Tuesday, 29 January 2008

So TMK It Was After All

The racism charges against Harbhajan were found to be unfounded by Justice John Hansen hearing the appeals.

He however found Harbhajan guilty of using abusive language, to which charge, Harbhajan pleaded guilty. So it was the TMK phrase after all. I guess all those who jumped the gun, Symonds, Hayden, Ponting, Australian media, Mike Proctor, forummers, including the foul spammer visiting here (whose two comments I have been deleting for their religiously inflammatory nature...he also posts on some of the blogs I visit) should come forward and apologize for calling Harbhajan, Indians and BCCI all sorts of things.

One did suggest that there could have been a misunderstanding of the language earlier, but the whole thing was so good to latch on to that reason went out of the window.

Of course the Australian media tried its best till the last moment to continue with its warped, manipulative set-up which began ever since Australia lost the T20 match, and included planting words into people's mouths, selective and out-of-context projection of events, baiting of an entire population (I mean the poor Australian cricket-loving public who were made to swallow what they might not have in a saner frame of mind, besides some Indians who fell for it hook, line and sinker). The Australian media, who were making pots of money out of creating something out of thin air, and putting their hired article writer, Symonds, at the forefront of the elaborate drama since the T20, also tried to introduce some so-called stump mike converstaion transcripts in some very suspicious circumstances. I mean there wasn't any evidence according to all earlier...then on that day the stump mike feed is removed from telecast going to India so we cannot judge for ourselves, and lo and behold, the drama is enacted on the field! And they didn't anticipate an appeal after the kangaroo court of Mike Proctor (time action was taken against this person who has proved to be actually a very tiny one...he has lost my respect for him as a cricketer too), so the "transcripts" weren't "avialable" then. But when the appeal did come about and India didn't roll over and die, some bright idi@t in that set-up scheme decided a "transcript" could be created and "introduced."

As with all illegal activities, no matter how meticulously planned, some loose ends are left which give it all away. As it was here...shame!

I had been urging people to consider the possibility of misunderstanding a Punjabi abuse phrase which Harbhajan uses so frequently. We have heard him use it on stump mike and seen the lip-synch on cameras. Maybe the people involved in raising this bogey were actuially aware of its true meaning and yet went ahead because it was too good to be true! Here was a Punjabi abuse phrase which sounded like "monkey" and here was an Indian player prone to use it in his sleep....why not target him and provoke him to use it and cry foul!

I remember how the Australian and Indian media went to town when the Australians were in India...and there were any number of Indians too who believed that and went ahead according to script and landed themselves in trouble without reflecting on the game being played. They actually believed it was monkey and obliged the Australia media plants in the crowd by making apes of themselves. They deserved to have their unthinking butts hauled to whichever lock-up they were hauled into.


"TMK" in Punjabi is about as offensive as "Lucky B" in Australian. It depends upon the individuals concerned. And is used as frequently as Luck B is in Australia and in the same contexts as well. If you choose to look at Luck B as an abuse, you may also look at TMK as an abuse. I have mentioned in forums before (the ones listed on this site) that I have actually heard TMK even used as a terms of endearment between a couple in the old hard-core, "theth" Punjabi areas of Karol Bagh and Dev Nagar in Delhi. I merely suggested everywhere that this could be a case of misunderstanding, without once defending or discounting the racist charge! I did say, if found guilty, punish the B, but consider that such could have also been the case. Be fair in how you judge.

My one post, "Lucky B Symonds" to illustrate the power of words in riling up, using the words brought to us by Bradd Hogg (I don't get offended easily by such language anyway...I understand what it means and context of use and I'm not a bigger fool than I already am to jump around beating my chest because of the B in it.) was enough to get the goat...at least of a first-time commentator here who went ahead and abused my religion in two posts which I have deleted. (I am having to modify comments since...my apologies). I have no use for posts such as those.

I didn't mention anyone's religion or race in my post! I used only words given to us by Bradd Hogg. So why does that incognito person have to abuse my religion?

Such was the role played by the Australian media there and Indian media here. They used simple words to agitate normally sane people.

It is with such unthinking bandwagonists that the atmosphere is vitiated and conspirators prosper. A simple reflection and giving some unbiased ear to what something is suggested in a debate as a possibility, might have made all this unnecessary.

Now we can get on with cricket and hopefully Symonds will apply more thought before making an ass of himself in future. Drat! I've done it now...I've called him an ass! I hope I'm not racist...but I'm just using the common English usage of the phrase "making an ass of oneself." And let us not now hear that BCCI has so much influence that it can hold a New Zealand Judge by the ear! The next we'll hear is BCCI has enough influence to make the sun rise from the west! They have some, but again, vesteted interests have blow it out of proportions to suit their scheme of things.

I sincerely hope all this nonsense is behind us now.

17 comments:

scorpicity said...

Honestly, I did not care much on who said what but was pissed in the manner that hearing was conducted by Proctor... also fueled that it was well orchestrated script considering he failed to call several dissent cases on the Australian front.

The issue is put to rest thankfully and Harbhajan & Symonds signed their marriage agreement. As for Proctor, his marbles has to be squashed.

Soulberry said...

Scorpi, the amazing thing is there are people still wanting to hang on to their moronic misunderstanding. Take a look at BBC 606 today...it is full of the sh!tt by people who refuse to see that they could have been hasty and wrong in it all. There are sa few sane voices advocating a calmer understanding, but these are primed minds...

Proctor needs to be hauled over coals now. I would have said it even if it were not Harbhajan and Symonds involved...say Flintoff and Ponting or any such...this man made a fundamental mistake and was subjective rather than being an objective judge.

Mike Proctor must be punished if that's possible...he doesn't realize the gravity of his misinformed actions. If Harbhajan so chooses, he can sue the B's life-earnings out of his bank account. But I guess he'll forgive the unthinking man.

Time and his own conscience will punish this fellow, Mike Proctor.

Golandaaz said...

I lay this blame squarely on Ponting for being a cry baby. He did it to get rid of Harbhajan from the series. There are some ventures that have to succeed and once he played the race card anything short of a conviction grounded on facts was bound to blow up.

Procter is not a lawyer and if anyone the ICC has some lessons to learn. Trying to differentiate between racism and sledging is futile.

Also why is a personal attack (sledging) okay over attacking a race? I for one would be more offended if my person was attacked verbally than my race.

Another thing that is lost on me is how is utterence of a mere word supposed to prove racism. Racism can only be proven through consistent mis-actions over a long period of time.

John said...

Procter should not be vilified that fast. As difficult as it may be, we must try to believe that Procter was merely incompetent, not malicious.

He had to make a call, and he did so, based on a wrong understanding of the burden of proof required, the reliability of certain evidences etc.

Just as we dont send a judge to the gallows for giving a decision that is clearly wrong, the match refree too must be given the same space to make mistakes, and do so without fear.

John said...

SB,
Lets not throw Procter to the vultures just yet. Perhaps he was just incompetent and not really malicious. We need to give adjudicators the space to make wrong decisions. Just as we dont screw with a judge if a he makes a wrong decision.

BTW, excellent post.

mikesiva said...

SB, as you know, I have never had much confidence in Proctor. Here is a cricketer who plied his wares in apartheid South Africa without lifting a finger of protest in the way that Basil D'Oliveira did. Here is a cricketer who also played for apartheid Rhodesia, now known as Zimbabwe, without a concern for the oppressed black masses.

How can this person be a reliable judge of the use of a racist term?

Independent verification was essential, either from the umpires, or from the stump mikes. The word of a few mates does not stand up in a court of law, as I'm sure Justice John Hansen ruled....

John said...

SB,
I left a comment twice believing there was some kinda glitch which was preventing the first one from appearing.

Also, could you please change the url on my food blog link. It is now at http://foodwatchblog.blogspot.com

Soulberry said...

Well said Golandaaz and Mikey.

John, when one is in a responsible post or given such a responsibility which involves making decisions having serious repurcussions for either side, it is even more a test of character. When appointed a match refree, one is already aware of what the job entails. Seeing the way cricket is played these days, one is also aware that difficult situations will arise....there aren't men playing out there anymore but a set of prickly overgrown kids.

It is in this light that I hold Mike Proctor culpable. He did not discharge his duties fairly. He is not a judge, then why appoint him to a job which includes giving judgement in its description?

Can he make mistakes? Judges do, but far lesser in ratio to their overall burden of cases....how many such cases come up before a match refree in cricket?

Maybe once in 10-20-30 matches?

The failure to apply natural justice was glaring and the man was clearly inadequate when called upon to apply his best experience according to the prescribed protocol.

Why? Was it mere incompetence? Any ten year old involved in an argument with a fellow student will tell us that the teacher was unfair for believing only one side of the story and dispensing punishment accordingly.

The fair teacher would summon the parents of both and take them both to task if she wasn't a witness to what transpired or there wasn't evidence.

As Holmes would say, "It is elementary my dear Watson!"

It is the most elementary principle in even lay systems of justice. Forget the formal ones.

That he overlooked and thus left himself open to public speculation of his fairness besides competence to be a match refree.

I'm sorry John about the moderation...I'll just keep it on for a while for that poster who necessitated it perhaps thinks it is all a big game to post anything anywhere incognito. I may be an atheist, I may be a believer of some religion....I never abuse anothers faith, or lack of one, and neither tolerate the same from others. From his handle to his comments it is clear he was out to inflamme and provoke mocking the Hindu religion...a sorry WUM I don't have time or space for.

Brad Griggs said...

Proctor is typical of white South Africans. They kicked the crap out of blacks for 50 odd years under aparthied. Now the blacks run the country they have done a complete political 180 degree turn and see themselves as the world enforcers of political correctness.

This whole ordeal leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Excluding Harbhajan i think the Indian players have been the victims of the whole thing. The BCCI has used them as polical pawns , only good for blackmailing CA with.

Weather he said the "M" word or not i think the Aussie players used the whole situation as a strategic manuver. They were trying to put Harbhajan off his game when he was playing an important innings. So they threatened him with a racism charge. You can hear them doing it if you listen to the transcript. "you don't know what youve just said mate". I dont know what it's like in India but in Australia if you are labelled a racist your life is over. May as well be called a murderer or pedophile. It's hypocritical you cant say anything racist in public but at an all white gathering watch the slurs come out!

Anyway they were trying to threaten Harbhajan with the biggest shibboleth in Aussie pc culture. After the days play they thought 'we may as well run with this'. They thought a racism charge would make the Indian side crack. Unfortunately it's what the CIA call a blowback. It blew up in there face. India grew stronger and won the third test.

My opinion during this saga has really changed. As you guys know i am the biggest pro- Aussie you will meet. But i am ashamed of the actions of the Aussie players during this episode.

I am amazed you guys have handled it so well (excluding BCCI but thats just politics). You can hold your (frustrated!) heads high.

Thank you soulberry for a thought provoking post.

I think it's fair to say we are all Sikh to death of it!

Soulberry said...

And Brad, I hope Harbhajan has learnt the lesson of his life now.

I don't think he'll find many backers if he continues to behave obnoxiously on the field. being competitive, even fiercely so, is very different from plain boorishness.

It is time he understood that great cricket can be played without opening your mouth except for an appeal. (pun unintended)

We had a way with people who consistently used foul language in our team...those who couldn't respect their mates and opponents...we used to leave them out of the games. It used to work very well and didn't adversely affect their playing abilities either!

The Park said...

Soulberry,

I think you are lynching Procter without a proper trial. According to Peter Roebuck he asked that he not hear the case as he felt unqualified from a legal perspective to preside. That he came up with a questionable decision was almost inevitable when the rules of evidence are so blurred in these post match hearings by non-legal folks.

If higher appeals are going to take evidence as needing to be proved beyond doubt rather than a balance of probabilities we are continually going to run into these problems. Umpires act onfield with a balance of probability, yet we judge with the aid of technology on a beyond doubt basis. The same has occurred with Procter I suspect.

If it is true that Procter requested not to hear the trial and then judged on a balance of probability basis as required under ICC procedures than the ICC have hung him out to dry. These post match hearings are not true legal procedures, Procter has no legal training and players have no legal representation.

I think the ICC need to fix up their reporting procedure to let match referees rule on cricketing matters and refer other matters to a higher tribunal with a different burden of proof.

John said...

Soulberry,
True, so criticize him for his incompetence, and criticize the ICC for placing a clearly underqualified person in such a position.

Your conclusion that he bungled up such an obvious case is not that easy. The weight that needs to be associated with different sets of evidences is a very subjective thing. One adjudicator might believe that one is a reliable eyewitness, another might not. Hayden supposedly heard Bhajji call Symonds a monkey, and while Procter might consider it as reliable evidence, another might not. The fact that Hayden is an 'interested party' does not automatically mean that his evidence should not be given value, given that he was the only person to have supposedly heard the conversation.

obaid said...

Soulberry, good post. Its unfortunate that some loser is trying to abuse you for your religion and who you are - thats just not acceptable here or anywhere else

Im not sure what TMK stands for, but I have lived in Lahore long enough to guess what it means... it can definitely sound line Monkey the way a Bostonian would say it :) eg Park = Paaahk in Boston so Monkey = Maaahkey also in Boston. Or maybe that show Aussies pronounce the word too?! Anyway funny in a tragic and ironic kind of way

hehe

Cricket Guru said...

We can debate about Procter's competence or the lack of it. To me the more pertinent question is whether Indians lied or not and I have enough reasons to believe that they did!

If BHajji had indeed spoken the 'TMK' words, why did they (players) not point it out to Proctor? Correct me, but I do not recall reading anywhere about it, during or immediately after the first hearing. This TMK thing started as a JOKE as early as 9th/10th January and Indians found in it a god send opportunity to latch on to. Surely Proctor can easily testify whether Indians raised this point in first place or not.

Why wasn't Sachin questioned to that effect? Why is Procter now maintaining a studied silence over it? Purely because it was a compromise verdict!

If indeed TMK was an afterthought, what was India's defence in the first place? I think it was lack of evidence. So either Indians should have fought the case squarely on the basis of lack of evidence or Bhajji should have owned his remarks. TMK, to me, sounds plain rubbish.

Soulberry said...

You all are porbably right about your views...you too CG. I don't know what happened...I wasn't in their midst and so my views are merely speculative and based on hearsay. I'm tired of it all anyway. How was the trip?

One can string up a pole in Australia for the effigy/doll of Harbhajan and another for Symo's in India...and everybody can work themselves out of it on them. If required we can add a pole each for Tendulkar's and Hayden's in the respective places....Proctor's can be a big hot-air balloon that can be let out into the sky...free as a bird. Or I leave it for you to decide what to do with his.

I'm off effigy/doll hunting on eBay a la Scorpi. If they're expensive or out of stock, maybe I'll draw them out on a piece of yesterday's newspaper...maybe I'll even toss a coin to see whose comes first.

Be back when cricket recommences...meanwhile I'm figuring out a way how to catch the Stanford matches....the timing is so inconvenient? The Pak-Zimbo matches I can get hold of the highlights of.

obaid said...

Soulberry this is a good point about the effigies. Symmos will be more expensive because it would have to be bigger + would need more hair!

But I have another suggestion on top of my airplane one (on wellpitched.com).

- So now the captain can call a powerplay, calling in a plane, flying the team out after a bad decision

- Not only will there a man of the match, there should also be effigy award... i.e. the player who's effigy should be burned at the end of the ground. Our very own burning man festival :)

Soulberry said...

You don't need to burn the effigy Obaid...it isn't the environmental thing to do...like in the party games or in some festivals around the world, just hang it by a pole and have blindfolded "fans" of the game have swings at it with bats, keyboards and what have you, so that the stuffing is knocked out of the effigies.

I don't care anymore if India continue to play or not..don't care much if they return as well...whether they fly commercial or chartered. My party is over, the effifies have had their stuffing knocked out of them...and I know with the akwardness of timings I shall find it extremely hard to have cricket along with my morning cup of coffee...will have to make do with yesterday's news flung into my home by the newspaper boy and we know all yeasterday's news is the same rerun. It's much better fun to play the game, even if in the gully, rather than watch or write about it...