| Published on 07-01-2008 In Sports | | Viewed 3983 times | | Since when did "monkey" become a racial abuse? |
|
| Written by
Girish Nikam | 
In an Indian home, in whichever part of the country one may come, there would hardly be any child, whichever language he speaks, who has not been called a "monkey" by one of the elders in the House or even in the neighbourhood. Show me one child who has not earned that epithet and has not felt proud of it. It is a sort of recognition of a child's mischievous nature and also its ability to amuse elders. And almost all the time that an elder with mock irritation tries to chastise the child calling him or her a "monkey", a sense of pride is always associated with that chide.
Now in India monkeys are an object of even worship, what with the Hanuman being part of everyone's psyche and his devotion to the mythical Lord Ram and all the mythology surrounding it, only adding to the reverence. So even when an argument becomes heated, the use or rather abuse with the word "monkey" inevitably lightens up the situation.
But down under, apparently it does not seem to be the case! Or atleast in the ICC manual "monkey" is a racial insult, and any cricketer calling a rival cricketer using that word, is liable to be hauled up for racial prejudice and abuse. Our own ebullient spinner and a character among Indian cricketers, who plays his cricket the hard way, Harbhajan Singh has discovered it much to his and his team-men's chagrin yesterday at Sydney in Australia.
Andrew Symonds, who is apparently the only "black" cricketer in the all-white Aussie team, was the object of Bhajji's abuse, and the off spinner now finds himself banished from test cricket for the next three test matches, which means he is out of the Australian tour as far as test matches are concerned. An abuse, which Bhajji is, said to have hurled and which was not heard by anyone else apparently, including the umpires. But that has not stopped the ICC Referee to find him guilty and ban him.
So is calling someone a "monkey" a racial abuse? Now going by our Indian sensibilities and understanding, does Symonds look "black"? He is by far, going by what one has seen of him on Television, fairer than almost every other Indian cricketer. And do Indians normally indulge in racial abuse against such "black" Australians? One thought it was the Indians, rather Asians and the black Africans who are targets of racial abuse, all along. Now when did we brown and black men become racial abusers?
Well ICC thinks so. Now does ICC have a list of abuses, which they have published and circulated among cricketers to make them aware what they consider as racial abuse? Even if such a list exists, though one has not heard of it so far, has that been vetted by all the cricket boards and cleared? Does it pass the test of various cultures that the cricket playing countries have? Or is it the prerogative of the white man to decide what is racial abuse and what is not?
Incidentally, do Australians think "monkey" is a racial abuse? Well, well, if they do, they are a funny nation.
Why? Well, do you know every year the Australian Mint produces a gold coin, known as the "Monkey Gold Coin", with the figure of a monkey on it, of various sizes and weights with costs ranging from 70.80 to 917 Australian dollars per coin. And why? As an Australian bullion web site says, because, "traditionally, the Monkey is one of the more favoured lunar animals", and incidentally also considered lucky.
Coming back to Symonds, he has been an object of ridicule and fun even on Indian grounds, not because as the ICC or the Australian thinks that he is "black" and that Indians are racists. But obviously because he paints himself up in such an odd fashion. Agreed he might have very sensitive skin and the vagaries of weather may affect it. But so do so many other cricketers, and none of them make a spectacle of themselves like he does. And when someone wants to make a spectacle of oneself, one I guess will have to be prepared to be treated as one! Doesn't ICC have a manual on it???
Australian cricketers are known to play there game the hard way, and use all methods to intimidate their opponents. So much so at the beginning of every test series, with them, media is full of mind games being played by them. And if anyone objects to it, they are dubbed as sissies, and the rest are expected to be tough enough to take that all and play cricket. Well, fair enough, the modern game is no more a gentlemen's game it once was, obviously because of the huge commerce involved. But what is sauce for the gander, should it not be sauce for the goose too? If even Bhajji had called Symonds "Bandar" or even a "kala Bandar", though one cannot imagine him doing it, as Symonds skin seems to be fairer than the Punjab off spinner's, why make such a big issue? Is sledging, which the Australians have made it into a fine art on the field, a weapon exclusively to be used by them?
One is not even talking of the unfair umpiring decisions here and worse the total lack of sportsman spirit displayed by the Aussies while appealing for catches, which did in some of our best batsmen, or their batsmen not walking when they were clearly out, which even lead to India's defeat in Sydney. We will take it as one of those things, which any sportsman has to encounter and move on to the next game with renewed determination.
But what takes the goat is that an Indian cricketer being banned for racial abuse. Or is it a sign of India, am sure much to the glee of globalisers, arriving on the global stage? Is it some sort of global recognition to us, that from being abused racially, we have been recognised as abusers? Come on ICC, grow up, understand the cultural diversity before taking such ridiculous decisions. And let the game go on. Meanwhile hopefully no child in India will accuse his elder of a racial slur, when he is called a "monkey", "Bandar" "kothi"-------! |
|
|
|
|
| Social Web |  |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Processing please wait ...
Top Stories
