In this politically correct environment, the one thing that is overtly forbidden is the expression of racist comments. Calling someone a monkey is forbidden now since it has been classified as a racist comment. But it is okay to utter expletives against one's mother, sister, wife, girl friend, etc. It is also okay to call someone skinny, malnourished, underdeveloped, genetically inferior, ugly, pushover, wetback, spineless, etc. - all of which are hurled against Indians on a routine basis. When such absurd standards are accepted, condoned, repeated and practiced by millions of people, I wonder about the origin of such things and who creates such shades of distinctions. I also wonder who benefits from enforcing such distinctions, whose guilt is being assuaged, what financial angles are being played and ultimately who defines the norms of a society.
The most recent incident that brings to fore these issues is of course the alleged remark made by Harbhajjan Singh to Andrew Symonds. What is interesting about this case is that no one except for Symonds heard the alleged remarks. The stump microphone did not catch it, none of the other players heard it and certainly, the umpires did not hear it. Symonds in a subsequent hearing conducted by Proctor (match referee) admitted to provoking Harbhajjan. Of course, Proctor took Ponting's and Symonds' words over Singh's and pronounced Singh guilty. Many people have alleged that this is a Kangaroo court and I agree.
What is interesting about this case is that Harbajhan Singh has apparently crossed a line that he was not supposed to. Thus, it is okay to curse and insult others as long as this line is not crossed. A line defined by the establishment -- the same line that the Aussie and English cricket teams were regularly crossing about two decades ago by playing with South Africa. Now the likes of Ponting, Slater and the rest of the Aussie media can project a holier than thou image and castigate Singh. Did the Australian cricket team apologize to the blacks and browns in South Africa for entertaining and recognizing the bloody apartheid regime? Have there been any commendations given to the Indians for bringing this issue to the forefront and leading the charge against SA?
In any case, to get back to the case in point, if there was any doubt that the rules are made by the establishment for the establishment teams, this whole episode puts it to rest. No one in the media has asked the most important question: is calling someone a monkey more offensive than using four letter words, cursing someone's mother or making other lewd comments? Glen McGrath the poster boy of Aussie cricket was caught on tape insulting Shivnaraine Chanderpaul (who to his credit had the perfect repartee to shut McGrath up). Not one single thing was done about that incident. Where were the harbingers of morality then? Why did the ICC not penalize McGrath or make a law banning the use of foul language on the field?
The Aussies have always justified their crude behavior by saying that it was part of the game: one has to be grown up about it, what goes on on the field stays on the field, etc. But now when it comes to something an Indian does the same rules do not apply. (To his full credit, Tony Grieg made this exact point on a telecast.) If you are smelling something it is the stench of hypocrisy emanating from Dubai and Sydney.
This brings me to the other incident at hand: the treatment of the Indian cricket team on the field by the umpires. To say that the umpiring was abysmal is like saying the Sun is hot. The umpiring was expressly and extremely biased against the Indians - the Sun is smoldering and white hot and it is high noon in India. It cannot be otherwise. The fact that Bucknor and Benson made errors is hardly contested. What gets left out is that most of these so called errors were made against India - so egregious that they cost India the match. Yes, I know umpires are human, they make mistakes and it is statistically possible to have all the mistakes be stacked against one team but that is not the point here (statistically it is also possible that the universe could collapse on itself). What is not possible is for the mistakes to be so consistently against India. [Incidentally, Bucknor's escapades against India are the stuff of legends. It baffles me that the BCCI did not appeal his selection but it is perfectly obvious why the ICC continues to select him.] In a recent Hair versus Pakistan episode, Rudy Koertzen was quoted as saying that Pakistanis always cheat (this was testimony presented by Hair in his defense - no less). In that
same episode, it came out that Bucknor is friends with Hair and Koertzen. Now let's analyze this: if I make a statement that all white men are racist, I would be laughed out of existence. But that is in effect what Koertzen said with impunity - he is still on the elite panel. No one in the media made two bits about it. Now imagine a scenario - an elite Indian umpire - say Venkataraghavan (now retired) made some comment that all Aussies are criminal (something that would never happen knowing a bit about the demeanor and stature of the man). He would pilloried, suspended, fined, banned, etc. There will be special reports from West Indies to Melbourne with all the talking heads jumping over themselves to be heard. Of course, Koertzen received no such honor. All this goes to show that there is a significant bias against Asian teams amongst the elite panel of umpires, the ICC and the media. Further, given the dearth of elite panel umpires of Asian origin, one has to suspect the selection criteria for umpires. Are Asian umpires being discriminated against? Who makes the rules for selecting umpires to the elite panel?
My main point is simple really. The rules are still being made by the establishment to suit the establishment. A century ago it was okay to call an Indian king and great cricketer a @#$%&; two decades ago it was okay to play with a country that practiced apartheid against blacks and browns; today it is okay to call someone a motherf..ker, ask how someone's d.ck tastes, call an entire nation of people cheats and win test matches with thirteen men on the field. But in the new world of rainbow coalitions and enlightened establishments, it is not okay to call someone a monkey.
Such idiosyncrasies are only possible when there is an agenda and a conspiracy. No the conspiracy is not a CIAesque cloak and dagger type but an intellectual one. It is a conspiracy of defining the rules of the game and controlling the agenda. The agenda in this case is one of permitting what the establishment teams want and prohibiting what the Asian teams want. Australia is on top and wants to remain there. It wants to win and win at any cost. Thus it is permissible for the Australian captain to claim catches for himself even though they were grassed or claim catches for his team mates when he had no way of knowing whether they
were grassed. It is okay for the same man to shove the chairman of BCCI aside or question the presence and profession of Indian reporters. It is okay for him to not walk when he was clearly caught behind but bully Dinesh Karthik in a press conference for not doing the same. It is okay for Symonds to be dismissed 5 times and only given out once or for Dravid, Ganguly, Jaffer, Kumble to be given out when they were clearly not dismissed. And on and on it goes. There are no lines to cross here.
Many people have asked what can be done about all this - by all this they mean the acrimony surrounding any match being played between India and Australia. Before a problem can be solved, it has to be understood. The acrimony stems from the fact the establishment is primarily all white with representation from England and Australia. This establishment has been controlling the game since its modern day inception and is not about to give it up
easily (incidentally, it is a fallacy to think that India has any control over the game - that is just another myth propagated by the establishment). Yet, the establishment cannot continue to treat India like a second class citizen as it had been doing for the last hundred years: India not only plays good cricket (Sydney test is a case in point - which it had practically won were it not for Bucknor and Benson) but also generates most of the sport's revenue. Thus, the establishment is compelled to change its tactics from outright discrimination to one of containment - contain India as much as possible - deny it legitimate wins - harass their players with all kinds of rules - introduce new forms of the game (T20 world cup was introduced against India's wishes which
happily India won); not qualify umpires from the country; ignore injustices done to it by the
establishment teams and so on and so forth. Complicit in all this is of course the BCCI (which is greedy and incompetent) and the Indian media (major cases of inferiority complex; colonial hangover and desire to be accepted by the white establishment).
Thus one sees regular complaints by establishment players that it is miserable to play in India; establishment players, officials, talking heads, etc. regularly complain that there is poverty, smog, pollution, heat, sub-standard facilities, etc. in India. Compare that to Lords or the WACA they say. The message is in effect, if you want the rules to be fair then you have to solve the
poverty issue, the pollution issue, the caste issue, the illiteracy issue, the extreme emotionalism issue, the polytheistic issue, the superstition issue, etc. No I am not making this up - these are,
obliquely or otherwise, things that are said about India in the context of cricket. Now what if Indians (patriotic Indians who love the country and love its team) started raising issues about Australia and England? What if we started saying that for the establishment to continue defining the rules of the sport they have to solve their poverty issue, imperialistic tendencies issue, constant war mongering issue, lack of accountability for historical racism issue, misrepresentations of the past issue, over aggressiveness issue, lack of transparency in management issue, bad treatment of immigrants issue and so on. What if periodically when interviewing Ponting some one asked him if he had any relatives fighting in Iraq; or does he use foul language in his children's presence or if his ancestors killed/converted any aborigines? What if Koertzen were asked if South Africans cheat and if so do they do it on a regular basis or only on Sundays? What if Steve Waugh were asked if he supported Christian missionaries because he really believes Christianity to be the most superior religion and it has all the answers? What if one of the establishment team members, if he were Christian, were asked if taking communion was symbolic or were they really drinking the blood of Christ?
Calling someone a monkey is abhorrent by all standards of human decency and yes it is definitely worse than cheating in a test match and winning with the help of umpires. But as Jesus Christ said (the son of God for most of the establishment members), let the one who has
not sinned cast the first stone. If the ICC, Cricket Australia, Bucknor, Proctor, Ponting, etc. come clean on all their transgressions to the Indian team in particular and Asian teams in general, then they have the right to ban Harbhajjan Singh for 3 test matches (presuming of course that he is guilty). Until then they have a lot of homework to do: the first being to produce incontrovertible evidence that Singh did say the words they claim he said and second to nullify the result of the second test. After this, if they apologized to the Asian countries for their past racist behavior we may be on the threshold of a solution. The best way to do this would be to have a South African style truth commission - where the Bucknors, Koertzens, Hairs,
Proctors, Broads, Speeds and officials of decades past came forward and confess their crimes against the second class cricket playing nations of the world. Not to be a cynic, but I am
not holding my breath that any of these things will come to pass. But India would do well to make these demands of the ICC. At least the message will get through that we are not to be taken lightly and that the days of a colonial mindset among Indians are becoming history as did
colonialism.
Further, on a practical front, BCCI should insist that sledging not be permitted on the field (or off the field); that if some percentage of errors made by umpires go against a particular team then the result of the match be nullified and so on and so forth. Only then will India (and correspondingly Indians) be treated as first class citizens in the cricket arena and consequently in the world arena of cricket.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment