I posted this earlier, but I'll post it again for relevancy:
Now, I don't know how the word 'monkey' is perceived in your nations, but just from a common sensical point of view, ask yourself these questions. How many people of African descent do you think an Indian living in India is likely to meet in his lifetime? Second, how much of African history, and, in part, slavery, do you think an Indian child is going to be taught in an Indian school? I mean, as an example, England did have some part in the slave trade, with respect to the Caribbean and other colonies, so, you would expect to learn about it. And besides, you also have a sizable population of people of African descent in your country, so you would understand what it means to be culturally sensible in that regard. So, Kev, you can't just say 'monkey' is a racist term across all cultures and countries and expect everyone to understand what that entails.
That was in response to a member claiming that the word 'monkey' is a racist term in all countries. That's simply not true. It may be so in countries that played a hand in the slave trade or have a significant population of people of African descent, but it simply does not work that way in the subcontinent and I would say, Asia, in general. For example, take a look at Chinese culture, monkeys are noted for their strength and intelligence.
But, coming back to Harbhajan's case, I don't think the above points can be used as an excuse, because we know from the series in India, that Symonds feels hurt when people call him monkey. So, anyone should know better than to call him that. But, the fact of the matter is that nothing other than hearsay was used to find him guilty and according to Cricinfo, Ponting and Gilchrist stated that they heard nothing during the trial. You just can't label a man racist, something that's going to affect him for the rest of his life, based on hearsay, especially when another witness, Tendulkar, states that that word was not used.