Why is Australian media and public so incredibly angry with the Indian team?

[Chandan]

So who is guilty? By Andrew Bolt February 01, 2008 12:00pm IF Harbhajan Singh has been fined for abuse, why not Andrew Symonds? The Indian spinner, on the evidence of a formal hearing, has done nothing that the Australian all-rounder didn't do first and worst. But such is our boorish love of the oi-oi-oi macho that few Australians want to believe we're no better than the Indians we're so keen to condemn. Sure enough, Singh is no angel, and India's cricket administrators have acted like thugs against the umpires and the game's administrators. But check the excellent 8000-word judgment of John Hansen, the New Zealand judge who heard Singh's appeal against his three-match suspension for his alleged racial abuse of Symonds during the second Test. See there how the swaggering aggression and foul language of our team has at last caught up with it, and learn that before Australians lecture Indians on manners we might go find our own. But to the facts. The second Test became explosive when Symonds, Michael Clarke and Matthew Hayden informed captain Ricky Ponting they'd heard Singh call Symonds, of Caribbean descent, a "monkey" or "big monkey". To make it worse, Symonds was sure Singh had also called him "monkey" during our last tour of India, where crowds hooted him with ape calls. Foul stuff. And if that was all we needed to know about this latest incident, match referee Mike Proctor did no more than justice to ban Singh from the rest of the series. Many Australian fans and commentators gleefully assumed this was indeed all there was to it -- that a nasty Indian had vilified a gallant Australian. The subtext was too delicious: We were absurdly glad we could finally call brown men racists and prove our redeemed goodness by defending a coloured player of our own. But the Indians appealed, and the International Cricket Council got a real judge to check the facts. And suddenly the picture shifted. Consider the following evidence, taken from Hansen's judgment. On that last tour of India, Symonds and Singh shook hands on a deal not to talk trash to each other again, but Symonds snapped in Sydney when Singh paid bowler Brett Lee a compliment, of all things. Says Hansen: "I have reviewed the television evidence . . . It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an excellent yorker to Mr Singh, who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he passed Mr Lee, while completing a single, Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of well bowled." Good sportsmanship, no? Just what we like to see, I'd have hoped. Indeed, remember how moved we were when England captain Andrew Flintoff put his arm around Lee after the Australian batted so gamely -- but in vain -- to save the Edgbaston Test? But what was fine from the English Flintoff was foul from the Indian Singh. Says Hansen: "Symonds took objection to this and . . . approached Mr Singh, telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language." This clearly was just the kind of sledging for which the Australians are now infamous -- the crudity that too many fans admire, but which comes over to Indians as the kind of colonial crud they no longer need tolerate. Symonds' explanation for abusing Singh was bizarre: "My objection was that a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player." And it left Hansen unimpressed: "If that is his view, I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is." It's sad enough that Australian cricketers believe it, and I'm not surprised Harbhajan arced up at being so foully abused for sportsmanship. He lashed back in what Symonds said was a mix of English and a foreign language - actually Punjabi. And among the jumble of words was what Symonds took to be "monkey". Michael Clarke's evidence was similar. He said he heard "something, something, something . . . big monkey" - with the "somethings" apparently Punjabi. Hayden, too, could only make out "big monkey". But Singh insisted he'd not suddenly broken into English, but had called Symonds "teri maa ki" - or something like "motherf. . ." in Punjabi. Teammate Sachin Tendulkar, who'd been standing closest to him, agreed the Australians had simply been mistaken. (Such are the absurd politics of race that calling a man "monkey" is now a bigger crime than making vile sexual slurs against his own mother.) The judge quite reasonably felt the reason the Australians couldn't make out any other words than what they took to be "big monkey" could well be that Singh wasn't abusing Symonds in English. Singh's defence seemed to him plausible and he dismissed the charge of racial vilification, fining Singh simply for foul language. But Hansen also gave a second reason for dismissing the racial vilification charge. Put crudely, he found that Symonds had been asking for it. As, in fact, has the whole team. Under the ICC's racial vilification law, the judge had to consider whether any racial abuse was highly offensive in the circumstances. And given the circumstances here, he said, calling Symonds a "monkey" was not. "Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game, acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds, but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back . . . "But in my view even if he had used the words alleged ("big monkey") 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." And, in fact, Symonds agreed he hadn't been that offended, really. What a sane judge. Symonds provoked, Singh bit back in kind. So who is guilty? Only Singh, or Symonds, too - and the team who has for so long licensed its players to abuse? ------------------------------------------------------ Not everyone in media is angry, it seems.

[IndianRenegade]

After all the jingoistic diatribes from aussie media we finally get to read a piece which takes what really happened in the middle into consideration. My sincere appreciations to Andrew Bolt for seeing through the jingoistic smoke screen put out by Aussie media.

[MundaPakistani]

Yes. They are biased.

this and

BCCI threats were all over the papers in OZ and on the internet, just google it you will find heaps. As far as the stories go day 1 - Bhajji did not call him monkey day 2 - But monkey is not offensive in Inda day 3 - he actually said maa ki But the maa ki defense was not used in the Sydney hearing but again used in the Adelaide hearing. They should thought of one thing & stuck to it. But by changing their story every so often they were just giving it away.

this ...and the fact that ICC didn't even provide the judge with the "history"(i know it isn't India's fault but some people are balmming it on the BCCI).

[dial_100]

I want BCCI babus to get hold of stump mike recording and release to Indian fans what AS said to bhajji...I know these aussies very well.. Off all the 11, they only find Bhajji to mess with. It was a well planned tactics by aussies..They knew that he is the most vulnerable to such things. They should be ashamed of themselves and go out and tell their people why were they messing up with bhajji in the 1st place. when whatever was said, did you see how they were after poor bhajji to pressurize him... Bhajji got punishment for what he has done..... AS didn't...So aussie public... chill.. it is still a win win for you.

[Chandan]

this and ...and the fact that ICC didn't even provide the judge with the "history"(i know it isn't India's fault but some people are balmming it on the BCCI).

And for once I'm happy that ICC bungled even if it was under pressure from BCCI. Remember the other charges against Bhajji? Justice hansen's statement: 66) I need to add something about the penalty I imposed. In imposing that penalty I took into account Mr Singh’s previous transgressions as advised to me by counsel assisting Mr Jordan. I was told that Mr Singh had one infraction in April 2003 for what was the equivalent to a 2.8 offence under the present Code. That was for an abusive comment made to the umpire when he was fined 50% of his match fee. That was the only infraction that Mr Jordan had been advised of by the ICC. After the penalty was announced I was made aware that in fact there were three further matters I had not been informed of. One was under the old Code of Conduct in 1998. It was the equivalent of a Level 1 offense under the present Code and involved ordering a batsman to the pavilion. He was fined half of his match fee. There was a similar offense in November of 2005 when he was fined 25% of his match fee. Of more moment was a conviction, along with other players, in November of 2001. In the course of a test match Mr Singh was found guilty of showing dissent at the umpire’s decision and attempting to intimidate the umpire. He was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended ban for one test match. (67) The 1998 matter was overlooked because apparently offenses under the old Code of Conduct are not included in the ICC database. The November 2001 offense was overlooked because more than one player was convicted and the entry in the database was under another player’s name. It was simply human error that led to the Level 1 offense in November 2005 not being made available. None of these three offenses were advised to Mr Jordan and because of that he was not in a position to advise me of them. Other counsel did not alert me to this information during the sentencing process. These matters should have been placed before me. None of them of course involve racist allegations. Leaving aside for the moment the offending in November of 2001, if I had been fully informed of all the other offenses, given the level of provocation in this case, my penalty would have remained the same. However, if I had been aware of the serious transgression in November 2001 I would have required more extensive submissions as to the offense in mitigation which could have led to a different penalty. Overnight I have given earnest consideration to the Code of Conduct to see if it empowers me to reopen the sentencing process. Regrettably I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand. At the end of the day Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors. But judicial experience shows that these are problems that arise from time to time. So, Hansen clearly says that even if he had been aware of them, the offenses of 1998, 2003 and 2005 would not have made a difference to the penalty he imposed. The only prior offense that would have made a difference to his sentencing, says Hansen, is the one relating to 2001 – and even here, he says that had he known about it at the time, he would have asked for more extensive submissions. And any of you remember the infamous Mike Denness farce back in 2001? If you don't, here is the link to refresh your memory of that shameful Denness fracas: Complete coverage of the events of November 2001 and its aftermath. If only that previous sentence would have made difference, then I'm glad that the farce was not presented to Hansen. And whatever penalty Harbhajan received was completely just to the offense he committed here. I'm surprised why Indians had not counter charged Symonds at Sydney for provoking Bhajji despite a previous pact between them that they would not talk on a cricket field. Symonds was the man who decided to break that pact for no reason whatsoever. He would have been punished for using foul language under 2.8 as well, had Indians done that. I just cannot see the reason behind Australian media and public's anger!!

[dial_100]

So who is guilty? (Such are the absurd politics of race that calling a man "monkey" is now a bigger crime than making vile sexual slurs against his own mother.) ------------------------------------------------------ Not everyone in media is angry, it seems.

That is my point.. Everyone in our team should be made aware that we shouldn't be using M or B words on the field. Tell them clearly if they were found using these, they will be thrown out of the team.... what a shame where 5-6 real gentlemen playing there couple in our team who dont give damn to the reputation of our country and go on to use such phrases just because their brains are lowered to their knees.

[Chandan]

It seems as if the reason lies here: Players' letter of protest to Cricket Australia Agencies New Delhi, February 01, 2008 First Published: 21:59 IST(1/2/2008) Last Updated: 22:33 IST(1/2/2008) FRUSTRATED Australian players will present Cricket Australia with a letter expressing their disappointment at the perceived lack of support offered to them during the Harbhajan Singh appeal. The Herald reported that the Australian players, through their representative body, the Australian Cricketers' Association, will formally air their grievances to an employer they believe pressured them into accepting a move to downgrade a charge of racism against Harbhajan. The players feel pressure was applied by CA on two fronts. Firstly, CA outlined the financial repercussions that would be incurred if India withdrew from the one-day series, as they had threatened if Harbhajan's appeal against a three-Test racism ban was unsuccessful. The cricketers were told CA, the tournament host, could be sued for up to $60 million by ESPN, the company which purchased the rights to televise the series into Asia, if India withdrew. CA further advised that such a loss would take up to 10 years to recoup. Players also felt pressure in the form of legal advice from CA, which told them that by downgrading the charge against Harbhajan from a 3.3 to a 2.8 - in effect, reducing a charge of racial vilification to one of verbal abuse - the Australians would have a better chance of successfully prosecuting the controversial Indian spinner. The players grudgingly agreed to the downgrade, which resulted in Harbhajan escaping suspension and incurring a minimal fine. The paper said cricketers' association chief executive Paul Marsh is particularly angry that, as a result of the charge downgrade and Hansen's decision, Australian players were portrayed as the guilty party. The association feels the board displayed hypocrisy in having espoused a commitment to stamping out racial vilification from cricket, only to sweep it under the carpet. The move of the players to complain to CA in writing has the support of association president Darren Lehmann, who clarified his position after initially expressing satisfaction with the disciplinary process. "Post-hearing, we are very disappointed with the outcome and the subsequent unwarranted fallout for the Australian players," Lehmann said on Thursday. Australia's players have declined to speak publicly about their anger at CA, reluctant to further inflame a situation that some feel has already affected the quality of their play. But in sending a letter to their employer, the cricketers will leave little doubt as to their feelings. ------------------------------------------------------- I don't think that Justice Hansen was wrong anywhere!

[MundaPakistani]

So, Hansen clearly says that even if he had been aware of them, the offenses of 1998, 2003 and 2005 would not have made a difference to the penalty he imposed. The only prior offense that would have made a difference to his sentencing, says Hansen, is the one relating to 2001 – and even here, he says that had he known about it at the time, he would have asked for more extensive submissions. And any of you remember the infamous Mike Denness farce back in 2001? If you don't, here is the link to refresh your memory of that shameful Denness fracas: Complete coverage of the events of November 2001 and its aftermath. If only that previous sentence would have made difference, then I'm glad that the farce was not presented to Hansen. And whatever penalty Harbhajan received was completely just to the offense he committed here. I'm surprised why Indians had not counter charged Symonds at Sydney for provoking Bhajji despite a previous pact between them that they would not talk on a cricket field. Symonds was the man who decided to break that pact for no reason whatsoever. He would have been punished for using foul language under 2.8 as well, had Indians done that. I just cannot see the reason behind Australian media and public's anger!!

This what the Aussies are reading THE RACE row between the Australian and Indian cricket teams descended into farce last night when the judge who cleared Harbhajan Singh of racism conceded the off spinner should have received a heavier penalty - and would have but for a monumental ****-up by the International Cricket Council. Justice John Hansen made it clear he found the evidence of Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar more reliable than that of the Australians in clearing Harbhajan of calling Andrew Symonds "a big monkey". He also chastised Symonds for telling the hearing that "a Test match is no place to be friendly to an opposition player". The foul-up by the ICC meant the New Zealand High Court judge was not told of three prior findings against Harbhajan, including one of attempting to intimidate an umpire. Justice Hansen said that, after learning yesterday that Harbhajan had a suspended sentence of a one-Test ban on his record, he considered reviewing his decision to fine the Indian half his fee for the Sydney Test. "Regrettably, I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand," he said in a statement explaining his reasons for overturning the three-Test suspension for racial abuse. "Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors." Justice Hansen said he sentenced Harbhajan on the basis of one infraction in 2003 for an abusive comment to an umpire. He learnt only after sentencing of three other matters - two minor but the third in a Test against South Africa in Port Elizabeth in November 2001 in which Harbhajan and two other players were fined and given a suspended one-match ban for excessive appealing. The incident was not put before him because it was logged under another player's name, while the two other incidents were omitted because of database and human error. Justice Hansen said the ICC had not reduced the charge against Harbhajan. "That was my decision and my decision alone." Justice Hansen was critical of all parties involved in the confrontation at the SCG, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game". He was perturbed by the fact the alleged racial abuse stemmed from Symonds reacting angrily to Harbhajan patting fast bowler Brett Lee on the backside in recognition of a good delivery. Of Symonds's response that "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player", Justice Hansen said: "If that is his view, I hope it is not shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is." The judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to be sure Harbhajan had called Symonds a monkey hinged on his weighting of Tendulkar's testimony. Unlike ICC match referee Mike Procter, who had overseen the original hearing, Hansen decided Tendulkar did hear the exchange between Symonds and Harbhajan, and felt his version of events was more reliable than those of the Australians. "At the end of the 116th over he [symonds] approached Mr Singh telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language. Mr Singh became angry and responded in kind. It was accepted by Mr Symonds that some of Mr Singh's response was in his native language," Justice Hansen said. BBCI lawyer Vasha Manohar, representing Harbhajan, told the appeal hearing Harbhajan used the words "teri maki". Symonds accepted this as a possibility but gave evidence that Harbhajan called him a "big monkey" during the exchange. Both Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke, the other Australians who were adamant they heard Harbhajan call Symonds a "big monkey", could not recall or comprehend any other words used in the exchange. Australian players remain angry that Harbhajan escaped suspension for the taunt, for they expected the lesser offence to attract a ban, as he would have but for the ICC's blunder. In a stunning display of incompetence by the ICC, it now seems Harbhajan might have been more seriously punished had Justice Hansen had been provided with the spinner's full list of prior offences. with AAP For the record What ICC appeals commissioner Justice John Hansen said in his ruling: On whether Harbhajan Singh called Andrew Symonds a monkey: "I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am not sure they were." On Symonds's intervention after Harbhajan had made contact with Brett Lee: "Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own teammates." On an ICC error preventing him from gaining a full view of Harbhajan's disciplinary record: "At the end of the day, Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors." On Indian threats to abandon the tour: "[india's lawyer] Mr Vasha Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration." On the evidence presented by the players: "Mr [Matthew] Hayden and Mr [sachin] Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds. I am also satisfied that the more serious the allegation made against a player or official, the more improbable the event - so the evidence must be stronger to establish it." On the impact the saga has had on the game: "I have no doubt that the participants in this game have reflected long and hard since its conclusion. Their actions do not reflect well on them or the game." On reports that the Indians had threatened to go home: "Obviously, the media have not invented these statements. They must be sourced from someone. To my mind, such statements do a serious disservice to the game." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/01/30/1201369227865.html

[Mr. Wicket]

More than just the verdict, a lot of Aussies are upset about the BCCI's power show where they first threatened the test series and then flew the plane in threatening to fly the team back to India immediately, giving the impression that the judge was forced to make the decision he did on Harbhajan. I'm pretty sure that had it just been a standard appeal without the BCCI interfering and flexing their muscles, there'd be a lot less backlash.

[Guest Hiten.]

If they have MCG then we have Kolkata. Our 100k will give them some good medicine when they play @ Eden Gardens :yay:

[yoda]

whenever anyone gets a taste of their own medicine, it tastes bitter and it is tough to swallow.

[Online]

If they have MCG then we have Kolkata. Our 100k will give them some good medicine when they play @ Eden Gardens :yay:

only if dada plays otherwise those fools boo their own team DUH

[Guest Hiten.]

only if dada plays otherwise those fools boo their own team DUH

of course, barring that :yay:

[Chandan]

More than just the verdict, a lot of Aussies are upset about the BCCI's power show where they first threatened the test series and then flew the plane in threatening to fly the team back to India immediately, giving the impression that the judge was forced to make the decision he did on Harbhajan. I'm pretty sure that had it just been a standard appeal without the BCCI interfering and flexing their muscles, there'd be a lot less backlash.

If only BCCI's power show was the reason, then they should have understood that the money hungey BCCI can NEVER ruin its relationship with CA as this is only series which attracts maximum crowd and coverage. More than that, the biggest IPL stars are the Australians. I just can't imagine that BCCI would ruin all that just because of Harbhajan getting a stiffer penalty. If the ODI players were called from Melbourne to Adelaide, there is nothing wrong in that because the younger players must understand how to remain united when the team is in crisis. And today morning, on CNN-IBN, Sharad Pawar was saying that there was no question of pulling out from the tour and at no point did BCCI indicate that. I don't say that we must believe Pawar blindly. But pulling out after completing the test series doesn't make a sense. Why could they not put pressure on Proctor instead, if the final result was achieved through applying pressure? They could have threatened to pull out earlier after Sydney and could have forced Proctor to give a favourable verdict instead, no? I think Australian media and public is over-reacting.

[fineleg]

I think Australian media and public is over-reacting.

Ofcourse they are! Can we have an undestatement smiley in the smiley list, varun? :D

[King]

Do they think that Hansen's verdict is not fair? If yes, then has anyone given the reasons for that? Why do they think that BCCI flexed its muscle and what effect it had on the verdict of Hansen? I mean I simply cannpt understand, why they should be so angry with the Indian team. Does anyone know? If yes, then please explain it to me.

What is that they can do at the most? Boo at the players, who cares? They do it anyways. Saffies had it much worse and a lot of visiting teams have to go through this anyways. Aussies have gotten away with heaps more for decades and now they can't take an independent judge's decision. They must be angry because they couldn't win the test series 4-0. BTW while the Aussie media and fans are angry at the ICC, BCCI, Indian players and anything Indian the Aussie players are retiring to play in the BCCI organized Twenty20 championship IPL. Talk about irony :nervous:

[arkay]

Peter Roebuck: Time for a new crack at our own Peter Roebuck: Time for a new crack at our own Peter Roebuck February 3, 2008 Advertisement It's time to have another crack at the glib Western response to the Harbhajan affair. The debate has become too cosy. Ranks have closed and the usual suspects are busy backslapping. Several points need to be made. Yes, a lot of skin creams are sold in India. Yes, every advert in Indian magazines seems to feature pretty light-skinned youths. Yes, India has its castes and colours. It is imperfect. But it has also had in recent years a Sikh prime minister, a Muslim president and a white, female, Catholic widow leading its main political party. India must stop being defensive. It has a mighty story to tell, a functioning democracy created from a chequered history, a nation built in a generation, temples and mosques sitting side by side in so many cities. Nor does its cricket history justify the comment made not long ago by a white opponent that "all Asian cricketers are f---ing cheats." Please can First World newspapers dust off all articles published between 1901 and 2001 deploring the manner in which Anglo-Saxon interests dominated the game? Suddenly India is ruling the roost and the boys are worried about monopolies and cultural hegemony. It is a bit late for that. With a bit of luck the new guard will run the game better than did the old mob - fuddy-duddies who did nothing about apartheid or about white captains in the West Indies or about the Tamil massacres or about the slaughter in Matabeleland. Another point. Comparisons have been made between the Harbhajan affair and the actions of Arjuna Ranatunga in Adelaide in 1999. It will be remembered that the Sri Lankan captain led his team from the field after an Australian umpire called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing. Ranatunga arrived at the hearing armed with lawyers presenting all sorts of arguments. Admittedly, this compromised the authority of the match referee. But other aspects of that incident have not been as widely debated. At the time, Peter van der Merwe, the referee, had not been told about the vicious comments directed at Ranatunga by England fieldsmen. Microphones had picked up the nasty remarks and everyone in the press box was aware of them but the referee had not been told. By all accounts he was disgusted when he heard the full story and regretted he was not able it take action. That evening I attended the press conferences provided by the captains. Ranatunga did not deign to appear. Alec Stewart was leading the England side and I waited for the hard men of Fleet Street to press him about the conduct of his men. One of his bowlers had barged into a batsmen. Ranatunga was not the only culprit. The journalists asked about the walk-off. Then a silence came over the gathering. Not a question about the performance of England players. Accordingly I dared to ask if the England captain thought his team had done anything wrong. If looks could kill. Stewart reminded your correspondent of numerous excesses in his own stints as captain. And that was it. Double standards prevailed over this wretched matter in Adelaide as they have prevailed over the Harbhajan furore. To repeat, the world will not improve till the Australians have a crack at their own, Indians put their house in order and the Poms admit their mistakes. The current closing of the ranks serves little purpose. Calm is not to be mistaken for peace, which must be founded upon justice, or respect, which is founded on good manners. This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/02/1201801096648.html

[zub2006]

australia fans are known to give a lot of stick. i think all fans give stick though.

[IndianRenegade]

Nor does its cricket history justify the comment made not long ago by a white opponent that "all Asian cricketers are f---ing cheats."

Who was it?

[veer]

somewhere I heard the elected judge was not well informed.. and on the top of that he was new-zealander that ticks lot of ozzies off.. but damn who cares.. i am glad we showed them who is the boss.. (off the field atleast.. :D )