Coming, cricket or not!!

Winning the toss.
It’s always dangerous to make judgments about issues when not in possession of the full story, and it goes without saying that a story like the confrontation in Sydney, in January 2008, between the Indian and the Australian cricket teams, will be distorted by the much larger interests in the two countries. It would seem, therefore, that the wise thing to do would be to refrain from comment. But Australians in significant numbers seem to be doing exactly the opposite, and, astonishingly, in the land of the Cronulla riots, seem to overwhelmingly on the side of the Indian team. This would seem to be an gratifying revelation: we really can deal with a crisis in cricket in the spirit of…. well, cricket. I’d really like to leave it there and bask in self congratulations on behalf of the people of the land of the fair go. But something is nagging me about the whole thing. I’ve already acknowledged that I don’t have the full story, so here I go on the basis of the story as I do have it.

Firstly, is Ricky Ponting’s sense of what a press conference is, a bit self serving? An Indian journalist asks him a question that challenges his sense of what went on on the field, and Ponting retorts, If you are questioning my integrity you shouldn’t be standing here. Talk about dum’n’duma. I hope Cricket Australia tells him what press conferences are for before he has to do it again. If a journalist questions one’s integrity, denying their right to do so is not proof of one’s integrity. It is proof of one’s unsuitability for leadership. If someone’s question really is a slur on one’s character, a truthful answer is the necessary and sufficient response. Petulant obfuscation leaves the observer in no doubt about who’s on the right track – a point I will return to shortly.

Secondly, the Indian position seems to be twofold: there is no proof, other than the assertions of some members of the Australian team, that Harbhajan Singh actually called Andrew Symonds a monkey; and anyway, calling someone a monkey is not insulting from an Indian point of view.

On both counts they are being disingenuous.

On the issue of whether or not Singh used the word monkey, the question has been asked, How can the umpire take the word of Australian players and not that of Indian players? Oh dear! It’s Dum’n’duma at it again! You can get away with asking a question like that only if you know the accusation is false – in which case you don’t need to ask it. It is enough to deny the accusation and know that you are right. If others choose not to believe you, they’re the ones with the problem. Knowing and speaking the truth is the proof of dignity. If you know the accusation is not false, however, asking the above question means that you are indirectly accusing the other side of lying, knowing that to be false – in which case you condemn yourself by asking it. Rhetorical obfuscation (as in Ricky Ponting’s case) shows that one has something to hide. This, I contend, is also precisely what the Indians have done.

How can one be confidant – as distinct from know – that the spokesmen for the Indian position are in fact the ones who are lying? Simple: look for obfuscation in what else they have said.

There might well be a god in the Hindu pantheon who is a monkey; and India may well be among the many country in the world in which people affectionately call others, usually children, monkeys. These are two grounds on which the accusation of intending insult are disputed. This is obfuscation.

International cricket is played by sophisticated people capable of using the word monkey in a variety of ways, some of them endearing and others intended to be insulting. Furthermore, the spectators at international cricket are capable of the same distinctions, even though they’re not all as sophisticated as the people on the field. And players as well as spectators are capable of seriously gross miss-behaviour, no matter what country they come from. Thuggish behaviour on the sidelines or on the pitch is thuggish behaviour, regardless of where it happens. We’re all capable of it, as well as being capable of recognising it. But the Indians seem to be saying that people on the sidelined in India aping… well, apes, cannot be accused of intending to insult Symonds, any more than Singh could be accused of intending to insult the same player, had he called him a monkey. This is just plain stupid – obfuscation of the highest order. Had the Indians said no more than that their man did not use the offending word they would be right about it being their word against the word of the other team. And they would have the appearance of dignity, even if they were lying. But to say that no one ever intended to insult Symonds by word or deed is so patently absurd that it raises the question, Why did they feel the need for such denial? Answer: they are lying about the crowd’s intent because they know that they are lying about what Singh said and his intent. Have I proved my case? No. But I am very confidant. Would I have suspended Singh? No, because the Indians are right: there is no proof – well, there are no independent witnesses, anyway. But because of their petulant obfuscation, the whole world, with the possible exception of a billion people in one part of it, knows the truth.

Personally, I’m very happy that Australians are capable of kicking their sacred cow – the national cricket team – when it deserves it, and barracking for the other side when they deserve it. But please! Let’s be prepared to recognise the cow shit that is being flung around by the Indians for what it is. Sledging a cricketer by insulting him is one thing, but insulting the intelligence of the world? It is looking very much like India is “winning the toss”.