What was and wasn't said in Sydney…Harbhajan's hearing

[Chandan]

This is what Prem Panicker says: Witness for the defense… ... will have to be a linguist, who can explain to the New Zealand judge hearing the appeals process what ‘Abhe teri maa ki’ means; how that phrase can, especially given the history of the two players and the sensitivities of Andrew Symonds, sound at a particularly heated moment as though Harbhajan Singh had called him a ‘big monkey’, is best left to the common sense of the adjudicator. Mihir Bose, on the BBC Sport website, is one of several who in recent times has suggested that this in fact is what Harbhajan said—though the actual words used have been omitted from his piece. I wonder what Sun Tzu, whose tenets reportedly formed the backbone of former coach John Buchanan’s strategizing, would have made of all this. Consider, purely from a theoretical standpoint, this speculation: 1. Ponting and Kumble had a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in place, that among other things adhered to the Aussie dictum that whatever happens on the field stays on the field. 2. When the bottom-patting incident happened, Symonds saw in it an opportunity to renew hostilities, and getting aggressive with, the Indian off spinner at a time when his defiant knock was putting a few Aussie noses out of joint. So he “had a bit of a goâ€. 3. Bajji responded with a time-honored Indian abusive phrase, that Symonds misheard. 4. Ponting, enshrined in the popular mythology as a ‘street smart’ battler, saw in the incident an opportunity to put the visitors under increased pressure, and deciding on the spur of the moment to make an issue of it, reported it to the umpires. 5. When Kumble went knocking on his door to plead for sanity, the Australian captain decided the pressure tactic was yielding unlooked-for fruit, and decided to persist. What the Australian skipper could not have anticipated was that the umpiring would deteriorate through the course of the Test to the point where it took the sheen off the Australian win; that various claimed catches in the tense Indian second innings would cast doubt on his personal integrity, and that all these incidents would, in concert, blow up the Harbhajan Singh incident into a monumental controversy. For a moment, consider what would have happened had the refereeing been at par: at the end of the game, the only controversy would be over Harbhajan’s alleged racism; by letting the media in on the history between the two players and about Symonds having done the right thing, on the Indian tour, by seeking out the offie for a chat, the moral high ground would have remained with the Aussies. And even if India had handled the inquiry better (Mihir Bose in his column underlines the ineptness of the Indian response) and the match referee, buying the Indian argument that Bajji had not said what he is alleged to have, had let the player off with a warning or some such, it would have achieved Ponting’s purpose of distracting the Indians and adding to the pressure on them. Not saying this is how Ponting figured it out—only he knows what was going on in his mind. But if you treat the incidents of Sydney like you would a chess game, this is the only way one way everything makes sense—in other words, the controversy could well have been ignited by a ‘street smart brawler’ making that one smart move too many. Now, the inquiry promises more fun and games. Assume Harbhajan (assume, too, that he will be represented this time by someone more aware of the rules than Mr Chetan Chauhan) says in his defense that he had in fact used this abusive Hindi phrase. Assume, further, that the Indians insist on Symonds being asked what he had initially said, to provoke the response—and Symonds, it turns out, had used a homophobic insult, as rumor and unconfirmed buzz from within the team indicate. Just who will the adjudicator proceed against? Among the questions he will have to weigh is this: when does an abusive phrase hurt—when it is uttered, or when the person at the receiving end understand it? The phrase rumor has Symonds using could have been understood by Bajji; the offie’s response would have gone past Symonds’ outside edge, however. And if ‘maa ki’ is deemed offensive despite the lack of understanding, there remains the ‘son of a bachelor’ debited against Brad Hogg by two different Indian players. God, what I would give to be a fly on the wall when this appeal is heard.

[Chandan]

Kadambari Murali has more on the appeals process, and the likely Indian response: Bhajji appeal to centre on benefit of the doubt Harbhajan Singh's appeal against being found guilty of racism by ICC Match Referee Mike Procter, will revolve around a few basic points — the lack of audio-video evidence in the matter and the fact that the two umpires disclaimed all knowledge of hearing any racist comment being primary. “The appeal is actually a factual matter,†a source connected to the matter told the HT on Thursday. “We’ve pointed out that it’s a very strange situation, one where Mike Procter took private notes and did not record evidence. Harbhajan’s case is that in the view of the lack of audio-video evidence and the fact that the two umpires did not hear it, the presumption should have been ‘I didn’t say it’.†Then again, he added, was the fact that Sachin Tendulkar, who understands the same language as Harbhajan, said he did not say it (the monkey comment). The Indians are also banking on the fact that the Appeals Commissioner will have lots of discretion and will take all the points that Procter chose to overlook into account. “In this case, by Indian standards of law, two views are possible,†the source continued. “In which case, a sentence cannot be given because of the benefit of the doubt. There has to be absolute certainty beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty as charged.†In this case, it is believed that despite what Procter said, there was more than reasonable doubt. In different legal ways, the Indians are making the same core point throughout their appeal but will be backing this up with more in the course of the presentation of that appeal. They believe that broadly, the others “wanted to deflect attention from the argument of bad umpiring and therefore, converted the altercation into one of racismâ€. This, incidentally, has been “obliquely indicated†in the appeal. As of now, it has not yet been finalised as to whether a lawyer will be present to state India’s case or not or who that lawyer will be. The Indian camp is waiting to see whether the hearing will be in person or there will be an initial telecomm hearing. They will then take a call. Meanwhile, the Indian camp is also somewhat wary of sitting down to make peace with the Aussies, having a handshake and then finding something else blowing up just before the Perth Test to get them to lose focus. They are certain that the Symonds-Harbhajan incident was stage-managed. “Why is Bhajji always targeted?†asked a player. “Why is Symonds always involved in these incidents?†The Indians believe that the Aussies will never target someone like Tendulkar or Dravid or Kumble. “They know Bhajji is a hothead of sorts and after being taunted a few times, they’ll get a reaction from him that will put him off his focus. They work to a plan.†Still, the Indian players are willing to get on with playing cricket at Perth and putting the acrimonious stuff aside, if the Australians do the same. “But we’ll be watching matters carefully,†said a player. ------------------------------------------------------ The relation between Indian and Australian cricketers have hit the rock bottom and the damage is beyond repair I suppose!

[beetle]

It must be the maa ki thingyy only...here and in India ...and I am sure bhajji is scared to sit down and tell symonds what he actually said. He is quite big....:D Trust the BCCI to make a mess of it by not providing a lawyer. These monkey asses should be shot.

[Andrew]

Great piece Chandan. I think you are right that so much of this can be traced back to Ponting and a decision driven by primitive emotions. I think the 'street brawler' metaphor apt, I disagree with the 'chess' metaphor. To dismiss the olive branch from Kumble? That above all else disgusted me the most. Surely frustration with his dismissals to Harghajan influenced that decision. But even worse, after all the time that has elapsed since, he has STILL not withdrawn the changes! He has STILL not made a public olive branch offering (only Kumble)! He has not travelled to Canberra. He has not done one thing which demonstrates leadership. But the charge has revealed more systemic problems with the game that cannot be blamed on Ponting. I cannot help but look at this entire fiasco as an opportunity for 'product innovation', 'process innovation' and institutional change: Role of the umpire; role of technology; laws governing on field behavior; processes which enforce rules; processes which create the rules; the role and power of the organization who creates and enforces the rules (ICC); the product development pipeline of the ICC (umpires); the role of national organizations (ACB, BCCI) who lobby the ICC... Are there any major issues which have not in some way been revealed in this fiasco? This is a billion dollar product with million dollar brands and very disgruntled customers. It is being developed, sold and marketed in a very amateurish way. How absurd; hearings where minutes are taken on the back of an envelope? Hearings where those being charged don't need a lawyer? Hearings with no case law? Hearings which are made to look 'legal' by inviting a MCC barrister passing through town? Hearings where proceedings are kept secret (kept on the back of the envelope)... How on earth can you convict anyone without any evidence of the crime? He said; she said; no evidence; case closed. This is a serious opportunity for product innovation, process innovation and institutional change. Change is always difficult and is normally catalyzed by two things; an event (tick) and leadership which crystalizes around a strong person or group of people who are given the support they need to initiate change. I doubt Malcolm Speed has this power. But who could lead such change?