I can see their point. Even if we believe the official Indian position that Harbhajan never called Symonds a monkey, we are still left with the appeal judge’s conclusion that maa-bahen gaalis are acceptable in a sense that “monkey” is not.
Is this political correctness gone mad or what? Well yes and no. My first instinct is to agree with popular Indian sentiment and to say that it’s crazy to treat monkey as a bigger deal than a “teri maa ki” gaali. Kids call each other monkeys all the time. We let them do so. But we treat maa-bahen gaalis entirely differently.
But the more I’ve thought about it, the more convinced I am that judge Hansen got it right. It may well be that “monkey” was not meant as a racial abuse. But clearly Symonds treated it as such and “monkey” was therefore put on the list of banned words for the match. And in any case, the judge’s concern was not with the exact words used. His job was to distinguish between a racial slur and a simple abuse. And once he decided (rightly or wrongly) that Harbhajan had used an obscenity rather than a racial epithet, he took the right decision. Any obscenity (no matter whether it involves your mother, sister, brother, father or dog) is better than any racial slur.
What makes the difference? Well, equal opportunity, for want of abetter expression.
The reason we regard racism, communalism or casteism as being particularly reprehensible is because they focus on factors over which an individual has no control. The reason why “nigger” is a much uglier epithet than say “fucker” is because a black person has no choice in the matter: He was born that way. Why is it so disgusting to call a lower caste person a “chamaar” or a “bhangi”? Again, because it focuses on accidents of birth; nobody gets to choose their caste.
Take the kind of racism that Indians often encounter in Europe. If somebody called one of us a “stupid bastard”, we would be shocked but we would not feel the deep anger that we do when we are called “wogs” or “Pakis”.
It’s the same with communalism. If a Hindu gets into a fight with an Indian Muslim and gives him a maa-bahen gaali, it’s an unpleasant incident. But if he calls him a “bloody Muslim” or a “Pakistan-lover”, then the incident becomes much more serious.
It’s the same elsewhere. In the last World Cup football final, Zinedine Zidane, a French-Algerian Muslim, lost control and assaulted an Italian player. At first it was suggested that the Italian had called him a terrorist and the world was outraged. But when it turned out that he’d only made an obscene remark about his sister, our outrage faded.
However angry we may be with the Australians, we must see the point of the controversy. As long as both sides are equal opportunity abusers and as long as the abuses are general in nature, it’s unpleasant but not discriminatory. Once the abuses focus on accidents of birth—race, gender, ethnicity, religion etc.—then we are in much more dangerous territory.
So, let’s forget the actual words (“monkey” or “maa ki”). The important lesson is this: Sportsmen may be abusive louts. But they must never be allowed to become racist louts. Let that happen and you can kiss the spirit of global sport goodbye.