There is a joke currently doing the rounds, where match referee Mike Procterasks Harbhajan Singh, "Did you call Andrew Symonds a monkey?" to whichSingh replies, "No, I called a monkey Symonds."
This is amusing, of course, but it masks a crucial injustice. The independentjudge, John Hansen, while diminishing the charges and penalties against Singh,further castigated Symonds for using "foul and abusive language" andheld him equally to blame for the fracas on the field. On first sight, thisappears fair to all. But on closer inspection, the judgement is deeply flawed.What appears to have been missed out by all is the complete unfairness of theproceedings towards at least one injured party: The monkey.
Now, we in India are very fond of monkeys. We have the monkey god, Hanuman, whois well known to us as a sea of wisdom and virtue. He is, in fact, something ofa Hindu god of sports, the receptacle and source of limitless strength, and manywho seek to excel in this field pay fond obeisance to the monkey god.
Monkeys are, of course, mischievous, often tiresome, inclined to be destructive,and thieving -- but try to retaliate with violence against a simian miscreant,and the Indian public will turn upon you. 'Monkey' is also an expression weoften use to articulate affection -- our children are, to us, 'little monkeys',and 'monkey' is also sometimes a term of endearment between besotted lovers.
Several somewhat specious defences have been offered for Harbhajan's outburstagainst Symonds -- the most evidently specious among these being the one thatfinally succeeded with Judge Hansen -- but no one has yet argued that Harbhajansought to express affection for Symonds by 'allegedly' calling him a monkey.Consequently, it would have to be conceded that the expression 'monkey' wasused, in this case, as an insult - and this does grave injury to our simian kin,a matter of concern greater than any injury that may have been done to theboorish Symonds.
However, we now have a judicial pronouncement -- based on no-doubt reliableevidence provided by some of the greatest cricketers in the world -- that whatHarbhajan said was not, in fact, 'monkey' but the evidently less ambiguous"teri maa ki..." -- referring to the intimate anatomy of Symonds'mother. Those who saw excerpts of Judge Hansen's judgement broadcast ontelevision will appreciate the extraordinary, if unintended, humour of thesituation, as the judge ponderously analysed, in pronounced Australian accent,the nuances and implications of "terrymayky" (the transliteration doeslittle justice to the actual comedy). Ironically, Harbhajan's mother is reportedto have greeted the news that her son had merely denigrated Symonds mother, andhad not, in fact, (The horror! The horror!) called him a monkey, with greatrelief, observing solemnly that this was a "triumph of truth".
Now imagine this. A young couple are called up by the principal of their child'sschool (I would have said, "their son's school", but that would besexist and would ignore the great advances made by the girlchild in the field ofinvective). They present themselves, with their shamefaced progeny, in theprincipal's office, to be informed that the child has called a classmate'monkey'. Quite naturally, their world crumbles around them, as they recognisethe enormity of perversion that has entered their child's soul.
Further probing, however, demonstrates that the child had not, in fact, said'monkey', but "teri maa ki..." On this determination, there is joy andcelebration all around. The principal lets the child off with a mild reprimand,and compliments the parents on the excellent upbringing they have imparted totheir offspring. The parents, in turn, skip out with their child to the nearestMcDonalds (of this I am sure, such parents would naturally be stuffing theirchildren with junk food as well).
You may contend that I am being facetious and deliberately ignoring the chargethat 'monkey' was used as a racist epithet, and not as politically-correctnon-discriminatory invective, and that there was a history here, since chants of'monkey, monkey' had also been directed against Symonds during matches atvarious venues in India as well. But notice that players of different races haveplayed in India for decades, and no individual or team of particular race orcolour has ever been badgered by crowds chanting 'monkey'. It is not theintention to claim, here, that Indians are a people of superior virtue, andconsequently incapable of racist abuse -- to use a cliché, take a look at ourmatrimonial advertisements or the market for 'fairness creams', and you willdiscover a deep distaste for darker complexions.
But the expression 'monkey' does not correctly articulate these racistsentiments. I have never heard, for instance, of an Indian calling GarfieldSobers, Brian Lara or Wesley Hall 'monkeys' (indeed, gentlemen cricketers, all,they were and remain objects of near-universal adulation in India). If anything,the expression, directed against Symonds by the Indian public, articulates thegeneral perception of the degree to which he -- with a wide smear of whitearound his lips -- deviates from generally acceptable standards of humanappearance, and I would now suggest, conduct, in any community, Black, White,Brown, Yellow, Green or Purple.
The truth is, the Aussies in general and Symonds in particular, broke every rulein the book during this tour. They cheated; they lied; they sledged and theyintimidated; they clearly influenced the umpires into repeatedly givingmanifestly incorrect decisions -- and there is strong suggestion of racist biasin successive decisions by the umpires, including the exclusive reliance onAussie testimony for their decisions; they deliberately abused legal processesto take out an Indian bowler who had become a major threat to their performance.
And then they sought to apply standards of conduct and propriety to the Indianside that they were refusing to adhere to themselves. In sum, they made it morethan obvious that they would do anything -- both in and out of the book -- towin. But when the BCCI does a little arm-twisting of its own, such a righteouswhine goes up from the Australian continent!
The Aussies will find it difficult to live down their churlishness in thisaffair, and whether it is 'monkey' or 'teri maa ki...', the epithets will followSymonds for a long time to come. The final judgement in the case hasdemonstrated how abusive and unsportsman like Symonds' conduct was, and, whileHarbhajan will smart a little as a result of the partial loss of match fees, hecan get away with feeling just a little silly. There is little by way of a realblemish on his character or his quality as a sportsman -- especially since thewhole incident was provoked by Symonds' contemptible response to Harbhajan'ssporting gesture of complimenting a rival team's player.
Symonds and his Captain, on the other hand, appear boorish, misbehaved and, evenafter this long-drawn controversy, truculent and unwilling to display courtesyor an iota of generosity of spirit. The Aussies have repeatedly demonstratedtheir superior cricketing skills in the field. But their spirit of sportsmanshiphas spiralled downward from Don Bradman's day.
Advertisement
K.P.S.Gill is former director-general of police, Punjab. He is alsoPublisher, SAIR and President, Institute for Conflict Management. This articlewas first published in The Pioneer
