The real truth about Bhajji and Monkey gate

I think we have all ignored the basic, simple ground rule of any investigation: What started it all? What triggered the immediate provocation? Was Harbhajan Singh deliberately insulting towards Aussie Andrew Symonds, barraging him with supposed racial slur words? Or was it a sudden spontaneous reaction by Bhajji to Symonds instigation? Was it really meant to be a racist assault?

At the time of writing, the jury is literally out with several BCCI office-bearers threatening a catastrophe of such epic proportions that even global warming has taken a backseat quietly. I think we should stop this pseudo-nationalistic sanctimonious crap, and get down to brass-tacks and bare facts.

Firstly, as is on record, Harbhajan Singh patted Brett Lee on his back or buttocks or both with his bat when the bowler was walking back for his run-up. Andrew Symonds who witnessed the rear end affair is gone on record to say that he thought that Singh was trying to take pot-shots (literally??) at his speedster colleague. Wrong, Symonds. And that is where the entire tragicomic soap opera of alarming proportions commenced that apparently " split" world cricket. Whew!

The first moot point is, why didn't Brett Lee himself stand and object to the "bat on butt" provocation if it was really meant to be so acutely offensive? He surely did not need Symonds as his on-field lawyer for defense. Because the bottom line is that Lee, when he is not bowling full-length scorchers at Melbourne, is singing duets with Asha Bhonsle in Mumbai. Lee is fully aware that in India, "we are like that only."

We are physically exuberant in expressing ourselves, wildly hugging, vigorously shaking, and occasionally enthusiastically bum-slapping each other. Such innocuous gestures are commonplace and they have a simple earthy human element in them; no complex psycho-mumbo-jumbo innuendos are implied. You need no shrink.

One aspect of the Bhajji episode that has been completely overlooked is that Bhajji is a proud Sardarji. And what makes the fun-loving, bhangra-dancing, constantly chattering, unusually modest Sardars unique is their incredible ability to laugh at themselves. It is a remarkably endearing and enduring trait of the folks from Punjab. We have all grown up on a staple of Sardarji jokes, and I have yet to encounter a single Sardar friend of mine who has not laughed with as much gusto as I have. We need to know this aspect of his natural character to understand Bhajji's current predicament. Or even India's.

Which is why when an Indian host gives a warm hug to his American, British, or Australian counterpart, the latter shuffles uncomfortably, as if he has received a gay overture, an unalloyed homosexual invitation. To the regular Westerner, such human behaviour is a "queer deviant" from normal human intercourse (pun intended). In an extremely clinical culture, where even young kids have to take an appointment to see their working parents, where a teenager staying home with his folks is considered "a duffer and a dud, a pansy and a pip squeak", and expressing prodigious warmth is watched suspiciously as if having a pre-defined "motive", it is hardly surprising that there is a total mismatch of the two worlds. It is a pure cultural contrast between natural Indian and even Asian human behaviour against a more formal, studied, designated conduct of the Westerners.

Which is why, the first question is to Mr Symonds: Did Harbhajan Singh really specifically call for a bull-fight by summoning him for a verbal diatribe?

If his answer is NO (as is the case as stated by him) , then the whole case changes completely, and one may actually ask Andrew Symonds-----" Why did you assume and construe that Bhajji was targeting Brett Lee, when all he was doing was indulging in harmless banter, perhaps?"

In that case, Symonds advising Bhajji ---"Go to your own little mates" would have been enough ammunition to get Singh agitated instead. Because Singh perhaps could not comprehend as to why Symonds was getting so inflammatory.

Think of Singh's mental construct. He had every right to believe that Symonds , who he had neither spoken to nor made any attempt to communicate with, was intentionally picking up a fight. The fact that at that time Sachin Tendulkar and Singh had been battling in a tough partnership must have played on his mind; was it a pre-meditated attempt to disrupt proceedings? And the fact that the two of them had a history from the previous series in India, probably accentuated matters.

Now in an impulsive fit of rage, an exasperated Singh "abused" him. After all, it was Symonds who had taunted him, and not the other way round. Therefore, he probably hit back. It is as simple as that.

Lets assume that Singh called Symonds a "big monkey" carried away momentarily, but believing that he was being craftily set-up by the lanky Australian. Maybe it is a "deemed racial slur", spoken in the heat of the moment. The fact that Symonds, Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke claim they heard the word "monkey" uttered by Bhajji may be actually true. It is almost unfathomable that all these Australian players are lying collectively as part of some diabolical conspiracy to denigrate Bhajji or embarrass India. Most unlikely. The Aussies may be poor losers and over-aggro sportsmen, but we should not callously castigate them for being evil Machiavellian sort either. Lets be fair.

But then should Symonds get away completely scot-free, despite unnecessarily creating a fracas over the brittle touch to Brett Lee's butt?

And by the way from a pure legal stand-point, if there is no audio-video full-fledged uncluttered conformation that Bhajji did say the word "monkey", then despite Aussie assertions based on actual facts perhaps, on pure absence of evidence alone, Bhajji will have to be given reprieve of the grave charge, and its consequent serious consequences. Which is what Justice Hansen has just done (I see the Breaking News on TV channel flashing away).

But the key question remains strangely unanswered; so what was the " abusive" word uttered by Harbhajan Singh? Why has he been docked 50% of his match-fees, for saying what? Someone is still lying blatantly with a straight-face out there. If Bhajji did not say " big monkey" then shouldn't BCCI technically sue Cricket Australia, Andrew Symonds & Co and Mike Proctor for flagrant defamation? And if he did, then how does BCCI, Sachin Tendulkar, Cricket Australia or ICC cover itself in crowning glory? Has there been another under-the-seat deal, and will we only know facts when someone pens a hurried autobiography?

So is this then a compromise solution, truth be damned? As for the BCCI threatening ODI tour cancellation, it was in poor taste, as it will only further fortify arguments that India has become a monster-entity, pregnant with deplorable arrogance. Once law takes it's own course, you have to respect that. And the argument that fresh evidence is not acceptable was downright stupid. If there is valid evidence, it can be admitted at any time, as the purpose of any jury is to give a fair verdict taking into account all available facts presented to it, no matter how belatedly.

So that colossal split in world cricket has been furtively subverted. Everyone is putting up victorious V-signs. The BCCI is delighted that Bhajji has brought the game into only a small increment of disrepute. The ODI tour will continue now with even higher TRPs. Cricket Australia and BCCI will continue to make bigger moolah. And the game will go on. Sorry, the show will go on.

The truth lies buried somewhere near the green turf of Sydney. With a few persons who know the real truth. It will surface. What lies beneath, usually does.