Yes, panikkar said it...India should not be allowed to dominate. But Australia can dominate..Or the white can dominate and all those wagging their tails before such dominating countries also can dominate. What is India's fault? It is richer....so it should lick the ugly feet of those dominating teams...As a matter of fact those who are spelling mistakes always wag their tails before arrogant nations, teams, or Boards.... I offer a lot many bangles to Panikkar for his originating ideas
Now that it has been proved that Harbhajan did racially taunt Symonds with "monkey" in India, do Indians agree that if Symonds had reported him, Harbhajan deserved punishment (similar to Lehmann)???
I would have thought it was to Symonds' credit that he first chose to be mature, left it on the field and told Harbhajan privately that he would report him if he said it again!
I agree this is of no relevance to current proceedings, except for the fact that Harbhajan can't say "Oh I didn't know it was offensive".
RE:The Harbhajan matter
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 06:34 AM Permalink
Mr. Mammen: Firstly wipe it off your mind (and completely wipe it off if you possibly can) that the "monkey" business in India has anything to do with racism.
An average Indian fan doesn't even know that Symonds is black. He is a lot lot fairer than most Indians. For an average Indian fan, he is just an Aussie. I am sure more than 90% of Indian fans won't even know where he originally hails from. So please get that right.
The Indian fans just didn't tolerate his boorish behaviour and arrogance on field, and took to his appearance, especially his white lipstick. And that is (contrary to whoever, wherever believes otherwise) the only explanation for those taunting episodes.
Bhajji probably taunted him with "monkey" in India just to needle him, and he has every right to do that, the same as every Aussie has been needling all opponents post-Bradman era.
It's just that Aussies have devised a fantastic way to block anyone needling one-of-their-own, by labelling as "racist" anybody who makes fun of their precious Roy.
RE:The Harbhajan matter
by Indian on Jan 09, 2008 07:12 AM Permalink
And secondly, in his defense Harbhajan DID NOT say "Oh I didn't know it was offensive"; he completely denied saying the monkey word.
Now that we are discussing this like two mature people, let me bring another aside to this. Alan Border has magnanimously offered his opinion that this is all just a cultural misunderstanding etc. etc. equating the word monkey (in Indian context) with the B word (in Aussie context). I find it funny in the wake of your argument hailing Symonds' maturity. This so called maturity (nay patience) lasted only for 2 instances (assuming Bhajji said it again, which incidentally he DIDN'T, so actually the patience cracked during the first instance itself and then became a vendetta that incidentally also benefits Punter the Bunny). Whereas Indians have been displaying this maturity for decades now. If Alan knows that B word has always hurted the Indians, yet Aussies keep using it and claim sledging is their birthright, and yet Indians don't report anyone, then its a far far higher maturity that has been on display for anyone to see. Its just a pity that the Aussies won't appreciate it, and express a collective shock when a certain Hogg is eventually reported as a "last straw on camel's back syndrome"; and go further to label the entire Indian race as being sooks and bad losers and what nots.
RE:The Harbhajan matter
by Dev Purkayastha on Jan 09, 2008 07:51 AM Permalink
Why do you believe Symmonds and disbelieve Harbhajan? What am I missing here? If you know that Singh is a liar please share it with us. On the other hand what was the crack Mr. Symonds admits he made to Singh during the Sidney match? Aussies invented sledging, and they have been indulging in it for many years. Now they find the Indians sledging them offensive? Give me a break. Those whol live in glass houses should not throw stones.
In this case: (a) the BCCI doesn't agree with the guilty finding (as is their right, I also don't agree with it) (b) unless Proctor has something concrete to go on in making such a finding "beyond a reasonable doubt", it must be overturned on appeal (c) if the BCCI/Indians have something definitive to contradict this, come out publicly with it; (d) again, it is the BCCI's right to appeal; BUT (e) IT IS NOT within the SPIRIT OF THE GAME to tell your team to sit in Sydney whilst awaiting the outcome of the appeal. This is an unequivocally veiled threat to the ICC's power.
If Craddock has a problem with the BCCI even appealing, then on this point I vehemently disagree.
The right thing to do was for the BCCI to say "we think the umpiring has been abysmal and are not happy, but in the interests of the world game, we will continue with the series, but are undoubtedly appealing Proctor's decision which we belive has no merit and no foundation".
Look at the disgust from respected Clive Lloyd re: the removal of Bucknor this morning.
The analogy I would draw is the young boy in the Kerala backwaters who is the only person with a bat and ball in his village - gets given out unfairly and says to the others "if you don't let me back in, I'm taking my bat and ball away". Yes, this is far more serious, but no-one in their right mind can say the hearing was without basic merit given the admission Harbhajan said it before.
RE:BCCI Actions
by Kaushik Das on Jan 09, 2008 06:06 AM Permalink
Good points but I fail to see what's bad in having the team stay put in Sydney awaiting the decision.
Pulling out can be considered a option - need not always be a threat. I feel aussies have this tendency that when things go wrong, they claim - threat! threat! Especially when they are at the receiving end.
It's easier if I just repost my comments last night, starting with umpiring.
I'm still amazed at views that: (a) the umpiring was corrupt/biased (b) there is an anti-Indian/subcontinental conspiracy (c) it only seems to happen in favour of Australia (d) India always suffers; and (e) it's time to take a stand.
Is there a sudden preponderance of Indian supporters forgetting to take their medication?
1. Let us go back to Bucknor saving India with umpiring errors at Lords last summer (not to excuse his falling standards, just to dispel the anti-Indian conspiracy)
2. Let us go back to the good old days of the 70s and 80s where you couldn't get equality in the subcontinent for love or for money (pardon the pun). Only the innocent should throw stones!
3. Consider the following decisions in Sydney (a) Ponting out off inside edge LBW (b) Lee out hit outside the line LBW (c) Laxman plumb LBW to Lee early in 100 innings (d) Tendulkar plumb LBW to Lee early in 150 innings
Now these decisions still pale into a degree of insignificance given the bad decisions copped by the Indians, but since when is this new? All this is definitive proof of is bad umpiring, rather than any bias.
And I'm afraid it is in the Indian psyche to point fingers anywhere but internally when things go wrong - it's not our inability to bat 72 overs on a perfectly good pitch, nor our inability to finish the tail from 6-130, it is the umpires.
RE:Umpiring - bad, not biased
by Kaushik Das on Jan 09, 2008 06:04 AM Permalink
Agreed, this is about bad umpiring. Bucknor has given bad decisions for decades now (against all teams) and he is too egoistic to accept it. However, there is no point in asking ponting for a decision (as if he is the 4th umpire) and that WAS bad - may still not be biased but BAD it definitely is.
I am in agreement with Mr Panikkar for most part.I feel that the BCCI should pressurize the ICC to annul the test match not withstanding the fact that Tendulkar's century etc will get wiped off.It is better than a result which just is not correct.If the umpires had erred once or twice,it is OK but repeated mistakes does confirm the belief that the umpires were hand in glove with the Aussies to ensure that the team records its straight 16th victory.A shameful victory to say the least.To add insult to injury,the man Ponting could never face comfortably,Bhajji has been banned by the Match referee for 3 test matches.I have always felt that the match referees are generally harsh on the Asian teams and the "white"teams go scot free.I remember Mr Procter was the match referee in that shameful test between England and Pakistan.He did nothing then and did nothing of note except banning Bhajji.The question of domination does not arise.If the reported news of filing a review with the ICC is domination,so be it.Let ICC remember that without India and the revenues BCCI generates,ICC will be in doldrums.The Australians have always been cheats and I was not surprised.Gilchrist,Clarke and Ponting should hang their heads in shame.I have not understood why the Aussies always get the benefit of marginal decisions either while batting or when bowling.When they bat,the umpires are deaf to hear the noise or blind to see the edge and when the opponents bat,non existent edges are seen and heard.
Who the hell is this Prem Panicker !!! Sounds like an ancient bollywood character. Can someone plz ask him to make his article precise and clear? It seems he is jus trying to experiment with English Literature.
Honestly speaking all solutions are short term. Do you remember what happened in the past incidents? ICC did not recognise the match when Indian team played their banned players. PCB is far wiser than BCCI. Hair is nowhere seen near cricket grounds any more and ICC accepted that Pakistan did not tamper with the ball. BCCI as usual will compromise in the end. Believe it or not!
They think 'bas---', 'f---' are all acceptable words because they are not racist words, whereas Indian will accept themselves being called 'brown', 'monkey'. But they will never accept being called 'bas----' or other 'f---' words. ICC's anti-racial policy is against asians only because ICC is run by racist non-asian people who have nothing to do with cricket and do not recognise other cultures.
What's wrong if India starts controlling cricket? After all India is pouring so much of Money cricket into cricket, but the end result is they are the worst affected because of poor umpiring, biased referees, cheating and racism. The real long term solution is to either take control of ICC or run a parallel ICC controlled by BCCI. Float the new body in Indian stock market and let professionals (not politicians) control the game. The players will switch where money flows! IPL is a good start. But BCCI can extend this to all forms of cricket and start their affiliated boards in other countries. It is perfectly possible to break ICC's monopoly. I think that is the only long term solution to this issue.
