During on-air commentary, Isha Guha made an off-the-cuff remark about Indian bowler Jasprit Bumrah, saying that he was India’s most “valuable primate.” The commentator received a wave of backlash on social media, and two days later she apologised. I am still wondering why.
The scary truth about our times rears its ugly head once again. Every off-the-cuff remark, metaphor, or piece of analysis can be seen or interpreted as potentially offensive. In this case, many interpreted the remark to have ‘racial connotations.’ Apparently two plus two equals five.
Why is Guha apologising for a potential interpretation? Is she now responsible for how her remarks are interpreted?
That is patently absurd.
Yet Guha went straight into damage control. The next day on a FOX Sports broadcast, she said, “Yesterday in commentary I used a word that can be interpreted in a number of different ways. Firstly, I’d like to apologise for any offence caused”
“I set myself really high standards when it comes to empathy and respect of others. And if you listen to the full transcript, I only meant the highest praise for one of India’s greatest players and someone that I admire greatly as well.
“I’m an advocate for equality and someone who’s always spent their career thinking about inclusion and understanding in the game.
“I’m trying to frame the enormity of his achievements. And I’ve chosen the wrong word. And for that I am deeply sorry.
“As someone who is also of South Asian heritage, I hope people will recognise that there was no other intention or malice there.
If Guha meant no ‘malice,’ which I have no doubt of, then why is she apologising? What is there to apologise for and to take responsibility for if no wrongdoing was intended?
The answer many would give is this: it may have offended some groups.
One question, Isha, what is the right word to use? and what makes it ‘right’. If there was malice, then there is no need to apologize, plain and simple.
In an even more bizarre twist, Guha was praised as ‘brave’. Former Indian test cricketer Ravi Shastri said, “Brave woman, to do it on live television and apologise. It takes some steel. You heard it from the horse’s mouth.”
How is the move brave when she admitted herself that there was no malice involved? The apology is supplication to political correctness, Guha should not have apologised at all, she did nothing wrong. It takes ‘steel’ to stand by what you said, especially if there is a battle over the meaning of what you say. And who owns the meaning of your speech? This time Guha lost the battle to the politically correct mob by letting them define the meaning of her remarks.
But the sad truth is that this is another indictment on the media’s own self-imposed Orwellian newspeak. Orwell warned about newspeak in 1984 when the meaning of words would be changed for political purposes. Gua meant no malice in her ‘primate remark’. Yet, the term primate has been associated with a potential racial slur and so the ‘truth holders’ were ready to chastise Gua.
Whose definition of language are we following anyway? Do the offended now get to define the meaning, context and taxonomy of words?
Guha walked the tightrope and was met with the many knives of the politically correct mob.
Did no one stop to think that maybe ‘primate’ could be an endearing term that alludes to Bumrah’s metal as a player?
It is common for men to compliment each other by referring to others as primates or ‘knuckle draggers.’
One thing is certain: we have lost all context, and we can’t even utilise English language devices without the panic alarm of racial sensitivity being rung.
