Opinion: Why Shannon Gabriel's ban is unjustified

The episode involving Shannon Gabriel and Joe Root is in the past now. The former has been handed a four ODI ban while the latter has decided to move on and not dwell on the past. But the entire drama has raised some pertinent questions.

There are divided opinions on whether the ban was justified or an overreaction. Joe Root has been receiving great applause from people in his country for doing “the right thing.” But the question of whether Gabriel deserved this kind of punishment needs to be studied in greater depth.

Rather than glorify the conduct of ICC and see them as upholders of contemporary morality, let’s inspect the various aspects of the whole incident. This will help us see why this wasn’t a simple black-and-white case of a principled organization standing up to an insensitive bloke on the field.

Was Gabriel Really Offensive?

Gabriel's comments were made to look more offensive than they actually were by Root's response

We have to begin our inspection with the basic question: were Gabriel’s words really homophobic, as is being made out? He asked Joe Root – “Do you like boys?”

Now just consider the fact that Gabriel is a big fast bowler who bowls at near 150/kph. Needless to say, he has to put his body through the wringer every time he delivers a ball. On top of that, West Indies were a bowler down in that innings and Gabriel had to shoulder the extra workload.

While bursting his guts, he saw Joe Root smiling cheekily at him. Annoyed, he made the now infamous comment. But he didn’t use any homophobic slur. Root’s reply – “Don’t use that as an insult! There is nothing wrong in being gay” – made the West Indian look worse than his comment merited.

So often, a person might ask another – “Are you high?” on seeing him behave in an irritating manner. This question doesn’t necessarily imply that the one asking it is against alcohol consumption or himself abstains from it. It merely is an indignant response to something that gets underneath one’s skin.

Similarly, one of the most common refrains that we hear from coaches and commentators when exhorting players to see through tough spells of play is “Man up.” Now how would it seem if somebody responds to it with – “Don’t use that as an insult! There is nothing wrong with not being a man, that is, being a woman.” Most would find it ridiculous.

In this situation, Gabriel, who was bowling his heart out got irritated by Root’s smirks. The English captain is known for trying to annoy opponents. In his exasperation, Gabriel tried to hit back by asking him the above-mentioned question.

He didn’t say that Root would be a pervert if he likes boys. And who knows, Root’s comment might have been a clever retort to make Gabriel look worse. To deem Gabriel’s comments as homophobic is a bit excessive.

Is homophobia same as disapproval of homosexuality?

Different lifestyle preferences do not imply prejudice against others

Now, let’s assume that the comment from Gabriel did suggest that homosexuality is something he disapproves of. But does that tantamount to homophobia?

Now there are many people in this world who believe in certain principles. However, that doesn’t mean that they consider those who don’t lesser beings.

Take, for instance, some members of the English team itself. Moeen Ali and Adil Rashid are devout Muslims who don’t consume alcohol. According to their faith, drinking liquor is ‘haraam.’ This is why, whenever the English team has to celebrate a series win by popping a champagne bottle, they allow these two to walk off the stage before starting their celebrations.

Does that mean that Ali and Rashid regard other members of the English team as lesser beings? No, they certainly don’t. But they are entitled to their own beliefs as long as they don’t impose them on others.

As a devout Hindu, I consider cow to be a sacred animal and find the thought of cow-meat utterly nauseating. That does not mean that I regard all those players who are from other countries and beef-eaters as lesser human beings.

While the above two examples are specific to a particular religion, one thing that all great faiths of the world agree on is the need for chastity and fidelity. Everyone knows that the list of cricketers who don’t conform to these principles is huge. Does that mean that all religious players, and there are plenty of them from across communities, would refuse to share dressing rooms with other cricketers? Absolutely not.

Similarly, not considering homosexuality to be absolutely normal is not equal to being homophobic. When you combine this with the fact that Gabriel did not use a slur but merely posed a rhetorical question to counter Root’s irritating smirk, that too, knowing fully well that he is a heterosexual man, it should absolve him of any guilt.

Gabriel was trying to hit back at Root in an equally irritating manner and not trying to insult any group of people. If a coach tells his players to ‘man up’ while playing the short ball, does that mean he is insulting all women? It’s just a way to motivate them.

If one were to follow Root’s example, then there would be an endless number of bans and controversies. Telling someone to ‘grow a pair’ can be countered with “there is nothing wrong with not having a pair!” or ‘show some spine’ can be rebutted with ‘there is nothing wrong with being a paralytic!’ We cannot stretch political correctness to such levels of ludicrousness.

Why should the values of some be imposed on everyone?

ICC has to remain neutral on social values otherwise it would create many problems

There is another very important aspect of this case that shouldn’t be overlooked. By putting a ban of four matches on Shannon Gabriel, the ICC has shown an inclination to impose the contemporary cultural values of the western world on the rest.

Cricket is a global game and is played in countries with diverse cultural and religious sensitivities. It’s played in countries where the majority are Muslims, those where Hinduism and Buddhism are predominant and of course, Christian-dominant nations.

There is also great racial diversity in the cricket community. Therefore, the global body that administers cricket should not get involved in socio-political issues which are not generating the same response across the board.

Some of the cricket-playing nations do not support – legally – gay marriage (legal in England) or even recognize homosexuality. Is the ICC going to de-bar those countries from playing cricket? Is it going to shift its headquarters from UAE where homosexuality is illegal? Did the ICC expel India – the country which generates around 3/4th of its revenue - from its community when homosexuality was a crime here?

Of course, the argument would be that gay rights is a fundamental human rights issues on which there could be no compromise. But don’t forget that these same western countries which are now lecturing the world on the necessity to accept their view on this issue also regarded the superiority of the white race as equally an unquestionable principle some decades ago.

Belief in racism was as strong and considered as virtuous in places like Australia and England some decades ago as belief in LGBT rights. Let’s not forget that South Africa were allowed to play cricket till 1970 despite their cruel apartheid regime and refusal to play against teams which were not full of white players.

The English official cricket fraternity, which is now gloating over the supposed moral superiority of its Test captain, decided to not pick Basil d’Oliviera in its initial squad meant for the tour of South Africa in 1970. It was only later, when public pressure grew, that it changed its stance.

Even though South Africa were subsequently banned from international cricket but Margaret Thatcher’s tacit support to the apartheid regime is well-known. Australia too didn’t treat its native non-white population too well. Yet, neither country faced any kind of ostracization. So, it is a bit rich for them to be imposing the values which they now associate with over the rest of the world.

Where do you draw the line?

ICC taking a stand on contested political and social issues is the thin end of a wedge

Once we go down the route of imposing punishments on players for their views on social and political issues, there is bound to be a lot of trouble.

In England, the majority of people believe in LGBT rights. But the majority in India also believe in not consuming beef. What would be the world’s reaction if BCCI says that anyone who mentions eating beef during the IPL would be banned?

Let’s go one step further. England considers Winston Churchill one of their great Prime Ministers and a wartime hero. But he is also the man who was chiefly responsible for condemning 3 million people in Bengal to death because of a man-made famine.

His callousness and insensitivity is well-documented. How would England react if India demanded that English cricketers publicly criticize Churchill in order to play cricket in India? Would it be considered fair?

If gay rights is an issue on which there can be no compromise, then is the death of 3 million people an issue that can be looked over easily?

If one talks about the present, the policies of Pakistan in giving haven to terror groups operating against India is well-known. As is the discrimination faced in that country by minority groups as well as Islamic communities like Ahmediyas. Would ICC ban Pakistan from the cricket world?

The same ICC allowed Michael Clarke to get away without any punishment when he told James Anderson, during the 2013/14 Ashes to be ready for a “f***ing broken arm.” This statement, if taken to court, would have been a punishable act of threatening someone. Yet, the ICC remained quiet.

The amount of vile and personal abuse that was ignored by the ICC and its match officials over the years is huge. Many of the comments made by players from western countries like Australia and England would be considered intolerably vulgar by eastern standards. But the cricket’s governing body remained quiet. But now they have decided to teach a lesson to Gabriel on this issue.

So, once you open the Pandora’s Box, there is no end to the controversies that may arise. It is, therefore, important for the ICC to show some tolerance towards diverse views and different cultural backgrounds.

The decision to ban Gabriel is a step which is both foolish and dangerous. From the very act to its interpretation as well as the principle applied in handing out the ban are all questionable. It is a massive mistake.