Skip to content Skip to bbc.co.uk navigation Skip to search Access keys help bbc.co.uk Navigation Search Home TV Radio Talk Where I Live A-Z Index
Skip to main content Access keys help Contact us Help MIHIR BOSE The inside line on sport
< Previous Main India's version of the Sydney saga Mihir Bose - BBC sports editor 10 Jan 08, 07:35 PM Indian sources insist Harbhajan Singh did not use the word %u2018monkey%u2019 during the episode at the Sydney Test that provoked the recent cricket crisis between Australia and India.
But they have admitted to me he abused Andrew Symonds with a highly offensive remark about his mother. Which is clearly wrong.
They, however, also now claim that he was speaking in Hindi and that the three Australians who heard him %u2013 Symonds, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke - misinterpreted the words as %u2018big monkey%u2019.
While his mother tongue is Punjabi, Harbhajan is also equally fluent in Hindi. And though I should not repeat the words he used, I am told there was a reference to Symonds%u2019 mother, with Harbhajan using a Hindi phrase that could have been mis-heard as him saying %u201Cbig monkey%u201D in English.
Yet crucially, at the hearing held after the match, while denying he used the word %u2018monkey%u2019, Harbhajan admitted there was general abuse between him and Symonds, but did not clarify what he did actually say, nor that it was not in English.
Indian officials now plan to make those facts clear when a
RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 03:19 AM
Indian officials now plan to make those facts clear when a New Zealand judge hears their appeal on behalf of the International Cricket Council.
But as one source at the first hearing told me, "had the Indians made it clear that Harbhajan had not spoken in English, then match referee Mike Procter would have had to acquit him on the grounds it was a misunderstanding.%u201D
Why Harbhajan did not make this clear to Procter is not obvious, but may in part be down to the curious way the hearing was held.
As we know, the hearing went on for four and a half hours late into last Sunday night and saw Procter ultimately conclude that Harbhajan had racially abused Symonds and ban him for three Tests.
But there is no transcript.
In fact, the only written reports of the hearing are the notes of Nigel Peters, a QC and MCC committee member, who has since returned to England where he is currently engaged in tutoring judges.
His involvement with the hearing was somewhat coincidental. He happened to be in Sydney on holiday to watch the Test, and was roped in fairly late in the day by ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed.
The Indians also seemingly did not take the hearing seriously. They went in without a lawyer and left their advocacy to manager Chetan Chauhan. Although Chauhan has been a politician, he is hardly trained to do the sort of legal work a hearing like this requires. At one stage during the hearing, Chauhan apparently had to be advised by the ICC's legal representati
RE:RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 03:19 AM
Chetan Chauhan. Although Chauhan has been a politician, he is hardly trained to do the sort of legal work a hearing like this requires. At one stage during the hearing, Chauhan apparently had to be advised by the ICC's legal representative that he should not make statements but actually ask questions of the Australians if he wanted to advance his case.
One source at the hearing told me: "If the Indians had a lawyer they would have made mashed potatoes of the hearing."
Instead they appeared to rely heavily on the fact that Sachin Tendulkar was going into bat for Harbhajan. Tendulkar has a god-like status in India and his integrity is beyond reproach and he told the hearing he did not hear Harbhajan use the word %u2018monkey%u2019.
But as far as Procter was concerned, this was not as convincing as the Australian testimony, because Tendulkar was at the other end of the wicket when Symonds and Harbhajan exchanged words. And he only joined in after Harbhajan had gestured to him to come to his rescue.
Umpire Steve Bucknor, who filed the report on the incident after receiving the complaint from Ricky Ponting, also did not hear what Harbhajan said. He heard Symonds%u2019 initial words, prompted by Harbhajan patting Brett Lee%u2019s back with his bat. But taking it to be jokey banter, Bucknor kept on walking to square-leg.
In weighing up the evidence he did have in front of him, Procter also however took into account that there was %u2018previous%u2019 between Harbhajan and Symonds, during last autu
RE:RE:RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 03:20 AM
In weighing up the evidence he did have in front of him, Procter also however took into account that there was %u2018previous%u2019 between Harbhajan and Symonds, during last autumn%u2019s Australian tour of India when monkey chants were directed at Symonds by the Indian crowd.
And the Australians, in their submission, while admitting they are the so-called kings of sledging, argued the use of the word %u2018monkey%u2019 raised it to a new and unacceptable level. They also referred to the fact that monkey chants have in the past been used by English football crowds against black players.
Chauhan tried to counter by saying the word %u2018monkey%u2019 is held by many Indians to refer to a god, and it is not considered offensive in India in the same way it would be in the West.
But all that cut little ice with Procter.
And the detail of this whole affair shows just why Harbhajan and the Indians have plenty of lessons to learn.
RE:judge for yourself
by yogesh malhotra on Jan 16, 2008 07:55 AM
Why do Australians have to lie so much to get their point across--like u aaa? You lie a lot. Anyone who saw TV can see easily that the whole thing was being heard by tendu symmo and harbie. there was no other Australian close to hearing it. Yet they all lied to get back at him. watch it again and again and u will see--i have watched it about 50 times. Only three people could have heard it--the rest of the aussies(sissies?) can in no way have heard anything. so how can the match refree go by the word of such clear liars. I dont what stupid people were at the hearing but in no way can u sentence anyone on that kinda evidence. on the basis of this trial Procter should easily be put behind bars for an year for destroying justice
RE:RE:RE:RE:judge for yourself
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 04:52 AM
Sachin Tendulakar's integratity is much much more than all australian combined. So sachin's word should have to be taken into cionsideration. Whole worls have seen how much cheating is done by Australians in the second test. Also how shamelessly they stood on the crease even if there were out. Aussie player thinks that if they make run then Indian company will give them advertisement contract. So they stand there even if they are out.
RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:51 AM
Nope. Tendulkar and neither was anyone near Harbhajan. Hayden was closer to him. I did watch it on channel 9 which is what one of the channels herein canada picks up.
RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 07:15 AM
Not likely. When Harbhajan called Symonds and Symonds walked upto him There was no Tendulkar. Yep that bas*ard who owns 12 channels and thinks he can demand anything. Thanks to the bl88dy CRTC.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:judge for yourself
by Lotiya Pathan on Jan 15, 2008 06:49 AM
Mr. aaaa i also watched the game and I even have it recorded and I will be happy to send you if let me know how to get it out of my tivo. Symond said something and Bhajji called him to come close, Tendul walked to bhajji. Only person who was in the frame besides Bhajji and SYmond was Tendulya. The another nearest person was Hayden (only his head was visible but no where close to the incident), where is Gilchirst, Ponting and Clark were no where to be found.. Now even even doubted Hayden even understood what Bhajji said as he wasn't even near by..
RE:judge for yourself
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:33 AM
BTW i did watch the entire match. And in that episode Tendulkar was not even in the picture during the early stages. Harbhajan called Symonds and then gave it to him. Only afyer a few minutes did Tendulkar came over and then the umpire Bucknore came over.
RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:judge for yourself
by Lotiya Pathan on Jan 15, 2008 06:58 AM
Nope.. Tandulya was right there talking and smiling.. Only Hayden's head was visible as he was easily a few yards away. I also watched on the Canadien channel called CBN, and they were showing Channel 9 telecast
RE:judge for yourself
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 03:51 AM
The only ones who need to learn any lesson here are the Aussies and their cohorts- a lesson in morality, honesty, truthfulness, and everything else that goes into making a man a civilized human being.
Gavaskar is writing this beacuse he knows it and has faced it it was very hard for these blokes accept the fact that here was a brwn guy who was absolutely master batsmen and could master and blast any attack at will. I dont want debates fro own country people on it.If ousider challenges it I will prove it. He perseverd these hurdles and prevailed. However, his comments about racism are very correct. Just a very simple example and very recent. Yuvraj sing when was given wrongly out in the first test [MCG BOXING DAY 2007] he stood his ground the result he is pulled up for showing dissent. The chairman of ICC even tells MR PROCTOR why you didnot penalize him [THIS IS IN THE BACKDROP OF WRONG VERDICT TO YUVRAJ] In second test all these rascals PONTING/HUSSEY/SYMONDS/CLARKE not not only benifited by partisan umpairing but sttod there ground shamelessly and waited every time wven when they were clearly out and you should have seen the way that overrated ponting [60% centuries scored in his own back yard and Average of Mr. Ponting in India against india 12.82] hen he was declared leg before glared at umpire mutterd and threw tantrums but no action against him why. Michael clarke for lying about the catch why he should not be charged for cheating. These white guys think that whatever they do is simply corect but if other guy does something than the rule book be applied and if hey want to victimise gang up and cook stories to harm him.
RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 02:58 AM
right gavaskar has worked with them for long years to come up with that comment. Everytime he played they were opposite teams. No wonder he has accumulated animosity.
ICC needs to change and as you said they bungled up too.o many things in the second test. Even in the first test Procter missed Yuvraj's dissent.
Anyways "It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport ... It was a rotten contest that singularly failed to elevate the spirit." Peter Roebuck delivers his verdict on the second Australia-India Test in the Sydney Morning Herald
RE:RE:Gavaskar
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 03:23 AM
We all know which team played with victory and vengeance as their sole motivating factor. So, it would be redundant to pinpoint at whom Roebuck's comment was targeted.
RE:RE:RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:26 AM
The quote was not redundant. That is why you folks should read papers from Australia and some good papers in india(more than tabloid).
Same Roebuck called for axing Ponting, clarke and had 80% people from Australia supporting his call.
RE:Gavaskar
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 05:46 AM
I said pointing out who the quote is targeted at is redundant, never said the quote itself is.
And Haha...I asked one of these Aussies trolls on this forum to read the same article and his reply to me was "Nah, Roebuck is a POM, won't read him". And here comes another who is asking us to read it. Comical irony that!
RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:36 AM
you dont get it do you? If you do care to read my postings in this very page then you will realize i worry about the sport. I did not condone the behaviour of Team Australia and that is precisely the reason why i wrote to CA.
I did not like the way umpiring was done and that is why i wrote to ICC. I even got reply from them.
Dont take the cheap copout of simply posting it here.
If you want india to play under the ICC thing then be a reason for change. Write to ICC/CA/BCCI or else write to ICL/IPL/the firms who give fat money to Australia cricketers.
RE:RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:49 AM
btw welcome to life and world where there are plentitude of issues. This is it. I guess you are going to write to ICL/IPL about withdrawing contracts to Aussie cricketers then.. Good luck.
RE:RE:Gavaskar
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 06:32 AM
Dude take a deep breath. And then read my message again. I was quoting one of ur cohorts, who said that he won't read Roebuck cuz he is a POM. And here you're asking me to read the same article, which I having read had asked your fellow aussie to peruse, but he refused to do so- his reason being Roebuck being a POM is not worth reading. If that's not bigotry, what is?
RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 07:55 PM
Dude - you are certainly not the one who should enter into a conversation (for expanding) and nor should people like me should talk to you.
To you every indian has to be proindian and everything happens to be antiindian.
Who asks for the name of someone via a public forum and then trashes the same person some time later. Nice one.
RE:Gavaskar
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:48 AM
giving up. you quote one example of richards and thereby draw conclusion for the entire windies? So what is it then.... Nothing is black and white as you would like to think.
RE:Gavaskar
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 06:45 AM
Another absolutely irrelevant reply. Every time you start losing it, you go haywire with your arguments. From quoting Roebuck to over-reading my post and accusing me of typecasting to mouthing platitudes about being genuinely concerned about cricket. Dude pick one and stick to it.
RE:Gavaskar
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 05:00 AM
People will remeber this match because: - Umpiler made 8:1 "bad" calls in favor of Aussie - Symonds made false racial charge on a bawler who was a biggest threat to Pointing's batting. - Aussie's captain made false catch appeal, stood on the wicket even after he was out. So he failed to saw slightest integrity as a player and as a captain. - World's greatest opener said following words for Aussie captain: "How can a person is honest when he is fieding but not so honest when he is batting. This is utter nonsense".
During their occupation of the African lands and parts of Asia, given how easy it had become for them to rule over the people in these lands, Europeans in general decided that they were the superior race.
The reason behind that was clearly their skin color. This meant that they would have to research and prove this. They actually did this in Africa and followed the principle that said anyone with lighter skin color will be the leader of the rest in their classification of labor.
They found that in India, the lighter skin color was among the Brahmins and the Kings. They ignored the fact that one sect spent most of its time inside a temple or in a house praying or learning while the other was happy inside large palaces built.
The rest of the country was out in the sun toiling away and hence was darker. You will see that the hotter the climate the darker the person even within the confines of our small country.
Instead of seeing this as a stupid theory, the two sects which were enslaved but still believed they were rulers, decided to tell the rest of India that they were superior because they were lighter skinned.
Today we continue to fight this even though we are free. Think about it, Lord Rama for whom millions are ready to die was BLACK. He was the first evolution of a MAN on our land according to our Puranas.
We on the other hand want to say white is right even within the country and are not ready to change the whole thing and push our thinking out.
What we consider religious text is in reality our dictionary to evolution.
Dasavataras start with the following:
1. Mastyavatara was the first of all avataras of lord vishnu. This depicted a world with no humans and full of water.
2. THis was followed by Kurmavatara. THis is a stage where the only living beings were mamals and fish. This is the next stage of evolution. Tortis started roaming the land.
3. THis was followed by Varaha which is mamals.
4. Narasimha which is the half man half lion.
5. Vamana -- Human but short fighting beasts and rakshsas
6. Rama -- the perfect king who lived along side an evolving human. He being the most evolved human. Rama is also known to be dark. "neela megha syama".
That is the reason by Krishnavatara there are no half humans. There is power and people taking over the world. This is our story of evolution. We as Indians even if we call someone a monkey can look back and say we called them something similar to Hanuman the most powerful of all and the most courageous of all beings on earth.
Us calling someone a monkey has nothing associated with it. We never enslaved anyone. Instead our puranas are all about being righteous. This distortion by color is an invention of the Europeans and the stupid people that bought into it. There is some kind of supreme stupidity that seems to be plauging the country. They are discriminating among their own as dark light. There is history behind this as well.
We are really the ones that are constanly trying to fight something and change things within a system created by the white man. If you look closely, the whole system is set up in such a way that it suits white people because we let them set up the system.
Think about this racial discrimination suit:
1. Whites are the ones that called all Africans Monkeys because they said "black people look like monkies".
2. Then this term monkey becomes a racist term. It does not matter if we call each other monkies in India. My mom always used to call us monkies if we jumped up and down.
3. Since the black people were enslaved by these white men and taken to places like the US to slave away for them, then subjected to attrocities such as rape, lynching, physical torture, servitude, papers trying to describe black people as a race as inferior, measuring skulls and their genitals and saying they are like any animals that cannot control their emotions and the list goes on.
4. This is the white man's guilt of having subjected another human being to this kind of treatment for centuries.
5. Now the white man wants to look all white so, he talks about equality etc as if it is something he invented!!!
6. In India we know the story of Rama that lived along side a set of evolving human. Ramayana is 1.84 million years old according to our text. That is the reason there is a Monkey God in Hanuman. We worship him for his strength.
Read Mihir Bose's column on BBC website before commenting. Sure Gavaskar, who has lived only in India, thinks he can pull the race card.
What a shame? Clearly shows people dont mature with age unlike wine. Either you have it or dont.
Again before you become emotional read Minhr Bose's column where the BCCI/Team India really spoilt itself during the hearing. 1) By not calling upon the services of an attorney to represent themselves.
Surely BCCI/Team India should take the opportunity to learn the art of diplomacy.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 03:23 AM
People like you are no diffrent than chuck. You should be banned from this site for making irrational comments.
RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 03:45 AM
Why u going all ballistic on me, Sam? My comment was not irrational. The aussies on this forum have been trying to cover up the cheating issue with this issue of racism. People who argue just for the sake of arguing, and talk out of context to defend a case that's not even related to this entire racism issue should be subjected to comments as the one I made above.
RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:28 AM
And god only knows how the west indians players were taunted by the indians right from the 1980s. That time ICC did not have rules for racism and it was free for the fans.
RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:19 AM
For you Tendulkar is god. I do agree that he is good. But there are always two sides to any dispute.
If you did care to read some of the Aussie papers then you would have realized that the Aussie team got roasted for their bad behaviour. So i am not arguign for the sake of arguing. Same Peter Roebuck called for the head of Ponting, again you should have read some of the Aussie papers or The hindu.
I am asking again if it were some other player from outside Mumbai like Dravid would the same Gavaskar say exactly what he said.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 05:52 AM
Yes, that's why Viv Richards was happily endorsing the Reliance products, and even got Neena Gupta pregnant. Why, even Gary Sobers had an affair with Anju Mahendru. All this while Indias were acting racially belligerent toward the West Indians.
RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 07:57 PM
One example does NOT mean anything. Talk to windies indian and then you will hear what they experienced at the hand of blakcs.
Again just because Barry Richards said about the batting order is he racist? The same Richards glorified Tendulkar's batting. So what is he then?
RE:Geez people
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 04:45 AM
Sorry Pal. My comments was not for you. It was for it whoes name is "aaaa" I know you are 100% rational and only pointing out the true facts. Thanks.
RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:22 AM
Racism exists even in india. If you did care to watch what happened in Mumbai a shameful act then you would cool down.
100 of people flaunting fu*ck off sign is simply not it. Afterall they claim mumbai to be cosmopolitan.
to you guys everything has to be proindian and for those people who bashed the indian fans when the aussie team toured last time india is always a coolie land. What a world are we living? Eventhough germans, portugese, chinese etc., were tried, tested and used as coolies.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 06:27 AM
I didn't brand Viv Richards as anything. You read too much between lines. My point was if Indians would've been racist toward the carribeans, would Richards ever Indian brands, date an Indian girl, and also have a baby with her, whom they'd happily named Masaba (the african princess)? Would Sobers be also having an affair with an Indian girl? Or would Gavaskar name his son after Rohan Kanhai?
RE:RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 05:49 AM
Why not? What makes you think he wouldn't have? Just cuz a vichy intellectual by the name of Mihir Bose suggests so?
RE:RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:02 AM
makes sense to me. Not for emotional one sided people perhaps. Team india failed miserably to get a lawyer with all its money.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 03:22 AM
don't compare a Mumbaikar with low life Aussue. Looksm like your no better than those low life creatures.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Bihar Badshah on Jan 15, 2008 04:19 AM
Reid and Berry Richard combine cannot reach to the cricketing level(skill) Great Sunil Gavaskar had reached, if sunny who was a great diplomat says so we indians believe it..No more discussion..Berry was a product of Aparthied era like Mike Proctor..Ried is a spillout effect..Do not even bother to read his name, he was ordinary bloke in cricket..
RE:RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:24 AM
If you put all the south africans as racist then what about all mumbaikers. Afterall 100 plus people flaunted fu*ck off sign at the Aussies.
RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 05:42 AM
I thought the F-word and the B-word were all colloquialisms for aussies- oh, forgot only when they use, but not when others do the same. Dude, don't even talk about hypocrisy.
RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:01 AM
I quoted a link about the crowd in Madras clapping the victorious pakistani team and the rediff does not like it. It is in cricinfo.
Anyways it was not Aussies that complained about crowd showing that sign. It was indians who were sitting in that match. We all saw a couple of them went to show monkey posture. Nice people.
RE:RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 06:29 AM
Oh, first it was a unruly crowd of 100 displaying an F-off placard, and now 2 of them went on to do the monkey sign. Great going dude.
RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 06:25 AM
as i said the 2 of the guys in that party went on to do the monkey sign. A little bit of further emotion a few more would have joined the parte.
RE:Geez people
by Troll Patrol on Jan 15, 2008 06:22 AM
But you specifically pointed out the F-off incident, and to prove that it was racist in intent. Now prove, how in the world was it racist.
RE:RE:Geez people
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 07:58 PM
Abolustely; the 2 among the 100 charged up people got carried away. I still find fault with all the 100 plus people. It is very ugly and people claim Mumbai is cosmopolitan?
Cases like Rashid Latif's & the West Indies keeper (I forget the name) come to mind. When the ICC could ban these folks for unfairly claiming a catch, why can't the same rule apply to Ricky Ponting & Mike Clarke?
The ICC must set an example of a white man, till then I am afraid, fair is foul.
RE:The white man isn't always fair
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 03:12 AM
Who else is fair? We experience racism when we lead our daily lives. 1) Have you spoken to indians from carribean...Blacks thought indians were/are weird... 2) What about indians on indians? 3) What about chinese on indians? 4) what about arabs on indians?
The whole world negativity and less tolerance has been rampant. Team India messed up by not taking the hearing seriously and thereby did not avail the services of attorney.
They kept telling repeatedly that believe what Tendulkar says and Monkey is a God in Hinduism. They should have said Harbhajan said it in hindi and that would have given 100% rooms for the case dismissal.
BTW why did they file for Hogg's word. As per reports(indian) that word was not even in the NOT TO MENTION list that the captains exchanged.
RE:RE:The white man isn't always fair
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 03:19 AM
you are putting same allegation like monkey put on an Indian. Show us the proof. If you don't have it then just go out and practice begging. You will need this profession after couple years.
RE:The white man isn't always fair
by aaaa on Jan 15, 2008 05:31 AM
i can't have proof at my fingertips for people like you. DO your research and it will help you think even- not passionately on any one side. We were not in the thick of things to know what transpired in the Sydney Test.
I am sure 80% of the people did not even watch the game and read one or few reports.
How many of you wrote to the ICC? I did many times and even got replies. If you dont believe by writing to the ICC things wont change then you should hold placards and ask the Indian team not to play ICC Sponsored cricket anymore.
RE:The white man isn't always fair
by Sam on Jan 15, 2008 03:14 AM
Gavaskar just said that justice is denied to Bhajji. We all know that it is the fact.
but at least the Aussie and British know that it ain't the same as colonial era now. These glaring disparities between handaling the south asian team and white teams are just too huge to ignore. There is no smoke without fire. South asians have been meek for far too long, maybe we should make the same noise as blacks do in America. What we want is a level playing field and not the decision making to be shifted to India's favor if we have the most money.
You can not get a justice from white man from the rule they wrote. Rules are positively applied to them, because they were written for them. They play hook or crook game in the case of other race. They never expected India will dominate the game with money power. They have to become slaves of their own rules.
