• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cricket Thread -4
#114 and the rest:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sagarika "where's my brain" Gozer said:
‘monkey’, the slur Harbhajan allegedly used against Symonds.
teasing Australian all-rounder Andrew Symonds with monkey chants prove that we are racist or is it just the misbehavior of a few Indians? Are Indians unaware of their internal racist bias?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->What? So Indians calling people Monkey is racism now? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Such a looney statement says more about the racism that's growing live-and-well in Sagarika's mind than it does about Indians. I agree that in western countries of colonial times they liked to call us and Africans and others of the brown scale monkeys or gorillas or whatever. That was indeed racist, but monkey in the Indian (and as I will show further down, in Japanese) context does not have anything to do with the christoracist theories of "evolved/superior us vs unevolved/inferior them".

Examples off the top of my head:
(1) Whenever I used to do clever acrobatics, my dad called me "little monkey" if he was amazed at my 'skill' (relative skill of course, it ain't going to make it into the olympics) or "bad/naughty monkey" to tell me off if he thought I was doing something dangerous. My mum still uses that and other cuddly animal terms when I misbehave.
And I have heard the neighbours in Chennai yell the same at their kids when one of their kids got hurt from doing the usual dangerous things like climbing on terrace ledges.
Neither my mum nor dad nor neighbours were 'racist' in calling us monkeys.
An uncle angrily pointed on TV and called a politician monkey as well. So yes, it can be used as a term for abuse (though 'little monkey' from my mum and dad is a term of endearment) but it's not racism. I speak from the Thamizh context, as I don't know Punjabi which is probably Harbajan Singh's language (since he's a Sikh and all). But him being an Indian and moreover from a Dharmic background too, I will extend him the benefit of the doubt.

Not expecting any honesty from liar Sagarika Lozer, but other pseculars may yet live and learn.

(2) Then there's the Japanese context: see famed Akira Kurosawa's historical/period film Kagemusha. Within the first 25 minutes (possibly within the first 15 mins) you will come to this scene:
In a fit of frustration, one of the chief retainers of Lord Shingen calls his Lord a "mountain monkey" followed by something like a 'Go back to your forest' or similar. (Fortunately the Lord respects the old man and takes it with a smile in spite of the abuse.) Again, it's a term of abuse. But just as it was in the Indian context, it isn't racism - because a Japanese person used the term on fellow-Japanese just like Indians have used it on our own ethnicity (Indian). Whereas 'monkey' in christocolonial times was used by the christians from Europe for other people.

And anyone who wants to now say it's casteism: well it isn't where I come from because I am my parents' kid and my neighbours kids are the offspring of my neighbours. So where caste is concerned the 'abusees' are of the same 'caste' as those who yelled the 'abuse'.
And in the Japanese film, Lord Shingen is the Lord of 25,000 Samurai and is of the Samurai lineage himself, which is the highest caste in Japan. And that old retainer was a Samurai too. So there's no casteism there either.
Monkey in the Indian and Japanese contexts is a term of abuse people had first used to abuse people of the same ethnicity, nationality (and 'caste').

That proves Sagarika Lozer is a loser and should stop making a fool of itself by lying so pathetically. And so should the likes of Ponting and whatever other cricket persons were involved. 'Monkey' may be a racist term in Australian parlance considering their uproar (mayhap christians there feel it getting a bit hot for them: they probably used it in an actually racist way not too long ago), but it ain't in TN (and probably rest of India) or in Japan. So <i>they can't call us monkeys and avoid a charge of racism</i>. But we <i>can</i> call anyone monkeys because it doesn't have the same connotations for us as it does for them, just like they can call anyone b*st*rds which for them is a general term of abuse as it is amongst any English-speaking population.

<b>Meanwhile why doesn't anyone point out the fact that Arnold Schwarzenegger has a VERY racist surname: Black Negro is the approximate meaning of his surname (while the last word's actual translation is far worse than that).</b> Where is Kanker Ilaiah and Sagarika Lozer and the christo brigade that always pretends to stand up for "human rights" on that one, eh? In fact, real anti-racists and anti-apartheid/anti-segregation/anti-slavery people should feel self-loathing everytime they pronounce Ahnuld's surname. How can Americans have let him keep that name when voting him in as governor of so-and-so in the US, I'd like to know? Illiteracy in German ain't no excuse, because that one is easily worked out.
I'm not insisting people should change old names like Arnold's, but let's be fair - his is demonstrably racist!
(For those wondering how an Austrian(?) like Arnold came by such a surname, well I'm guessing it's probably similar to how much of the Dutch population got their oft-ridiculous names like "De Dood" = "The Death" or "Geboren-in-'t-Gras" = "Born-in-The-Grass"; and oh yeah, there's the surname that translates to the less-respectable version for "prostitute".
In NL the cause was that during a census some centuries ago, everyone in the Low Lands needed surnames all of a sudden. They didn't at all take the event seriously though, and many came up with nonsensical and even sarcastic surnames. But the census was in full earnest and the names were stuck and they weren't allowed to change it. Many a later generation has had to live with the embarassment, in some cases so bad that I will not repeat/translate their names here.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wow indians are racist for animals as well<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, they pray white elephant Ganesha not black. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Mudy, (this is from my experience) I've only seen one depiction of Ganapathi as white so far in my life. (Other than white marble vigrahams, but that's negated by a larger number of the traditional black-stone vigrahams in Hindu temples.) Otherwise, most generally I've seen Ganesha as soft orange to very bright orange - a Sindhoora colour.
More proof that we're colour-mad; and that has nothing to do with racism.
(I got ya, that makes us worse than racist: look how Ganapathi isn't even all-human. Besides, a Sindhoora colour isn't even represented amongst us bipedal-talking-primates-with-opposable-thumbs! Lozer-Logic dictates that this is even worse than being racist and casteist! Sagarika will now show how Ganapathi proves the evil Hindus' bias against Hooomans <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )


this fool seems to have gone senile or color blind, cows are white, then wat color is this:


i don't know how morons like this get invited.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Nice picture, Bharatvarsha. I like the animal (though it may look intimidating up close and personal).
But since that's the UK, maybe Sagarika the Lozer wants to hide behind some lame excuse like "Indians or Hindus won't have anything but white cows". In that case: Mwahahahahaha. My paternal grandparents had lots of cows. And quite a number among them were dark (predictable number as per normal distribution). For instance, there was Aishwarya, which had a common Indian cow colouring: mostly filled with dark brown and black patches with a few smaller patches of red brown and some tiny spots of white. Yes, it was named after MahaLakshmi. Oooh, that proves it for SagarikaTheLozer, when even "evil" Brahmanas were "so racist" they named mostly-dark-brown/black cow after Lakshmi!
(And did I tell you that Aishwarya had one calf of the same colouring? That's two brown cows in "racist casteist" Hindooooostan!)

Sagarika can't spell its own name: Lozer should have been the first word it learned.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And you'll probabily ask he as to why Hindus do revere buffalo who's dear to Lord Yama<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Viren is right. It is well-known to all Indians, except christoislamicommuniterrorists of course, that Dharmaraja Yama's Vahanam is a Buffalo. All animals are sacred to Hindu Gods, and therefore to Hindus.
But christo-educated lozers don't know that. They think the world is flat and believe in St Valentine (while even the catholic church has admitted he's a fable) and think that jeebus was a great teacher when he was in fact a non-existent character who wasn't even allowed to properly regurgitate the pre-existing teachings put into his mouth - it came out so confused that what poured forth was nonsense.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Oohhhhhhhhhhhh.... how many native indeginous aborginies playing for AuSS team? Can they even afford TVs or radios to watch Pointing and co. cheat?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Until the 1960s (or was it the 1950s?) the christo Aussies shot the Australian Aboriginals. Often dead. It was a sport.
So they can stop trying to obscure christo blame. The real inhabitants of Australia know full well where the racism comes from. That's right: from christianism.
And aren't the christoterrorists like Steve Waugh or whoever busy kidnapping Australian Aboriginal children from their parents to give to christo-European settlers? That's what all the churches and Salvation Army did in Australia - IIRC the victims are called the Stolen Generation.
Oh wait, Steve Waugh or was it his brother has transferred their christoterrorism to India. Last I heard he set up some christian mission there to save us heathens. Stolen Generation of Hindus or - equally-likely - sexually abused kids will be the outcome. 'Stay away from christos=christoterrorists' is a very good rule of thumb in my book.

Here, I found it:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Australia we have had a meeting of great white minds in the form of our Highest Court, which decided (after 200 years of not noticing the inhuman sufferings of Aborigines) that before the British soldiers arrived in 1788 with a mass of petty convicts to make us part of the British Empire, there were PEOPLE living here. Those people were a race of intelligent humans with black skins -Aborigines- who had resided here for a known 60000 years.

What followed was a mass murder of those residents, especially by white police, graziers, army and business-men. Many were killed in weekly turkey shoots for sport, particularly if they were brave enough to defend their families. This continued till even 1950. Since then, our racist 'Police' have continued with normal murders, generally in secret deaths in custody, but the secrecy has now been exposed into common-knowledge. After so many years of survival on this harsh continent, no genes had developed to make Blacks immune from diseases like measles and also alcohol poisoning. Black people cannot absorb alcohol. Thus our jails have a very large percentage of Aborigines, mainly for being drunk and disorderly, insulting the police, swearing, fighting while intoxicated and generally being unable to understand white-man's laws.

The police preferred method is to hang Blacks with football sox or strips of blankets and claim that they had suicided while drunk. Commonsense suggests that two men must have lifted the victim and arranged the other details. The evidence has been clear that tribal people must not be separated from their culture and family members. It is imperative that they not be jailed for minor offences, rather taken to their families and elders to be judged by Aborigine Laws, or, for drunkenness, driven a few miles out of town and left under a tree to sober-up to find their way home next day. Or the police could treat them like drunk white politicians and deliver them home? Some States have laws forbidding whites to sell liquor to them, but the whites have their own laws including making profits from the delivery of booze to an arranged transfer area.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Grand old christianism lies in wait for Indian converts too. More children for christoterrorists to poach on. Same christian problems amongst all people enslaved by christianism; and worse awaits those that resist conversion: the converts will gang up with the converters to kill the inconvertibles. Being betrayed by your own kind is the worst possible thing, but converts are so gullible. They imagine the non-existent jeebus will save them from the invented hell and will therefore commit terrorism for this non-materialising carrot.

archives.<b>cnn</b>.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/11/22/australia.aborigine/index.html via http://freetruth.50webs.org/D3.htm#Australia
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->During colonization Aborigines were hunted, killed and driven from their lands by European settlers.

As recently as the 1970s officials were still taking Aborigine children from their families and placing them in orphanages, often run by <b>churches</b>, in a now discredited assimilation program.

The tens of thousands of people affected have become known as the "stolen generations."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<i>(Needless to say, this post doesn't mean I approve of people calling others names or swearing at them.
Unless I do it of course <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Reserving the right and all...)</i>

<b>ADDED:</b> I'd like the Indian crowds to pick on the rest of the Australian team <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> instead of Symonds, particularly the christoterrorist Waugh (if he's still in cricket-existence).
Husky: If I'm not mistaken this Sagarika Ghose was the same bimbo who wrote before Gujarat elections something to the effect of '<i>gujus are cowards and they don't fight but pay others to fight</i>'. As far as I know there's no one remotely related to her or her hubby (Rajdeep Sardesai) who's served in armed forces.
The hypocrisy of these people know no depths.

As far as cricket, first things first:
Harbhajan did NOT make any racists comments. Kumble stands behind him in his own words. And on field batsman at the time, Tendulkar's making same stand.

Rest of speculation of buffulo and cow can be only termed as bullshit. And this caste nonsense can be moved to another thread.

Here's Kumble in TOI:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I would like to begin by pointing out that someone [Michael Clarke] clearly edged the ball to the slips in the second innings of the Sydney Test and stood there even when there was not an iota of doubt over the dismissal. The same player then claimed a catch that showed more than reasonable doubt and said he was 100 per cent certain it was clean.

At this point, a few days before the Test in Perth, I can tell you that that sort of behaviour will play a big role in my decision whether to continue the agreement that Ricky and I had made before the series began.

We had decided that in the case of a disputed catch we would take the word of the fielder concerned, if he was certain. But that agreement was based on the premise that, come what may, whatever the situation, the fielder concerned would be completely straight on what happened. Now, there will obviously be a big question mark about that in future matches.

On the other events, I can only say that I spoke to Ricky that day [of the row between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds] and having heard from Bhajji and Sachin Tendulkar before that, I was convinced that there had neither been any racist remark made, nor intended. I asked Bhajji why he started it and he said he hadn’t; Symonds did and goaded him, so he responded. But he insisted he made no racist comment.

Ricky, meanwhile, was just not willing to listen, nor see my point. <b>When I offered to apologise as Bhajji’s skipper, it was only to smooth things over, at no stage did I admit that he had made a racist remark; in fact, I said he had not</b>.

Unfortunately, these days, when someone apologises, it is seen as either a sign of weakness or an admission of guilt. I am neither unnerved nor are we guilty. In the larger interests of the game, if an apology could help to build bridges and smooth things over, then it is better made than left unsaid because of egos.

In my book, it’s really important that when somebody is accused of being a racist, whoever that someone is, the charge is not made lightly, is not followed up just to prove a point and is not deemed as proven unless there is absolute evidence. Unfortunately this did not happen in Bhajji’s case.

Then again, he is a colleague and I have a responsibility towards him as his captain and as a fellow Indian. It is a serious allegation, calling someone a racist. You are not just accusing a cricketer, but the ramifications of this accusation, unproven in the eyes of almost everyone, were bound to be huge. India’s cricketers are the country’s ambassadors when we travel and, by making such serious charges without proof, it becomes a question of honour for the individuals concerned and the country.

There is obviously a sense of outrage in India. I cannot comment on what I thought of the proceedings, but the fact that we have appealed should make things self-evident. I’m really grateful for the overwhelming support the team have received from Indians in India and abroad and from people from other parts of the world, equally upset by the turn of events.

I’m also really thankful to the BCCI for their unstinting support of us on the matter. They have backed us right through and are doing all they can to make sure the players will be OK.

We’re going to try to do our best in Perth, a place where no one expects much from us. We are disappointed that we couldn’t force a draw in Sydney. We had a great opportunity when [Mike] Hussey and [Matthew] Hayden were batting to try to restrict their second-innings score, but Hussey batted really well to put the game beyond us.

Still, we should have at least tried for a draw despite that. We really need to get our batting in order. Too often, of late, we’ve struggled batting in our second innings to save a game. Here, we were three down at tea and then lost seven in a row. Yes, the rub of the green went against us, but we still should have stuck it out.

Finally, it’s important that the game goes on. Cricket is larger than any individual. One of the reasons I have tried to put the game and other things in perspective is to ensure that we move on and play good cricket. I’ll do my best but it takes two to tango and ensure that things move smoothly. I can only hope it happens.

There's a new discourse opening up: Indians as racists. MMS himself confirmed caste "system" as racism after NDA had denied these allegations during the previous durban conference.
Not sure what Tarun Vijay's problem is. Must we solve all problems that India faces before we grow a spine and ask Ponting to behave ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jan 11 2008, 03:15 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jan 11 2008, 03:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What? So Indians calling people Monkey is racism now? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Such a looney statement says more about the racism that's growing live-and-well in Sagarika's mind than it does about Indians. I agree that in western countries of colonial times they liked to call us and Africans and others of the brown scale monkeys or gorillas or whatever. That was indeed racist, but monkey in the Indian (and as I will show further down, in Japanese) context does not have anything to do with the christoracist theories of "evolved/superior us vs unevolved/inferior them".

The fans knew this was how to get to the australians; eg give them a taste of their own medicine. At most, it is mimicry, certainly not racism.
Cricinfo attacking Gavaskar the only Indian in the ICC Cricketing Committee.
The article is toally one sided. for example the author talks about McGrath and Sarwan incidence, but is silent on the actual punishment meted out to McGrath.

Gavaskar's Double Role

On the other hand, maybe he hasn't been paying attention. After all, how many times has audio evidence ever been definitive in any case of on-field behaviour? The stumps mikes didn't pick up Glenn McGrath's tirade at Ramnaresh Sarwan in 2003, nor did the umpires David Shepherd and Srinivas Venkataraghavan make any report, but that didn't stop the failure of the ICC referee to take action being an abysmally weak decision.

That referee, of course, was Mike Procter. He was also the referee at the Oval in 2006 when Inzamam ul-Haq had his Achilles-like sulk, and at Melbourne in 2007 when Yuvraj Singh had his Paris Hiltonesque pout. There are some good arguments that while he bowled magnificent inswinging yorkers off the wrong foot, Procter has been a serial failure in enforcing the ICC's code of conduct. But you'd be forgiven for wondering exactly who is helped by the following assessment of his work by Gavaskar: "This is what has incensed the millions of Indians who are flabbergasted that the word of one of the greatest players in the history of the game, Sachin Tendulkar, was not accepted. In effect, Tendulkar has been branded a liar by the match referee."

<i>and then he includes the following excerpt from Sunny days and calls gavaskar racist</i>

Which brings us back to Gavaskar. Because all this "monkey" talk can't help but remind the cricket bibliophile of the chapter in Gavaskar's autobiography Sunny Days (1976) in which he recounts the blood-spattered Kingston Test of 1976 where Bishan Bedi famously declared his innings closed rather than risk further injury for his batsmen from the West Indian pace enfilade. Here's a sample:

To call the crowd a 'crowd' in Jamaica is a misnomer. It should be called a 'mob'. The way they shrieked and howled every time Holding bowled was positively horrible. They encouraged him with shouts of 'Kill him, Maaaan!' 'Hit im Maan!', 'Knock his head off Mike!' All this proved beyond a shadow of doubt that these people still belonged to the jungles and forests, instead of a civilised country....

Their partisan attitude was even more evident when they did not applaud any shots we played. At one stage I even 'demanded' claps for a boundary shot off Daniel. All I got was laughter from the section, which certainly hadn't graduated from the trees where they belonged....

They were stamping their legs, clapping and jumping with joy. The only word I can think of to describe the behaviour of the crowd is 'barbarian'. Here was a man seriously injured, and these barbarians were thirsting for more blood, instead of expressing sympathy, as any civilised and sporting crowd would have done....

The whole thing was sickening. Never have I seen such cold-blooded and positively indifferent behaviour from cricket officials and the spectators, to put it mildly, were positively inhuman.


Anyone who has read about that test will tell you that West Indies wanted to win the match at any cost, as India had successfully chased a total of more than 400 iin the previous test.

The author does not mention the tactics of Clive Lloyd in targetting tailenders. Bedi called the innings closed as there was a danger that the tailend batsmen would be seriously hurt by the intimidatory bowling. I dont know what word can one use in such a situation. And this book was written by Gavaskar almost twenty years back.

This is the same site which went hammer and tongs after after Saurav Ganguly when he was the captain. Ganguly never gave a toss about them.

this site used to be balanced before it was taken over by Wisden, now it acts as a mouthpiece of the old brigade.

Great article on

the aussie need to protecy Symonds;
the US poodle policies of Oz;
the Oz need to be noticed etc

I am so confident you will enjoy this article that anyone who did not like this article can email


and get their money back... <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> - he seems to be in the mold of Varsha Bhosale; hope he sticks around and writes more often.
<!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Caste could play a role in who represents India</b>
Andrew Stevenson

MANY and proud are those to make a major contribution to Indian cricket. Narayan Masurekar is not often listed among them, though perhaps he deserves a place.

Masurekar was a relative of Sunil Gavaskar, born on July 10, 1949 in Bombay (now Mumbai).

By chance or fate, he chose to visit the baby twice in Dr Purandare hospital noticing, to the horror of all on the second trip, that it wasn't the same boy.

The tiny hole in the boy's left ear - still visible today - was gone. A panicked search confirmed his judgement: the boy had been swapped with the son of a fisherwoman.

Gavaskar, from a proud, wealthy Brahmin family, the highest caste in the Hindu social order, had an uncle, Madhav Mantri, who played for India. It's one of the great imponderables, a classic recasting of the nature-nurture divide to speculate whether Gavaskar, raised by a fisherwoman, could have played the game.

He might have had the eye and the dexterity to star in backstreet games, but would a fisherwoman's son have played 125 Tests and scored 34 centuries? The chances may not have been great. The Brahmin caste, which forms only a tiny fraction of India's population, has always dominated the national cricket side.

Even today, with the game reaching further and further into the countryside, and the so-called lower orders, the Indian team has a decided flavour with Anil Kumble, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly, R.P. Singh and Ishant Sharma all Brahmins. Wasim Jaffer is a Muslim, Harbhajan Singh a Sikh, while, of the Hindu players, only Mahendra Dhoni and Yuvraj Singh come from "lower" castes.

But toss the question into still water and you might not hear a splash. Harsha Bhogle, the erudite Indian commentator heard on ABC radio and ESPN, was astounded to be asked about the role of caste in Indian cricket.

"I don't think that anyone in the Indian team would even be aware that X is from one caste and Z from another," he said, adding he had no idea what proportion of India's population were Brahmin. "I did not not even know that, it hasn't crossed my mind at all."

Gavaskar, acutely aware of how his fate was saved, still makes light of the effect on his life. "I keep thinking about I was found in a crib next to a fisherwoman so it definitely has had an effect on my cricketing career - look at the number of times I've been out caught fishing outside the off stump."

But caste and cricket? No influence, at all, he says.

Similarly, Ravi Shastri, a former Indian Test captain and now the chairman of the national cricket academy. The preponderance of Brahmin players, especially batsmen, "is just coincidence". He says: "It's got nothing to do with it, 'because they are Brahmins they are picked.' I think they're just being picked because they are Indians. The game is just popular among Indians, as simple as that.

"It's just that you are good enough to play for your country, and that's why you are picked."

Bhogle admitted caste was still a key factor in Indian politics, where aspiring representatives search for guaranteed support.

"Fewer and fewer people in the cities are thinking like that [about caste] and, left to ourselves, we wouldn't even think about it. But politicians won't allow us to forget because they've got to cater to their vote banks," he said. "But luckily there have been some areas that are completely free of all that, our entertainment industry is completely free of it and I'm very happy to say our cricket is completely free of all that."

Not all agree. Siriyavan Anand, a Dalit (the caste formerly called untouchables), has written provocatively and critically of the Brahmin domination, suggesting it was easy to "infer that cricket is a game that best suits Brahmanical tastes and bodies, and that there has been a preponderance of Brahman cricket players at the national level".

Anand's argument that cricket is an idle and indolent game - at least when played by higher-caste Indians - is readily accepted by commentators and even Australian crowds, who know next to nothing of caste in India.

"Why do their fielders not chase the ball to the boundary? Why do Indian batsmen rarely run for singles, apparently preferring to hit the ball to the fence or amble through for two runs in no obvious haste?" Anand wrote. "Having too many Brahmans means that you play the game a little too softly, and mostly for yourself."

The man rated India's best fieldsman, Eknath Solkar, is not a Brahmin, nor is Vinod Kambli, a precociously talented batsmen from a "lower" caste, who burst on the scene with Tendulkar when the pair made a world record partnership of 664 as schoolboys. He played the last of his 17 Tests in 1995, despite an average of 54.20 and a highest score of 227.

Despite his talents, Kambli was always booed and mocked at his home ground, Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai. Observers believed it was because of the dark colour of his skin. Not so, says Kambli. "I think it's because of my caste."

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, assistant editor of cricinfo.com, believes caste is relevant within the Indian team at a subconscious level, "in terms of the groups that are formed, in terms of the people who feel wanted, in terms of the people who don't feel wanted". "It's also because people from the lower castes have this tendency to not feel wanted, people have to make an extra effort," he says.

"But people from the top castes have a tendency to be stand-offish, so I think exaggerates it a bit more and the gap increases."

Siddhartha can see caste as a possible explanation for the Brahmin dominance, particularly in batting. "Traditionally, cricket has been an elitist sport, and in terms of the physique and what you need as a batsman, it's more skill, wrist and angles than what you need as a fast bowler or fielder," he says. "That probably explains it in a way. If you look at the body structure of the higher castes, you would find they aren't as athletic as they are deft."

Cricket is also a game of long hours - both in preparation through many days in the junior ranks, to play and to watch - establishing an inherent bias towards those wealthy enough to indulge their passion. Twenty20 cricket may be about to change all that, with the find of the recent national competition being V. Devendran, who hails from the tribal regions of Tamil Nadu.

Shastri believes more players from the regions will emerge.

"People from the outskirts of the metros are hungrier, they want it more than the city boys, who are distracted by too many things," he says. "You look at India, you look at Pakistan, you look at Sri Lanka - you will see more and more players coming from outside the main cities."

Dhoni, who comes from that other world and who is already the most popular Indian cricketer among the younger generation, only a notch below Tendulkar, is another example of the change.

"His popularity is more from his dashing play, but in an indirect way, a village boy watching Dhoni will look at him and say, 'If he can go on and do so well for India, I definitely can,' that caste is not a barrier in cricket," Siddhartha says. "This might open the tap."


One of the best cricketing photos I have seen..
Added later: Its #18 on the slideshow..cant get that link..
Irfan Pathan - MAN OF THE MATCH, wonder what Andrew Stevenson has to say about it.
India puts an halt to Aussie's quest of record 17th win. Revenge is best served cold <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Kumble and co.. <!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I asked Andrew..he says Pathan is considered "honorary Bramhin #2". Bhajji is "honorary Bramhin #1", and Jaffer is "honorary Bramhin #3"..and that is how they got into the team, Stevenson says.

I remarked that Stevenson was looking quite old for his age, being Steve Waugh's son and all, and that he should try some Yoga to keep himself looking younger. He looked pissed. Why? Touchy about his age? Or is it because he hates his dad Steve and does not like to be called his son? Maybe he hates the heathen practice "Yoga"?
<img src='http://www.cricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/87900/87993.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

Dhoni and his boys certainly deserve a pat on their backs for their stellar performance despite all odds (some best players on bench, bad umpiring in early days, hostile Aussi crowd/media, unsportsman like behaviour on/off field by opponents etc.)

With U-19 winning world championship, beating world's #1 at their home, things are looking good for Indian cricket. Hope success doesn't get into their head and they screw it all up.

I know it's old news, the Symonds episode and all, but since am a new member, I can't help responding just the same. I have a different take on this. Fine, the word 'monkey' isn't as bad as all that in the Indian context; nor are we suggesting that the Aussies are angels. But I am curious about one thing. Why did the Indian crowd pick on Symonds? Why not Ponting or others who've been overtly racist toward Indians? The q is simple, but the answer complex.

Let's say Indians are 100% right in suggesting that the Aussies are racist toward Indians. Obviously, <b>this means that white Aussies are racist toward Indians</b>, NOT the aborigines. That being the case, why must Indians pick on an aboriginal person? Aborigines have never hurt Indians, physically or verbally or otherwise, then why do Indians hurt people from these races? It makes little sense. If Indians feel (white) Aussies are racist and wanted to pay them back in the same token, shouldn't they target the whites in the Aus. team? If A hurts me and I want payback, the logical thing for me is to attack A, and NOT take it out on B, who's never hurt me.

This only shows that deep down, Indians still feel inferior vis-a-vis Whites, which is why they still haven't abused ONE white cricketer so far, all the while targeting a person from a victimized community, the aboriginal community. This doesn't mean I am advocating hatred against whites, but just going a bit deeper into this problem. And in doing so, I realize that I cannot feel sorry for Indians in this matter.

Of course, people like Ilaih and the rest are opportunists and must be exposed, that's a different matter altogether. I am only referring to this particular instance, the mentality of the Indians to hurt the wrong people, even as they fawn over those who're overtly racist. This is a very bizarre attitude. That's all I am suggesting, not that I am agreeing with the shallow analysis relating to caste and all that.
^ First symonds is not an aussie aborigine. He was born in the Carribean and brought to Aussie land by some christain missonaries. That's why he displays a trait of looking down upon people who are not from his religious background.

An regarding the issue of using racist words, the aussies have been using this tactic of abusing other players which they label as 'mental degradation' and 'sledging'.

Aussie Glen Macgrath verbally abused West Indies player Ramnaresh sarvan on camera but no action was taken against him.

Srilankan Muralitharan has been taunted and abused by the aussie crowd with even eggs being thrown at him.

During the Harbhajan incident first Symonds went up to him and provoked him and when harbhajan replied back this symonds runs to the umpire and complains even when there was an agreement between the 2 sides that if any incident happens on the field it remains there rather than taking it to the umpires.

The aussies first provoke and when they receive an befittingly reply they disregard the agreement and try to take the moral high ground.

Note that the common thing between all 3 incidents is that all the 3 players are non-white and belong to an religion other than christainity.

<b>sureshmoorthy Ji :</b>

Andrew Symonds - Manchester Born - is of Mixed Caucasian-Afro-Caribbean Origin.

There are - to my knowledge - no Aborigines in the Australian Test-One Day Version Senior Class Cricket Teams

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Black West Indian players have visited and played in India have taken back some of the fondest memories from our soil. Same with any other player of color from say SA or England etc. So it's not really a color versus non-color issue.

Here's a primer on Aussie Racism in Cricket released by Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission!!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On Australian cricket, the report points to “racial sledging” of South African cricketers who “were referred to as kaffirs by a small section of spectators” at Perth in December 2005. It says that cricketers from <b>Sri Lanka were “subjected to calls of ‘black c——’ at Adelaide</b>, and adds that an ICC security official was punched by spectators in Melbourne.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The racist sledging of players by spectators started during the Perth Test in December 2005, when some South African players were referred to as ‘kaffirs’ by a small section of spectators in the crowd. Similar taunting was also reported by the South African players in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Members of the Sri Lankan team were subjected to calls of ‘black c——’ from spectators at the Adelaide Oval during a One Day International match on Australia Day<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Players haven’t been the only targets. <b>The International Cricket Council’s regional anti-corruption and security chief, John Rhodes, was punched by a drunken spectator at Melbourne’s Telstra Dome after being identified as South African</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->BCCI’s Anti-Racism Commissioner Prof Ratnakar Shetty told The Indian Express: “All of us know how Sri Lanka’s <b>Muttiah Muralitharan was taunted by crowds in Australia. We know how they treated England’s Monty Panesar</b>. Look who is talking.” <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

South Africa's Makhaya Ntini has been abused in Australia
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fast bowler Makhaya Ntini and several other players were called "kaffirs" and "kaffir boetie" (brother of blacks) by people in the Waca crowd. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An regarding the issue of using racist words, the aussies have been using this tactic of abusing other players which they label as 'mental degradation' and 'sledging'.

Aussie Glen Macgrath verbally abused West Indies player Ramnaresh sarvan on camera but no action was taken against him.

Srilankan Muralitharan has been taunted and abused by the aussie crowd with even eggs being thrown at him.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

All true. Then why is it the Indian crowd didn't pick on Ponting, McGrath, or any of these white cricketers who've been overtly racist toward Indians and Lankans? This is all I am asking, NOT once did I suggest that the Aussies are angels. Given the fact that these white cricketers from Aus. have been racist, why is it Indians tend to fawn over them, and instead pick on the non-white Symonds? Am I the only one to find this bizarre?

Perhaps, this article from Pioneer will help one understand.
Incrediby Boorish
More to the point, I am puzzled by the attitude that most Indians have regarding the problem of racism. Action is important, but what we do is complain. We simply weep and whine, saying Aussies do this or that, they're racist, they're mean, they indulge in sledging, and so on. By complaining like this, we look like a bunch of pathetic losers to the world. Second, life is not a bed of roses, it's a battlefield. People are going to be downright rude, even violent sometimes. It's up to us to face these things, and fight like men, rather than sit in the corner and complain.

Look at BCCI, they have the power, they have the money to manipulate things. And yet, they're crying like babies instead of confronting the problem directly. If you have power, you must use it, bully (bad) people with it, manipulate them, and get things done. That's life. There's no point in giving lectures that racism is wrong, we must be tolerant, bla bla. You think any racist is going to listen to our words of wisdom? People respect muscle, they don't give a damn about principles, right and wrong, good and evil.

If Indians feel certain people are racist, they must learn to hit them where it hurts. Only such aggressive attitude can end this problem. If there's racism, don't try to convince people that racism is bad. Of course, it's bad, and everyone knows it. The racists know it, and despite this knowledge, they indulge in it. So what's the point in trying to persuade people that Aussies are racist, or that racism is bad, when this truth is pretty self-evident and needs no convincing?

Therefore, it's impractical for us to waste time trying to convince ourselves or others of the evils of racism. Everyone knows this already. So our time is better spent in confronting these people like men, like soldiers. This approach is lacking in most Indians, thanks to our idealistic view of a perfect society, and all the rest.

Put simply, rather than say foolish things like, "There should be no racism, racism is evil," and other such old, hackneyed phrases, our attitude should be: Let there be racism, let the Aussies be racist, let the world be racist. We'll be racists too, and give them a taste of their own medicine.

This aggressive attitude will make people respect us. Moreover, it's the only practical solution, because racism is here to stay and cannot be wished away. So fight racism with racism. But what do we do? We not only complain like kids, but pick on an insignificant Symonds, when the real culprits like Ponting are treated like guests of honor. How silly! Let's be racist toward racists, that's the only way to fight this problem. Awakening people to the dangers of racism is a redundant process, because people are already awake to the dangers. And despite this, they either indulge in, or tolerate, racism. So the only solution is to fight fire with fire, which the Indians NEVER seem to learn. EVER!
<!--QuoteBegin-sureshmoorthy+Mar 5 2008, 12:11 PM-->QUOTE(sureshmoorthy @ Mar 5 2008, 12:11 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Put simply, rather than say foolish things like, "There should be no racism, racism is evil," and other such old, hackneyed phrases, our attitude should be: Let there be racism, let the Aussies be racist, let the world be racist. We'll be racists too, and give them a taste of their own medicine.[right][snapback]79311[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This must be a joke. A particularly <i>un</i>funny one.
It's like saying "if they're doing drugs, we'll do it too. That'll teach 'em (how???)" Or: "if they behave like nazis, we'll show them by nazying back at them." Wah? <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->

Racism is a debilitating mental disease that people can't shake. No one wants to catch it. Don't try it.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->let the world be racist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can't be serious. That's an ultra-nihilist statement. Why would anyone <i>ever</i> wish for that. It'd be kinder to humanity if you wished a meteor to bang into the planet and end all life. (Am not encouraging such fancies by the way)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Given the fact that these white cricketers from Aus. have been racist, why is it Indians tend to fawn over them, and instead pick on the non-white Symonds? Am I the only one to find this bizarre?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Didn't watch the cricket match(es) concerned, but it's rather straightforward. Symonds behaves little better than the others in his team. But Indian crowds see him as more at their own level, precisely because of his background/appearance (not 'white') - which puts him on an equal footing, and so they feel they can yell at him and reprimand him/get their own back. In other words: Indians are still intimidated by Europeans; it's the colonial mentality - don't dare to respond to them.
But the opposite - arrogance - won't solve this problem either.

The only solution I can think of is to make Aus learn that offending others to score cheap points is not sport and no one wants to play with such losers. Competitive sports are a different kind of contest altogether: they're not about who's the most foul-mouthed. SA was stood up by several countries before, because of apartheid. If I were in charge of our nation's cricket team, I'd boycott any game if there's been racist nonsense. So should SL and any other countries. Else they're selling self-respect very cheaply (but it's hard to expect anything of cricket when the example of our own 'esteemed' government is so glaring: selling India to TSP, internal islamoterrorists, China, internal communiterrorists, missionaries and internal converted christoterrorists.)
Why would you play with people who've offended you <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Let Aus learn that playing alone isn't fun. Else - assuming that UK and others will still be eager to play with Aus - they can keep it just between western countries like in the 'good old' colonial days. That way they can always pretend they're the best <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> And the non-colonial world can also play with each other and hopefully take part for actual sports.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)