Harbhajan race row - case closed

Finally, there is some closure to the Harbhajan Singh racism controversy after Judge John Hansen cleared him of the racial abuse charge, and instead penalized him for using abusive language. The full text of Hansen's judgement can be found here.

Compared to how Mike Procter, the ICC match referee handled the same case, Hansen seems to have approached the issue much more methodically and sensibly. He has documented the evidence, explained his analysis and justified his conclusions, leaving no room for debate.  If only Mike Procter had handled the issue similarly, there wouldn't have been so much drama!

Earlier, when Harbhajan was first banned, I had blogged that though Harbhajan should be punished, he shouldn't be named a racist. Echoing similar sentiments, Judge Hansen in his report says -

"...But in my view even if he had used the words “alleged” an “ordinary person” standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of 3.3..."

He is essentially implying that even if Harbhajan had used the word 'monkey', he still would have cleared him off the racial abuse charge!

Harbhajan Singh a racist?

Harbhajan Singh has been banned for three test matches effectively cutting short his Australian tour after he was found guilty of racism for calling Andrew Symonds a "monkey" during the second test match of the ongoing India-Australia test series. In the words of Mike Procter the match referee - "I am satisfied 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."

A three match ban for calling someone a monkey?! And how in hell did it constitute racism?! I mean I call my daughter a "naughty little monkey" as an endearment! At first glance the complaint itself sounds silly and the punishment unfair. But, there is some history to this story - when the Australians toured India in Oct 2007,  Symonds was called a monkey by certain sections of the crowd first in Vadodara and later in Mumbai and Symonds took offence to that as being racist. Then too there was a debate as to whether to interpret the crowd's behavior as a racial comment or merely as a playful taunt to Symonds' perceived boorish antics. We would never know what those people were really thinking when they were taunting him, but we definitely know for sure how Symonds felt - insulted, humiliated and a victim of racism. And that by itself is reason enough to stop calling him that. While it is highly arguable that the crowd behavior in Vadodara wasn't racist, it's a separate debate; Once Symonds explicitly took offense to that behavior as being racist, it is reasonable to expect any decent human being to stop insulting him like that. The Mumbai crowd didn't, and hence their behavior inexcusable. And for the same reason, Harbhajan's behavior is also inexcusable.

Does this mean Harbhajan is a racist? No, I don't think so. There was a lot of chirping from the Australians when Harbhajan was batting and it is totally plausible that Symonds said or did something to really offend Harbhajan and Harbhajan responded in kind. I believe Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey not because of his ethnicity or race but because he knew it would tick him off. So, while I agree with Mike Procter punishing Harbhajan, I am not convinced that "he (Harbhajan) meant it to offend on the basis of Symonds' race or ethnic origin".

On the other hand, this incident should have never escalated up to the match referee in the first place. Every team sledges, Australians more so than others; and every individual has his own level of tolerance for what is over the limit and what is within (remember the jelly bean incident with Zaheer Khan?). If the Australians felt that Harbhajan was crossing the line, they should have first tried to work things out by talking to the Indian captain off field instead of running to the umpires. Aren't they the ones who advocate the "what's said in the field remains in the field" argument? Its just shameful that an issue which could have been easily solved over a couple of beers has been escalated to a player being banned.