Historically, the term ‘racism’ has evolved to describe that against which racially oppressed civilisations seek to wrest political agency for the sake of justice. Underscoring the definition of racial justice is the belief that every human being, regardless of skin colour and ethnic origin, is entitled to universal human rights and a life of dignity. But for the last few hundred years, for obvious reasons, racism has mostly come to mean the oppression of coloured, non-Western civilisations by white Westerners. It is news to no one that the consequences of racism have been debilitating for not only those who have experienced it first hand but also those born after. Conversely, the term ‘white privilege’ has come to signify the political, social and economic advantages enjoyed by white people then and now as a direct result of racial inequities. Both racism and white privilege are said to be at play when the word of a white person is automatically considered more trustworthy than that of a person of colour.

As a country once colonised by a white, Western power, India has long battled the social, economic and psychological effects of racism and emerged not a battered loser but a leader in the worldwide fight for racial justice. It is a well-documented fact that Mahatma Gandhi and other Indian leaders inspired Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela, amongst others, to carry forward their own efforts against racial discrimination.

For Ricky Ponting and his team to shut out the political and historical context in which the term ‘racism’ acquired both meaning and currency and use it against Harbhajan Singh, therefore, is nothing short of mischievous. Racism, after all, is not only discriminatory or abusive behaviour towards a person of another race but also the attempt of a dominant race to hold on to power over a historically dominated race. That Ponting and his men are attempting to appropriate the term ‘racist’ and turn history and politics on its head is a cause for concern for anyone who seeks genuine social justice. The ramification of Ponting’s tactics is that in a single stroke it neutralises the political arsenal of coloured people combating real racism as well as diminishes their credibility. For, if those objecting to racism are perceived to be as guilty as those historically responsible for racism, they lose the moral authority to speak up against racial discrimination now and in future.

This is of course not to argue that history for ever exempts all Indians from charges of racism. Some ignorant Indians are indeed racist.

But it is also no secret that to this day Indians often find themselves at the receiving end of racial hatred in foreign lands. The difference between yesterday and today, however, is that thanks to a booming economy and improved education, Indian self-esteem has increased to the extent that most Indians have stopped internalising racial subordination. That is why when last year Shilpa Shetty became the target of racial hatred in the Big Brother house, Indians across the world stood behind her in support, regardless of how well-informed Shilpa was to interpret her own experiences there. And that is also why Team India now “gives it back” to the Australian team who are notorious for sledging practices.

To put all of this in perspective of the row that sparked off in Sydney, then, is to say that if Harbhajan Singh has indeed called Andrew Symonds a monkey, it is not an act of racism but one of sledging and counter-sledging. The incident, in other words, must be addressed in that context alone.

It is a heartening sign of social progress to note that several Australians have spoken up against Ponting’s bullying ways. To take to task “one’s own” in the interest of a higher principle, in the interest of truth and justice, is indeed honourable. But then, cricket has always meant to be the game for gentlemen, although perhaps Ponting and his supporters seem dismissive of that bit of history as well.

The writer is a Mumbai-based academic patel1nandita@yahoo.ca