Re: The Harbhajan ban: a cross cultural view

On Jan 8, 3:00 pm, "R. Bharat Rao" <rao2_nor...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In the aftermath of the Mike Denness affair, I remained surprised by
the completely polar views taken by the two camps -- many rsc veterans
whose opinions I respected had opinions completely opposite to what
seemed to be an obvious miscarriage of misjustice (and a equal number
agreed with me as well). Upon reflection, I believe the differing
reactions may spring from our cultural differences. And this, I'm
afraid, will be repeated in the Harbhajan scenario.

In this thread, I want to look only at the Harbhajan incident. I
don't care about the umpiring errors, or even if Harbhajan was sledged
rudely by Symonds. Just whether Harbhajan used a racial slar at
Sydney (no matter what the provocation, if any or none), and why
seemingly reasonable people have such polar views on the issue of the
ban that has been handed out.

Obwarning: I'm not a psychologist, nor do I play one on rsc.
Obwarning 2: If psychobabble isn't your cup of tea, hit skip.

The difference, at least in the Denness case, I now believe lies in
the importance that different people place upon "process," as drawn
from my personal & cultural experiences.

So in the Denness affair, the "process-oriented" group's stance was:
"there was a process in place; it was followed -- report by umpires to
an independent independent arbiter -- the MR -- who ruled. Suck it
up, and if you don't like it, change the process. But don't try to
fix this one incident ."

The opposing camp, which I was call the "justice-oriented" camp said:
"There is an an obvious miscarriage of justice. The injustice needs to
be fixed -- and we will worry about the process later."

This will probably come out pretty harsh. I'm not sure I don't mean
it to. I have a lot of respect for you, but I really, really think
you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. I suggest, quite
openly, that your consideration for the reputation of your countrymen
has clouded your judgment. So here goes.

The difference here, and a real problem among many of the process
hacks is that, well, "your lot" made the fucking processes. We only
have these damn things because of the constant whining and complaining
and incessant going on about how terrible these naughty other players
are.

And because of all of it over the years, things have changed. And,
you know, some of the time the changes have been pretty good - even if
they aren't all the necessary, it still lets people know where they
are. The only problem, when it starts applying to "your lot," you
once again go off your damn heads about how unfair it all is.

So yes, suck it up. If you must, we'll once again; for the millionth
time, we'll change the fucking processes again because "your lot"
don't like what happens. But for the love of all things, "your lot"
cannot continue to move the goal posts so that it applies only when
"your lot" feel like it.

A second factor, that is very important to many of the "justice-
oriented" group, and I believe, to many Indians, is their reputation.
To have your reputation besmirched unfairly would be intolerable to
many. Personally speaking, were I to be accused and condemned of a
racial slur (and banned) without sufficient evidence, I would use
every means at my disposal to not only clear my name, and would stop
at nothing, even if it meant crippling the ICC with long-drawn out
legal processes. One key point in the Denness episode was that I
don't think "process-oriented" group understood just how damaging the
accusation of cheating was perceived to be by Indians.

And yet, oh my do "your lot" have no problem dishing out such
accusations in the other direction. If this is the stance by "your
lot" how disgracefully hypocritical has the associated accusations
against the Australian players and umpires, not only now but over the
years - strangely enough, every single time "your lot" want to come
out and declare such-and-such a ruling does not apply to "your lot"
and how the decision must be over=turned and the process changed
because "your lot" have had their reputation damaged.

Stuff the reputations of everyone else, they don't matter. But, by
Gilly, those reputations of "your lot" are so important that it is
vital we disregard due process.

One question for you: Doesn't it also damage reputations if "your
lot" are so stupid they breach the current rules "accidentally" all
the time?

And a similar situation seems to be developing here. What aggreives
me (and presumably some of my fellow-Indians) is that there seems to
be a clear injustice. On what basis can you ban one player based
purely on one man's word against the other?

On what basis can you assert that this is what happened? There's
plenty of other versions of the story (such as the Maa-Kii) version
that don't require anything of the sort. My money is on the Indian
evidence concentrating on "Monkey" not being racist or HS attempting
to take the school-bullies sophistry line.... of course, you might be
right - but on what grounds is it ok to suggest that HS reputation is
damaged by the accusations, but Australian player reputations are not
equally damaged by suggestions they are lying. Someone's reputation
deserves to be damaged here.. but that's why we have match referees.
And the thing about match referees is that its their judgment we have
to rely on.

How about you take the umpire's decision? hmm?

It is important to me, not only that the process be fair, but that it
be demonstrably shown to be fair. So far, all we know for sure is
that no umpires heard anything, no stump mikes heard anything,
Harbhajan denies racially abusing Symonds, and the only one close to
the exchange was Sachin Tendulkar who agrees with that. So at best it
appears to be one man's word against another.

Says you. We don't know the content of each person's evidence and,
while I realise you raise this, you should realise that it affects all
aspects of it. If you can't get a "guilty" verdict out of it, then
you also don't get to place a value on the evidence that necessitates
a "not guilty" verdict.

The Proctor statement "This was not a case of just taking the word of
an Australian over an Indian. I stand by my decision. I believe the
process was a fair one." is not enough for me (and I imagine that it
isn't enough for most other Indians).

Of course it isn't. But you either have judges that you accept the
ruling of or you do not. ANd it's clear from this and from previous
experience that "your lot" are not interested in accepting the ruling
of judges when it doesn't suit "your lot."

In my justice-oriented view of
the world, I want to know what evidence there was for Proctor ruling
the way he did. The fact the Harbhajan did or didn't abuse Symonds in
India is irrelevant -- he is being banned for abusing him on the field
in THIS Test.

Completely agree, but this isn't part of the evidence released
either. You're just guessing.

While I'm fully prepared to believe that Harbhajan may
have done so, I need to see hard proof that used to come to this
conclusion before taking such a serious action. Not that he likely
abused him, or may have abused him, but that he clearly did. This is
not a "pick the more likely of the two outcomes" but my sense of
justice tells me a case of "innocent until proven guilty," where the
burden of proof on the prosecution is far greater than than on the
defense.

Mike Proctor appears to have found it the likely outcome. He's the
match referee.

And, the process-oriented group is again saying that "well, an
impartial arbiter ruled against Harbhajan. Let him take his ban. Don't
be crybabies and call off the tour" whereas the justice-oriented group
seems to say "how can you find Harbhajan guilty without proof of his
wrongdoing? How can you assume that because he abused Symonds in India
3 months ago, that he did the same here?"

We can't, but again this isn't part of the (lack of) evidence released
and you're guessing again.

The situation isn't helped by people dragging in the umpiring into
this issue --

Or indeed catches and things?

Moby
<snipped bit about umpiring because you excluded it at the start of
the statement>
.