sick and twisted. They want to win, but they detest not winning the right way.

This is a scene from the Cronulla Riots in Sydney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL98uMxGqqM

It's hilarious for me to think about a world where Aussie's can accuse anyone else of racism. Notice the title of the clip is in Japanese.

When I was in Oz, a concern of govt. officials was why Japanese tourists did not make return-trips (like Hawaii, where visitors return NUMBEROUS times). While I was in Brisbane, there were at least a couple of rapes perpetrated against Japanese female tourists.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!

Whose God is it anyways?

Obviously. But no one knows. They can't say that they KNOW that he is lying.

Do you think they would tolerate the conviction of Ponting on the mere say-so of Harbhajan?

I know that the general public in OZ wouldn't make excuses for the slur, most of them might say they can't prove. But that they KNOW? Thats an Indian trait.

I had a family friend who was called "that stinking Indian" during a trial in the West Indies. So I can't accept that only Indians are hypocritical about race, sorry.

Just curious, but how did West Indies come in to the equation. Thats says they are racists, not hypocritical about it and I didn't say we are the only ones hypocritical about. Just one of the worst. I stand by that. Anna her self usually writes using her own words a whiney bohooo hooo they are racist article every now and then, now she calls the whiney.

Kram:

Even the Aussies take our side in all this, wouldn't be refreshing if there was just one Indian voice admitting that it is racist to call Symond a monkey? Just one! I know it's my country, but it's not my country right or wrong.

Anyone who is exposed to a multicultural society outside desh will admit that it COULD BE perceived as racist. Even lot of people in India agree. Everyone who I have spoken to, starts with a "if Bhajji said that, he should be punished". The whole "monkey is not racial term in India" argument started with a talking head on TV or in a press conference. I think it was a team official who said that, which is why I said that the Indian team sorely lacks a media manager.

Rahul: I am not sure I agree with the whole "Sreesanth and Harbhajan have done it before, so Bhajji must be guilty now" argument either. Some journalists have said that Bhajji did call Symonds a monkey a few months ago, but was taken aside off the field by Symonds. Symonds explained to Bhajji why it was not acceptable for someone like him to be called a monkey. Bhajji promised not to use the word again. Whether he did or not this time is still under question. So it's inappropriate for anybody to judge him right now.

And the reason why I won't trust Ponting and Co. is because for all their talk about fairness and integrity on the field, they claimed at least few catches that they had not taken cleanly. And while they claim that their word should be trusted while they field, when they bat, they don't walk even when they have straightforward dismissals (like Clark's).

if we try to go beyond those borders, try being gracious instead of being a jerk.

way to go anna!

#60 Krish***

ha ha ha. Are you for real? You dig up a white poer YouTube Video and call the Aussies racist. Maybe if they had the same popular support as RSS in India.

Rahul: I am not sure I agree with the whole "Sreesanth and Harbhajan have done it before, so Bhajji must be guilty now" argument either. Some journalists have said that Bhajji did call Symonds a monkey a few months ago, but was taken aside off the field by Symonds. Symonds explained to Bhajji why it was not acceptable for someone like him to be called a monkey. Bhajji promised not to use the word again. Whether he did or not this time is still under question. So it's inappropriate for anybody to judge him right now.

Fair enough. I am going by his general behavior overall. But my overall point in my comment was that whether he was capable of doing it is completely irrelevant to whether he should be convicted of it.

And the reason why I won't trust Ponting and Co. is because for all their talk about fairness and integrity on the field, they claimed at least few catches that they had not taken cleanly. And while they claim that their word should be trusted while they field, when they bat, they don't walk even when they have straightforward dismissals (like Clark's).

Ponting and co. are a bunch of whiny babies. Including that "honest walker" Gilchrist who appealed and accepted the catch of Dravid. Why is that within the spirit of the game, but standing rooted to your crease when you know you're out not?

Reminds me of street cricket among 10 year-olds where the guy who owned the bat got to play as long as he wanted for fear of angering him.

Sorry for my outburst. I just returned from India and exatcly this issue is what irritates me most about the mind set of middle class Indians. I mean every time you go back, you first have to hear lenghty preaching about HOW RACIST they are against Indians in other countries, this from uncles who never been abroad, and next you will hear them saying something about moslems and the traditional banter about the intellectually inferior black ppl of America. The very fact that Obama could be the next US president made some of my relatives giggle.

Even the Aussies take our side in all this, wouldn't be refreshing if there was just one Indian voice admitting that it is racist to call Symond a monkey? Just one! I know it's my country, but it's not my country right or wrong.

Kram, I did state earlier that I didn't fully accept the accusation of racism, which I subsequently modified. Here are my reasons:

1. There is only one reported data point (Symonds,monkey), and I'm not fully comfortable drawing any straight lines when I have only one data point. I accept that this is the only reported event, and as Shodan pointed out, there could be others that are not publicized. If there were more reports of (other black player, other epithet), I'd be a whole lot more satisfied that it is indeed racism. Not all of them need to get abused, but certainly not just one. Especially uncomfortable for me are too many confounding factors - was it because Symonds was Australian? Was it because he was black? Was it because he claims to like Guns N Roses but secretly likes Vengaboys? Basically I'm slightly reluctant to generalize something as serious as racism from only Symonds, because it makes it tough to unequivocally decide whether he was targeted for being black or whether he was targeted for being Australian while just incidentally happening to be black. There are objections both ways: why was Ponting not targeted in spite of being Australian? Why was Olonga not targeted in spite of being black? To use an analogy, if it were an India-Pakistan match and a Pakistani crowd were to make rude gestures at Harbhajan, I'd be equally reluctant to conclude using that sole incident that "Pakistanis hate Sikhs" - it could be just that they dislike Harbhajan. But if they did the same thing to Monty Panesar, or if they'd done the same to Bishen Singh Bedi in his day, I'd be more inclined to believe the generalization.

2. On the question of Harbhajan, right now it only seems to be one man's word for another. I'd again be satisfied if it were caught on tape. The George Allen macaca business was so powerful because it was caught on videotape by the very person being name-called. It would have been a whole lot weaker if SR Sidharth had been armed with a clipboard instead of a recording device, or if the incident had happened out of earshot of anyone else.

Kram,

"Obviously. But no one knows. They can't say that they KNOW that he is lying."

Yes, and Procter can't say he KNOWS that only one side is telling the truthl when all he has is two different sides of the story and no other evidence. What do you expect emotional fans to do? But surely we expect better from rational match referees, certainly more than "I felt (how can you feel) only one side was telling the truth.

"That's an Indian trait."

Well I assume you've travelled the world then. I'll leave you to make such sweeping generalizations. I can assure you that trait of making excuses for one's compatriot is not exclusive to India. I'm Indian (from India) and so is my family. We KNOW that calling someone a monkey in that context is meant to be derogatory. Maybe we're not as Indian as we think we are.

"Just curious, but how did West Indies come in to the equation. Thats says they are racists, not hypocritical about it and I didn't say we are the only ones hypocritical about. Just one of the worst."

The WI came into it because the target of this racism is allegedly Symonds, and above someone said desis are racist towards black people. Having lived in predominantly black countries at times, they can be just as racist to Indians, whites, Chinese, and other blacks in the Caribbean. They also cry about racism towards them. It's human nature. And I love the West Indies/Caribbean, so no axe to grind here. Hence, by the definition of some here, they are hypocritical. But I apologize, anantha was the one who said Indians are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to racism. I think I was responding to that, but mixed it up in responding to you. I didn't say Indians are hypocrites, but that Indians aren't the biggest hypocrites. Each to his own.

#67 pingpong

1) You've been in a school yard, som get attacked some not. Of course if was a personal attack on Symond, using his race as the slur. We generally do think that is worse for good reason. If you get in to an angry fight with some one and they call you monkey or fat bastard you would have reacted differently.

2) I'm not really interested in if he really said it. It's the "he didn't saay it and even if he did calling a black man monkey isn't racist" routine that is grotesque.

"It's the "he didn't saay it and even if he did calling a black man monkey isn't racist" routine that is grotesque."

As bad as Australians saying Darren Lehmann really isn't a racist for his outburst against the Sri Lankans, but just a good bloke crumbling under pressure.

Whose God is it anyways?

No I haven't traveled all around the world, and to be fair you correct. Most countries/cultures see racism as something directed towards the. Islamic countries are very racist, far more racist than India, Arabs get worked about racism against them while freely treating South Asians as dirt. It's actually only the western countries that are to some extent (not everyone) critical towards them selves about racism.

I am guessing that this criticism of Harbhajan is by ABD’s. An aussie player called Indian players ‘Bastard’. For most Indians this is a far worse insult than ‘Monkey’ – lets see if Hogg is banned for three tests too.

Double standards were at the forefront of this game
The -- for the ‘South Asians’ here, the match referee Mike Procter had previously banned the Pakistani Captain for falsely claiming a catch for 5 games. Ponting was caught on camera doing the same – not even a rap on the knuckles or even a harsh word. The allegations were basically Harbhajan’s word against Symonds – no other evidence. Proctor decided that Bhajji’s word did not count.

When it came to India, the umpires broke basic norms – such as referring close decisions to the Third umpire (who has access to TV replays).
One of the umpires had a history of making bad decisions that just happen to go against India. He was still allowed to umpire in this test.

The British (one of the umpires was British) and many parts of the Aussie press have been backing the umpires and called the Indians churlish however, when bad umpiring occurred in past tours of Australians and the English team to Pakistan, the same newspapers screamed bloody murder.

India directly or indirectly contributes to 70 % of cricket’s finances. It has the power to ensure such double standards do not occur. It should exercise this power.

As bad as Australians saying Darren Lehmann really isn't a racist for his outburst against the Sri Lankans, but just a good bloke crumbling under pressure.

It looks like the safest thing for a sledged batsman to do would be to start beating the sledger with his bat while studiously keeping his mouth shut all the time. That way he can always make a "I'm only human and I've got emotions too" defense without coming across as being racist.

DizzyDesi

Bastard as far as I know is a universal slur that can be used against anybody. When some one who isn't black calls a black man monkey, you know perfectly well what it means. And no, I'm not ABD.

I agree Pingpong, or take a leaf from Zidane's book

"It's actually only the western countries that are to some extent (not everyone) critical towards them selves about racism."

Kram, I tend to agree with you there to a certain extent, and I think it applies more the Anglosphere Western countries. I think perhaps because they have not really been on the receiving end of racism/control for a sustained period of time by a foreign power it is easier for them to be less defensive about it.

Conversly Indians haved complained against Brad Hogg for calling Kumble a bastard.

Au contraire. He was actually expressing solidarity with Kumbles by calling him a bustard, seeing as they were both part of a dying species of fastish leg spin (sure, Hogg bowls chinamen - is that racist?, but it's the right direction).

Ponting and co. are a bunch of whiny babies. Including that "honest walker" Gilchrist who appealed and accepted the catch of Dravid. Why is that within the spirit of the game, but standing rooted to your crease when you know you're out not?

The sad part about the last couple of days is that the water is unneccasarily muddy because of all these issues rearing their heads coming up at the same time.

1. India's image as poor losers (not the team, but the team's followers in India and elsewhere)
2. Arguably the worst umpiring performance in a single Test match in history
3. Boorish behavior by the Australian team

While most Indians think that their second test loss resulted solely because of no. 2 (I cannot agree 100%) and that no. 3 is completely true, the Australians have reveled in pointing out no. 1. In my eyes though, all of these are true.

I am guessing that this criticism of Harbhajan is by ABD’s.

I don't see how being DBD/ABD has anything to do with this case, and let's not start that fight here.

"It looks like the safest thing for a sledged batsman to do would be to start beating the sledger with his bat while studiously keeping his mouth shut all the time. That way he can always make a "I'm only human and I've got emotions too" defense without coming across as being racist."

Good Lord, no~ :) When Zaheer merely waved his bat in indignation at the English players, from at least 15 feet away, for putting jellybeans on the pitch, you'd think by some of the responses that he'd battered them all to death :)

#76 Whose God is it anyways?

I think it applies more the Anglosphere Western countries. I think perhaps because they have not really been on the receiving end of racism/control for a sustained period of time by a foreign power it is easier for them to be less defensive about it.

It's a good point, can't disagree with that. One would however hope that those of us living abroad being more mature about it.

I can't believe this hasn't been brought up. (or has it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqgU1EyFQsE

India's image as poor losers

We are NOT poor losers. If anything, we are a bunch of very rich losers.

When Zaheer merely waved his bat in indignation at the English players, from at least 15 feet away, for putting jellybeans on the pitch, you'd think by some of the responses that he'd battered them all to death :)

Double standards. If he were a Southerner, he could have battered the jellybeans all he wanted and nobody would have said anything.

People have tried explaining cricket to me a thousand times and I still dont get it and I am a sports nut. I have never understood anything less in my life.

Also I didnt really follow the post and only understood something about a Indian yelling something racist. If he did then what is the misunderstanding here?

Indians are really getting a bad name these days. Yelling racist comments at black people, 50 indian guys raping one 17 year old white woman, 50 Indians raping a young Indian woman, setting family on fire, Indian women so battered in England that over 80 of them kill themselves by throwing themselves in front of a train in a single year, big fat harry Indian guys are becoming gigolos and actually getting payed by women for sex. What the fuck is going on?

"People have tried explaining cricket to me a thousand times and I still dont get it and I am a sports nut. I have never understood anything less in my life."

I'm a sports fan, but that sums up american football for me :)

"Also I didnt really follow the post and only understood something about a Indian yelling something racist. If he did then what is the misunderstanding here?"

Guess that's why you think Harbhajan yelled something. If he yelled it, everyone would have heard it. He is accused, but only one person claims to have heard it, and one person claims to have not heard it. He didn't yell anything.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to this topic.

w00t!!!! Anna, you did it!!!! Thank you..ahh Thank you!

I had no idea your teddy bear was named Babu. Thank you, Amma and Appa for my name, without whom this nostalgic post from Anna would have been impossible. This is sortof my 5 minutes of fame.

Anyway, Babu was wonderful as a confidante, hugging partner and drool-catcher

I'll be happy to offer you my services :D

Yapsee @ 34

I wish Babu never emailed you! Seriously Anna, do you have anything new to add apart from your dumb-ass comments? I wish you left this post to be done by someone who knows more about cricket at SM.

Shut up!

Anyway, It seems the test series will continue. When the Bhajji case is heard and if the ban is thrown out, (it seems like it will, in the absence of any evidence and the great Tendulkar vouching for him) it will be interesting to watch when the Australians visit India later in 2008. I'm sure they will get a "nice" treatment :)

"Double standards. If he were a Southerner, he could have battered the jellybeans all he wanted and nobody would have said anything."

You should e-mail that link/recipe to the English cricket team :)

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. On one hand I do know that African origin students (often)and tourists (to a lesser degree) in India are met with overt racism. So the Indian fans or team exhibiting racism is not beyond my comprehension. But there is something to what pingpong brings up, why Symonds and not other African origin people ? Kram, I basically agree that we Indians are in denial about our racism. But I too have heard of Caucasians being called "white monkey" in Hindi. So it is fair to ask if this is a term reserved exclusively for Africans or something that Indians toss out liberally at anyone they find contemptible regardless of race/pigmentation ? I am an ABD so I am not sure of all its connotations in India

85 · ShallowThinker

Indians are really getting a bad name these days

Nahh--I think it's just more/different coverage given that India is now looming larger in economic terms on the global stage--it's not as if there hasn't always been crime in India. Similar is true about all the NYT coverage about, e.g., pollution in China.