I believe this question has no easy answer- I do not think that Hair is much more or much less of a racist than any current international umpire, white or black, Asian or Australian. I also do not think that he acted out of concern for the spirit and well-being of cricket. Some may say that he wanted to attract attention to himself- after all, nothing sells like a good controversy. This may well be the case, but I would be surprised if there isn't more to it than a badly executed publicity gimmick. What is more, at a deeper, more subconscious level, I do not think that even Hair knows the answer to the question.
If we step back a bit and analyze the event itself in a more global context, we will find similar instances all round us. In India, Tehelka and a number of other 'undercover' operations target specific institutions or individuals. The invasion of Iraq is ostensibly aimed at 'restoring democracy' and equipping the Iraqis with the ability to 'govern themselves' . Some countries are allowed to build nuclear stockpiles, while some others are threatened with sanctions for even developing nuclear programs. 'Suspicious' individuals are subjected to phone-taps (without any concrete justification) and random searches at airports. The CBI brings charges against certain popular celebrities for tax-evasion. Some music swappers in the US are docked with huge fines for violating copyright laws, while others, who are protected by the laws of their respective countries are allowed to escape similar punishment.
The common denominator in each of these cases is guilt. The individual or organization involved is most certainly culpable of some crime, albeit of varying gravities.
Should they then penalized? Is punishing them a way of setting an example for others ? Is this one of the ways of ensuring that others do not commit these offenses?
Unfortunately the answer to each of these questions is a vehement no.
The reason is simple. In every one of such cases, the motives behind the punitive correction, meted out to a small proportion of the guilty are purely selfish, and the the benefits are enjoyed by a very small self serving minority, as opposed to a society, or more generally, a people . Consequently, it cannot act as a deterrent to the remaining majority. This majority can continue to violate the same laws, with impunity if they wish, fully confident in the knowledge that they are well beyond their reach. Some ministers will continue to take bribes because Tehelka will never install hidden cameras in their homes, some countries will continue to amass weapons because the UN will never stop them and some bowlers will continue to tamper with the ball because they will always be above scrutiny.
Picture this. You know that the same cop is always present at an intersection you pass through on your way to work everyday- but you also know that he only pulls over Hondas. And you drive a Toyota Camry. You have a meeting at 10:00 AM and the time is 9:59 AM. Will you or won't you speed?
Therein lies the malaise of subjective justice.
